Paul Merson Critiques Chelsea's Suspension of Enzo Fernandez After City Defeat
Chelsea’s 3-0 defeat to Manchester City on Sunday was bad enough on the pitch. Off it, Paul Merson believes the club made it worse for themselves before a ball was even kicked.
Mauricio Pochettino’s side went toe to toe with City in the first half, defended with discipline and reached the interval level. There was structure, bite in midfield, and just enough threat to keep Pep Guardiola twitching on the touchline.
Then the second half started.
City found another gear, Chelsea lost theirs, and the game turned brutal. Moises Caicedo and Andrey Santos, left to carry the midfield, were overrun as the champions sliced through the lines and ran away with it. Chelsea didn’t just lose; they unravelled.
And watching on, Merson could not believe one decision in particular.
“Crazy at the highest level”
Writing in his Sky Sports column, the former Arsenal midfielder slammed Chelsea’s choice to suspend Enzo Fernandez for two matches after the Argentine gave interviews the club did not like.
“Why in your brain of brains would you ban Enzo Fernandez for two games?” Merson wrote. “He’s your best passer of the ball, the one who can create, and you chop your nose off to spite your face.
“And it’s not the FA banning him, it’s the club. It’s crazy at the highest level. They were crying out for him yesterday; they couldn’t get out.”
Chelsea’s hierarchy opted for internal discipline: two games out for a player signed and paid to be the team’s creative heartbeat. On Sunday, the absence screamed through every phase of their build-up.
Caicedo and Santos worked, chased, tackled. What they did not do was control. Chelsea struggled to stitch three or four passes together through midfield, especially once City tightened the screw after the break. The out-ball into Fernandez, the calm touch and disguised pass through pressure, simply was not there.
The result? Wave after wave of City attacks and a Chelsea side trapped in their own half.
Neville’s contrasting view
Gary Neville has taken a very different line on Fernandez in recent weeks. The former Manchester United defender has been openly critical of the World Cup winner and of Marc Cucurella, suggesting that if Chelsea fall short of Champions League qualification, those two will carry a large share of the blame.
Cucurella, like Fernandez, has also spoken out in interviews that did not land well at Stamford Bridge. Neville believes that kind of public criticism from inside the camp has only added to the turbulence around the club.
So, on one side, Merson calling the suspension “crazy”. On the other, Neville questioning whether Fernandez has delivered enough to justify his status. Somewhere in the middle sits a Chelsea team that needed its best passer on the pitch against the most ruthless side in the country, and chose to leave him out.
Punishment that punished Chelsea
There were other options. The club could have fined Fernandez, kept him available for the Premier League run-in and, crucially, for a trip to the Etihad that always threatened to be season-defining. They could have restricted him from an FA Cup quarter-final instead, a one-off knockout tie where tactical plans can be reshaped more easily.
Instead, Chelsea and head coach Liam Rosenior went harder. Two games. No Enzo. No control.
The decision felt principled. On Sunday, it felt costly.
Chelsea’s midfield could not build clean attacks, their forwards survived on scraps, and the second half became a training session for City. With the champions playing at that level, as some around the club privately admit, even a prime Lionel Messi might not have changed the result. But Fernandez would at least have given Chelsea a way to breathe.
A race still alive
There was one sliver of good news for the Blues. On Monday, Neville’s former club Manchester United lost to Leeds United, a result that keeps Chelsea’s Champions League hopes flickering. Beat United this weekend and the gap drops to four points.
That is the tightrope Chelsea now walk: chasing Europe while fighting fires of their own making.
They chose to sideline their most gifted passer for a trip to the champions. The question now is simple: in a season already full of self-inflicted wounds, can they afford another decision like that?
