Chelsea had just equalized and the camera panned to two Aston Villa fans in the crowd. One was sitting behind the other. Both had their hands on their heads in virtually identical poses.
It was a vignette to capture the mood.
A competition that ended in a 2-2 draw had an unnecessary ‘do or die’ feeling throughout.
Villa’s cautious approach had sparked anxiety, becoming increasingly submissive from the moment they took the lead inside the opening five minutes. Passivity has generated downright fatalistic tension on and off the field. The players seemed strangely inhibited as a sense of dread permeated the air at Villa Park; it felt like every minute of the second half carried the stress of stoppage time.
The players neglected the fundamentals preached by their head coach Unai Emery; that performances are influenced by habits and that each match, each half and each minute must be judged on its merits. Instead, Villa seemed results-driven, focusing solely on racing towards the finish line of the season and forgetting that, to get there as they would like, they must stick to their principles.
After the win over Bournemouth last weekend, captain John McGinn said he had in mind a points total which he was confident would secure Champions League qualification. “We are so close,” he repeated. Saturday night, that feeling of nostalgia was noticeable.
Emery provided some much-needed post-match perspective. The point meant Villa were guaranteed a place in the Europa League for next season – an improvement on the European competition they still find themselves in this season, the third-tier Conference League. He explained that Chelsea were allowed to play well and his team was forced to, in his words, “show resilience”. Although they surrendered a two-goal lead in the final half hour, Morgan Rogers added they could settle for a draw.
A point is a pretty solid return, considering the daunting list of matches awaiting their only rivals for a top-four place, Tottenham Hotspur. Even after Sunday’s defeat in the north London derby, which leaves Villa seven points ahead despite having played twice more, Spurs still have to travel to Chelsea and Liverpool and face Manchester City at home in their five remaining matches.
But that’s what made Villa’s anxiety so confusing: it was not the time to implement a game plan that ceded possession, reducing them to sporadic counter-attacks while inviting a team of Chelsea sporting multiple open scars, especially after taking the lead. at the beginning of the piece.
Emery blows from the sidelines (James Baylis – AMA/Getty Images)
There is a fine line between pragmatism and submission, and what initially seemed like a savvy, transition-based approach became far removed from Emery’s desired balance as panic set in.
It is customary for Villa to spend periods of time sitting during matches. This can be energy efficient and exploit its offensive strengths; they are lucky to have direct and fast attackers, capable of playing on the counterattack. But most importantly, there is (usually) always a goal, as seemed to be the case at times in Saturday’s first half.
Chelsea enjoyed 75% possession and hit the post, but both Villa goals came from a radical change of play.
Yet the nervous undercurrent was exacerbated by the replacement of Emiliano Martinez at the break due to injury. Villa’s Argentine goalkeeper is often the leader on the pitch, knowing when to rally or calm his teammates. Villa was missing during his absence in the second half.
GO FURTHER
The Briefing: Aston Villa 2 Chelsea 2 – Why have Villa been so passive? Have Chelsea proven their character?
Emery pointed to his temple after Noni Madueke halved the deficit just after the hour. The message did not get through. He gestured furiously for the positional units to be more compact, attempting to stem the flow of sustained Chelsea attacks.
Needing to lift their players, the majority of the Villa Park crowd broke into isolated bursts of noise, but Emery’s approach encouraged tension. Chelsea had 21 shots in the match to Villa’s nine and, despite their current fragility, the visitors played with more brilliance throughout the match.
This is illustrated by the average positioning of both teams during the match, with Villa only having Ollie Watkins (#11) in the opposition half.
For a stark comparison and insight into Chelsea’s territorial dominance, the visitors’ outfield players only had the average positions of their two centre-backs in their own half.
Villa’s dismal form is highlighted below, illustrated by Chelsea winning possession just 27 yards, on average, from the home goal.
Villa’s concerted efforts to stay back are at odds with their overarching defensive principles, which previously centered around an effective offside trap. In the reverse match at Stamford Bridge last September, Emery’s backline proved the most steadfast, refusing to give ground at any point.
On Saturday, with more than a quarter of an hour remaining, Villa went into preservation mode.
Central defender Diego Carlos replaced winger Leon Bailey, with right-back Matty Cash moving further forward and midfielder Tim Iroegbunam in place of Douglas Luiz.
Iroegbunam first made a good intervention before Conor Gallagher equalized in the 81st minute. The strike itself was technically and aesthetically pleasing, but the England midfielder benefited from space and time, a consequence of Villa’s passive nature.
Yet it was no coincidence that the only occasion Villa held the ball effectively in the second half – three minutes from the end of normal time and after patient changes of play – ended with a Watkins shot above the crossbar. It should have been a reminder that even if the momentum dial had flipped, taking the initiative through possession tends to create chances.
Even then, the same apprehension remained.
Iroegbunam had won a free kick near the touchline and Martinez’s replacement, Robin Olsen, wanting to restart the game quickly, gave a long kick. Only Watkins was prepared to challenge aerially, the ball crossing past Chelsea goalkeeper Djordje Petrovic.
Ezri Konsa, who had just reached the halfway line, turned to Olsen, a 34-year-old with 73 Swedish caps, and signaled for calm.
The ball came back to Villa, Carlos making a simple wasted clearance. Olsen saved well down low, diverting Cole Palmer’s shot for a corner. It’s the latest demonstration of how tension can seep into a player’s decision-making, to the point where even the simplest task suddenly seems irrationally taxing. Even Pau Torres felt compelled to stretch out on desperate sliding tackles.
Olsen’s panicked urgency typifies Villa’s anxious approach (Shaun Botterill/Getty Images)
The ensuing corner threatened to teach Villa the most unforgiving lesson. The ball bounced into the box, with Benoit Badiashile crossing for Axel Disasi to head in an apparent winner. After a VAR check, Badiashile was judged to have pushed Carlos in the back while gaining possession of the ball. As Chelsea raged, those in burgundy and blue held their breath.
Villa escaped the match with a point, as they did at home to Brentford earlier this month in a performance which bore comparable hallmarks. At the time, a frantic nine-minute period had undone Villa. Emery said afterward he would watch it four times for symptoms of players deviating from the plan.
Emery’s response to that Brentford game was resounding, corrected by four straight wins.
The lessons will be taken into account again after a draw against Chelsea where Villa neglected processes, became results-driven and fell into a panicked – and unnecessary – trap.
Aston Villa’s remaining matches: Olympiacos (h), May 2; Brighton (a), May 5; Olympiacos (a), May 9; Liverpool (m), May 13; Crystal Palace (a), May 19.
(Top photo: Darren Staples/AFP via Getty Images)
