Manchester City won the FA Cup final 1-0 against Chelsea, but the ratings point to more than Antoine Semenyo's winner. His 72nd-minute goal settled it, with some reports also framing it as arriving with 18 minutes left, after Erling Haaland crossed and Semenyo flicked into the bottom corner. The bigger talking point from the marks was Pep Guardiola's decision to start Omar Marmoush and then correct it.
Why Guardiola's selection took over the ratings
Cup finals usually get reduced to the decisive moment, and Semenyo supplied that for City. But the broader spread of marks made this feel like a game shaped by selection as much as finishing.
Marmoush finished on 6.5 in the stats pack, a touch below the players who gave City more control and influence. The issue was not that he had a disaster, because the number does not support that. It is that the decision to start him ahead of Cherki became the easiest point of criticism once City looked better after the interval.
Goal.com's verdict was blunt: "Got it all wrong in preferring Marmoush to Cherki, but at least he rectified his error at the break." Sky Sports took a similar line, saying: "It was a big call to start the forward ahead of Rayan Cherki and his first-half performance did not justify his inclusion playing up top alongside Haaland."
Those criticisms land because Cherki's own rating was 6.7 after coming on. That is not a huge gap, but it was enough to reinforce the sense that Guardiola's first call had limited City's attack in a final that remained tight for too long.
There is a bit of tension in the way Guardiola's achievement is framed. Some source material calls this the 20th trophy of his City coaching career, others the 20th major title with City. What is safe, and what matters here, is that this was his 20th major title with the club. It is an impressive number, but the final still left room to question his starting setup.
Semenyo decided it, and City's steadier players carried the rest
The winning moment is clear even if different reports describe the clock slightly differently. Semenyo scored in the 72nd minute, or with 18 minutes left, and it came from a Haaland cross that he flicked into the bottom corner.
Sky Sports described it as a "moment of utter brilliance to break the deadlock in the second half by flicking in from Haaland's cross." That was the difference in a game that never really opened up.
Semenyo's 7.5 rating reflected that decisive role. He scored once and finished as City's top-rated scorer on the day. Haaland's contribution was creative rather than clinical, with 1 assist for the winner.
Around them, the more reliable City performances came from Marc Guéhi and Bernardo Silva. Guéhi also posted a 7.5 rating, which backs up the view that he was one of City's calmest performers in the final. Silva's 6.9 was less eye-catching, but it fits the kind of midfield display that helps a side control the rhythm without dominating every headline.
That is why Guardiola's call remains the most interesting part of the ratings. City still had enough quality and enough control to win the cup, and this was their second trophy of the season, but they did not make the game comfortable early on.
Chelsea had enough good performers to stay alive in the final
Chelsea were not rolled over, and the ratings reflect that. Their shape was listed as 3-4-2-1, which helps explain why several of their better marks came from deeper players rather than attackers.
Levi Colwill was described as Chelsea's best player, and that stood out because this was his second start back from ACL injury. His 6.9 rating supports the idea that he coped well even in defeat. Sam Tabuteau wrote of Colwill: "Not much he could have done to stop Semenyo."
Robert Sánchez made 4 saves and could do nothing about the goal. In a 1-0 final, that matters. He kept Chelsea in the game long enough for the result to stay in doubt.
The stats pack also had Reece James as Chelsea's top-rated outfield player at 7.3. Enzo Fernández and Moisés Caicedo were part of a side that competed well enough, but the brief does not give them standout numbers. That tells its own story. Chelsea had solid resistance and a few good individual displays, but not the decisive attacking moment that Semenyo gave City.
So the ratings end up saying two things at once. Manchester City had the match-winner and enough steady performers to lift the cup, while Guardiola's Marmoush call still looks like a gamble he had to fix. Chelsea, for their part, lost a final without many players letting them down. The score stayed at 1-0, and that is probably the fairest summary of how narrow the gap looked at Wembley.
FAQ
Why were Manchester City's player ratings against Chelsea focused on Pep Guardiola's team selection?
The ratings were shaped by Guardiola's decision to start Omar Marmoush ahead of Rayan Cherki. Marmoush was one of City's lower-rated players at 6.5, while Cherki scored 6.7 after coming on, which fed the view that City improved once the change was made.
How did Antoine Semenyo win the FA Cup final for Manchester City against Chelsea?
Semenyo scored the winner in the 72nd minute, with some reports also describing it as coming with 18 minutes left. The goal came from Erling Haaland's cross, and Semenyo flicked it into the bottom corner to settle a 1-0 win.
Who were Chelsea's best performers in the FA Cup final defeat to Manchester City?
Levi Colwill was described as Chelsea's best player and it was only his second start back from ACL injury. Robert Sanchez made 4 saves and could do nothing about the goal, while Reece James posted Chelsea's top outfield rating in the stats pack at 7.3.
Did Manchester City dominate Chelsea in the FA Cup final despite the 1-0 scoreline?
The ratings suggest City controlled the bigger moments rather than overwhelming Chelsea throughout. Semenyo decided the game, Haaland supplied the assist, and Marc Guehi and Bernardo Silva were among City's steadier performers, while Chelsea still had solid individual displays in a 3-4-2-1 shape.
Written by Jack Mercer with AI-assisted research, cross-checked against 4 outlets. How we work →
