This was a classic case of clinical counter-attacking overcoming sterile domination. Chelsea controlled the ball with 59% possession and a higher passing volume (482 passes to Arsenal’s 338), circulating well with 88% pass accuracy. However, their territorial control translated into only 9 shots and an xG of 1.07, indicating a lot of harmless circulation in front of Arsenal’s block.
Arsenal, in a 4-2-3-1, were comfortable without the ball (41% possession) and focused on verticality. Despite less possession, they produced 12 shots and a slightly higher xG of 1.09, showing that their attacks were more purposeful. The game flow tilted towards Arsenal’s transitions and set patterns rather than Chelsea’s ball retention.
Offensive Mechanics & xG Analysis
Arsenal’s plan revolved around efficient use of fewer attacks. With 12 total shots, 5 on target and 7 from inside the box, they consistently reached dangerous areas. The 4 Arsenal shots that were blocked show Chelsea were often forced into emergency defending in and around their own area. Matching their 1.09 xG to 2 goals reflects above-average finishing and well-constructed chances, especially from structured play rather than sheer volume.
Chelsea’s 9 shots, only 3 on target, underline their difficulty in converting possession into clear looks at goal. Their xG of 1.07 for just 1 goal suggests mildly wasteful finishing and a lack of truly high-quality opportunities. The fact they had only 1 shot blocked points to Arsenal generally keeping them at arm’s length rather than scrambling in the box.
Set pieces also reveal the pattern: Chelsea earned 10 corners to Arsenal’s 5, a product of sustained territorial pressure. Yet that volume did not translate into a decisive threat, reinforcing the idea of ineffective pressure. Arsenal’s fewer corners, in contrast, came from more incisive attacks that forced Chelsea into last-ditch interventions.
Defensive Intensity & Game Management
Defensively, Arsenal balanced aggression and control. They committed 11 fouls and picked up just 1 yellow card, suggesting tactical fouling without losing discipline. Four saves from D. Raya, combined with Chelsea’s modest shot count, indicate that Arsenal’s back four and double pivot (Rice and Zubimendi) limited Chelsea mainly to manageable efforts.
Chelsea’s defensive and emotional control collapsed as they chased the game. Fourteen fouls, 5 yellow cards and a red card for Pedro Neto (two bookings between 67’ and 70’) show a team increasingly resorting to reckless pressure and frustration. The cluster of Chelsea bookings between 59’ and 79’ reflects failed attempts to disrupt Arsenal’s transitions and rhythm once behind and a man down. Late substitutions by Chelsea at 86’ and 90’ looked more like damage limitation than a coherent final push.
Arsenal’s compact structure and efficient, higher-quality attacking outweighed Chelsea’s possession-heavy but low-impact approach. The home side’s disciplined defending and superior chance conversion made their lower-possession, counter-focused game plan far more effective than Chelsea’s sterile domination at Emirates Stadium.
