Xabi Alonso attributed Estêvão Willian’s absence from Chelsea’s Carabao Cup defeat at Liverpool to the match’s physical demands and enforced changes elsewhere in his team. The explanation addressed some of the circumstances at Anfield, but left a broader question unresolved: where does the Brazilian fit when even an attack missing Cole Palmer and João Pedro cannot accommodate him?
Chelsea went out on penalties on Wednesday after Morgan Rogers and Cody Gakpo both scored from the spot during the match. Wesley Fofana missed the decisive effort in the shootout, while Estêvão remained on the bench throughout.
For the 19-year-old, the disappointment extended beyond elimination. He had started Chelsea’s previous two matches in the competition, making this an opportunity lost in what had been his clearest route to meaningful involvement.
Fitness concerns explain only part of the decision
According to the post-match reporting, Alonso had to manage physical problems affecting Moisés Caicedo, Malo Gusto and Maxence Lacroix. Gusto suffered cramp, while Lacroix came off with a suspected hamstring problem whose severity had not yet been established.
Those issues help explain why Chelsea’s changes concentrated on midfield and defence rather than on introducing another attacking option. Alonso also indicated that bringing a player directly into such a closely contested match carried its own difficulties.
However, the accounts disagree on an important detail. One report says Chelsea made four of their five permitted substitutions; another says they used all five. That discrepancy prevents a firm conclusion about whether an additional change remained available to Alonso.
It also matters to the interpretation of his explanation. If every substitution had been used, Estêvão’s continued absence became unavoidable once the final changes were made. If one remained, the decision involved more than simply running out of replacements.
Neither version, though, answers the question of the starting selection. The fitness concerns developed during the match, whereas Alonso had already chosen Pedro Neto, Danny Welbeck and Rogers as his attacking trio.
An opening that did not become an opportunity
Palmer was suspended and João Pedro injured, removing two established options from Chelsea’s attack. Yet Estêvão neither started nor entered from the bench. Emmanuel Emegha instead replaced Welbeck to make his Chelsea debut, while Geovany Quenda was also left unused.
Emegha’s introduction should not automatically be read as a direct ranking of the two young forwards. Replacing Welbeck with another central attacking option addressed a different positional requirement from introducing Estêvão. Nevertheless, the substitution showed that Alonso was willing to change his attack, just not in the way supporters calling for the Brazilian had hoped.
The reports agree that Estêvão has not started a Premier League match this season. His two starts have come in the cup, and even those appearances have not established a consistent role: he was withdrawn at half-time against Leeds despite Chelsea eventually winning 6-3.
The consequence of elimination is therefore particularly relevant to him. Chelsea have lost the competition in which Alonso had been most willing to select him from the outset. General assurances about opportunities carry less weight without an explanation of how his role might expand elsewhere.
A tactical question as much as a physical one
Neto’s importance offers another part of the explanation. Alonso has used him both at right wing-back and further forward, allowing Chelsea to change their attacking shape without necessarily changing personnel.
That flexibility is valuable in a system built around wing-backs and narrower attacking midfielders. Estêvão’s preferred position on the right does not automatically translate into either role: the wider position brings defensive responsibilities, while playing inside requires a different relationship with the central striker and midfield.
This does not establish that Estêvão cannot meet those demands. It does suggest that his route into the team depends on more than an absence among Chelsea’s forwards. A vacancy must also correspond to a role Alonso believes he can perform.
The manager referred to Estêvão’s recovery process following injury as well as the intensity of English football. His hamstring injury before the summer’s World Cup is relevant context, but the available reporting does not establish a current medical restriction on his minutes. Tactical suitability, physical readiness and selection preference should therefore not be treated as interchangeable explanations.
Responsibility now rests with Alonso
Alonso acknowledged Estêvão’s frustration and accepted responsibility for managing his involvement. That is more significant than suggesting the player simply needs patience: it recognises that development requires decisions from the coach as well as work from the footballer.
Nothing in the reports establishes a disciplinary issue, a training dispute or a decision about Estêvão’s longer-term future. The evidence supports a narrower conclusion: he currently lacks a trusted place in Alonso’s main selection plans.
Anfield made that problem more visible. Enforced changes help explain the evening, but only a clearer role can answer the larger concern.