Two Right-Backs in Midfield: Chelsea's £349m Mystery

What Happened at Emirates Stadium?

When Chelsea took the field against Arsenal at Emirates Stadium, they were playing with two players who began their careers as right-backs—Reece James and Callum Hudson-Odoi—in midfield. It was a surprising tactical decision for manager Xabi Alonso, one that has left fans and pundits questioning how the club ended up in such a position despite spending heavily this summer.

James, who started his career at right-back, played as a central midfielder against Arsenal, but failed to track captain Martin Odegaard during his crucial goal. The mistake was a telling sign of the lack of depth and experience in Chelsea's midfield—a situation that has only worsened with Moises Caicedo's injury.

"Chelsea don't have European football this season so they're playing less games and can concentrate on the Premier League. But the worry is you're finishing a game against the champions, and you've got two right-backs in midfield," said former Premier League star Ashley Young.

The result was a hard-fought 2-1 defeat that exposed the vulnerabilities in Chelsea's midfield setup—a problem that's been exacerbated by the club's failure to secure key signings during transfer window season.

Why Are They Short in Midfield?

Chelsea's midfield problems stem largely from one major absence: Moises Caicedo. The Ecuador international, who had only missed two matches over the previous three seasons due to injury or illness, is currently sidelined with an unspecified injury after a freak accident just 11 minutes into his first substitute appearance against Brighton.

Caicedo's absence has left Alonso in uncharted territory as a manager. Despite having a full squad, the Blues are left with limited options in central midfield, especially with Lavia injured and Gusto being deployed in the middle of the park.

The summer transfer window was supposed to address these concerns, but it didn't go entirely according to plan. Chelsea's pursuit of Monaco's Lamine Camara fell through at the last minute, leaving the club furious. They also had bids rejected for Bournemouth's Alex Scott and were blocked from signing France international Manu Kone by Roma's head coach Gian Piero Gasperini.

Alonso said that the club was satisfied with their summer business but remained confident in their current squad, despite selling Enzo Fernandez to Manchester City for a record-breaking £125m on deadline day—without replacing him. That decision has left many questioning whether the club's leadership was overly confident or simply misjudged the risks involved.

Caicedo's Injury: A Major Blow

Caicedo's injury is more than just a setback—it's a potential long-term concern for Chelsea's midfield. Alonso has expressed caution, noting that they may have brought him back too early from his previous injury, adding to the uncertainty about his recovery timeline.

The fact that he was only sidelined for 11 minutes shows how fragile his condition might be, but also highlights a deeper problem: the lack of depth in central midfield. The club is essentially relying on Gusto and Lavia—both of whom have been used as midfielders during their time at Chelsea—but neither is particularly suited to play in that role consistently.

Natural midfielder Valentin Barco, who joined from Strasbourg in the summer, has been overlooked in favor of Gusto, further compounding the lack of options. With the squad now facing a potential midweek European fixture, the absence of Caicedo could have long-term consequences for the team's performance and structure.

Possession Problems and Tactical Adjustments

Chelsea's low possession rate of just 25.6% in their 4-3 win over Brighton last weekend—the lowest since 2003-04—indicates a deeper issue with the team's tactical approach. This is particularly concerning when considering how much they've spent this summer and the fact that they're relying on a limited number of players in key positions.

Alonso has said that he believes in playing five midfielders if all players are fit, which could work well if the club had more depth. However, with Caicedo out and Lavia sidelined, it's clear that Chelsea is not yet at full strength. The fact that they've resorted to using two right-backs in midfield shows a lack of confidence in their current options.

Chelsea's Star Power vs. Midfield Struggles

Despite the midfield issues, Chelsea has been buoyed by strong performances from its star players. Morgan Rogers, Cole Palmer, and Joao Pedro have all played key roles in the opening three matches of the season. Their goal-scoring prowess has helped cover for some of the team's tactical shortcomings.

But relying on individual brilliance isn't sustainable, especially when facing a team like Arsenal, who are currently setting the standard in the Premier League. While Chelsea may have brought in players like Rogers and Palmer to complement their existing star power, they've failed to build around those assets with adequate support in midfield.

"We came to win. We knew that we were not that far, but it went their way," said Alonso after the match. "It hurts, [we're] disappointed for sure. But this is the first defeat, this is going to be a long way and it doesn't have a big impact in our mood and in our mindset."

Alonso remains optimistic, but he also understands that his team's performance in midfield has been a significant factor in their struggles. The loss to Arsenal was more than just a defeat—it's a wake-up call for Chelsea's leadership and tactical approach.

The Bigger Picture: What Lies Ahead?

With the summer transfer window now closed, it looks like Chelsea will be relying on the players they have on hand for the foreseeable future. But if Caicedo's injury proves to be a longer-term issue, or if they fail to find suitable replacements, this team could face serious challenges in the months ahead.

Alonso described the summer as 'phase one' of his rebuilding project, and there are clear signs that this plan may need adjustment. The club needs to strike a balance between investing in the right players and not overextending their resources. The £349m spent on 10 first-team signings may have been impressive, but it hasn't solved the underlying problem of depth and consistency in midfield.

Chelsea's next move could be critical. If they don't make any additions to central midfield before January, the pressure will mount—not just from fans, but from critics who question whether this spending was worth it.

The message is clear: in modern football, spending money doesn't automatically translate into success unless you build a team that functions as one cohesive unit. For Chelsea, the next few months will be crucial in proving whether their investment in players like Rogers and Palmer can carry them forward—or if they'll need to rethink their approach entirely.