I've been thinking since yesterday about why Alonso was so reluctant to build out from the back and instead wanted the team to play so directly. Obviously, I can't know his exact reasoning, but I think several factors might have influenced the decision. First, Penders. Perhaps Alonso didn't want to put him under too much pressure and preferred to have him play long rather than take risks in the build-up. Second, the weather. The heavy rain might also have played a part, with Alonso looking to minimise the risk of mistakes close to his own goal. Third, and perhaps most interestingly, the player profiles, particularly in midfield. I think most people expected Alonso to bring much more control in possession. So why have Chelsea been so much more direct than anticipated? The midfield profiles might offer part of the explanation. When Caicedo was unavailable, the team was extremely direct. Since his return, we've started to see a shift towards slower, more controlled build-up play. Perhaps Alonso doesn't fully trust the other midfield profiles to play this way under pressure. But if that's the case, why did Lavia spend the entire game on the bench? Whatever the reasoning, the approach didn't work against Spurs. Without Joao Pedro, Rogers was almost the only player up front capable of receiving and holding up long balls, but even he struggled badly. He lost all seven of his aerial duels, and many of Chelsea's long balls were simply inaccurate. Even when the ball reached the right areas, Spurs often collected the second balls.