Chelsea can’t ignore brutal Nicolas Jackson truth any longer and Enzo Maresca decision says it all

The narrative that Nicolas Jackson’s red card against Newcastle United has cost Chelsea a place in the Champions League is wrong on several levels. You can see why it appeals to those who saw him cut loose in the wrong way at St James’ Park, regardless.

Chelsea had been playing poorly for the 35 minutes preceding Jackson’s moment of stupidity and were just about weathering a storm. After beating Liverpool last week to move to the brink of sealing a top five place, Chelsea had started slowly and like a version of themselves which supporters rightly fear.

Over the past month Chelsea have managed to right some wrongs, plucking victory at Fulham from behind to salvage their hopes of getting back into the Champions League before holding out against Everton after a blistering first half. They put the fight and intensity together for Liverpool and offered genuine belief that they could go to Newcastle and get a big result.

They showed characteristics which have been missing for much of the past few months and did it when it was most important. This, as much as anything, inspired some confidence that a positive final push was on.

In the northeast there wasn’t too much difference between a point and a loss given Chelsea probably always needed six more to get into the top five, but the manner of their performance here was still dispiriting. Enzo Maresca’s setup was exploited and Chelsea wilted without a plan (or backup plan) under the pressure of Geordie noise.

This all happened before Jackson was sent off. However, with 11 men and a one-goal disadvantage, they were still in the game. With a man down, those hopes were slim and it makes the final two matches much tougher as well.

Despite all of Jackson’s problems (his inconsistent finishing, his erratic movement, and sometimes his downright poor ball control) Chelsea are still a better team when he plays. He is the focal point without alternatives.

The second half demonstrated a good side to Maresca as he adapted tactically to overcome Eddie Howe and Newcastle at several junctures but the lack of presence through the middle grated. Chelsea controlled the game before showing ambition to try and win it but were left with half chances and what-if moments.

Twice there were crosses (one from either side) that would have been perfect for a striker only for him to be on the bench with his head in his hands and shirt. That is not on Maresca but does expose Chelsea’s problems when Jackson is out. This sounds logical because any team would struggle with 10 men but it is more apparent for Chelsea as their alternatives are so different or non-existent. There is no like-for-like change.

Maresca did just about find a suitable replacement, eventually, when both Jackson and Marc Guiu were injured on transfer deadline day against West Ham back in February. The Christopher Nkunku experiment failed, as did the joint false nines with Cole Palmer. Pedro Neto became an unlikely answer with Tyrique George also filling in.

None of these are optimal, though, and it is telling that in the games Jackson has not played at all this season, Chelsea have lost to Arsenal, Villa, Brighton (twice), and Newcastle (in the Carabao Cup). They have won three times in the league without him as well but those have been against Southampton (x2) and Leicester City.

It is only logical that Chelsea are better with a proper striker in the team and the other options really are not fit for purpose at the top level so Jackson has a low bar to clear. However, the fact remains that he is important to the team and Chelsea would surely prefer to have him available, even when off form in front of goal, than approach Manchester United and Nottingham Forest with a fudged centre forward.

There is certainly a decent argument that Chelsea could be better with another striker instead of Jackson but that is not where they are now. When he plays they win 53 per cent of games compared to 50 without him (and the opposition quality caveat should count here too).

Chelsea score more goals per game with Jackson (1.82-1.66) and he ranks as the joint-second best in the squad for points per match this season for those with over 2,000 minutes played. Only Cole Palmer and Marc Cucurella have a better goal difference for the team when they are on the pitch, and he is top of the goal difference per90 for anyone in the with over 1,300 league minutes as well.

Again, it is fair enough to debate whether or not Jackson is still costing Chelsea overall – and a run of one goal in 15 league games, even accounting for his injury suggests that he has been – but in terms of a straight shootout now between him playing or not, there is only one winner. Jackson is not perfect but he is better for the team and provides more than Maresca’s tinkering can.

So, has Jackson really cost Chelsea a place in the Champions League? No. His absence makes it harder to beat United and Forest but it is far from an impossible task.

Instead, Chelsea’s poor run over the Christmas and New Year period was more destructive than this from Jackson. Taking one point out of six against Ipswich Town this season as well mixing that with a draw away at Brentford is more problematic. Losing to the worst Manchester City side of the past 15 years home and away when they were there for the taking should be looked at.

The recency bias and level of understandable rage aimed towards Jackson should not detract from the true reality of the situation. Maresca may not have been able to look at his striker and appeared to shake his head when he saw the incident back – no matter what he said afterwards – but Chelsea are still in a strong spot.

They have qualification in their own hands and know they need to win both games to be almost 100 per cent certain (only an extremely unlikely goal difference swing would prohibit this). Their opponents are a United who are sat 16th in the league without a domestic win in seven games and 11 since last beating a team outside of the relegation zone.

They have lost four of their last five league games and five of seven. They have failed to score in four of the previous seven and were just beaten at home by Graham Potter’s West Ham. For context, the Hammers had been eight without victory before that.

If Chelsea cannot get three points it will not be down to Jackson. They have more than enough to win, and win comfortably, against this version of United which are totally focused on next week’s Europa League final.

Then there is Forest. That is a trickier game without Jackson due to the sheer size of Forest’s defence and their low-block style, but Nuno Espirito Santo’s men are on a rocky run and are starting to fall short when it matters.

They have one win in seven in all competitions and are starting to look like this is all a little too much for them. To put matters a bit more in Chelsea’s favour, Forest will probably have to win on the final day to get into the top five and that may well force them to attack more than usual, therefore opening up space.

Whilst this is not to defend Jackson’s actions, because they were naive, it should also not be acceptable for Chelsea to create excuses for not getting the business done anyway. This has left Jackson’s Chelsea future under more scrutiny than ever before but that is a conversation for another time.

For now, Chelsea cannot hide behind Jackson and shouldn’t either. If they want to finish in the top five then they should be able to handle this situation without him.