Former Chelsea striker Daniel Sturridge has questioned the team's attacking selection following their 2-0 defeat to Tottenham Hotspur, arguing that Danny Welbeck would have been a better option to lead the line.
Chelsea struggled to produce their best attacking football at Stamford Bridge, with the absence of João Pedro forcing manager Xabi Alonso to make changes to his forward line. Geovany Quenda was handed his first Premier League start, while Morgan Rogers was deployed in a more advanced role.
Sturridge believes the decision disrupted the team's attacking balance and affected the performances of players such as Cole Palmer and Rogers, who are accustomed to operating with a recognised striker ahead of them.
In his assessment, Sturridge suggested that Chelsea needed a more natural focal point in attack rather than adjusting their forward line in the way Alonso chose to do.
He argued that Welbeck, despite not possessing the same pace as some of Chelsea's attacking options, could have provided the presence and experience needed to help the team maintain its usual style of play.
The former England international also questioned whether Chelsea should have retained Nicolas Jackson, pointing to the striker's impressive current form as a reason to reconsider the club's attacking decisions.
His comments raise further questions about Chelsea's forward options and the tactical adjustments required when João Pedro is unavailable.
Following the disappointing defeat to Tottenham, Alonso will be under pressure to find the right attacking combination as Chelsea look to respond in their upcoming fixtures, including their next meeting with Liverpool.
For Chelsea, the challenge is not simply about finding a replacement striker but ensuring the entire attacking unit continues to function effectively when key players are missing.