Can Frank Lampard’s laissez-faire approach unlock Chelsea’s attacking flair?

Blues manager has an abundance of attacking options but is yet to truly release their potential so far

(AFP via Getty Images)

After a statement from the new Chelsea on the pitch, one of their former players made one of the day’s more interesting comments off it, in another area of the stadium. Joe Cole had been watching their 4-0 win as a pundit for BT, and was clearly getting frustrated watching Wilfried Zaha toil for Crystal Palace in Roy Hodgson’s system. The winger hadn’t exactly been afforded the opportunity to display his creativity.

“I respect Roy and the way Palace play, it’s just not for me,” Cole said. “If I’m in Zaha’s shoes, the frustration would be mounting.”

The comment is all the more interesting, and directly relevant to Chelsea’s future, because Cole has been in Zaha’s shoes.

It was impossible not to think of his own restraints in Jose Mourinho’s more constrained system 15 years ago. The “release” of Cole was a regular theme.

That was admittedly a totally different era of football, where the compact controlled football of Mourinho and Rafa Benitez represented the pinnacle of the sport. The results, and trophies, spoke for themselves.

Even then, though, Roman Abramovich regularly bristled at the football he was watching. He was loving the success, but not the manner of it. It was one of many reasons for the suddenness of Mourinho’s first departure in 2007, and his second in 2015. Abramovich has always craved spectacle, and the kind of football identity that creates it. Many who have worked for the Russian say a guiding drive of his ownership has been to simply feel the sense of wonder he did in that first Champions League match between Manchester United and Real Madrid. It is one reason he sanctions expenditure like Chelsea’s this summer. It starts to bring expectations.

And that brings us back to Palace.

It is very difficult not to respect Hodgson’s football. It’s certainly difficult to play against, and rarely represents an enjoyable experience - even in a 4-0 win. It’s just very difficult to admire, too.

And that’s kind of the limit of it. An approach like that, much like Mourinho’s 15 years ago, is only ever as good as the results. There’s nothing else to it.

And as rudimentary as that approach is, it does cut to a more complicated debate about what we want out of football, and why we watch.

It is a debate that has only been made more complex by the context of the modern games, and a narrow range of super-clubs like Chelsea being able to spend £200m in a summer.

Hodgson might fairly argue that the best a club like Palace can do is try and survive against Chelsea, to have a puncher’s chance.

The flip side is that it’s precisely that context that makes it more important clubs have a more appealing identity.

If they keep hitting ceilings as they try to go up, it means there is even greater value in having freedom of movement in general play. It gives a team a greater identity and thereby meaning. It gives supporters something to cheer for. It makes football worth watching.

Palace need only look at the example of their rivals, Brighton. They took a calculated risk in moving replacing Chris Hughton with the more dynamic Graham Potter, but it has given the club a sense of life again. Their games are events. There is entertainment, rather than something to be endured.

This is increasingly crucial in a sport where the trophies - and any idea of success - are increasingly the preserve of the few, such as Chelsea.

Which brings us back to Frank Lampard’s side.

The Chelsea manager, for his part, is well known as someone who wants to play proactive and attractive football. That isn’t in doubt. There, you only have to look at the goal figures at both ends.

What is at least open to debate is the route he takes, and that is relevant to Abramovich’s notoriously demanding nature.

There is the sense that Lampard is still figuring out what his best attack is, and will have to do so relatively quickly.

That doesn’t even apply to personnel, or whether they should have yet gelled. There are obvious caveats there with both. It’s about putting available players in the positions that would be best for them.

The case of Timo Werner is instructive. There is certainly an adaptation process there.

At Leipzig, after all, Werner had Julian Naglesmann’s coaching team offering specific guidance for almost every situation of play. It is why he and the team were so vibrant, and fluid, with so many interchanges.

Werner knew exactly where he needed to go for every moment of play.

He doesn’t have that at Chelsea. It is all a bit more laissez-faire under Lampard. With the runs Werner was making - some of them often a bit aimless - it often felt like he was still working out where to go. To add to that, he was playing on the flank in a more rigid 4-2-3-1, that isn’t exactly the most sophisticated modern approach. There aren't yet the patterns of play you'd hope to see.

The game’s cutting edge currently warrants a lot of fluidity, and variety.

Lampard certainly has a large variety of options, especially when Christian Pulisic and Hakim Ziyech are fit.

That is why one of the most fascinating aspects of Chelsea’s season is going to be how he configures this attack; how he sees it.

Perhaps, with Ziyech and Pulisic back, Werner will be back as the number-nine. That would make the running required more obvious, and might just make it all fit together.

But a “fit” is certainly what is necessary to start releasing this hugely talented side’s abundance of creativity, and to have the style of play now necessary for modern success.