Do Chelsea play worse football with Lukaku up front?
Cameron Smith
- Updated: 22 Feb 2022 22:29 GMT
- 5 min read
Chelsea's 2-0 last-16 Champions League first leg victory over reigning Ligue 1 champions Lille signalled a change of fortunes for a side who have been struggling in recent weeks.
Despite the Club World Cup triumph, Chelsea have looked sluggish and lethargic arguably since Reece James and Ben Chilwell went down injured, but certainly since the turn of the year.
One loss in 19 games in all competitions doesn't paint the whole picture, and something had to change.
Recently most read
In Thomas Tuchel's mind, that change was swapping Romelu Lukaku out for Kai Havertz through the middle. The result? A goal for the German just seven minutes into the game to help give Chelsea complete control of the tie.
Lukaku remained on the substitutes bench throughout, with Timo Werner preferred as a late change for Christian Pulisic, who scored the second goal. Tuchel said before the game that Lukaku was "exhausted", but it's a worrying sign for the Belgian that Chelsea seemed to finally click in an attacking sense as soon as he's dropped.
Could it be the beginning of the end for the striker at Stamford Bridge?
After eight years away, three different clubs and over £200 million in transfer fees, Lukaku returned to Chelsea this summer, and he was supposed to provide Tuchel with the one missing piece of his Chelsea puzzle - a clinical central striker.
Timo Werner was meant to be that man, but his form has nosedived in England, hence why Lukaku was deemed necessary.
Since departing Chelsea in 2013, Lukaku was able to establish himself as one of Europe's finest forwards, and he is, of course, Belgium's all-time record goal-scorer.
Criticised for his link play at Manchester United, he rectified that side of his game in Italy, and contributed 11 league assists last season.
So, it seemed as though Lukaku would be the perfect fit for Chelsea. His second debut came against Arsenal, and unsurprisingly, he hit the ground running.
He terrorised the Gunners defence, scoring once as well as taking a total of eight shots and making three key passes.
It was a superb performance, and with Mason Mount and Reece James combining down the right, Lukaku was handed plenty of chances. It was an encouraging start, but it's quickly turned sour. His infamous interview with Sky Italia was concerning, and his form on the pitch has resulted in a plentiful supply of criticism. His mere seven touches in the 1-0 win over Crystal Palace on 19 February was the fewest from a player to last 90 minutes in a Premier League game since records began in 2003.
Lukaku hasn't looked as sharp as he did in that aforementioned game against Arsenal, and neither have Chelsea on a whole.
While last season they were creating chances, but were unable to finish them, recently the Blues simply haven't created as much. Their lack of ideas when facing a deep block has become a huge issue, and Lukaku's static movement has bore a lot of the brunt.
With Havertz thriving in the false nine position, do Chelsea actually play better without Lukaku?
Are Chelsea playing worse football with Lukaku?
With Lukaku in the team, there is no doubt a subconscious thought to go long more often than previously. His physical threat means Chelsea can use him as a target man and get runners off him. It's a tactic they have used a fair amount, and overall it doesn't suit the team.
Last season, they were excellent at creating chances, but poor finishing led to only Jorginho scoring more than six league goals all year. That came without Lukaku, and so with him in the team to finish those chances, you'd have expected Chelsea's goal tally to skyrocket. But, that hasn't happened.
In the 12 Premier League games that Lukaku has started, Chelsea have scored just 18 goals. By contrast, in the 14 league games in which he hasn't started, they've scored 33 goals.
So, 1.5 goals per game he starts in the league, the exact same as Chelsea managed last campaign, or 2.4 goals per game when he doesn't start.
Not only do Chelsea appear more free-flowing and natural without Lukaku, they're scoring more without him as well.
There is a clear argument to suggest that Chelsea go long more frequently and sacrifice building up through the pitch with Lukaku present, which is negatively impacting the team.
Havertz may have only scored seven goals in all competitions this season, less than Lukaku's 10, but he's played fewer minutes than the Belgian, and Chelsea are clearly better suited to playing with a more fluid striker, someone who drops deep to link play.
Lukaku may be the big-money signing, but he's not playing like one this season, and Chelsea are a better attacking unit without him.
