Sky Sports then compounded the after-game hilarity by giving the man of the match award to Michael Carrick, a player who was so anonymous during the second half that he might as well still have been at Tottenham.
If you had to give man of the match to someone in a red shirt (and one wouldn't be entirely surprised to learn that it was an obligation on these occasions), you would surely have given it to Ronaldo or Patrice Evra, rather than the hesitant and largely over-run Carrick.
In a reasonable world, though, you would have handed the award to Ashley Cole for the gold-star job he did containing Ronaldo or, better still, to Michael Essien who was required to play in no fewer than three different positions during the course of the match and performed beyond international level in each of them.
But then it's been a good week for media misunderstandings in general.
Consider the kerfuffle about last week's Peter Kenyon statements. The chief executive says that it is Chelsea's ambition to be the biggest club in the world by 2014.
The papers then conveniently overlook the bit about ambition and print headlines in the vein of, 'We will be the biggest in the world by 2014, boasts Kenyon.'
And then everyone loses sight of the rather boring truth that if the chief executive of the world's richest football club didn't have the ambition for his club to become the biggest team in the game, and wasn't prepared to declare that ambition every now and again, then it would be time to start wondering whether he was in the right job.
In any case, 2014? Why the delay? What's wrong with 2009? What's wrong with next week?
But my favourite piece of analysis came in one of Monday's papers, in a report from Sunday's match.
According to one writer, when we sing 'That's why we're champions' after a goal goes in, it is 'the most misguided chant on the terraces of English football grounds.'
Why? Because, the writer explains, 'Chelsea are not champions by virtue of the skill, flair or individual brilliance that, admittedly, abounds in their ranks.'
Love that 'admittedly', by the way. But I interrupt.
'If they are to retain the title,' the writer goes on, 'it will be owing to their more prosaic qualities and a tactical structure that at times makes them look unbeatable.'
But even if that were true, you couldn't really chant it, could you?
In any case, the 'That's why we're champions' song isn't exclusively reserved for individually brilliant goals. It's for any goal that pulls us back to square or puts us ahead.
And, on account of that, I don't think we're misguided to sing it. On the contrary, I think it can be fairly conclusively demonstrated that we're champions because of the goals. I've certainly never seen us win a game without scoring one.
Blimey, though - even our chants are wrong. Is it because we is rich?
All those other big clubs occurred organically, you know. They just grew out of the soil, or fell, fully formed, from the boughs of ancient trees.
There was certainly nothing as vulgar as money involved in the history of Manchester United. Heaven forbid!
Wayne Rooney? Paid for with Green Shield stamps.
Rio Ferdinand? Arrived at the club after a year-long bottle top collection by local schools.
Michael Carrick? Covered with the funds raised by a city-wide shoe-recycling scheme.
The Manchester United Megastore? It just sprung up. They came in one morning, and there it was. With a full shelf of Brian McClair pillow cases.
Easy for some, this greatness business. We, on the other hand, will just have to bite the bullet and work for it.Giles Smith
Giles Smith writes a regular column for Chelsea FC.