enter image description here
The first half of Chelsea and the goals conceded by the Blues in the last match against Arsenal is the apogee of that terrible defensive vulnerability, especially their defensive zone, which stubbornly leads Lampard to a hopeless series of defeats. In its foundation, I see two main components.

The first is a defensive style unsuitable for the center players. Both Frankie's central midfielders, Kovacic and Enzo, can play decently without the ball in a proactive manner, aggressively meeting the opponent and constantly engaging in single combats - the Croat proved this under Tuchel, the Argentine was an essential element of Benfica's pressing mechanism - but to the passive, they are unaccustomed to the waiting block and are expectedly unlucky in it: they mediocrely control the zone, inattentively scan for possible addressees-rivals around them and poorly observe the compactness of the formations, often additionally violating it with impatient, but so familiar to them advances in pressure. On the other hand, Lampard is forcing the midfielders to play inappropriately for them. Since his arrival, Chelsea has been the fifth from the bottom in the Premier League in terms of pressing intensity, a team that spends the lion's share of any match in the middle-low block. With initiative midfielders in defense placed in a non-initiative block, requiring them to display undeveloped qualities as they were no longer needed, the support team suffers as expected.

The second and, probably, the main thing is the constant shuffling of coaches, models, and players. In these endlessly sorted, non-rounded rosaries, those who enter the field have yet to gain clarity of either the requirements of the newly replaced mentor, the concept and principles of the game, or the banal mutual understanding with partners. Every few months - new, different instructions and tips, every couple of matches (or even every game) - a fresh structure and strangers around. Under such conditions, debugging, maturing, and strengthening integrity and reliability are impossible. Without that, the most tender, sensitive, and vulnerable link, the support zone, looks indecently bare and defiantly transparent.

Together, these two pillars of sand form the fragility that a good team stitches with the ease of repeated repetition, casting it into painfully revealing goals. At first, Jesus is freely allowed to take the ball in the very heart of the block - the supporters have habitually lost - and the pass from the flank is just as unhindered, inexplicably unintercepted, passes across the entire penalty area, where the untracked Odegaard hits; then Enzo, who advanced into the pressure, again does not cover the center deeper, and in the penalty area the guardians once again prove inconsistency, the three of them have not figured out the opposition to the addressee of the cross; finally, the defenders also pour in checkers into the goalkeeper's area, depicting as an allegory both the loosest defensive unit of the team, the support zone, and the current Chelsea as a whole.

P.S. Although the beginning of blue London's general collapse resides above the coaching bench, Lampard's credit for it is becoming increasingly significant with each game. Why did Frank transfer a Liverpool bus to Stamford Bridge, albeit of the same colors, but which also worked intermittently there, entirely unsuitable for new players accustomed to much more initiative? What kind of strange fillings in the squad, illogical roles in it, and controversial game plans does he sometimes choose (like yesterday's Kante in the top two of the block when the team hardly presses and the support without Ngolo whistles)? How can these constant throwing among models, manners, and performers help? With his field decisions, Lampard, as a minimum, does not support his native club - as a maximum, he only drowns him more. It's a pity, but the current Frankie is increasingly showing up as an increasingly dull coach.