Scary thought. I decided to list a 2-2 scoreline, and moments later, Trossard equalised. I got to feeling cheeky and changed it to 2-3. It was then that Nketiah very nearly made me the Seer of Stamford Bridge. We didn’t deserve this result, not after the way we played, how poor Raya was, and how effective Chelsea were. They controlled the match well until Rice pounced on a wayward forward pass from Sanchez. From there, they started looking rattled, and Trossard called for the cross from Saka, which he deftly turned in (shades of Monreal, come to think of it). Seven minutes of added time weren’t enough for us to seize all three, but it’s a vital point earned all the same. Let’s get into the poll to rate the lads!
Had Arsenal managed a win, it would have been truly miraculous and a bit undeserved. Had it occurred, we would now be calling you for investment advice.
A terrible start and clearly outplayed and, even more so, flustered by a better strategy. The penalty was a dubious call and calls the law into question. The Mudryk mis-hit i.e. goal should not be seen as a Raya error, but the pro Ramsdale crowd will not see it otherwise.
As of now, Rice was worth every pound they paid for him. BTW, where were Jesus and Odegard today? Finally, nice move to bring on Tomeyasu at halftime (thankfully) and of course, Trossard
Even the draw was undeserved. We had two moments of quality, one of them a gift, and were lucky not to concede a few more. The handball against Saliba was indeed harsh – how else is a defender supposed to jump but by generating more thrust with his arms, and how was he to react when the header glanced toward him from just a foot away? Madness.
Raya has been looking shaky for several matches now, enough so that Ramsdale should probably start the next match. This is what it means to have depth. If you’re not up to snuff, you’ll have to sit.
As for Odegaard and Jesus, they were both strangely quiet. Things might have been different with Partey in the midfield; Chelsea dominated the middle of the pitch.
Arteta’s subs once again changed the game. If he had made the changes earlier, who knows? We might have escaped with all three.
No One mention the soaked field. We tried to play a carpet game but that doesn’t work in rivers.
fair point. those conditions might have favoured Chelsea, wh odon’t rely so much on possession & passing as we do. It’s almost akin to opponents like Stoke letting the grass grow long in order to slow the ball’s movement. We were outplayed for most of the match but showed an ability to dig deep. Chelsea are a mess but Poch is a good manager. He’ll have that squad fighting for a top-six finish soon enough.
As we head into winter and rain becomes more common, the chances of wet pitches are more likely even in well-groomed stadia. The sod does not grow back and conditions may worsen for more matches. Shouldn’t MA be adjusting tactics and squad, not only for how he expects the opponent to set up and their squad, but also for field conditions?
Pingback: Key take-aways from the point we stole from Stamford Bridge… | Woolwich 1886, an Arsenal site