Mikel Arteta said that Chelsea is the best attacking team in the Premier League after the 1-0 victory of Arsenal on them on Sunday. I don't know what I'm missing.
When Nicolas Jackson and Cole Palmer play, they are a good team. They take the best apart. Palmer is a better player when Jackson plays and Jackson is a better player when Palmer plays. That is fact.
But I am stunned by that quote. I honestly don't understand that. There will be many Chelsea fans who read who think: 'Wow! What is he talking about? . '
Does Arteta say that because Chelsea has spent £ 1.6 billion but still has no attacker and cannot score a goal and fans moan him because Arsenal has no attacker? Unless Palmer plays, I don't think Chelsea goals score.
Everyone can be an attacking and fairly running team, but you have to get it right at both ends. They scored 53 goals and leave 37.
They bought enough players and they have others on loan. They didn't have to send them. Moaning about injuries, but they have players on loan who would play in the first team.
That is back to bite them because they juggle after buying every Tom, Dick and Harry. That way I can't really feel sorry for Chelsea.
I still think that Enzo Maresca changes his wing players too often. They must get a better run in the team.
You don't know who will play in the middle and who plays on the wing. He changes every week and I just don't think that helps.
The position of Christopher Nunku is not on the wing. I feel sorry for him. I like him, I think he is a good player. He is one who plays behind the Center-Forward.
He is an intelligent football player, connects things, but the problem is that Palmer has been excellent. I don't think Chelsea Palmer was so good that was as good as he was, that's why she was NUKUKU for a lot of money.
But Chelsea is the best attacking team? They scored one goal against Leicester to win 1-0. Leicester, in their previous 20 games, had only failed once to let two or more goals in a Premier League match.
I don't buy it. I don't buy in.
Comments