Concern is growing within the Chelsea dressing room at the perceived scapegoating of certain players by José Mourinho after the champions’ desperately poor start to the season. The decision not to take Oscar and Loïc Rémy to Porto in midweek and the continued absence of John Terry from the starting lineup are understood to have surprised senior squad members.

Mourinho dropped Eden Hazard and Nemanja Matic at Estádio do Dragão, summoning both from the bench after Chelsea fell 2-1 behind to his former club Porto. The manager also put on the teenage Brazilian forward Kenedy as his side chased the game but had opted against including Rémy or Radamel Falcao, back-up senior strikers to Diego Costa, or the playmaker Oscar in the travelling party.

FA: Chelsea’s José Mourinho will not be punished over Eva Carneiro incident Read more

Mourinho claimed post-match that the trio’s omission had not been a punishment for the dismal first-half showing at Newcastle on Saturday, a display he had rated as worth “minus one out of 10”. The manager did not name the six players whose “attitude, desire and commitment” he had questioned after that draw on Tyneside, though if he had hoped his actions would provoke a positive response, he was left disappointed. Defeat by Porto put Chelsea third in their Champions League group.

The absence of Terry is also drawing focus, particularly as faith has been retained in Branislav Ivanovic, the vice-captain who has worn the armband of late despite his poor performances. The Serb has sat out only one game – the win over Maccabi Tel Aviv – with his regular involvement, despite having entered the final 12 months of his contract, perhaps born more of doubts over the new £17m left-back Baba Rahman’s adjustment than Ivanovic’s form.

Terry, in contrast, has started only the League Cup win at Walsall of the team’s past five fixtures stretching back to the loss at Everton in mid-September, and was an unused substitute in Portugal. He conducted a solo warm-down in front of the visiting fans, who had been kept behind at the Dragão, at around 10pm on Tuesday and was serenaded with a chorus of “We want our captain back”.

The 34-year-old, who acknowledged their support, played every minute of last season’s Premier League campaign and is adamant he will fight to regain his place, with the manager having consistently stressed the esteem in which he holds the centre-half. “I cannot have a better relationship with him, or more trust in him as a player as I have,” Mourinho said last week, with his decision to play Gary Cahill with Kurt Zouma instead apparently born of the specific qualities of the opponents Chelsea are facing.

It remains to be seen whether Terry, who signed a 12-month contract this year, is restored for Saturday’s awkward game against Southampton – Chelsea have now conceded at least twice in seven of their 10 competitive fixtures this season – though Matic, Hazard and Falcao are expected to begin the match. The Colombian forward, whose only start to date was at Walsall, would replace Costa as the Spain international completes a three-match domestic ban having been charged with violent conduct over his duel with Laurent Koscielny during the recent win over Arsenal.

Costa was impressive at Porto, striking the woodwork as his team chased an equaliser, and called for unity post-match. “It’s not a good moment now, and we must do more,” he said. “We have a good squad with a great deal of quality. We have maybe lost some confidence but the manager knows the strengths of his team. To come out of this we need to be all together, and for everyone to give a little more.”

The Football Association has published the written reasons behind a regulatory commission’s decision to suspend Costa, with the minutes revealing Chelsea and their player sought to have “the analysis of two of the FA’s refereeing experts discounted”. The PGMOL senior referee coaches Steve Dunn, Alan Wiley and Eddie Wolstenholme had independently watched footage of Costa clashing with Koscielny – an incident missed by the referee Mike Dean – and indicated the offence was violent conduct.