Mikel John Obi

[Ramzi 233]

I think he should have a new role with the team, against low tier teams he should never see the field until we secure a lead. However, I think he will play a crucial role against the better squads across all competitions. When we secure a lead we throw in Mikel with Matic and Ramires and it becomes virtually impossible for any team to score on us. IMO this is pretty huge advantage for us, not many teams have the potential combinations that we have in our midfield now.

[BleedsBlue 1,549]

He played well and shrugged off many West Ham players but the truth was that we did not really require his protection in midfield. Sadly it took Jose a long time to understand that.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

yup... It's called the la la land.

No physical presence was needed in midfield. Oscar could've should've played there. You only need physical presence in tight spaces where players are pressurized and can lose possession. Not in the center of the pitch where there is no opposition.

Sometimes football is as simple and true as arithmetic: the number of players we committed to attacking wasn't enough. Yes, we might have scored anyway, but the odds of scoring goals would have been higher if we had more attacking players on the pitch, preferably in the starting lineup.

Or perhaps we needed more rounded players who do both as opposed to specialized players like Mikel.

Funny thing is that Jose obviously thought we needed physical presence and a defensive midfielder yesterday or he would have started Rami and Lamps instead. Even when subbed Mikel off he brought Matic on to do the exact same job because Matic can (theoretically) shoot from distance.

It's not really a foreign concept to play a defensive midfielder against teams that will defend deep to keep them pinned in. It's used by most top managers in the world. In fact, Italian managers used to bring on another defensive midfielder when they need a goal to win all the clearances and ensure that the opposite teams stays pinned in the final third like Mancini used to do at City.

But I guess we are all in la la land...

[TrippingStep 336]

Funny thing is that Jose obviously thought we needed physical presence and a defensive midfielder yesterday or he would have started Rami and Lamps instead. Even when subbed Mikel off he brought Matic on to do the exact same job because Matic can (theoretically) shoot from distance.

It's not really a foreign concept to play a defensive midfielder against teams that will defend deep to keep them pinned in. It's used by most top managers in the world. In fact, Italian managers used to bring on another defensive midfielder when they need a goal to win all the clearances and ensure that the opposite teams stays pinned in the final third like Mancini used to do at City.

But I guess we are all in la la land...

Mancini is not a great example. They were shit last year againt teams that were defending deep.

And I would agree with you if we would play a team that would be good at starting counter-attacks like Basel but it's not like West Ham had defenders and midfielders who are good at that.

And adding a defensive midfielder is to free up a fullback going full attack, covering for him. But we didn't use attacking fullbacks.

I still don't understand why we changed so much our line-up from the Stoke game.

william is doing a good job in midfield but in the final third, he's not been that great until now.

Azpi offering width on the right, Schurrle making run in the box.

5 different players from the stoke game and offering less in attack (Azpi because he's on the left) was way too much.

We needed more progressive passing from the pivot and width from the fullbacks in this game. It was the opposite with our line-up.

We needed quicker passing from the back and moving the ball from side to side before going for the openings.

[didierforever 7,349]

mikel's limitations were hopelessly exposed last night.

mikel played well but contributed nothing. he was not needed. lamps-rambo would have been a much better pivot for last night. as for matic, he was horrible. dont remember a single good first touch from him, so cant understand how people are critisizing mikel but praising matic.

but i expect him to start against city. perfect match for him.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Mancini is not a great example. They were shit last year againt teams that were defending deep.

And I would agree with you if we would play a team that would be good at starting counter-attacks like Basel but it's not like West Ham had defenders and midfielders who are good at that.

I still don't understand why we changed so much our line-up from the Stoke game.

william is doing a good job in midfield but in the final third, he's not been that great until now.

Azpi offering width on the right, Schurrle making run in the box.

5 different players from the stoke game and offering less in attack (Azpi because he's on the left) was way too much.

We needed more progressive passing from the pivot and width from the fullbacks in this game. It was the opposite with our line-up.

We needed quicker passing from the back and moving the ball from side to side before going for the openings.

He also did it in the season where they won the league. He would bring on Barry for an attacking midfielder and more often than not it would work out for them. Plus, I gave Mancini as an example because he did it here in the EPL. Lot's of Italian managers do it: Ancelotti at Milan, Lippi at Juve...etc. On any account, I'm not saying that we should have brought on another DM yesterday, I was just using this case to explain how a DM can be important in breaking defending teams. Not just by breaking up counters, but by winning clearances back, and offering an outlet when players get stuck by the touch line and just generally ensuring that his team keep possession and keep the pressure on the other team and keep them in the final third. Yesterday, Carrol was a huge disturbance with his physical presence and his constant dropping to press our midfielders from behind. Our CBs just couldn't follow him so deep especially with the fullbacks so high up the pitch. If we didn't have Mikel and then Matic on, he would have won most of the clearances and started a lot of attacks and then there's a good chance we would have conceded.

As for the changes from Stoke, I agree Willian lacks decisiveness in the final third, so do all our players in all honesty, but Schurrle isn't in great form at the moment and I think Willian provides much more especially that his movement off the ball is exactly what Jose wants, I think. Lampard is 35, there is always a case against him starting 2 games in 3-4 days, although, I thought he should have come on earlier for the invisible Ramires because his late runs could have made a difference and they actually did but unfortunately his finishing was off yesterday. Cech for Mark is an obvious one. Can't really argue against Iva at RB because I still can't wrap my head around it. As for not starting Matic, I can see why Jose did that because he's still trying to find his feet and fit in the team as was clear by his poor performance when he came on yesterday.

At the end of the day, the result had little to do with our CMs or fullbacks and a lot to do with the finishing of the front 4.

[TrippingStep 336]

He also did it in the season where they won the league. He would bring on Barry for an attacking midfielder and more often than not it would work out for them. Plus, I gave Mancini as an example because he did it here in the EPL. Lot's of Italian managers do it: Ancelotti at Milan, Lippi at Juve...etc. On any account, I'm not saying that we should have brought on another DM yesterday, I was just using this case to explain how a DM can be important in breaking defending teams. Not just by breaking up counters, but by winning clearances back, and offering an outlet when players get stuck by the touch line and just generally ensuring that his team keep possession and keep the pressure on the other team and keep them in the final third. Yesterday, Carrol was a huge disturbance with his physical presence and his constant dropping to press our midfielders from behind. Our CBs just couldn't follow him so deep especially with the fullbacks so high up the pitch. If we didn't have Mikel and then Matic on, he would have won most of the clearances and started a lot of attacks and then there's a good chance we would have conceded.

As for the changes from Stoke, I agree Willian lacks decisiveness in the final third, so do all our players in all honesty, but Schurrle isn't in great form at the moment and I think Willian provides much more especially that his movement off the ball is exactly what Jose wants, I think. Lampard is 35, there is always a case against him starting 2 games in 3-4 days, although, I thought he should have come on earlier for the invisible Ramires because his late runs could have made a difference and they actually did but unfortunately his finishing was off yesterday. Cech for Mark is an obvious one. Can't really argue against Iva at RB because I still can't wrap my head around it. As for not starting Matic, I can see why Jose did that because he's still trying to find his feet and fit in the team as was clear by his poor performance when he came on yesterday.

At the end of the day, the result had little to do with our CMs or fullbacks and a lot to do with the finishing of the front 4.

I agree but it would be good if the front 4 did not have to do so much every game. It must be exhausting mentally.

And I haver problems with the positioning of our players in the box, last year it was much better, covering better all the box area, now when we have crossing opportunities, it very difficulting for the one trying it as except when Lampard is making a run from deep, they are all attacking the same area with the defenders in line covering it.

How many chances with a simple back pass this year compared to last year.

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

At the end of the day, the result had little to do with our CMs or fullbacks and a lot to do with the finishing of the front 4.

You're kidding right ? It's no coincidence that when Mikel came off and Lampard and Matic went into the midfield that we started playing better.

It's not because Mikel played poor but neither him nor Ramires can move the ball quickly enough and both don't offer much going forward. Same applies to our fullbacks. Ivanovic is close to useless going forward and Azpilicueta on the right loses a lot of his quality.

Also what chances did our front four mess up by finishing poorly ? Most of the shots they took were from outside the 18 yard box. Our front four didn't get any proper support untill lampard and Matic came in.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I agree but it would be good if the front 4 did not have to do so much every game. It must be exhausting mentally.

And I haver problems with the positioning of our players in the box, last year it was much better, covering better all the box area, now when we have crossing opportunities, it very difficulting for the one trying it as except when Lampard is making a run from deep, they are all attacking the same area with the defenders in line covering it.

How many chances with a simple back pass this year compared to last year.

I actually agree with all of this. The only part of Jose's system which I still have question marks about is the attacking in the final third and the movement he wants from his front four especially that they don't seem to be able to do it consistently. Couldn't agree more about our positioning in the box, was miles better last season.

Your kidding right ? It's no coincidence that when Mikel came off and Lampard and Matic went into the midfield that we started playing better.

It's not because Mikel played poor but neither him nor Ramires can move the ball quickly enough and both don't offer much going forward. Same applies to our fullbacks. Ivanovic is close to useless going forward and Azpilicueta on the right loses a lot of his quality.

Also what chances did our front four mess up by finishing poorly ? Most of the shots they took were from outside the 18 yard box. Our front four didn't get any proper support untill lampard and Matic came in.

We didn't play better because the ball was moving faster because the ball was moving at the exact same speed which is the speed of the movement of the front four. All of Hazard, Willian and Oscar where still taking 4-5 touches before playing it back to the full back more often than not. The difference was that Westham had no one to track Lamps late runs into the box whereas Rami was doing practically nothing in the box-to-box role.

Speaking of Lampard, he should have had 2-3 goals if his finishing was better but instead he took his shots straight at the defenders or straight at the keeper. Hazard had 3-4 shots where he should have done much better with the finishing like the one at the start of the second half where he cut inside and it opened up for him but he missed the far post and the shot during stoppage time where he cut it back on his left and had a shot from inside the area but put it over the bar. Oscar was unlucky with a couple of shots and the post but he too had a couple of shots from inside the area but couldn't manage to hit the target. Eto'o was also unlucky not to score at the end of the first half but he too had a few shots where he should have done better. And don't get me started on Mikel's and Matic's shooting.

38 shots, only 9 on target and no goals. You can't possibly look beyond the finishing.

[TrippingStep 336]

I actually agree with all of this. The only part of Jose's system which I still have question marks about is the attacking in the final third and the movement he wants from his front four especially that they don't seem to be able to do it consistently. Couldn't agree more about our positioning in the box, was miles better last season.

We didn't play better because the ball was moving faster because the ball was moving at the exact same speed which is the speed of the movement of the front four. All of Hazard, Willian and Oscar where still taking 4-5 touches before playing it back to the full back more often than not. The difference was that Westham had no one to track Lamps late runs into the box whereas Rami was doing practically nothing in the box-to-box role.

Speaking of Lampard, he should have had 2-3 goals if his finishing was better but instead he took his shots straight at the defenders or straight at the keeper. Hazard had 3-4 shots where he should have done much better with the finishing like the one at the start of the second half where he cut inside and it opened up for him but he missed the far post and the shot during stoppage time where he cut it back on his left and had a shot from inside the area but put it over the bar. Oscar was unlucky with a couple of shots and the post but he too had a couple of shots from inside the area but couldn't manage to hit the target. Eto'o was also unlucky not to score at the end of the first half but he too had a few shots where he should have done better. And don't get me started on Mikel's and Matic's shooting.

38 shots, only 9 on target and no goals. You can't possibly look beyond the finishing.

I think it's a weak point in Mourinho.

Real Madrid against Manchester United last year were also lacking ideas and we would often see individual tries and shot from outside the box and the fullbacks were also not doing much.

[Belgiannutt 3,201]

We didn't play better because the ball was moving faster because the ball was moving at the exact same speed which is the speed of the movement of the front four. All of Hazard, Willian and Oscar where still taking 4-5 touches before playing it back to the full back more often than not. The difference was that Westham had no one to track Lamps late runs into the box whereas Rami was doing practically nothing in the box-to-box role.

Speaking of Lampard, he should have had 2-3 goals if his finishing was better but instead he took his shots straight at the defenders or straight at the keeper. Hazard had 3-4 shots where he should have done much better with the finishing like the one at the start of the second half where he cut inside and it opened up for him but he missed the far post and the shot during stoppage time where he cut it back on his left and had a shot from inside the area but put it over the bar. Oscar was unlucky with a couple of shots and the post but he too had a couple of shots from inside the area but couldn't manage to hit the target. Eto'o was also unlucky not to score at the end of the first half but he too had a few shots where he should have done better. And don't get me started on Mikel's and Matic's shooting.

38 shots, only 9 on target and no goals. You can't possibly look beyond the finishing.

Sorry but blaming the inabillity of Mikel and ramires to pass the ball quickly and accurately on our AM 's movement is ridiculous. When our AM's make a move there's only a small window where that ball can be played in especially against teams that sit back the way West Ham did but neither Mikel nor Ramires have that ability so what do they do they pass the ball sideways or wait until our AM 's pop out from the defensive wall and then play it in. Completely useless.

Isn't it kinda logical that out AM's are having more touches on the ball ?

Can't really blame Lampard for the blocked shots just good defending. Should have done better on the final chance though.

The shots that your talking about really aren't clear cut chances. Yeah Hazard should have hit the target but scoring from that position really isn't easy. Same with the other shot he was twisting and turning to get rid of the 2 players marking him and just barely made enough space for a shot. Again yes he should have tried hitting the target but not easy from that angle.

Agree on the Mikel and Matic shots.

Think you just can't blame the front four alone for "finishing" poorly.

Players that had no business shooting were taking shots and were wasting possession.

[Clevemayer 764]

bottom line:

Mikel wasn't needed, but was ok

Rambo didn't do enough

Matic was as useless as Mikel

We need 2 MF-Players, one to replace Lamps and one whom may have the 3/4 of Rambos Stamnia plus the ability to stop and kick a ball ...

[Clevemayer 764]

as a conclusion, Rambo or Mikel have to leave, because Matic was just bought. and If you don't want to have only one DM it will be Rambo, if you accept to plac DL there, it will be Micky... logical conclusion of all of it

[robsblubot 3,502]

At the end of the day, the result had little to do with our CMs or fullbacks and a lot to do with the finishing of the front 4.

It seems we disagree on arithmetic, not football.

So you are saying that the number of players capable of contributing in attack in the starting XI does not matter and finishing is exclusively up to the attacking players... Honestly, that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard...The players capable of contributing in attack ARE the attacking players! If you have more of them you are more attacking minded.

Total football should have thought us something. Most managers repeat this: it does not matter where a player starts the game, in which position, but how he moves on the pitch and what he does.

With more and better attacking players we could have created BETTER chances to score. At very least we would have made their double covers less effective. We'd have had better odds of scoring. Yes, we'd be more exposed, but that's what it takes to win against teams who sit.

My point remains: neither City nor Arsenal would ever have a Mikel type of player in their starting XI against a shitty side like West Ham at home. Jose was wrong... he's human.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Sorry but blaming the inabillity of Mikel and ramires to pass the ball quickly and accurately on our AM 's movement is ridiculous. When our AM's make a move there's only a small window where that ball can be played in especially against teams that sit back the way West Ham did but neither Mikel nor Ramires have that ability so what do they do they pass the ball sideways or wait until our AM 's pop out from the defensive wall and then play it in. Completely useless.

Isn't it kinda logical that out AM's are having more touches on the ball ?

Can't really blame Lampard for the blocked shots just good defending. Should have done better on the final chance though.

The shots that your talking about really aren't clear cut chances. Yeah Hazard should have hit the target but scoring from that position really isn't easy. Same with the other shot he was twisting and turning to get rid of the 2 players marking him and just barely made enough space for a shot. Again yes he should have tried hitting the target but not easy from that angle.

Agree on the Mikel and Matic shots.

Think you just can't blame the front four alone for "finishing" poorly.

Players that had no business shooting were taking shots and were wasting possession.

You can't blame the passers if there are no passing options. Show me an incident when someone was actually making a run and Mikel played it backwards or sideways instead. On any account, in our system, it's not the job of the pivot to get the ball into the box. That is why we built the system around a player like Oscar playing in the number 10 position: because Jose wants him to drop and receive the ball and he clearly has instructions to do so; we don't want to play long balls. But despite that, the back four and Mikel did try more long balls yesterday than usual to change the style a bit. But on any account, if you're playing 4-2-31 and relying on your two pivot players to create chances, then you've probably already lost the match.

Of course it is only normal, that our AMs were taking more touches with the way that Westham were defending, you can't expect them to improvise something when there are 10 men between them and the goal, but it just shows that our offensive system could not, or rather our players aren't yet playing the system well enough to, deal with this kind of defending. This isn't just yesterday, this has been the main issue since the start of the season: the movement of the front four and turning half chances into chances and goals. Jose himself has singled out these two issues numerous times as our main problems. This has nothing to the CMs.

If it were one shot, then yes you would be absolutely right, but we're talking about 38 shots in one game. You would expect one of our four top players in attack to come up with a decisive finish, a decisive pass, a decisive run...anything. So, without a doubt I put the blame on the finishing of the front four when we have 39 shots and only 9 on target and no goals. We played most of the match in their final third, it's a complete failure that we could not come up with a single goal even if Westham got lucky at times.

It seems we disagree on arithmetic, not football.

So you are saying that the number of players capable of contributing in attack in the starting XI does not matter and finishing is exclusively up to the attacking players... Honestly, that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard...The players capable of contributing in attack ARE the attacking players! If you have more of them you are more attacking minded.

Total football should have thought us something. Most managers repeat this: it does not matter where a player starts the game, in which position, but how he moves on the pitch and what he does.

With more and better attacking players we could have created BETTER chances to score. At very least we would have made their double covers less effective. We'd have had better odds of scoring. Yes, we'd be more exposed, but that's what it takes to win against teams who sit.

My point remains: neither City nor Arsenal would ever have a Mikel type of player in their starting XI against a shitty side like West Ham at home. Jose was wrong... he's human.

Firstly, of course everyone contributes to the attack, but I can't blame the defenders and pivot players for bad finishing but I can blame the attackers for it. But yes, I do completely disagree that we needed more attacking players. We played the vast majority of the game in their final third. More attacking player would only have meant more people crowding the guy on the ball and making it even more impossible to shoot and more chance for them to relieve the pressure with counter attacks because we would have left ourselves more open at the back. What we needed was more quality in the final ball or final shot.

The last point couldn't be more far from the truth. Arsenal play with Flamini against weaker sides just like they used to rely on Song very much to keep the ball and pressure on teams that defend against them. And City, when they won the league, used to start with Toure as a DM against weaker teams and then bring Barry or De Jong on for an AM when the game wasn't going their way and they would often end up winning the match.

[The only place to be 11,313]

The defence over Mikel seems to be that it wasn't his type of game last night.

Hmm...so if there's more space ahead of him Mikel doesn't know how to operate? He can't take it upon himself to move forward with the ball and try and create something? Is he technically incapable or is he simply too thick to do that?

Either way, who gives a fuck? We spent £21 million replacing him with a player who is better defensively and doesn't short circuit his brain when space opens up ahead of him. The next time we're defending a lead then we can bring on Mr One Note to slow everything down and be a shield in front of the defence.

Then we can hopefully buy a proper midfielder in the summer or just promote one of the youngsters. Let's be honest...when we talk about transition, it won't be complete until this passenger is out of the club.

Dear (insert name of random Turkish team), please come buy Mikel.

[robsblubot 3,502]

Firstly, of course everyone contributes to the attack, but I can't blame the defenders and pivot players for bad finishing but I can blame the attackers for it. But yes, I do completely disagree that we needed more attacking players. We played the vast majority of the game in their final third. More attacking player would only have meant more people crowding the guy on the ball and making it even more impossible to shoot and more chance for them to relieve the pressure with counter attacks because we would have left ourselves more open at the back. What we needed was more quality in the final ball or final shot.

The last point couldn't be more far from the truth. Arsenal play with Flamini against weaker sides just like they used to rely on Song very much to keep the ball and pressure on teams that defend against them. And City, when they won the league, used to start with Toure as a DM against weaker teams and then bring Barry or De Jong on for an AM when the game wasn't going their way and they would often end up winning the match.

"We played the vast majority of the game in their final third." Who are the "we"?! Mikel? Terry? Ivanovic with his amazing dribbling and crossing skills? Which players were there in their final third?!

If WH had 11 players in their own half, how many did we have to beat their 11 players? perhaps not enough.

Have you heard about dribbling? Quick flicks? overlaps? Talented players are talented because they can create - if they have support! Or they are more likely to pull those things in tight spaces than say Mikel or Terry.

Total football and Barcelona wouldn't make sense in the way you describe football.

[happy_juan 64]

Just because Mikel cannot contribute offensively, does not mean he is a DM. He is equally inept at defensive part.

Its like starting with one fewer player when he plays. Opponents just let him do his thing as they know he cant hurt them. Only a blind man can still believe that he brings something to the table.