Chelsea 0-2 Tottenham: Horrid outing as Palmer sees deserved red

Chelsea will always be motivated to beat Tottenham, not least because it’s a derby. In this game, however, the Blues had even more reason to go for the win. Spurs have been poor, managing just one win from a possible seven. Xabi Alonso’s men, on the other hand, are only just finding their feet defensively. Beating Spurs would earn some goodwill, and Alonso needed all the goodwill available to him.

Chelsea had a good first half, but things went wrong halfway into the final 45 minutes. First, Palmer made a tackle worthy of a red card but escaped punishment, only to commit another yellow-card offence a few minutes later. He was just one of several players who failed to pull their weight.

Here are the Chelsea ratings.

Mike Penders, GK: 4/10

Penders was doing well until the 77th minute, when he completely miscalculated a cross and essentially punched the ball into his own net. The Belgian has not had much game time this season, so mistakes like this are perhaps not unexpected. He was unmarked in the box and should have done better. He was also found wanting for Mathys Tel’s goal.

Josh Acheampong, RCB: 4/10

Acheampong has been underwhelming for weeks, and tonight was no different. Granted, he was under a lot of pressure. However, his passing was horrendous. I don’t know what’s worse: the fact that he attempted just 12 passes or that he completed only five of them. He was good in his duels, though.

Maxence Lacroix, CCB: 6/10

For the kind of game this turned out to be, Lacroix had a solid outing. His passing, defending and reading of the game, while not exceptional, were good. He made seven clearances and won the ball back for Chelsea twice, which is very good for a central defender. 

He was one of the Blues’ better defenders on the night.

Levi Colwill, LCB: 5.5/10

To avoid being too harsh on the 23-year-old, it’s important to put his performance into context. He was busy defensively. However, his duels created a number of problems. He committed three fouls, and for a defender, three fouls can put your team under more pressure than necessary.

His passing was poor as well.

Pedro Neto, RWB: 5/10

Neto contested plenty of duels, but they weren’t really what the Blues needed in this game. Chelsea couldn’t do enough in Tottenham’s defensive third, and the Portugal international did little to change that.

Jorrel Hato, LWB: 4/10

Whatever Alonso had in mind when he put Hato at left wingback, I hope he got it. Hato was of little use to Chelsea in that role – not in passing, crossing, build-up play or anywhere in the final third.

He had a nothing game.

Moises Caicedo, CM: 5/10

Caicedo’s reading of the game was probably the best on the team, but he couldn’t single-handedly make Tottenham’s midfield less effective. He made four interceptions, which is a lot, and tried to keep Chelsea competitive in the middle of the pitch.

Jordan Henderson, CM: 4/10

Henderson was poor at the centre of the park. His defending was non-existent and, like the central defenders, his passing was rubbish. He was dominated in midfield by Sandro Tonali and Matheus Fernandes.

Cole Palmer, RAM: 1/10

Palmer had a rubbish outing, and it was largely of his own doing. In previous games, he has been Chelsea’s go-to man for creating chances, but this time around, he offered nothing in the final third.

If that was all he did – or didn’t do – it would have been manageable. The bigger issue was that he made rash decisions several times, eventually leading to an inevitable dismissal.

Geovany Quenda, LAM: 4/10

Quenda was busy but wasn’t effective, either on or off the ball. He would have appreciated the opportunity, but he’ll also want to forget about this game quickly.

He did win some fouls and was solid in his tackling, but there was little else to remember from his performance.

Morgan Rogers, CF: 3/10

This may be where Chelsea’s problems started. Without Pedro, Alonso had a decision to make. He chose the wrong one.

If he had started Danny Welbeck, the Blues might still have lost, but they would have had a better chance of winning because there would have been two more players operating in their best positions: Rogers and Welbeck.

Rogers, needless to say, was a non-factor throughout the game.

Marco Palestra (75’): 3/10

The Chelsea No. 2 played only 25 minutes, but in that time, he nearly made an error that led to a goal. He tried hard to make his mark, but Tottenham was having none of it.

Danny Welbeck (88’): N/A

Welbeck came on far too late. For some reason, Alonso waited until the 88th minute to bring him on. Welbeck’s impact was as you’d expect: absent.

Estevao (72’): 4/10

Estevao is another player who came on later than he should have. He also had no impact.

Given how the game unfolded, the substitutes never had much chance of affecting the result, mainly because of when they were introduced.

RELATED POSTS
Brentford vs Chelsea: 5 players that should interest you
The Big 6 Review: GW7 brings firsts for two London clubs
The Big 6 Review: Chelsea and Arsenal thrashed by “B” teams

Xabi Alonso: 3/10

Unfortunately, the gaffer has to take a large chunk of the blame for this one. There were too many players out of position, and some of those decisions were avoidable.

Playing Hato at wingback can be explained away if Palestra hadn’t started on the bench. Playing Rogers at striker can be understood if Welbeck hadn’t been available.

But neither was the case.

Chelsea played well against Everton, but it seems Alonso’s men have reverted to type. This performance had many of the same issues fans saw in earlier games.

The Blues have now conceded 18 goals in eight games. Can it get worse?