Arsenal were defeated 2-0 away to Chelsea in a game where they created enough changes to win it, but were not clinical enough to get the win.

As usual with these kind of games, it was decided on small details and being clinical in front of the goal was the decider.

Both teams created multiple chances, but only one of them scored as scoring in big games becomes a big problem for the Gunners.

Chances are certainly being created, but the forwards and midfielder are not clinical enough. Arsenal outshot Chelsea with 20 to 7 and with shots on target with 11 to 3.

Looking at the game’s highlights, you do wonder how we did not score.

Jonas Eidevall chose the following XI to face Chelsea: Zinsberger; Wienroither, Williamson, Rafaelle, Catley;McCabe, Walti, Little,Foord; Blackstenius,Maanum; Maritz, Pelova, Wubben-Moy and Kühl came on as substitutes during the game.

It is obvious that Arsenal and Chelsea are now following the same game plan or model.

Emma Hayes said in her post-match conference that the first half was transitional because both teams are transitional.

She even added that Arsenal score 60% of their goal in less than four touches. Regardless of the system used, 4-4-2 for Arsenal and 4-2-3-1 for Chelsea, both sidd tend to wait for the opponent and the right opportunity to press and win the ball back, either high up the field in the middle.

While, the club was going stale tactically in the final year under Joe Montemurro against Chelsea, something that was touched upon by Jonas Eidevall in his post game press conference, it looks like this different approach could pay dividend in the future.

So the game is very much teams mirroring each other and the winner is the one who executed the game plan better, or on Sunday, who could finish their chances.

This is where it hurts Arsenal at the moment: Maanum, Foord and Blackstenius all had chances to score and did not mange to do it.

On the other side Sam Kerr manage to do it from a classic turnover from Arsenal. A Zinsberger clearance, a duel lost and Chelsea hit us with a sucker punch. Kerr timing her run perfectly to score.

The first goal conceded was not any better with Foord losing a duel on the left wing that left the team’s defensive block unbalanced.

Possession was regained and lost quickly in midfield and then the whole defence retreated instead of attacking James who was happy to slip the ball to an unmarked Ingle who shot past Zinsbeger.

A team defending failure that is not acceptable at that level, our forwards get a lot of criticism for not putting the ball in the back of the net, but the two goals conceded did not reflect well on our defensive operation.

The second goal was typical of what you expect from Chelsea making it even more disappointing. You know they will hit you in transition, what will you do to counter that?

The biggest difference in attacking style between Arsenal and Chelsea nowadays is Chelsea play more direct football, if they cannot find solutions through the midfield.

While Arsenal try to kind of build a ball possession football, but struggle to get through in the final third. In a way that struggle is bizzare, because we have two fantastic ball playing midfielders as a double pivot in Wälti and Little.

Because they play so deep as a pair of 6, there is no one to link up with the two strikers Blackstenius and Maanum and play has to go to the wing if there is no space behind the opposition’s defence.

With an extra week’s training and all the players fully rested with a lot of work on scoring, we can hope that the players find their shooting boots either by work on the pitch or off the pitch on the mental side of things.

Next Sunday’s Continental Tyres Cup final must be the occasion to finally end up the non-winning streak against Chelsea.

And, if a little bit of tactical flexibility in attacking schemes can also be added to surprise Chelsea, it would be welcomed because we have players with different profile than those used currently who could make a difference late in the game.