🇳🇬 Mikel John Obi

[English Freak 456]

Yes but Makelele was a bit different from Mikel in terms of quality (the guy has the defensive midfield role named the Makelele role for a reason).

A defensive midfielders game isn't exactly spectacular but as Toronto said you need guys like Mikel who play simple error-free football and are 9 times out of 10 available to receive the ball when his team mates are under pressure and fill gaps left when Luiz or Terry step into midfield or are caught out on the counter or whatever.

It was the same with Pep Guardiola at Barca when he was a player all those years ago, he played in Cryuff's dream team as it was called, his game looked the simplest and easiest to people but he held that team together when players like Michael Laudrup (who he famously told to play it simple), Rivaldo, Begiristain, Romario etc. The thing is his game was appreciated by fans, unlike Mikels it would seem. It was the same with Paul Scholes (arguably the best English midfielder of the last 20 years), who Zidane said is the best midfield player in the world years ago and a lot of Spanish players like Xavi and Iniesta have praised, who at times was underappreciated as he wasn't David Beckham or Mark Hughes or whoever else played for United. He wasn't even a holding midfielder or that but even in his late career he played a lot under Fergie as United didn't really have anyone who did the same apart from Carrick who you could say initially struggled at United when he first went there, who could do what he did.

There have been plenty of occasions where Chelsea has been caught on the counter and Mikel is seen out of position, walking back.

As I've said a number of times, if Mikel was just more consistent with his performances, our midfield would be solid.

Mikel isn't a bad player but the lack of consistency in his performance is worrying..(maybe he needs some competition for his position?)

(The same thing can be said of David Luiz...if he can be consistent and iron out those rush of blood moments, our CB pairing would be solid)

[ZOS 580]

I've made up my mind long ago ...to me he'll never be good enough, no matter how well he plays in a single game .. and he was good in the 2nd half of the Everton game

[zolayes 14,489]

The glue guy hey. Great term . How does the glue guy glue us together so that we stick and win matches? It means nothing ,it relates to 85% safe,negative passing,that slows us down in glue,perhaps? Teams all over Europe are searching for that glue guy to turn them into winners ,nobody ever called Makelele the glue guy .

Makelele sat and did protect our defence you could not score against us at times. Mikel is not able to produce what Maka did and one other thing, Makelele was as good a passer as Mikel ,he was quicker and he saw the short first touch forward pass quicker than Mikel . This glue guy tag for Obi is starting to grow on me .

The Maka point is very relevant I think.. What he had was the ability to find the simple pass QUICKLY... This meant the transition from defence to

attack was more rapid and assisted in counter attacks. Makalele was more experienced than Mikel and possibly quicker thinking.

Sadly there arent many Makalele's around ..so for now we must do with second best ...Whoever that is will remain a topic for discussion

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Maka was the best at what he does. The holding midfielder role was made for him. Of course Mikel can't even compare! The discussion was never between Mikel and Maka, obviously since there isn't anyone as good as Maka was.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Yes but Makelele was a bit different from Mikel in terms of quality

Exactly. That's why Chelsea supporters loved Makelele despite his role being 'tough to understand or appreciate' according to certain people.

He wasn't flash but he did the dirty work efficiently and consistently. Mikel has a similar dirty job role in the team, but Chelsea supporters simply haven't taken to him in the same way because he hasn't been that dependable, reassuring presence. If he was, the Stamford Bridge faithful would absolutely adore him because we've always supported players who play in unfashionable roles, and that's something that some people simply don't understand.

[robsblubot 3,595]

Maka was the best at what he does. The holding midfielder role was made for him. Of course Mikel can't even compare! The discussion was never between Mikel and Maka, obviously since there isn't anyone as good as Maka was.

But that's the point isn't it?

As a specialist, Makalele's contribution in attack was poor, just like Mikel's (we all agree on that) - the zero assists and goals showcase that.

So, since Mikel, like Makelele, is so single-dimensional (defense only), shouldn't he be as good as Makelele was to be good enough?!

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

But that's the point isn't it?

As a specialist, Makalele's contribution in attack was poor, just like Mikel's (we all agree on that) - the zero assists and goals showcase that.

So, since Mikel, like Makelele, is so single-dimensional (defense only), shouldn't he be as good as Makelele was to be good enough?!

That makes no sense. Makalele was as good a defensive midfielder as there's been. Are you saying that we should only accept defensive midfielders as good as Makalele which is basically nobody? Are you saying that because we can't find someone as good as Makalele, we need to play without a defensive midfielder? That's the equivalent of saying that since we don't have a central defender as good Carvalho and Terry were, we should abandon having central defenders.

[The only place to be 11,313]

But that's the point isn't it?

As a specialist, Makalele's contribution in attack was poor, just like Mikel's (we all agree on that) - the zero assists and goals showcase that.

So, since Mikel, like Makelele, is so single-dimensional (defense only), shouldn't he be as good as Makelele was to be good enough?!

Exactly. The arguments are usually that we supporters can't 'understand' Mikel's role in the team because he isn't dribbling past opponents or scoring goals from 30 yards, or that we just need to scapegoat someone.

Mikel's defenders can never quite answer why Mikel simply isn't liked by the vast majority (in my own personal experience) of Chelsea supporters.

[robsblubot 3,595]

Exactly. The arguments are usually that we supporters can't 'understand' Mikel's role in the team because he isn't dribbling past opponents or scoring goals from 30 yards, or that we just need to scapegoat someone.

Mikel's defenders can never quite answer why Mikel simply isn't liked by the vast majority (in my own personal experience) of Chelsea supporters.

nope. I've been saying that we should either seek a player as dominant defensively as Makelele, which is pretty rare I agree, *or* go for a player who is not as dominant as Makelele was (defensively), but is more rounded. That's what I see other top teams doing, with guys like Khedira & Toure.

Honestly, like I said before I don't think Mikel is a bad player, but I don't think he is good enough either. He's just a tad slow and lack aggression for a an enforcer role; do you remember him ever being dirty as in picking up a red for a bad tackle?

[The only place to be 11,313]

nope. I've been saying that we should either seek a player as dominant defensively as Makelele, which is pretty rare I agree, *or* go for a player who is not as dominant as Makelele was (defensively), but is more rounded. That's what I see other top teams doing, with guys like Khedira & Toure.

Honestly, like I said before I don't think Mikel is a bad player, but I don't think he is good enough either. He's just a tad slow and lack aggression for a an enforcer role; do you remember him ever being dirty as in picking up a red for a bad tackle?

In his early days he was a bit more reckless, but he's been a stroller for years. I think that's one of the reasons the fans don't like him, because he very rarely seems to give a fuck. The Rubin Kazan game was probably his lowest point in that regard.

I agree with your other point, and I think that role requires more rounded players nowadays. Mikel is probably one of the more limited players in that role when he plays for us compared to his contemporaries at other clubs. Even at this club the young guys like Chalobah and Ake seem to be capable of doing far more in that role, although they're obviously just starting out.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

But that's the point isn't it?

As a specialist, Makalele's contribution in attack was poor, just like Mikel's (we all agree on that) - the zero assists and goals showcase that.

So, since Mikel, like Makelele, is so single-dimensional (defense only), shouldn't he be as good as Makelele was to be good enough?!

No, of course you can't expect Mikel to be as good. Makalele was the best so of course Mikel is not as good. But that does not mean that Mikel is not a good player. And I disagree that JOM is one-dimensional. He does this specific role for us because that is what is asked of him, but he plays a different role for Nigeria.He can go forward and assist if he wants to, but that is not asked of him here because there are other players who do it better than him.

[The only place to be 11,313]

No, of course you can't expect Mikel to be as good. Makalele was the best so of course Mikel is not as good. But that does not mean that Mikel is not a good player. And I disagree that JOM is one-dimensional. He does this specific role for us because that is what is asked of him, but he plays a different role for Nigeria.He can go forward and assist if he wants to, but that is not asked of him here because there are other players who do it better than him.

Choulo, simple question.

Why has the Stamford Bridge faithful never taken Mikel to their hearts?

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Choulo, simple question.

Why has the Stamford Bridge faithful never taken Mikel to their hearts?

Why didn't anyone at Madrid appreciate Makalele till after he left?

[The only place to be 11,313]

Why didn't anyone at Madrid appreciate Makalele till after he left?

He was appreciated though by the supporters - it was Perez who didn't seem to understand how important he was.

And that's not answering the question. Why has the STAMFORD BRIDGE FAITHFUL never taken MIKEL to their hearts?

(I've put the most important words in capitals so that you don't veer off into talking about other teams and players, m'kay).

Saying you don't understand why Chelsea supporters think something is a totally understandable answer by the way, so don't be afraid to say you don't know.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

He was appreciated though by the supporters - it was Perez who didn't seem to understand how important he was.

And that's not answering the question. Why has the STAMFORD BRIDGE FAITHFUL never taken MIKEL to their hearts?

(I've put the most important words in capitals so that you don't veer off into talking about other teams and players, m'kay).

Saying you don't understand why Chelsea supporters think something is a totally understandable answer by the way, so don't be afraid to say you don't know.

Of course I don't know. But here's why I think Mikel is not appreciated by many: Most football fans judge matches on separate incidents; meaning who scored, who played which pass, who made which tackle..etc. Overall game is very rarely appreciated and so is consistency. That's why some people label Mikel "a passenger" when he regularly is the player who touches the ball the most in our team. Mikel doesn't do anything that is outstanding in individual incidents so no one remembers what he does during games, but instead what is outstanding about him is being in the right place 9 times out of ten and getting the simple pass right 19 times out of 20.

And this isn't just about Mikel. Most Chelsea fans would tell you that Luiz is excellent at playing long balls when in reality he usually gets some thing like 4 of 20 each match while JT for example attempts one or two in a match and usually gets right. If JT was to attempt as many passes as Luiz he would get much more correct and he would be labeled the Xavi of defenders but since he doesn't Luiz is seen as better long ball passer since most people just remember the successful passes and rarely the missed.

Another thing is that people rarely appreciate possession. Fans want goals and clean sheets but few appreciate that you can only get both through possession. And that means that you need to play something like 20 simple passes before you actually get the chance to play a pass that would create immediate threat to the opposition. People, me included, when watching a match get excited to see a player attempt a ridiculous 50-yard through ball, but managers prefer their players to play 10-15 more simple passes to get the ball around the area and then attempt a pass that might create a chance and that's because they know that when without possession you cannot score and you are more likely to concede.

That is basically Mikel's job mostly. And that is, be available to receive the ball whenever someone is under pressure so the team does not lose the ball, then keep the ball under pressure, and then play the simple pass so we can keep the ball. This job is not glamorous, but it is crucial to both scoring and defending. And even if Mikel is not there, someone else has to do it. But so it happens that Mikel does it the best in our team.

A lot is made of "Football Entertainment" and everyone wants to see an 'exciting' match, but, for all the advertisement, football is not WWE and it's not even NBA. Teams and managers eventually want to win more than they want to entertain fans. So players who do a tactically important job that most people over-look will always be underrated by fans.

And before you mention Makalele, because I know that all this is about him, Claude, for starters, was the best at what he does. He also played in a time where defensive midfielder tackled and went to ground much more, so he had more glamour about his game. And finally Claude was a huge name when he came to Chelsea. He was European and World champion. So naturally he got a lot more attention and support from the fans.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Of course I don't know.

OK.

I would respond to the rest of that post, but you seem to be making assumptions about Chelsea supporters, another thing you simply don't know.

I will add that the Stamford Bridge crowd has always been a knowledgeable bunch, respectful of players who did the dogged work. Honestly when you try and make assumptions about what they think, you're usually VERY wrong but that's not your fault.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

OK.

I would respond to the rest of that post, but you seem to be making assumptions about Chelsea supporters, another thing you simply don't know.

It's okay, my post wasn't even aimed at you but at people who actually want to read other people's opinions

[OneMoSalah 8,886]

But that's the point isn't it?

As a specialist, Makalele's contribution in attack was poor, just like Mikel's (we all agree on that) - the zero assists and goals showcase that.

So, since Mikel, like Makelele, is so single-dimensional (defense only), shouldn't he be as good as Makelele was to be good enough?!

Makelele's contribution in attack was poor? Watch the 2-1 loss against Fulham from 2006, where Chris Coleman made sure Makelele was marked when we had possession so he couldn't get attacks started, we struggled. Maka was slightly more than a DM, he started our attacks after regaining the ball, sure not quite the same contribution as a winger or #10 but he effectively started them at times. We were quite fortunate we played a 3 man midfield as most teams in England still played 2 men midfields, if other teams had done what Fulham had done we would have struggled to get going at times. Just because you have 0 goals and 0 assists doesn't always mean you are bad offensively, you get players who create a lot of chances but don't get any assists or players who like Maka sometimes played that pass before the key pass that is vitally as important as the key pass.

[The only place to be 11,313]

It's okay, my post wasn't even aimed at you but at people who actually who want to read other people's opinions

I do want to read opinions, but you made assumptions about the Stamford Bridge crowd that were just wrong. I can speak to why Mikel has never become a beloved figure because I've seen it over years. You can just make guesses.

Your guesses were wrong by the way. Back to the village with you.

Watch the 2-1 loss against Fulham from 2006,

What season?

[OneMoSalah 8,886]

I do want to read opinions, but you made assumptions about the Stamford Bridge crowd that were just wrong. I can speak to why Mikel has never become a beloved figure because I've seen it over years. You can just make guesses.

Your guesses were wrong by the way. Back to the village with you.

What season?

2005/06 I think. Was 1-0, not 2-1 got the score wrong..