Enzo Maresca’s steadfast reliance on like-for-like substitutions, even in high-pressure situations, has rendered Chelsea’s play alarmingly predictable, prompting widespread criticism from supporters and pundits alike.
Chelsea’s recent FA Cup exit against Brighton has brought renewed focus to Enzo Maresca’s conservative substitution strategy. With a limited number of senior outfield players on his bench—only three, and just one in the attacking third—Maresca opted for like-for-like changes rather than taking a tactical risk. For example, as Chelsea trailed and the game’s tempo began to sag, he replaced Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall with Enzo Fernandez and then swapped out the wingers with Noni Madueke and Tyrique George. These symmetrical changes did little to alter the course of the match, leaving the team’s attacking pattern stagnant and ultimately contributing to their 2–1 defeat.
Critics have long bemoaned Maresca’s approach, arguing that his rigid in-game management has stripped Chelsea of the dynamism that once defined them. Despite a previous win over West Ham—where an early, proactive set of substitutions sparked a comeback—the lack of creativity in recent matches has been glaring. With key players missing due to injury, Maresca’s reluctance to experiment with more radical changes has only compounded the problem, leaving the fans questioning whether the club’s transfer and tactical policies are aligned with the ambition required for success.
