Lacroix says “luck was against us” – but Chelsea created their own misfortune

On the second minute, when Chelsea took the lead at the Emirates, I did not join the roar of the away fans. I watched Maxence Lacroix. The French centre-back, signed from Crystal Palace in the summer, has a habit I particularly notice: when his team scores early, he does not celebrate. Instead, he looks toward the midfield and gestures for everyone to drop back into position. That is the habit of a player who has been turned around many times. Three minutes later, Lacroix made his first touch to clear the ball down the right flank. That action told the entire story of the match. After the final whistle, Lacroix stood in front of the microphone and said: “We are a little bit unhappy, of course, after losing, but I believe that we did well to be honest. We just have to adjust some points. I think it’s not easy to play there but we did good. We accept the loss but we want to learn from it. I think it’s good to learn about the mistakes and all the wrong parts. We have to go forward and go again.” That sounded professional, but it ignored a painful reality: Chelsea led from the second minute, then allowed Arsenal to turn the game into a 2-1 defeat. Estevao had a late effort saved by David Raya, but when Lacroix said “we deserved the 2-2”, he was describing a match where Chelsea controlled the rhythm for only about the first twenty minutes. Arsenal’s equaliser came from a move down the left, where Chelsea’s right-back had pushed high and left space behind. The second goal came from a loose ball on the edge of the box, after Chelsea had dropped deep but had no one tracking the runner. Watching from the television screen, I did not hear the home crowd cheering. I heard the voice of coach Xabi Alonso from the technical area, and I heard the silence of the centre-backs when the ball slipped between the lines. The formula is not on the tactics board. It is in the spaces the tactics accidentally leave behind. For Chelsea, that space was just behind their two central midfielders, where Lacroix and his partner had to face two Arsenal forwards. That is what Lacroix called “luck” – but it was actually Chelsea’s defensive system being stretched vertically. Following Arsenal this season, I have noticed they do not need much possession to create chances. They need to get the ball into the space between the opponent’s full-back and centre-back. When Chelsea pressed high immediately after their opener, they left a huge gap in the middle third. Lacroix is a centre-back with good pace, but his pace cannot compensate for the whole team dropping too deep. He was often left in one-on-one situations in shooting areas, and Arsenal exploited that ruthlessly. I have watched the replay of this match three times. Not to see how well Chelsea played, but to find the exact point where Alonso’s system started to crack. The first crack came in the fifteenth minute, when Moises Caicedo was dragged to the left wing and left space in front of the back four. The second crack came in first-half stoppage time, when Chelsea transitioned too slowly after a corner. Each detail was small, but together they formed a passive defensive system. I do not believe in luck. I believe in a system designed to create luck. Arsenal have that system; Chelsea do not yet. Captain Reece James spoke about “moments” and “fine margins.” He said: “We started the game really well. Even when we went behind, we showed character to try and get back in the game. We ran out of time in the end. Football at this level is a game of moments. It’s one or two things that change the scoreline, and that gets overplayed a bit. It was a tough game and we have to review and take the learnings. We have another game against Leeds in a few days and we have to get ready for that.” James’s words actually hit the core issue. In the Premier League, matches are often decided by one or two moments, but where do those moments come from? Arsenal did not create moments by magic. They created them by constantly moving into Chelsea’s blind spots. I remember the summer of 2026, when I discovered Liverpool’s sideline pressing formula. Back then, I realised that Jurgen Klopp’s team pushed opponents towards the touchline to narrow the space, but they never abandoned the centre. Xabi Alonso’s Chelsea have good pressing ideas, but they lack the coordination needed to shield the space in the middle. Alonso chose to take the long-term view. After his first defeat since taking charge, he said: “Yesterday’s game, we will take many things for the next one, as we have done so far after Fulham, after Brighton, after Luton. We want to squeeze everything from each game to make things better, when we win and when we lose as well. That is the process of where we are, where we want to build strong principles and strong ideas for our game, little by little, to win games and to compete in the best possible way.” I appreciate Alonso’s calmness, but the culture of a team only reveals itself when the plan collapses. The rest is just rehearsal. Chelsea collapsed a little at the Emirates, and instead of talking about luck, they need to talk about why they left Lacroix exposed in the centre so often. Lacroix is an intelligent signing, with good passing ability and decent reading of the game. But he is not the only one responsible. Chelsea’s midfield, with Reece James pushing high on the right, failed to match Arsenal’s movement. Chelsea’s first conceded goal started with a long pass from the Arsenal goalkeeper. The goalkeeper delivered the ball straight into the space between Chelsea’s centre-back and left-back. Arsenal did not need too many touches; they needed one line-breaking pass to stretch the defence. When Chelsea’s centre-back stepped up to challenge, Arsenal’s striker cleverly positioned himself between the lines. It was a situation where Lacroix had no choice but to follow, but when he left the centre, space appeared for an Arsenal midfielder. It is no coincidence that Chelsea’s conceded goals in this match came from the area between the edge of the box and the penalty spot. In modern defensive coaching, the central midfielder must drop in to cover that zone. But Chelsea chose to press the ball, dragging Caicedo and his partner toward the flanks. As a result, too much space opened up in front of Lacroix. He could block long shots, but he could not simultaneously watch both Arsenal forwards. Another important point Lacroix probably did not mention is Chelsea’s ball retention in the second half. When Arsenal led 2-1, Chelsea had more possession, but they mainly passed the ball sideways in front of Arsenal’s defence. They did not have enough line-breaking passes into the area before the box. Estevao came on and made a slight difference, but his late shot came from a scramble, not from a clearly designed attacking system. If Chelsea really deserved a draw, they needed to create clearer chances, not just one late effort on target. I remember the 2026 World Cup, when I analysed Morocco – a team that reached the semi-finals thanks to proactive defending and sharp counter-attacks. Morocco is Park Hang-seo decoded in World Cup language. The same formula, two sides of the ocean: defend with a low block, but always have a midfielder dropping in to cover the space between the two centre-backs. Chelsea do not have that. Alonso is trying to build a possession-based style, but in big matches like Arsenal, possession matters less than controlling space. The Leeds game will come in a few days. It is the perfect test to see whether Chelsea have learned anything from this defeat. Leeds will not defend as deep as Arsenal; they will press aggressively and play at a high intensity. Chelsea need a plan to escape pressure and move the ball forward without losing it in dangerous areas. If Lacroix continues to face one-on-one situations in central areas, games like this will repeat themselves. Chelsea’s story is not about luck. It is about a young team searching for stability between big tactical ideas. Alonso has a vision, but vision needs time. Lacroix has quality, but quality needs to be protected by a system. If they do not fix the space between the lines, “deserved a draw” will just become a repeated consolation in the dressing room. I do not believe in luck. I believe in a system designed to create luck. Arsenal taught Chelsea that lesson right at the Emirates: top-level football does not reward emotional effort; it rewards those who turn spaces into weapons. Chelsea had good moments, but they did not have the system to repeat those moments. The Leeds match will give us the first answer about whether they truly listened to what I heard from the silence of the midfield.