Do you were ok with us having none of the ball int he first half because Gylfi was covering Jorginho? We could have been 2 or 3 down with better Chelsea finishing. He achieved nothing. They controlled the game until half time so therefore whatever he was doing was a complete failure.
But you're not confusing what you believe his job should be (your original point) with what his obvious instructions were. In short, you can't criticise his lack of ball winning if he's been told by the manager to block the passing lane into a particular player.
I would imagine that it wasn't the only tactic either and Silva deployed a few things which we didn't do properly, as he alluded to in his post-match comments
The question remains though as to whether Gylfi did better or not in the second half? Probably better but i'd imagine the point of stopping the passing into Jorginho was so that we could press other players on the Chelsea team which no-one first half did because we were far too deep. Second half, everything seemed to work much better. What was the reason for that? Did the tactic involving Gylfi contribute?
Despite what our resident Journalist says, looking at a Jorginho's passing accuracy won't tell you how successful Gylfi was nor will looking at his passes in isolation for this game.
Instead, we'd have to look at Jorginho's number of average passes in a half / full game across the season. We can therefore confirm his anticipated contribution in a game and see whether it stacks up against his first half / second half / full game contribution on Sunday. If his number of touches was less than his average, with some sort of threshold for likely game by game deviation, we could confirm whether Gylfi did actually do his job or not.
If that's done and Jorginho was just as influential as he always is in both halves individually and across the whole game, we can point criticism at Gylfi.
Until then, it's lazy analysis / agenda.
