Xabi Alonso’s midfield plans at Chelsea have not unfolded as he would have hoped. Names such as Granit Xhaka, Alex Scott, Martín Zubimendi and Lamine Camara represent the type of midfield options that could have helped give his team greater control, balance and tactical flexibility. Alonso also wanted to retain Enzo Fernández, but circumstances have left him having to work with a different midfield situation than he originally envisaged.
For Chelsea, this means adaptation is no longer optional. The team must find a reliable way to compete with the players available, even if they cannot consistently dominate possession in the manner Alonso would prefer.
As fans, we understand that possession alone does not guarantee success. Chelsea have already experienced what can happen when a team enjoys plenty of the ball without turning that control into an effective performance. The 3-0 defeat to Brentford was a clear reminder that having possession is meaningless if it does not translate into chances, defensive security and results.
Personally, I am not particularly concerned if Chelsea have less of the ball in certain matches. A team can be successful through quick transitions, disciplined defending and intelligent counter-attacking. There is nothing wrong with surrendering possession when it forms part of a clear, well-executed tactical plan.
The real concern is not how much possession Chelsea have, but whether the team's approach makes sense for the opponent they are facing.
That is where the Tottenham defeat remains difficult to accept. Chelsea appeared willing to press aggressively and engage opponents individually across the pitch, yet Tottenham repeatedly found ways to play through that pressure. The worrying part was how often the same problems resurfaced without an obvious tactical adjustment.
If Alonso's intention was to limit Chelsea's exposure in midfield and exploit spaces on the counter-attack, the execution needed to reflect that strategy. A high defensive line and an aggressive man-to-man press can leave enormous spaces behind when the opposition bypasses the first wave of pressure. Once that happens repeatedly, the manager must recognise the danger and respond.
This is not an argument that Chelsea must abandon Alonso's footballing principles. Every manager needs time to establish an identity, and difficult results do not automatically mean that the entire project is beyond repair. However, tactical flexibility is an essential part of coaching at the highest level. A good manager must recognise when a plan is failing and have the courage to change it before the damage becomes irreversible.
Alonso must also take responsibility for his team selections, the timing of his substitutions and the overall coherence of his game plans. Choosing the right players for a particular opponent matters, as does recognising when a match requires a different approach. Substitutions should not simply be reactive measures after Chelsea have already lost control; they should help prevent a difficult situation from becoming worse.
The Tottenham performance was deeply disappointing, and for me, it raised serious questions about Alonso's decisions. Whether that defeat alone should determine his future is a separate debate, but the performance cannot simply be dismissed as a bad day at the office.
Chelsea do not need to dominate every opponent in possession. They need a team that understands when to press, when to retreat, when to keep the ball and when to attack quickly. Above all, they need a manager who can recognise what a game demands and make the necessary changes.
Alonso is capable of much better than what Chelsea showed against Tottenham. The challenge now is to demonstrate that through his decisions on the pitch, not merely through his reputation or tactical philosophy.
Ultimately, Chelsea's problem is not a lack of possession. It is a lack of effective control, tactical adjustment and consistency when the original plan stops working.