Chelsea’s lack of cutting-edge cost them against Spurs – and yet Maurizio Sarri’s mindset remains the same

Watching Chelsea brings that famous old Bill Shankly quote to mind: ‘If you’re in the penalty area and aren’t quite sure what to do with the ball, stick it in the net and we’ll discuss your options afterwards!’

It was a familiar problem for Chelsea, and led to a familiar question, but what is really interesting – and highly influential – about last night’s defeat is that Maurizio Sarri’s mindset remains the same.

He does not feel the club need to sign a striker. Even after another blank in the 1-0 League Cup defeat to Tottenham Hotspur, even after another game where they had so much possession but so few goal threats – and even after the introduction of Olivier Giroud briefly made them dangerous.

For his part, that is also why Sarri can point to the fact that the issue is not really the bodies, or lack of strikers. Chelsea were missing the player that is at least notionally supposed to be their primary striker in Alvaro Morata, because of what was reported as a minor hamstring injury, and thereby missed the opportunity to give what looked a burgeoning partnership with Callum Hudson-Odoi a second successive game together.

The latter did play again at a time when he is under so much focus himself but, without a proper forward ahead of him, didn’t get to illustrate one of his best qualities in his superb crossing.

Watching Chelsea, and particularly some of their most tactically symbolic players like Jorginho, it’s difficult not to think of that famous Bill Shankly quote.

“If you’re in the penalty area and aren’t quite sure what to do with the ball, stick it in the net and we’ll discuss your options afterwards!”

But the “options” are kind of the point.

All of this in itself just reflects the fact this is an issue that really goes so much deeper for Sarri.

It is not about just having someone to hit, or someone to do the most immediately beneficial and important thing in football by just scoring.

It is about the longer-term, and having many more options to score.

Sarri’s entire idea of football is based on a team eventually being so fluid and interchanging that they have attacking threats coming out of everywhere, so they are not reliant on any one goalscorer, who can make a team predictable no matter how prolific he is. It is reminiscent of Sir Alex Ferguson ultimately sacrificing Ruud van Nistelrooy, to make his 2006-09 Manchester United team more varied and fluid - just obviously without the same results so far.

All of those at Chelsea say this effectively involves genuinely educating the players in a new way of looking at the game, but that is clearly taking longer than anticipated. Sarri’s constant message is that they have to “learn” to take the next step, in the final “30% of the pitch”.

They're still learning.

Chelsea lacked a cutting-edge (Getty)

The question then is almost one of educational processes, as much as football.

It would obviously help Chelsea in the short-term to have someone who just guarantees goals, who they can hit when they’re out of options, but would it help them actually learn this new way of playing? That point shouldn’t be dismissed all that readily.

Would always having an out mean Chelsea players never mean learning the harder way, the longer-term way?

Or is that to give Sarri too much of a pass for football that, well, so far just involves passing.

You only have to look at so many of the goals that his Napoli side scored for evidence of what he wants, and what he is capable of, and some of these came after they actually sold one of the greatest guarantee of goals in Gonzalo Higuain.

Proper evolution does take patience, and sometimes a bit of pain, even if that pain currently mostly involves actually watching Chelsea trying to break down a defence.

The wonder is what will break first: the patience of the club, or this deadlock.