Chelsea stats: Richard Jolly examines the numbers to see if Edouard Mendy cure Frank Lampard's blues

As a player, Frank Lampard brought a record number of goals to Chelsea. As a manager, he is doing the same, at least in the 21st century.

Lampard’s total of 211 goals is unrivalled in Chelsea’s history. Yet in conceding 54 last season, his team let in more than any Chelsea side in a Premier League campaign since 1996-97. That has gone up to 63 in 43 games in his reign and, by way of comparison, Chelsea were only breached 61 times in their first three seasons under Jose Mourinho.

Lampard’s revamped defence, with Edouard Mendy, Ben Chilwell and Thiago Silva, are designed to make a difference, and kept a clean sheet against Sevilla on Tuesday. But the numbers damn both their predecessors and their manager. Lampard is aware of a very different statistic, which he has started quoting: that only Manchester City conceded more shots on average (7.4 per game) than Chelsea’s 8.5 last season.

This season, Chelsea are allowing more – 11.4, putting them firmly mid-table – in a list where Brighton are the best, but his broader point is that they concede more goals than they ought to.

The counter-argument is that Chelsea may not concede many chances, but they do concede good ones. The criticisms of Lampard’s defensive structure revolve around two facets: a susceptibility to the counter-attack and a lack of set-piece organisation.

Excluding penalties, Chelsea conceded 14 set-piece goals last season, the seventh most, and a league-high eight on the counter-attack. They had actually let in more goals – 15 – from dead-ball situations under Maurizio Sarri, so the difference came on the counter-attack, where they had only let in two. It suggests Lampard commits too many men upfield.

The gold standard in recent Chelsea history was Antonio Conte’s 2016-17 title winners, who let in a league-low seven at set-pieces and a solitary goal on the break.

Like Sarri before him, Lampard used N’Golo Kante in a more advanced role on the right for much of last season. The Frenchman is the Chelsea player best suited to cutting out counter-attacks and he averaged 3.6 tackles and 2.4 interceptions per game for Conte’s champions; last year, those numbers were down to 2.0 in each category. Jorginho actually averaged more but is a less natural defensive midfielder.

And yet is the problem tactical, structural or individual? Kepa Arrizabalaga can feel a scapegoat, but the figures reflect badly on him. The Spaniard has been debited with three errors leading to goals this season; no one else has more than one. While Petr Cech, the unexpected addition to Chelsea’s squad, has the highest save percentage for any regular Premier League in history – 91.3 in 2006-07 – Arrizabalaga registered the lowest, at 54.5, last season since such records began and, at 57.1, is scarcely much better this season.

Save percentages do not take into account the quality of the chances; expected goals against does, and it shows the scale of Arrizabalaga’s failure (along with Willy Caballero’s.) Chelsea’s xGA last season was 41.09, bettered only by the Manchester clubs, Liverpool and Wolves, and a relatively small increase on 38.11 under Sarri. They conceded as many goals, 54, as Brighton, whose xGA was 60.42.

To put it into context, underperforming their expected goals against by 12.91 is wretched; since Crystal Palace underperformed theirs by 12.97 in 2016-17, 60 clubs have had a Premier League season and none has had a greater disparity in the wrong direction between the number of goals they ‘should’ have conceded and the number they actually did.

This season has started in the same vein: Chelsea have conceded nine from an xGA of 6.58; only five clubs have let in more goals but 10 have a worse expected goals against.

Within that, the manner of goals conceded conforms to themes. Lampard has used variants of both zonal and man-marking at corners, but some of the issues can be traced to the goalkeeper.

Remarkably, Arrizabalaga failed to catch a single corner last season. From the chances created then, opponents scored 2.34 goals more than they should, plus a further 1.18 ‘surplus’ goals from free kicks. That, in turn, highlights another enduring problem for Arrizabalaga. He has conceded 19 goals from outside the penalty area in his relatively brief Premier League career. Last season, Chelsea let in 10 long-range goals from an xGA of just 4.29; the only over-performing in their xGA, in contrast, is this season in shots within the six-yard box.

The good news for Chelsea is that Mendy represents Arrizabalaga’s opposite in some respects, and not merely because he is yet to concede in two of three appearances for his new club.

Rennes overperformed their xGA from long-range shots last season (by 1.67), on fast breaks (by 1.39) and only underperformed at corners by a negligible 0.13. In 2018-19, Mendy was an ever-present for Reims, who only conceded two long-range goals from an xGA of 6.18 and three from corners, despite an xGA of 4.36.

His save percentages in his last three seasons have been 84.1, 76.2 and 78.4 respectively.

Certainly Lampard’s unsympathetic comments about Arrizabalaga and his willingness to highlight the statistics about shots faced have suggested he blames the goalkeeper.

Mendy’s time will prove how much a change of shot-stopper can alter Chelsea’s defensive numbers or whether the underlying problems go beyond that.

Follow Sporting Life on social - find us on Facebook here or tweet @SportingLifeFC

Related football content

• What do Liverpool do without Van Dijk?
• City odds-on after Van Dijk injury
• Premier League: Talking Points
• Champions League: Outright preview
• Europa League: Outright preview
• Latest football previews and tips
• Sporting Life App: Android & iOS

Responsible gambling

We are committed in our support of responsible gambling. Recommended bets are advised to over-18s and we strongly encourage readers to wager only what they can afford to lose.

If you are concerned about your gambling, please call the National Gambling Helpline on 0808 8020 133, or visit begambleaware.org.

Further support and information can be found at GamCare and gamblingtherapy.org.