Chelsea’s 2-1 win over Tottenham was decided by the player who dominated the ratings as much as the game. Enzo Fernández scored the opener, set up Andrey Santos for the second, and finished as the standout name across the main post-match assessments. In a derby that still had a scruffy edge to it, Chelsea’s best football usually went through him.

Why Fernández topped the ratings

The basic case is straightforward enough. Fernández scored Chelsea’s first goal in the 18th minute, then later assisted Santos for the second. Those are the two decisive attacking moments in a 2-1 win, so it would have been strange if the ratings had pointed anywhere else.

Dom Smith gave him 9/10 for the Evening Standard, writing: "The on-field captain led from the front, scoring Chelsea’s first, assisting their second, and never giving up." GOAL was a touch lower at 8/10, but the praise was much the same: "Popped up inside to fire home, albeit the keeper should have done better. Some nice sweeping passes upfield, and his cushioned assist was wonderful."

That difference between 9/10 and 8/10 is not really a disagreement about the performance. It is just a difference in scale. The must-include detail from the brief matters more: the two outlets both had Fernández as Chelsea’s headline act, and the stats back that up with an 8.6 match rating, the best on the pitch.

His output on the night was simple and decisive, 1 goal and 1 assist. The wider number is useful too. Fernández has a 7.2 Premier League rating across 35 appearances this season, which suggests this was not some random spike in form. It was a bigger game than most, and he played like it.

Santos made his chance count

Fernández was the clear main story, but Santos was not far behind. He finished the match with an 8.0 rating and, more importantly, he turned one of his few recent opportunities into a goal.

That part of the story matters because the brief is explicit: Santos has struggled for minutes lately but made the most of this start. Dom Smith’s description fits the game well, even without needing to overstate it: he covered ground in midfield and took his goal with confidence.

The second goal is also where Chelsea’s best combination play met Tottenham’s sloppiness. Fernández supplied the assist, Santos applied the finish, and the game tilted firmly in Chelsea’s direction. There is a minor source discrepancy around the timing, with match-event data, the Evening Standard and football.london placing the goal in the 67th minute, while GOAL describes it more loosely as coming midway through the second half. The broader point is clear enough either way: Santos took the moment well.

He now has 27 Premier League appearances this season, according to the stats pack. That does not turn this into a breakthrough game on its own, but it does make this start more relevant. When a player is short of rhythm or regular starts, a goal in a derby tends to carry a bit more weight.

Cole Palmer also falls into the category of useful rather than decisive here. The brief’s line on him is fair: he looked brighter, but he did not fully rediscover his end product. Chelsea will take that if Fernández is producing the final numbers.

Tottenham's weak points were hard to miss

For Tottenham, the ratings told a harsher story. The sharpest criticism was aimed at Randal Kolo Muani, whose mistake helped open the door for Chelsea’s second goal. Sam Tabuteau’s verdict at football.london was brutal, rating him 3/10 and describing the pass as "horrendous".

The stats pack is less savage but still poor enough, putting Kolo Muani at 5.9. That gap is a reminder that ratings are always a blend of data and judgement, but both versions point in the same direction. Tottenham had players who drifted through the match, and Chelsea punished one of the worst moments.

The bigger concern is not just one bad pass. Tottenham are 17th in the Premier League table with 38 points after 36 matches, so this defeat carried obvious pressure even without making claims the brief does not support. Richarlison’s goal only reduced the deficit to 2-1, and James Maddison also had a blocked chance in the 83rd minute, but they never changed the basic story of the game.

There is also a smaller dispute around Chelsea’s first breakthrough. The Evening Standard and the match events place Fernández’s opener in the 18th minute, while GOAL frames Chelsea’s early goal threat differently. For this article, the safer line is the sourced one repeated in the brief: Fernández scored Chelsea’s first in the 18th minute.

That was the moment the ratings started writing themselves. Chelsea had the best player on the pitch, he produced both decisive contributions, and Tottenham were left dealing with another defeat before the final day.

FAQ

Why was Enzo Fernández rated as Chelsea's best player against Tottenham?

Enzo Fernández scored Chelsea’s first goal and assisted Andrey Santos for the second in the 2-1 win over Tottenham. The Evening Standard gave him 9/10, GOAL gave him 8/10, and the stats pack listed him as the best-rated player on the pitch at 8.6.

Did Andrey Santos do enough to impress for Chelsea against Tottenham?

Yes. Santos turned a rare start into a strong showing by scoring Chelsea’s second goal and finishing with an 8.0 match rating. Dom Smith also noted that he had struggled for minutes lately but made the most of this chance.

How bad were Tottenham's individual ratings in the Chelsea defeat?

Tottenham’s ratings reflected a poor display in key moments. Randal Kolo Muani was singled out most sharply after the mistake that helped Chelsea score their second, while the broader context is still serious with Tottenham sitting 17th on 38 points after 36 matches.

Was Cole Palmer back to his best for Chelsea against Tottenham?

Not fully, but he looked brighter. The brief supports the view that Palmer was more lively in Chelsea’s derby win, even if his end product still was not quite there. He was not the headline act because Fernández clearly dominated the game.

Written by Jack Mercer with AI-assisted research, cross-checked against 3 outlets. How we work →