Mikel John Obi

[LDN Blue 7,903]

There's one reason I don't like Mikel-Matic playing together and that's Cesc not being as effective, imo, for us in the advanced role. Oscar & Fab need to play for us to be a more attacking presence, but I do understand why José used Mikel-Matic v Stoke away.

For Mikel himself, he did well yesterday. Playing alongside Matic has made Obi step-up and it's really positive to see.. You can tell Mikel's instincts are not more active than reactive. More determination to break up the opposition's play early and provide earlier distribution.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,895]

Each to their own matey, unfortunately we will never know if he was good enough and thats my point/sad thing. We all know the Mikel to be simple, safe and a good squad member, I do not think he's ever upset the apple cart as it were and he's a mainstay in the squad, has the odd good game, has the odd bad game but when he was young, he was a prospect further up the field, just that though, a prospect.

I know its lower opposition as it were but Nigeria Mikel is a glimpse of what he had instead of sitting back at Chelsea, getting the ball and pass mastering the art of side ways 5 yard balls.

Thanks DH. Certainly not looking for an argument but maybe we can have an interesting conversation about this. My views in a nutshell: -

I concede that Mikel was rated as a big prospect and was coveted by two of the great managers in the game.

I do not concede however that he ever lived up to expectation as an AM/CM, or that he was not given ample opportunities to do so. My recollection is that he was given many. I believe therefore that we do know he is not good enough to play higher than he does now because we've seen him try and we've seen him fail.

I think Nigeria Mikel is a myth. The odd good game is all that amounts to as well. There's the oft quoted game in the Confederations Cup last year but not much else.

I like Mikel as a closer. When we're two up and Mikel is introduced I smile and feel happy. I'm never so happy however when Mikel starts, although I can live with it when it's a JM decision.

I'd be quite surprised if Mikel's current contract is extended, and just as surprised if he ever earns another at the same level.

[Barbara 15,149]

Mikel is a very good defensive midfielder completely useless to anything else that isn't defending or passing backwards.

While I think Jose's assessment regarding Oscar was spot on - the match was too physical for him - I hate the fact that to afford Fabregas at #10 we need to partner Matic with Mikel. Mikel did what he normally does good well, but he also did pretty bad at what he's bad. He can't give one single pass forward, with him in the team we naturally sit deeper because instead of advancing he makes the AMs and FBs go deep to get the ball going. That drives me nuts, a team of our size shouldn't play like that.

I don't like to have him in the team because he disrupts the fluidity of our midfield moving forward. I don't have a problem with his latest performances, but it's no wonder we've looked worse than usual, didn't dominate the midfield at all like we do when we have Cesc, Matic and Oscar.

I like Cesc better when he's in the pivot, but I understand why for certain matches Jose wants him as a #10, but knowing the price for that is having Mikel in the lineup just gives me more reason to like Cesc better in the midfield.

And for God's sake, if we're playing Mikel, Willian just has to be on the bench. I can't measure how frustrating is to play BOTH at the same time. Schurrle should have started...

[DH1988 1,304]

Thanks DH. Certainly not looking for an argument but maybe we can have an interesting conversation about this. My views in a nutshell: -

I concede that Mikel was rated as a big prospect and was coveted by two of the great managers in the game.

I do not concede however that he ever lived up to expectation as an AM/CM, or that he was not given ample opportunities to do so because he was given many. I believe therefore that we do know he is not good enough to play higher than he does now because we've seen him try and we've seen him fail.

I think Nigeria Mikel is a myth. The odd good game is all that amounts to as well. There's the oft quoted game in the Confederations Cup last year but not much else.

Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of a what if machine (or perhaps Roman would have saved himself £50m on Torres) but I'd like to of seen Mikel at United under Fergie etc.

I agree, he never ever lived up to expectation as an AM, hardly given opportunity to but as a CM I agree he's had ample opportunities but I think he's been stifled and able to get away with being safe for so long that its second nature, nobody expected anymore of him, get the ball, pass it onto others, get the ball, pass it onto others etc. When your asked to do a job for say.. 40 games, week in, week out, training etc. then asked to go further forward it becomes difficult without a run of games. I'm certainly not suggesting we push him forward nowadays this is purely from a point of view from way back when before Jose pulled him back and stuck him with Maka.

Its more of a, again, what if, scenario thats all that I find sad about it. There is no guarantee if we had played him as an AM he would of flourished so again, what if indeed.

Nigeria Mikel is just a view of Mikel with more freedom, less burden, he really does excel but again, opposition etc. its one thing playing for Team ABC, another for Chelsea, Hi Lukaku!

[OhForAGreavsie 5,895]

Unfortunately we do not have the luxury of a what if machine (or perhaps Roman would have saved himself £50m on Torres) but I'd like to of seen Mikel at United under Fergie etc.

I agree, he never ever lived up to expectation as an AM, hardly given opportunity to but as a CM I agree he's had ample opportunities but I think he's been stifled and able to get away with being safe for so long that its second nature, nobody expected anymore of him, get the ball, pass it onto others, get the ball, pass it onto others etc. When your asked to do a job for say.. 40 games, week in, week out, training etc. then asked to go further forward it becomes difficult without a run of games. I'm certainly not suggesting we push him forward nowadays this is purely from a point of view from way back when before Jose pulled him back and stuck him with Maka.

Its more of a, again, what if, scenario thats all that I find sad about it. There is no guarantee if we had played him as an AM he would of flourished so again, what if indeed.

Nigeria Mikel is just a view of Mikel with more freedom, less burden, he really does excel but again, opposition etc. its one thing playing for Team ABC, another for Chelsea, Hi Lukaku!

You ask a reasonable question about what might have happened had Mikel played for ManU, and how different expectations could have impacted his development. We can't know how that would have gone but, based on our experience of the player, we can each make a guess. Personally, I doubt he'd have succeed. Jose did not give up on Mikel as an attacking option because the player was good at it, Jose gave up because Mikel was not good at a forward thinking role. My belief is that SAF would have done the same, just as he gave up on Anderson.

I have seen no evidence of Mikel flourishing for Nigeria. He was indeed excellent against Spain, a game in which Nigeia were nevertheless soundly beaten, but prior to that his place in the team had come under scrutiny.

The first time I saw Lukaku play for Chelsea I said he had no business being at a team with Chelsea's ambitions. Many thought that opinion was wrong at the time, and plenty still do, but I stick by it.

Roman would have saved every penny spent on Torres if our owner had shared my opinion on the player. I was confused by his success at Liverpool because he had no qualities which explained how it happened. No touch, no control, no hold up play, no passing and no dribbling. I never rated Torres and would never have spent a single penny on him. It's probably safe for us to guess that Roman wishes he hadn't either.

[DH1988 1,304]

You ask a reasonable question about what might have happened had Mikel played for ManU, and how different expectations could have impacted his development. We can't know how that would have gone but, based on our experience of the player, we can each make a guess. Personally, I doubt he'd have succeed. Jose did not give up on Mikel as an attacking option because the player was good at it, Jose gave up because Mikel was not good at a forward thinking role. My belief is that SAF would have done the same, just as he gave up on Anderson.

I have seen no evidence of Mikel flourishing for Nigeria. He was indeed excellent against Spain, a game in which Nigeia were nevertheless soundly beaten, but prior to that his place in the team had come under scrutiny.

The first time I saw Lukaku play for Chelsea I said he had no business being at a team with Chelsea's ambitions. Many thought that opinion was wrong at the time, and plenty still do, but I stick by it.

Roman would have saved every penny spent on Torres if our owner had shared my opinion on the player. I was confused by his success at Liverpool because he had no qualities which explained how it happened. No touch, no control, no hold up play, no passing and no dribbling. I never rated Torres and would never have spent a single penny on him. It's probably safe for us to guess that Roman wishes he hadn't either.

Its very much a what if and how I view Mikel's, in my opinion, stalled development and pushed into a role he was not made for BUT saying that, he was comfortable enough to do it and like I said play the safe guy, get it, pass it 5 yards etc. not really offering anything to the team which is why Matic was such a huge upgrade, the times of a get it and give it DM are over, sort of, players evolve as do positions, 'pivot'.

Again its a matter of opinion I've watched enough of Mikel for Nigeria and Chelsea to make the comparison, in my opinion, between the two, he has more to offer than he gives us but would I want him to now? No, years ago? Probably.

[1chelsea 864]

i don't know why i get mad when mike make a back pass but when others do it i pick no offense, i feel he lost is confidence and i feel bad and fear make a wrong decision make his back pass. on the other hand Matic boss his game making forward and back passes with confidence.

[GodZola 630]

Apparently Mikel was the best player on the pitch versus Newcastle?! Ummmm, my previous post outlined where he fucked up using Alan Shearer's analysis on motd - I'm sure the Newcastle game is still on the Beeb's iPlayer so go and have a beak and get educated on partly why we lost that game because of Mikels mistakes, if Mikel was motm then we're in big kin trouble if Matic has a spell on the sidelines! How can can people really believe he was motm when he was at fault for both kin well goals is a kin mystery?!

I've discussed his flaws on many occasions with different member's on here over the years and stated that he is just not good enough and given logical reasoning for it, well here we are a few years on we finally have a world class DM that just ooze's class in Matic, there's a casm in class between these 2, I'm not a fan of stats but seeing that JT and Cahill only had to make 1 tackle between them all night cus Matic carries out his job to perfection speaks volumes of his growing stature, his quality is something we have missed since the days of the great Makelele.

However, I've always said there are certain games where Mikel is useful and last night was right up his street, handled the physical bit well but like William gave away possession far too much for my liking and I have to agree with Barbara in that its a nightmare having these 2 players on the pitch at the same time.

[Rom2013 446]

He is playing for Oscar, so I don't think we should demand much more... The team is a lot more balanced with Ramires or Mikel, and Fabregas is a lot better than Oscar in any position. If we want to play with Cesc in the pivot we need a better number 10.

Mikel is doing ok. He is a defensive player and he does that. Fabregas is magician but still can defend... others can't do their job.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I don't have a problem with his latest performances, but it's no wonder we've looked worse than usual, didn't dominate the midfield at all like we do when we have Cesc, Matic and Oscar.

We have?

Yesterday was one of our best away performances this season. That's not just my opinion but what most people and all the pundits were saying. And I think it is rather evident that the reason we won yesterday was that because we completely dominated the midfield, and in particular, Mikel and Matic dominating Cameron and Nzonzi, which was very clear in the numbers:

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/15116/9617766/premier-league-chelsea-show-the-fighting-spirit-in-their-2-0-win-at-stoke-that-can-take-them-to-the-title

I get why some people don't like to see Mikel in the team. He's not a very 'elegant' player and he's far from dynamic. He's not exactly easy on the eye. But he can be a very effective player and can certainly contribute to the team as he has done in the past few matches. Isn't that what matters in the end?

[Barbara 15,149]

We have?

Yesterday was one of our best away performances this season. That's not just my opinion but what most people and all the pundits were saying. And I think it is rather evident that the reason we won yesterday was that because we completely dominated the midfield, and in particular, Mikel and Matic dominating Cameron and Nzonzi, which was very clear in the numbers:

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/15116/9617766/premier-league-chelsea-show-the-fighting-spirit-in-their-2-0-win-at-stoke-that-can-take-them-to-the-title

I get why some people don't like to see Mikel in the team. He's not a very 'elegant' player and he's far from dynamic. He's not exactly easy on the eye. But he can be a very effective player and can certainly contribute to the team as he has done in the past few matches. Isn't that what matters in the end?

In no way we were the oiled machine that dominates the midfield involving opposition with a fluid attacking play. We were good bullying them . They didn't have a good response for an early goal. It was a solid match but far from what we were producing a couple of months ago. Willian created nothing, no need to mention Mikel. Hazard and Cesc were good but worse than usual. Sorry if tackles aren't the only thing nor the main thing I want to see in the team. They're important just fine, but our midfield should make the headlines for other reasons.

I look at the latest matches and it's been the same story. We were dominating teams by playing a smooth football, now we're shutting them with tackles and interceptions. We can and should do better.

[Styles 9,790]

Mikel had a solid game and his inclusion made a lot of sense in an away game at Stoke.

I don't think we missed Oscar at all, not even a little bit.

[Sheva. 5,373]

In no way we were the oiled machine that dominates the midfield involving opposition with a fluid attacking play. We were good bullying them . They didn't have a good response for an early goal. It was a solid match but far from what we were producing a couple of months ago. Willian created nothing, no need to mention Mikel. Hazard and Cesc were good but worse than usual. Sorry if tackles aren't the only thing nor the main thing I want to see in the team. They're important just fine, but our midfield should make the headlines for other reasons.

I look at the latest matches and it's been the same story. We were dominating teams by playing a smooth football, now we're shutting them with tackles and interceptions. We can and should do better.

Smooth football does not translate into wins though, especially away from home.

We could use Cesc in pivot yesterday and dominate possession, but we would be instantly weaker in defense.

Whenever Stoke applied any pressure we had two DM's waiting to break up play, this is how you win at such grounds.

If Costa takes his chances the game could have ended 4-0 - we barely even score that much when we play our smooth football.

[robsblubot 3,527]

We have?

Yesterday was one of our best away performances this season. That's not just my opinion but what most people and all the pundits were saying. And I think it is rather evident that the reason we won yesterday was that because we completely dominated the midfield, and in particular, Mikel and Matic dominating Cameron and Nzonzi, which was very clear in the numbers:

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/15116/9617766/premier-league-chelsea-show-the-fighting-spirit-in-their-2-0-win-at-stoke-that-can-take-them-to-the-title

I get why some people don't like to see Mikel in the team. He's not a very 'elegant' player and he's far from dynamic. He's not exactly easy on the eye. But he can be a very effective player and can certainly contribute to the team as he has done in the past few matches. Isn't that what matters in the end?

I thought we were talking about football, you know, sport where 11 play (or say 10 play and one watches:)), but apparently we have moved on to tennis doubles? I'm a pretty decent (just like Mikel!) tennis player having played it since very young... game on!

Mikel is surrounded by fantastically expensive world class players (Matic included) while Zonzi is one of the few players they've got who can actually pass the ball in tight spaces. No, he's not great, but neither is Mikel.

Stoke is 13th for a reason.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

In no way we were the oiled machine that dominates the midfield involving opposition with a fluid attacking play. We were good bullying them . They didn't have a good response for an early goal. It was a solid match but far from what we were producing a couple of months ago. Willian created nothing, no need to mention Mikel. Hazard and Cesc were good but worse than usual. Sorry if tackles aren't the only thing nor the main thing I want to see in the team. They're important just fine, but our midfield should make the headlines for other reasons.

I look at the latest matches and it's been the same story. We were dominating teams by playing a smooth football, now we're shutting them with tackles and interceptions. We can and should do better.

Silky passing doesn't mean a better performance. We played silky passing and played record number of passes against Sunderland and that was probably our worst performance of the season. In contrast, yesterday we went to one of the most difficult places in the league, looked very comfortable for about 85 mins of the 90.

We did not have any issues creating. We had 13 shots, 7 on target, and created a lot of chances and really should have scored 4 or 5. I honestly can't think of many better away performances this season, not recently or two months ago.

I thought we were talking about football, you know, sport where 11 play (or say 10 play and one watches:)), but apparently we have moved on to tennis doubles? I'm a pretty decent (just like Mikel!) tennis player having played it since very young... game on!

Mikel is surrounded by fantastically expensive world class players (Matic included) while Zonzi is one of the few players they've got who can actually pass the ball in tight spaces. No, he's not great, but neither is Mikel.

I honestly don't get what your point is here.

The point was Barbara made a point that we did not dominate midfield, I used those numbers to show that we pretty clearly did because, obviously, the team whose central midfielders won all the tackles, made all the interceptions and gained back possession more is the team that dominated the midfield.

[robsblubot 3,527]

Silky passing doesn't mean a better performance. We played silky passing and played record number of passes against Sunderland and that was probably our worst performance of the season. In contrast, yesterday we went to one of the most difficult places in the league, looked very comfortable for about 85 mins of the 90.

We did not have any issues creating. We had 13 shots, 7 on target, and created a lot of chances and really should have scored 4 or 5. I honestly can't think of many better away performances this season, not recently or two months ago.

I honestly don't get what your point is here.

The point was Barbara made a point that we did not dominate midfield, I used those numbers to show that we pretty clearly did because, obviously, the team whose central midfielders won all the tackles, made all the interceptions and gained back possession more is the team that dominated the midfield.

Fair enough. Well, this is the Mikel thread and your post seemed a bit self-serving.

We dominated the second ball with all the help of pretty much all attackers sometimes seen next to Matic and Mikel battling in the midfield. We did NOT dominate the game though. We created next to nothing up front, and the whole strategy was helped by the brilliance of John terry (and Stoke's poor defending). I am almost curious to know how that lineup would fare when chasing a result.

Stoke is a poor side and we did nothing more than our obligation. I'd say we controlled the game, but did not dominate it. And Courtois saved our asses in that deflected shot.

[Barbara 15,149]

Mikel had a solid game and his inclusion made a lot of sense in an away game at Stoke.

I don't think we missed Oscar at all, not even a little bit.

That's not the point (missing Oscar) but having him and Willian limited us creatively, if you read my posts on the subject for this match was to have Schurrle, but he disrupts our style.

My main complaint is general. I said more than once Mikel did well on what he's good. We shouldn't have played Willian (nor Oscar).

At Stoke what matters is winning, no matter how. But we've playing Mikel for the last what? Four matches? We need someone who has more to offer than defensive skills to replace Cesc in the pivot

Smooth football does not translate into wins though, especially away from home.

We could use Cesc in pivot yesterday and dominate possession, but we would be instantly weaker in defense.

Whenever Stoke applied any pressure we had two DM's waiting to break up play, this is how you win at such grounds.

If Costa takes his chances the game could have ended 4-0 - we barely even score that much when we play our smooth football.

And we still until a couple of weeks ago we had not lost a match.

Seriously, this idea that smooth football doesn't win matches is ridiculous. We were winning just fine. I agree we needed him against Stoke, but him and Willian is nearly impossible to watch through the frustration

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Fair enough. Well, this is the Mikel thread and your post seemed a bit self-serving.

We dominated the second ball with all the help of pretty much all attackers sometimes seen next to Matic and Mikel battling the midfield. We did NOT dominate the game though. We created next to nothing up front, and the whole strategy was helped by the brilliance of John terry (and Stoke's poor defending). I am almost curious to know how that lineup would fare when chasing a result.

Stoke is a poor side and we did nothing more than our obligation. I'd say we controlled the game, but did not dominate it. And Courtois saved our asses in that deflected shot.

Wait, I'm not saying that Mikel single-handedly dominated the midfield! The point that Barbara made was about the team as whole and my response was about the team as whole. Meaning, that the dominance of the team was evident in the numbers of Mikel and Matic. It wasn't down just to them, nor obviously was it the case that they had nothing to do with it. Both contributed a lot to that midfield dominance but it was due to a team effort. I hope I cleared that one up.

Sorry, but "created nothing up front" is simply factually in correct. Aside from the goals, Hazard created 3-4 very dangerous chances in the first half, then there are obviously the two Costa chances, as well as a couple of chance for each of Willian and Schurrle where they just made the wrong final decision. In the first half in particular we really should have scored at least 1 or 2 more. All this and we were in front from practically the start. So, no, I think it's very objective to say that we did not have any trouble creating chances.

And Stoke are NOT a poor side. Especially not at home. They might not play silky passing football, but they are brutally effective. I think the stat that I heard on the TV yesterday was that they have only last twice in the Britania to the top 4 teams in the past 3 seasons. Just a few days ago they completely destroyed Arsenal there. Every neutral and all the pundits hailed the performance, even the usual pessimists on here miraculously had no complaints. Must we really create imaginary criticism and belittle what was an excellent away performance just because Mikel was playing?