How did Chelsea turn one of their most impressive hours of the season into a defeat?

For the opening 60 minutes at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, they dominated against the Premier League’s form side, Aston Villa. Chelsea created the better chances, were stronger in midfield duels, and smothered Villa’s attempts to counter-attack. Joao Pedro’s opening goal in the 37th minute was no more than they deserved.

But in a reverse of their surprise comeback to draw 2-2 away to Newcastle United in the previous match a week earlier, a collapse in the final half hour saw them lose 2-1. It is the fourth time Chelsea have dropped points from a winning position in their first nine home matches of this Premier League campaign.

This result has to be the most frustrating of those — it perfectly demonstrates how Chelsea are capable of competing with the division’s best teams, but how moments continue to let them down. The top sides can win when they play badly, Enzo Maresca’s Chelsea sometimes don’t when they have dominated.

The first half on Saturday, in ways, was a performance befitting title challengers. Head coach Maresca’s set-up nullified Villa’s attackers while allowing Chelsea to pose plenty of threat from wide areas, and they remained organised and disciplined. It was a catalogue of moments that let them down.

There was no singular culprit: Cole Palmer took on a difficult shot rather than teeing up Joao Pedro or Enzo Fernandez two minutes in. Fernandez failed to hit the target from just inside the box in the 18th minute. Alejandro Garnacho took too long to work out a way past Matty Cash on multiple occasions, despite the Villa right-back being booked in the first half.

There were several moments where Chelsea could have been more ruthless and killed the game off. Ollie Watkins showed them exactly how to do that with two goals in the final half-hour after being introduced as part of a triple change from Unai Emery that Chelsea had no answer to.

“By the time we conceded the first goal, we should have scored two, three goals. And then after the goal we conceded, the game completely changed,” Maresca told reporters afterwards. “We arrived so many times there, outside with the wingers — we were one-v-one so many times. Inside the box, it’s a general situation where, in the last third, we can do better.”

Enzo Fernandez shows his frustrations against Villa (Luke Walker/Getty Images)

That wastefulness cost them dearly.

Villa are well-versed in comebacks: they have won more points (54, two more than next-best Liverpool) from losing positions than any other Premier League side since the start of 2023-24 — which was Emery’s first full season in charge.

Chelsea’s failure to capitalise on opportunities to double their lead and more allowed the Villa manager valuable time to work out how to turn the tide, and his tweaks worked perfectly. After Watkins’ introduction, Youri Tielemans was pushed into a more advanced role with Jadon Sancho and Morgan Rogers on the wings. It gave Chelsea an extra body to contend with when defending, and they lacked the maturity and tactical acumen to cope with the change in game state.

If Chelsea cannot put a match to bed when they are dominating, they need to learn how to grind out a win under the cosh.

Their defenders could not deal with the energy Villa’s substitutes brought.

Five minutes after he, Watkins, and Sancho were introduced just before the hour, Amadou Onana reacted well to intercept Benoit Badiashile’s poor long ball into the midfield. Two passes later, Trevoh Chalobah was not alert enough to Watkins’ run off his shoulder and the England striker bundled a finish past Robert Sanchez. That was only Villa’s second attempt on target of the game. Sanchez went from virtual spectator to being overworked.

“The (first) goal we conceded was the turning point,” Maresca said. “That is not the first time that happened. Even if we are winning and we concede a goal, we struggle a little bit with the management of the game. It’s something that, for sure, we need to improve.”

After Watkins’ equaliser, momentum swung in Villa’s favour and Chelsea failed to adapt. Their attacking substitutions of Jamie Gittens, Liam Delap (both on 69 minutes) and Estevao (72), made by assistant Willy Caballero as Maresca served a one-match touchline ban in the stands, had little impact.

Enzo Maresca had to watch the Villa defeat from behind the press box (Steve Bardens/Getty Images)

Then, in the final 10 minutes of the game, two moments undid Chelsea again.

It was the simplest of counter-attacks that won Villa the decisive corner, with Lamare Bogarde picking out Watkins in far too much space in the right channel. From the resulting dead-ball delivery by Tielemans, Malo Gusto switched off and Watkins was unmarked to head beyond Sanchez.

Had Chelsea shown the same efficiency in the hour where they controlled the game, they would not just have been ahead but out of sight. Instead, they lacked maturity, both in front of goal and when defending a narrow lead.

The fact that five Chelsea players were booked on Saturday, including Delap being cautioned within two minutes of coming on, hardly helps matters. Palmer also made his displeasure at being substituted, for Estevao, abundantly clear.

Much is often made of Chelsea’s big-picture, long-term thinking — but this defeat shows why they need to focus on getting the basic details right. Now.