Former Chelsea striker Daniel Sturridge has questioned the club’s attacking decisions, suggesting that João Pedro’s absence should not have disrupted the team’s overall attacking structure.
Sturridge believes Chelsea struggled to maintain their usual attacking balance without the Brazilian forward, particularly because Cole Palmer and Morgan Rogers were left without a natural focal point up front.
While acknowledging the potential of young winger Geovany Quenda, Sturridge argued that the youngster’s inclusion should not have come at the expense of maintaining a balanced attacking setup.
He also suggested that Danny Welbeck would have been a more suitable option to lead the line, pointing to the Brighton forward’s experience and ability to provide a reference point for Chelsea’s attacking players.
Although Welbeck may not possess the same pace and dynamism as João Pedro, Sturridge believes his presence could have helped Palmer and Rogers operate more effectively in their preferred positions.
The former England international also raised questions about Chelsea’s decision to part ways with Nicolas Jackson, who is currently enjoying an impressive spell away from Stamford Bridge.
Jackson’s form has reopened the debate over whether Chelsea should have retained the Senegalese striker rather than allowing him to leave.
Sturridge’s comments highlight the questions surrounding Chelsea’s attacking options, team selection and long-term decisions in the striker position as the club looks to find greater consistency in front of goal.
https://t.co/WRhSdr3S4m
— Cobalt Roar (@CobaltRoar) October 25, 2026