Positives & negatives from Arsenal's 1-0 win over Chelsea

Negative #2: Arsenal's attacking drift

Why didn't the Gunners win this game with more room to spare? Because they lacked flair and incision in the final third.

It's a depressingly familiar problem. One brought about by underperforming senior figures like Trossard, as well as the ongoing isolation of Odegaard.

The skipper is the one player in central areas with the ideas and quick feet to enliven steady possession into something more eye-catching and meaningful. Odegaard's technical acumen showed up occasionally against Chelsea, but only sporadically.

There was a neat turn or two, a clever flick and some intelligent movement, but those things were rarely matched by his teammates. Odegaard often plays on an island because he travels a creative wavelength all by his lonesome.

This is what happens when the manager offloads Emile Smith Rowe and Fabio Vieira without replacing either. What happens when a bright spark like Hale End graduate Myles Lewis-Skelly is pigeon-holed into playing left-back, instead of letting his progressive spark show in advanced central areas.

An isolated Odegaard is easier to man-mark. Easier to double. Easier to kick out of a game. Chelsea opted for the latter strategy, but Real, you fancy, will be a little more subtle.

What Arsenal need is something different in creative areas. Perhaps Oleksandr Zinchnenko could provide it thanks to his experience in the middle, as well as his competence on the ball.

Maybe Ethan Nwaneri can play as a central playmaker in partnership with Odegaard. Deploying two chance creators would at least mitigate the problem of Odegaard being crowded out of the play when the Gunners move forward.

Whatever the answer, Arteta needs to give his team more options going forward. Otherwise better teams than Chelsea will ruthlessly punish Arsenal's habit for sterile possession.

READ THE LATEST ARSENAL NEWS HERE!