William Gallas has admitted that he could not understand Graham Potter's decision to play Raheem Sterling as a wing-back and believes it was an experiment that didn't pay off
Former Chelsea and Arsenal star William Gallas has admitted he was left “baffled” by Graham Potter’s decision to play Raheem Sterling left wing-back.
Potter joined the Blues earlier this month from Brighton, replacing Thomas Tuchel who was sacked after a poor start to the season, and he took charge of his first game as Chelsea manager in the 1-1 Champions League draw against RB Salzburg.
In that game, Sterling started, to some surprise, as a left-sided wing-back, and that was a decision Gallas couldn’t understand. Speaking to Genting Casio he said: “That is a problem. When I saw Sterling playing as left wing-back, I didn't understand it. It's difficult for me to understand why he wants to experiment with something like this, especially in a Champions League game.
“You are playing at home and you put Cucurella as a centre-back, you have Fofana on the bench with Koulibaly, Chalobah on the bench, and you put Sterling as a left-wing back? I don't understand.
He continued by stating: “In the end, they didn't have a good result, they drew 1-1. People will always judge the result, and the question is why did he put those two players in those positions?”
We’ve seen Potter adjust the roles of other players in the past, with a similar example being Brighton’s Leandro Trossard who often found himself playing as a wing-back at Brighton. And although there’s a perception that playing wing-back is a more defensive role, which is perhaps why Gallas can’t understand the decision, evidence from the game showed that Potter actually used Sterling in this way specifically for the attacking benefits.
Do you agree with Gallas' comments about Sterling? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.
The England international often positioned himself high and wide, creating plenty of one-against-one situations against Salzburg’s right-sided full-back. Not only did he score the first goal of the Potter era at the club, but he also registered three shot-creating actions. Only in two other games this season did he create more.
Sterling also had his second most touches of the season and crucially, in just one other game did he have more touches inside the opposition's penalty box.
While the perception was that this was more of a defensive switch by Potter, the reality was much different. The Chelsea manager elaborated on the move himself post-match when questioned about his decision: “Whatever you do, there’s always a plus and a minus, but we were at home, and we wanted to be on the front foot and get some attacking ideas in those positions.
“Raheem is really good at attacking a backline and scored a fantastic goal. I thought he was really good in the game. Reece (James) balances it off a little bit, and we can still defend in a four if we need to, so that was the thinking.”
That balance Potter talked about would come when James often drop deeper, allowing Chelsea’s back three to shift across and create something that better resembled a back four, giving them an overload against Salazburg’s aggressive press and plenty of options in the wide areas, which Potter identified as being when trying to overcome their Austrian opponents.
Although his tactics never delivered the win on the night, his decision to play Sterling in that role was justified by his display and goal. Therefore don’t be shocked to see similar again in the future.
redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301 redirect 301
