The set-piece double standard: Why Arsenal’s title weapon is criticized while Chelsea’s was celebrated

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.

🚨𝐁𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐊𝐈𝐍𝐆 📊

Arsenal Folio understands Arsenal wouldn’t 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 – finishing top for set-piece goals and lifting the title, with NO media outrage, only… https://t.co/E0sGNWdcj2 pic.twitter.com/oMXy80zTe5

— Arsenal Folio 📕 (@Arsenal_Folio) October 28, 2025

Arsenal wouldn’t 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 – 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 team’s 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, Arsenal’s set-piece mastery isn’t a strength; it’s a symptom of a struggling open-play attack.

But here’s a fact that exposes the glaring hypocrisy: Arsenal wouldn’t 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 – 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 José Mourinho, Chelsea’s 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 Fàbregas, 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, “Chelsea 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 Chelsea’s title challenge – 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, “We watched a video before the game on set plays and saw a bit of space in behind… It’s not normally a run I make but I fancied getting there.” This was seen as strategic mastery, not tactical desperation.

Arsenal 2025: The “Over-Reliance” Critique

Fast forward to the present, and the tone surrounding Arsenal’s 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 don’t 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 “illegal” tactics to impede goalkeepers.

This critique is magnified by the shadow of the club’s history. For a team traditionally associated with Arsène Wenger’s “beautiful football,” this new pragmatism is seen by some as a betrayal of identity. Where Chelsea’s pragmatism was expected, Arsenal’s 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, *“We 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 £80 million on a striker.”* Arsenal’s 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, “Yeah, but we also concede, Arsenal also concede from set-pieces. Set-pieces for me are part of the game.” His comment underscores that Arsenal are now the benchmark others are measured against—and subsequently resented for.

Arteta’s defence has been consistent and logical. He rightly argues that football is an interconnected game, stating, “And 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.” Winning a corner is, itself, an outcome of open-play pressure.

The difference in reaction ultimately reveals a media double standard. Chelsea’s set-pieces were the final piece of a pragmatic puzzle, worthy of praise. Arsenal’s 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.