While Chelsea’s 2015 title win was praised for its balanced, pragmatic use of set-pieces, Arsenal’s current dead-ball dominance is framed as an over-reliance, revealing a stark double standard in media and pundit reactions despite both teams employing a statistically proven route to the Premier League summit.
đ¨đđđđđđđđ đ
Arsenal Folio understands Arsenal wouldnât be the first team to win the Premier League while ranking 1st in set-piece goals.
In the 2014/15 season, Chelsea did the same â finishing top for set-piece goals and lifting the title, with NO media outrage, only⌠https://t.co/E0sGNWdcj2 pic.twitter.com/oMXy80zTe5
â Arsenal Folio đ (@Arsenal_Folio) October 28, 2025
Arsenal wouldnât be the first team to win the Premier League while ranking 1st in set-piece goals.
In the 2014/15 season, Chelsea did the same â finishing top for set-piece goals and lifting the title, with NO media outrage, only PRAISES!
Why the difference in reaction Now?
By Nij Martin
The narrative is relentless. In almost every press conference, Mikel Arteta is forced to defend his teamâs prowess from dead-ball situations. Rival managers subtly (and not so subtly) point to it as a negative tactical blight on the season. According to a vocal section of the media and punditry, Arsenalâs set-piece mastery isnât a strength; itâs a symptom of a struggling open-play attack.
But hereâs a fact that exposes the glaring hypocrisy: Arsenal wouldnât be the first team to win the Premier League while ranking 1st in set-piece goals.
Cast your mind back to the 2014/15 season. Chelsea did the same â finishing top for set-piece goals and lifting the title, with NO media outrage, only PRAISES!
Why the difference in reaction now? The answer lies not in the statistics, but in perception, philosophy, and a dose of pure narrative bias.
Chelsea 2015: Pragmatic Brilliance
Under JosĂŠ Mourinho, Chelseaâs set-piece threat was lauded as a key component of a complete, title-winning machine. The context was everything. Their success was built on an impenetrable defensive base, with the creativity of Eden Hazard, Cesc FĂ bregas, and the finishing of Diego Costa ensuring a potent open-play threat. Set-pieces were the ruthless finishing touch, not the main course.
The praise was effusive. After a 2-0 win over West Ham where John Terry scored from a corner, Sky Sports pundits marvelled at the team’s fluidity. The narrative was one of a perfectly balanced side. As Jamie Redknapp gushed, âChelsea exhibited a fine display of their attacking talent in their 2-0 win over West Ham…Eden Hazard, Oscar, Willian and Cesc Fabregas are producing mouth-watering football for the Premier League leaders.“
However, the contest also highlighted another key factor in Chelseaâs title challenge â their strength from set-pieces.
Their set-piece goals were framed as intelligent and well-drilled. Terry himself explained their success against West Ham by noting, âWe watched a video before the game on set plays and saw a bit of space in behind… Itâs not normally a run I make but I fancied getting there.â This was seen as strategic mastery, not tactical desperation.
Arsenal 2025: The “Over-Reliance” Critique
Fast forward to the present, and the tone surrounding Arsenalâs identical statistical achievement is starkly different. Despite being a defensive juggernaut that has gone hours without conceding a shot on target, the focus is squarely on what they donât do.
The criticism hinges on two main points. First, a perceived over-reliance, with pundits suggesting it masks a deficiency in breaking down low blocks. Second, and more damningly, questions over the legality of their methods, with figures like John Obi Mikel accusing Arsenal of employing âillegalâ tactics to impede goalkeepers.
This critique is magnified by the shadow of the clubâs history. For a team traditionally associated with Arsène Wengerâs âbeautiful football,â this new pragmatism is seen by some as a betrayal of identity. Where Chelseaâs pragmatism was expected, Arsenalâs is viewed as a philosophical compromise.
The Data Doesn’t Lie, But Narratives Do
Statistically, the value of a great set-piece program is undeniable. As one analyst noted, *âWe know from the research we’ve looked at that if you have a very good set-piece regime, that’s basically the equivalent, in terms of goals, of spending ÂŁ80 million on a striker.â* Arsenalâs set-piece coach, Nicolas Jover, has effectively given them a world-class striker without the transfer fee.
Yet, this efficiency is now being framed as a league-wide problem. With the ball in play for a record-low 54% of match time and shots from throw-ins at a decade high, pundits fear for the entertainment value of the sport. Arsenal, as the peak practitioners, bear the brunt of this anxiety.
Even current Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca has waded in, defensively pointing out, âYeah, but we also concede, Arsenal also concede from set-pieces. Set-pieces for me are part of the game.â His comment underscores that Arsenal are now the benchmark others are measured againstâand subsequently resented for.
Artetaâs defence has been consistent and logical. He rightly argues that football is an interconnected game, stating, âAnd the other way around… Football is like this. Football doesn’t stop. It’s all connected. If you want to see the game like this, OK, I don’t.â Winning a corner is, itself, an outcome of open-play pressure.
The difference in reaction ultimately reveals a media double standard. Chelseaâs set-pieces were the final piece of a pragmatic puzzle, worthy of praise. Arsenalâs are framed as a cynical crutch, a departure from a purist ideal that never applied to their London rivals. In the relentless pursuit of a title, Arteta has unlocked a proven, data-driven advantage. The real story isn’t that Arsenal are using set-pieces to win; it’s that they are being judged for it while others were crowned for doing the exact same thing.