Tuchel lifts lid on why Kai Havertz did not start against Man City
What was said about Havertz and his exclusion
Chelsea were unable to continue their hot start to the season when visiting Manchester City rocked up to Stamford Bridge and stole all three points in a 1-0 win that saw Blues boss Thomas Tuchel leave German international Kai Havertz on the bench until the final 30-minutes.
Tuchel has explained why Havertz wasn’t included in the starting team today👇https://t.co/Ed0j8UDoGM
— Chelsea FC News (@Chelsea_FL) September 25, 2021
Tuchel’s men managed just five shots through 90-minutes, and the absence of the German midfielder was sorely felt for a side that lacked the creativity to truly threaten City on the day.
When mentioning Havertz failing to make the matchday XI, Tuchel justified it given the nature of his opponent and his decision to go with three central midfielders while partnering Timo Werner with Romelu Lukaku up front;
“Timo [Werner] is a good fit because he brings a lot of intensity on and off the ball. This is what we need, maybe Kai [Havertz] and Hakim [Ziyech] lack a bit of form, confidence and that’s why we went for the mix of Timo with the speed and intensity of the ball.”
A decision that backfired
With N’Golo Kanté, Jorginho, and Mateo Kovačić all in the matchday XI, the possibility of scuppering City’s midfield trio of Kevin De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva, and Rodri did not come off in the manner that Tuchel will have hoped.
Chelsea’s Kai Havertz and Chelsea manager Thomas Tuchel after the Premier League match at Stamford Bridge, London. Picture date: Monday March 8, 2021. (Photo by Glyn Kirk/PA Images via Getty Images)
City created three times the chances of Tuchel’s men, and though they kept the Citizens to just a single goal, the blatant lack of creativity in the center of the park with two box-to-box midfielders and a deeper holding option hardly threatened.
It seems unlikely Tuchel will turn to this deployment again as Chelsea need to get back on track if they are to rebound in the league quickly.
