Chelsea
Why the Premier League Confirmed a Yellow for Bentancur After Reece James Tackle
Premier League: VAR confirmed yellow for Bentancur after studs into Reece James’s ankle; debate via
Tottenham Hotspur midfielder Rodrigo Bentancur was shown a yellow card after a late challenge that left Chelsea full back Reece James with studs in his ankle during a heated Premier League derby.
James was first to a loose ball but received a full set of studs into his ankle for his troubles. On-pitch referee Jarred Gillett, who was taking charge of this infamously feisty fixture for the first time, gave himself some thinking time. After an exchange of views with the VAR in Stockley Park, Gillett brandished a yellow, rather than red, card. Much to James’s evident fury, his Chelsea teammate Trevoh Chalobah was also booked for arguing with the referee.
During the half-time interval the Premier League’s official match centre explained that: “The referee’s call of yellow card to Bentancur was checked and confirmed by VAR—with the contact deemed to be a reckless challenge and not serious foul play.”
Law 12 in the FA Handbook details the subtle differences in its definition of “reckless” challenges and “serious foul play.” That distinction underpinned the match officials’ decision to leave Bentancur on the field.
Sky Sports pundit Jamie Carragher was quick to dismiss the incident. The former Liverpool defender, no stranger to a forceful lunge of his own back in his playing days, argued that Bentancur didn’t make contact high enough up James’s shin to warrant a red card.
The verdict did not settle opinion among supporters. Social media reaction was sharply divided, with some users questioning Bentancur’s decision-making and others angry that the tackle did not merit a sending-off:
“Sometimes I genuinely do not understand the thought process behind some of Bentancur’s actions.”
“How is Bentancur not sent off? I get its a derby, but those challanges should be red regardless imo”
The confirmation from VAR that the challenge was reckless rather than serious foul play resolved the formal outcome, but it ensured the incident remained a contentious talking point after the match.
Arsenal
Arsenal’s defence measured against Chelsea’s 2004–05 standard
Arsenal’s defence has conceded three goals by Gameweek 10 as comparisons to Chelsea 2004-05 grow. yet
Arsenal’s credentials as serious contenders for the 2025–26 Premier League title rest heavily on the team’s defensive form. Jurriën Timber’s emergence as an elite right back, combined with a variety of inverted left-back options, has made the prospect of facing Arsenal a daunting task for opponents.
The conversation around Arsenal’s back line has included comparisons with Chelsea’s 2004–05 campaign, when José Mourinho’s side conceded just 15 goals across 38 games. That Chelsea team lost only once on their way to the title and featured a central pairing that defined the era: John Terry and Ricardo Carvalho. They were often supported by Paulo Ferreira on the right and William Gallas on the left, with Petr Čech in goal.
Arsenal’s defence has been markedly strong this season. By Gameweek 10 of 2025–26 they had conceded three goals, a return that underlines why talk of historic comparisons has begun. While the full season remains a long way off, the early numbers and the emergence of Timber have focused attention on whether Mikel Arteta’s side can sustain such consistency.
John Terry has been vocal in defence of Chelsea’s record, sharing his view on social media. “I recently got sent this list of the 15 goals we conceded in 2004–05, I can’t help but be annoyed but also very proud to be part of a great team,” he explained. “Going over the games and goals in my head thinking this should be 10 or less.
“Records are there to be broken, but I’m not sure 15 goals conceded in the Premier League will ever be beat.”
Those lines capture why the comparison endures: Chelsea’s defensive benchmark is exceptional, and Arsenal’s current form has invited fresh debate. At this stage of 2025–26 the measurable fact is simple — Arsenal had allowed three goals by Gameweek 10 — and that statistic frames the evolving discussion about how close, if at all, this team might come to matching a long-standing standard.
Chelsea
Chelsea’s Control Exposed Tottenham’s Midfield Void in 1-0 North London Win
João Pedro’s first-half goal masked Chelsea’s control; Tottenham created almost nothing centrally. .
Chelsea’s 1-0 victory in north London was settled by João Pedro’s first-half strike, but the scoreline understated how one-sided the match felt. The opener came shortly after the half-hour mark in a rapid sequence on Tottenham’s edge. Moisés Caicedo won the ball twice in that scramble and fed João Pedro for a “gloriously scruffy opener.”
Thomas Frank had predicted, “I think it’s going to be a good game,” but his side rarely looked at ease. Tottenham managed only three shots while Chelsea registered 15. Expected goals underlined the gap: Tottenham 0.05, Chelsea 2.92. Guglielmo Vicario’s reflexes were the primary reason the hosts were not more heavily defeated.
Chelsea’s player ratings reflected the visitors’ control. Robert Sánchez earned an 8.5 for combining calm distribution with progressive ball work. Moisés Caicedo was rampant off the ball and rated 8.3. João Pedro broke his drought and received 8.3; Enzo Fernández (7.4) and Marc Cucurella (7.6) contributed significantly to the dominant display. Other notable marks included Wesley Fofana 7.7 and Trevoh Chalobah 7.3.
Substitutes Jamie Gittens (66’) and Roméo Lavio (76’) registered 6.2 and 6.1 respectively. Estêvão and Tosin Adarabioyo were introduced late and did not receive ratings in the report.
For Tottenham, the starting XI included Guglielmo Vicario; Pedro Porro, Kevin Danso, Micky van de Ven, Djed Spence; João Palhinha, Rodrigo Bentancur; Mohammed Kudus, Pape Sarr, Lucas Bergvall; Randal Kolo Muani. Subs used were Xavi Simons, Cristian Romero, Richarlison, Destiny Udogie, Brennan Johnson and Wilson Odobert. The hosts’ set-piece advantage offered hope, but corners and free-kicks often became dead ends.
The match left Chelsea level on points with their London rivals in the Premier League top four and exposed Tottenham’s lack of central presence despite a midfield-heavy lineup. For N17 it was an evening to forget.
Chelsea
How a Head Injury Gave Both Sides a Sixth Substitution in Tottenham v Chelsea
Six substitutions were available to both Tottenham and Chelsea after Lucas Bergvall’s head injury.
Tottenham Hotspur’s Premier League meeting with Chelsea saw an unusual change to match-day substitution options after an early head injury. Ordinarily, teams may name nine players on the bench and make up to five substitutions. That framework was altered when Spurs midfielder Lucas Bergvall took a blow to the head.
The Premier League introduced concussion substitutions in 2021 after consultation with medical experts and national associations. Those measures, along with other changes, are regularly reviewed by the International Football Association Board, which upholds the laws of the game.
With Spurs’ medical team suspecting Bergvall may have suffered a concussion, he was withdrawn by Frank to be replaced by summer signing Xavi Simons. Because Bergvall’s removal was treated under the concussion substitution protocols, both teams were permitted an extra change for the fixture. As a result, Chelsea are now able to make six changes and can implement that if Maresca wants to make additional tactical tweaks.
The adjustment is procedural: it follows the concussion protocols that allow for temporary or permanent changes to substitution allowances when a player is removed on medical grounds. The immediate aim is player safety, but the consequence in this context is a tactical one, with the away side able to deploy an additional substitute beyond the usual five. Supporters may see that as offering an advantage, but the decision rests on the medical assessment and the competition rules introduced to protect players after head impacts.
