I said I'm not getting into a debate in this thread, but I'm going to answer only you because I know you can debate open-mindedly. Mikel is NOT a ball winning midfielder, he is a holding midfielder. First of all, ball winning midfielders are a species that is nearing extinction. They just don't belong in today's game. Why? Well, take Luiz in midfield for instance, he tries to be a ball winning midfielder, always attempting to intercept, tackle and nick the ball off the opposition. Result? More often than not, he fails to win the ball and the player gets past him and can run at our back four with no one shielding them. If the opposition are a good organized team, we're likely to concede in that situation. You can still see ball winning midfielders in the championship and lower levels, but in the PL, the game is just much more dynamic and fast paced than what it used to be in the days of Roy Keane. Defenders don't tackle as much as they used to and CMs almost never go to ground anymore, in fact, tackles in midfield are so out of fashion that if you see a player go to ground and not get it 100% right, you directly think he could be off or at least get a yellow card. Instead, ball winning midfielders have been largely replaced by holding midfielders like Mikel. The first thing they teach kids in academies about defending nowadays is "Stay on your feet" "Do NOT commit to the challenge" because when a player commits to a tackle, he's giving the attacker a chance to get past him. There is a quote by Xabi Alonso that I like to use where he says tackling is not something that, as a holding midfielder, you look or try to do, but rather something you have to resort to sometimes if your man gets away from you or to correct a certain mistake. But in normal circumstances, a central midfielder should never go to ground. Instead, what holding midfielders do, is that they stay on their feet and just block the channels and passing angles and either force the man on the ball to a less dangerous area or force him to make a mistake or at least take the difficult option. As for the comparisons, half of the ones you mentioned are only there because they are "trending" now (Btw, Fernandinho and Vidal are more b2b; Vidal is basically a more dynamic Ramires with better technique). They had a a few good games this season and got a good reputation that they'd probably lose next season if they don't perform as they did this season. And of course, there are players that are better than Mikel. But that applies to every single position in our team bar GK and probably LB. Why doesn't anyone else say that we are "settling" for Luiz or Iva or Azpi or Rami or Oscar..etc? Because Mikel is just the 'easy' target because what he does, i.e. his role in the team, is not glamorous, it is not evident in particular incidents but rather the overall play. When you're arguing for Iva you can say: "Did you see that tackle he made in that game?" or for Rami: "Did you see that run?" but you can't say: "Did you see Mikel's 95% passing accuracy or the tactical discipline he showed to not leave gaps between himself and the back four during the whole 90 mins?" because you simply can't 'see' that in individual incidents. Now I'm not saying that Mikel does not have his flaws, because he certainly does. For me his biggest flaw is that he is slow to react at times, and like said there are better defensive midfielders than him out there. But he also isn't an average or below average player; in fact in the league right now, bar Carrick, you can't find a holding midfielder who is better than Mikel. he is a good player who is very good at what he does. He's not world-class, but he is certainly not our biggest problem at the moment. But unfortunately, with the type of non-glamorous role he has (and with Kalou gone), he's often going to be the scapegoat for the million other problem that team is having.
