Why Chelsea Won't Win The Premier League

Some football writer called Andrew Beasley (never heard of him?) wrote an article this week titled “Why Chelsea Won't Win The Premier League”

You can read it here, and subscribe to his Substack, to give this football newbie a kickstart:

Why Chelsea Won't Win The Premier League

Beez uses some simple but effective data to show that Chelsea need to buck a Premier League-era trend.

And by using xG, on a per-game basis (as well as overall xG figures), I agree with him.

However, we always have to be aware that things can change.

Prior to Rodri’s injury, Man City’s record was excellent; their underlying numbers elite.

Since his injury, it’s led to a slump, and more recently, one win from ten, seven defeats.

But even before the big slump began ten games ago, I noted how their underlying numbers were bolstered, post-Rodri, by playing Slovan Bratislava, Sparta Prague and Southampton.

When I looked at their data against better sides, before the slump was official, it was poor. And that’s saying that Newcastle Utd, Fulham and Wolves are the better sides, as they’re better than Slovan Bratislava, Sparta Prague and Southampton.

City had an xG balance from the first six games of +1.53, which is huge.

They also averaged similarly positive numbers in the two toughest games in that run, Inter and Arsenal, both drawn against the run of play, or rather, the run of the data. (66.7% win percentage in six games.)

Obviously Arsenal had a first-half red card, which distorted the xG, and maybe hid a Man City issue, as, with Rodri going off, they passed and passed in front of the Gunners’ back ten.

But in the 16 games since Rodri’s injury, they average +0.41xG difference. (37.5% win percentage.)

So, in that time, their xG difference has shrunk from elite to middling.

However, go to the most recent 10 games in all competitions, and the xG difference is a dreadful -0.16, in large part due to averaging virtually 2.0xG against per game. (10% win percentage.)

Such xG numbers, if applied to the Premier League, would be akin to 15th place; albeit only Ipswich and Southampton have a worse win% this season than Man City in their past 10 games in all competitions. Even Wolves, Leicester City and Everton have better win-rates than 10%.

So when I move onto comparing Liverpool and Chelsea, I hesitate, on account of such a serious drop-off occurring this season.

It’s hard to recall a more dramatic drop-off within a season. Even Liverpool in their lockdown meltdown of early 2021 never had a run this bad. Things can go wrong beyond the realms of what seems possible.

Similarly, Chelsea, like Liverpool with a new manager (but with no meaningful European football), could also improve in the second half of the season.

Their squad is without question the biggest in England, after spending over £1billion in almost no time at all. Liverpool don’t have about six players for every position, nor do the Reds have £220m of talent (excluding undisclosed fees) out on loan to call back in January if required. Chelsea have skill, pace and insane depth, but maybe a lack of experience.

I’d also argue that Liverpool have missed more key players, with Alisson and Diogo Jota nailed-on starters, and now Ibrahima Konaté too. Chelsea’s best players have played most of the league games, bar Reece James, who is perhaps beyond hope, and again, they have strength in depth via spending. They aren’t even fielding proper players, in the silliest European competition around (not that I blame them).

But right now, as I will show, Liverpool are miles ahead of Chelsea on the data, having played much better teams across all competitions.

Indeed, the better the opposition, the bigger the gulf.

In addition to that, I look at the underlying data from 2019/20, and how the Reds won the title, and what the similarities and differences are in 2024/25.

**The majority of this article is for paying TTT Main Hub subscribers only.**