Mikel John Obi

[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 3,482]

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 8,766]

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 8,766]

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..

[The only place to be 11,313]

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

Fair enough. Your point really isn't answering the larger point.

Maybe you can answer the same question I put to Choulo - why isn't Mikel popular with the fans? Is it because we're too dumb to recognise his contribution to the team because it doesn't come in the form of 30 yard screamers and mazy runs?

[OneMoSalah 8,766]

Fair enough. Your point really isn't answering the larger point.

Maybe you can answer the same question I put to Choulo - why isn't Mikel popular with the fans? Is it because we're too dumb to recognise his contribution to the team because it doesn't come in the form of 30 yard screamers and mazy runs?

I don't know why fans dislike Mikel. It is hard to go from somone like Makelele (who was arguably the best in that position until Busquets now a days) to Mikel who is still very good but not quite as good as Maka. I'm not certain why a lot of people think we need to sell him, when Carlo came in he started to establish himself as a key part of this team (SeB done a very good article on here about it, I'm sure you'll have read it), giving more freedom to the likes of Lampard/Deco/Ballack or whoever else as Essien was out injured for a long time (think it was one of his knee injuries) and the team a base to go and play. I don't get why Mikel isn't popular with the fans, I honestly don't, he does his job well, it doesn't make sense.

[Ainsley Harriott 2,732]

You can do better than that ,put up that picture of your mother again,

Never posted one, but why do you want one? So that you can continue your low life and wank one before coming to this thread?

[robsblubot 3,482]

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.

fair enough - don't really remember.

It actually makes the case against Mikel a lot stronger.