Don't agree with that at all. You can say Kepa cost Chelsea a few goals, but on that same logic De Gea cost us quite a few goals as well.
Chelsea are too inconsistent at the moment and don't seem to have any attacking edge to them despite having a talent squad. Top 4 is realistic for them at the moment, not saying we'll challenge for the title but I still think we'll end up above Chelsea.
De Gea, far from his best, still recorded a net plus for United last season.
When people talk about teams being inconsistent they almost always refer to results. I just do not think results (and the order in which they occur) tell us a lot (certainly in the short run). I mean before their two defeats Chelsea were on a long unbeaten run, scoring for fun, hardly conceding. Then a couple of bad results happen and it's 'inconsistent'. Would you say the same if the order of those results were different with performances unchanged? Professional bettors and analysts will look at performance data and ignore results to a large extent. It is mainly the media which thrives off hyperbole and knee-jerk that drives this nonsense. Jamie Vardy was asked about consistency as well yesterday, particularly with regards to the discrepancy of their results home vs away. Again trying to read something into where there is nothing other than that Leicester have got better results away from home over a very small sample. It is not statistically relevant. Also, what exactly are they suggesting? That Leicester should be winning all their games?
