1. KAI HAVERTZ (8.0)

The biggest question hanging over (i.e. holding back) Chelsea in the last couple years has been the lack of a consistent goalscorer, and while one game will obviously not answer that problem — not even a few games will answer that — we do have a theoretical solution at least in the form of Kai Havertz.

We know he can get it done on the big occasion, but can he get it done day after day? So far, his 1-in-4 strike rate for us would suggest he can’t, but maybe Potter can unlock the magic combination.

“The coach gives me the freedom to do whatever I like on the pitch and I like to be expressive on the ball, so it’s good. I like to play free and to get into the box and he’s told me to do that more, so I was happy that it paid off with the goal.

“He gives me a lot of confidence and I really enjoy working under him.”

-Kai Havertz; source: Independent

2. MASON MOUNT (8.0)

When Mason plays well, Chelsea tend to play well. That was true under Lampard, it was true under Tuchel, it was true in the Academy, it was true at Derby County and Vitesse. And it is still true under Graham Potter.

(And that doesn’t just mean goals and assists, though it’s always nice when he gets on the scoresheet as well!)

3. REECE JAMES (7.5)

As nice as it was to see Chelsea back to winning ways, it was just as not nice to see Reecey back among the injured. Thankfully it’s “only” a month this time, or so they say.

As one of the comments said yesterday, the difference between a Reece-ful Chelsea and a Reece-less Chelsea is very scary. To wit, he’s made the top-3 in the ratings in 8 of his 12 appearances — a better ratio than even Thiago Silva!

vs. AFC BOURNEMOUTH (PL, H, W 2-0)

EXCEPTIONAL (9.0+): —

EXCELLENT (8.0-8.9): Havertz (8.0), Mount (8.0)

GOOD (7.0-7.9): James (7.5), Silva (7.4), Arrizabalaga (7.2), Sterling (7.2), Pulisic (7.1)

AVERAGE (6.0-6.9): Zakaria (6.9), Jorginho (6.8), Cucurella (6.7), Koulibaly (6.5), Azpilicueta (6.3, sub)

POOR (5.0-5.9): Chalobah (5.8, sub), Gallagher (5.6, sub), Aubameyang (5.1, sub)

BAD (4.0-4.9): —

TERRIBLE (3.0-3.9): —

OVERALL