coogar:

klose better than rooney in 2010? you are a tool! schewini isn't better than lampard & gerrard and lahm at best was ashley cole. so who else do you have apart from kids no one knew how they would turn up in a big tournament like the world cup.

hindsight is a bitch - stop yapping your mouth.



you are talking nonsense again.
2010 was the year rooney scored 34 goals in england. you had no striker better than rooney that year. cole was still buzzing too. the rio/terry defensive partnership is better then anything you could come up with.

the only rubbish players england had then were johnson & barry.



as a team, they are woeful
but if we were to follow the nonsense dayo is spewing here & compare the talents on individual basis, the english players were better than their german counterparts.

the snag is - for england, the sum of the parts is less than the expected output. for germany, the sum of the parts exceeded the expected output by a country mile. what did ozil, muller, podolski, etc achieve before 2010 world cup to compare to gerrard, lampard & rooney?

seriously.....

But it's not about club achievements. I may have agreed with you if the English had done well in previous tournaments but they haven't done anything since euro 96. I just won't rate the English team until it wins or at least loses a major final. Also unnecessary hyping of certain players also ensures that better players are often over-looked in favour of popular players.

chic2pimp:

Chale you'd have to go ask Hansen why he decided to call it the Makalele Role. No other country's journalist calls it that. Maybe unlike their British counterparts, other countries journos have been fortunate to have seen better DM who knows. All I know was the short man was far from the being best DM ever

But Hansen, and by extension coogar, is right about the Makelele role

Makelele Role - for those midfield anchors who can't join attack or are instructed not to join attack.

coogar:

on paper, that assertion was the truth!

not even german fans believed they would go far in that tournament - they were a buncha kids that just won under-21 european championships but then the germans defied the odds by proving experience can be overrated.

On paper

English journos have always believed their teams have been good enough to win most tournaments. Its the same thing every two years; hope followed by disappointed. I don't believe England will ever win a top tournament unless they get a coach like Mou and win like Greece did in 2004.

raumdeuter: Ibime

Is Mikel a limited player? you never answer me o

Also Where is that gerrard fail passes clips you posted sometime ago or was it coogar

What do you want to do with the Gerrard video?

Abeg let Gerrad be.

afrodoc2:

I said arguably because of Spain. Italy was no 1 and Spain & France came next.
It is nice of you to add Man Utd and Madrid's title which were won when Makelele was already playing in La Liga.

WHEN MAKELELE WAS PLAYING IN THE FRENCH LEAGUE IT WAS ONE OF THE TOP 3 LEAGUES IN EUROPE AND THE EPL WAS FAR BELOW IT.

At the risk of sounding redundant, did I link the quality of the French league to when Makelele was playing in it?

I merely provided the overall winners by country to highlight that the French League is not a top tier league.

In the history of the champions League, France has provided only one winner. Is that not a fact?

I won't belabour the point.

Nihilist: Katsumoto should have just respected himself and chilled...See as manyoo and chelsea fans collabo dey ganngbang am

Where is the Bleep?

You don't have to refer to every debate as a battle; its a bit juvenile.

There are people of both sides of the debate.

afrodoc2:

It is misleading cos when Makelele was making all those runs in Nantes it was arguably the 2nd toughest league in Europe, so do not make it seem like he was playing against "otu oshi" players then.
I was just on the side line enjoying the debate anyway and i am not surprised that the NL tendency to twist the facts to win argument has shown its face.

First - I didn't restrict the time frame in my assertion. I gave overall stats for Champions League winners. So I don't quite get where the misleading came in. Or when I provided a list of winners, I should have provided the list of finalists, semi-finalists, qtr-finalists, 2nd rounders, etc?

Second - Only one French team won in the 90s and overall.

Third - How could the French league be second toughest when you consider the following winners

1. Italy - 3 -
2. Spain - 2
3. England - 1
4. Germany - 1
5. France - 1
6. Holland - 1
7. Yugoslavia - 1

If we start counting the number of semi-final participation by country, I doubt France would be second.

afrodoc2:

Really anyone who was truly watching football in the early 90s won't have brought up that table Katz brought up. My excuse for him is that he was trying to mislead those who don't know better.
The French league between 1990 and 1996 was better than the EPL.....Monaco,PSG,Marseille,Nantes,Bordeuax were going to finals and semi finals in Europe.At that time only the Serie A was clearly better than Ligue 1

Misleading is an inaccurate term. I didn't restrict my assessment to the 90s or any other decade.

afrodoc2:


This is a bit misleading. In the era Makelele was in Nantes the French League was better than the EPL.

In 1993 Marseille won the champions league

In 1994 Monaco got to the semi final

In 1995 PSG got to the semi final

In 1996 Nantes got to the semi final

In fact i believe 1997 was the first year an English team did better than a French team in the champions league and that was the year Makelele left France for Spain.

France had 1 winner and 3 semifinalists in 4 years, England had 2 2nd round and 2 group stage exits in the same 4 years. The Serie A,La Liga and Ligue 1 were top dog in those years

How is it misleading? Has France won more than 1 ECL? Was Makelele in the team that won the only French ÈCL title?

The debate wasnt about which league was stronger in the 90s or 80s or 70s. I stated the the french league is 2ns tier and i was being kind. Its more like 3rd tier.

coogar:

i disagree with you....
makelele didn't do it because the little man just enjoyed tackling. he wanted to be a destroyer & since the other prima donnas in the galactico never bothered to track back, makelele threw down the gauntlet & became a one man wrecking crew giving the opposition nightmare.

claude makelele
“It’s the ultimate honour to have it (The Makelele Role) named after me, I suppose it shows that I have achieved everything I have worked for, I really learnt how to play that role at Real Madrid where, if we were losing 1-0, we would say ‘Right, lock up shop’. The four at the back and the one in front of them – me – would concentrate only on defence and let the others go and do what they had to up front. They would take the risks, I would take care of the opposition’s attacks.


In every team you need to know what your role is and one of the keys to my role is to keep the balance of the team right. So when Didier [Drogba] goes here, I do this. When Frank [Lampard] goes there, I go there. Same with Michael [Ballack]. When one person moves out of position, then someone else comes in and covers for them.

When you play in my position you have to enjoy it. You can’t be thinking: 'I don’t get any goals’. You just enjoy it, you enjoy playing football, tackling, giving the ball. Just enjoy it. When you are small you have to tackle at the right moment. He might be tall, he might be strong but if you tackle at the right moment you’ll win it. It’s about timing.”
--------
--------

makelele has the ability to do anything required, he just wanted to be a football assassin at the back & help the team win.

That's like me saying 'I am not as rich as Zuckerberg because I love working as a ........... (whatever that is)'.

Makelele stats
0 goals - Madrid 94 apps
2 goals - Chelsea - 144 apps
1 goal - .PSG 98 apps
0 goals - France 71 apps

Its no wonder we have to go all the way back to the mid-90s to find footage of attacking play.

Ibime: After seeing the video, they claimed it was in an easier league. Forgetting the same Makelele led his team to UCL semifinal.

Abeg tell me how a team from soft league reached UCL semifinal.

The 90s was not like today where you have major disparity in quality of league.

Whilst Manure failed to go anywhere in UCL until 1999, teams like Monaco, Marseille and Nantes were dominating in UCL. regularly reaching semifinals and winning it in Marseille case.

So shebi French league na backwater league, if so what would we call EPL?

Champions league Winners by Country
Spain - 14
England 12
Italy - 12
Germany - 7
Netherlands - 6
Portugal - 4
France - 1
Scotland - 1
Romania - 1
Yugoslavia - 1

Yes the French league is ultra elite in Europe; so competitive it has won as much ECL titles as Romania and Scotland.

Nihilist:

Well technically anybody can play anywhere... We've all seen Luiz play in Midfield, Bale play Upfront, Yaya Toure play in defence, and Terry in Goal.

However, the roles in contention today are the box-to-box and anchor man positions. Both positions are in central midfield, both have defensive duties, and both are passive roles by default in relation to ball posession. Like I said, the only difference between a B2B and Anchor Man is the license to go forward and join attacks. The B2B is not the main creative force of the team, and he is not required to be the chief orchestrator of attacking moves. The only major thing the B2B does different to the anchorman is arrive late in the box for cutbacks and crosses...A la Ramsey and Yaya Toure.

Are you saying that an Anchor man does not have the ability to run to the edge of the box and kick or head the ball in the direction of the goal post?

Linking this argument back to your earlier ludicrous assertion that Makalele was a limited footballer, Are you saying the man you saw in Ibime's video could not run into the box and score a header/tap in?

Katsumoto....You need Jesus.

That there is the crux of the debate - why was Makelele unable to that when he played for Madrid and Chelsea? Your position, based on what you are stating, is that Makelele didn't do it because he was given instructions. I posit that Makelele didn't do it in the tougher leagues because he was limited. Paul Ince wasn't even a box-to-box DMF but he scored many goals for united; why couldn't Makelele do that? Ditto for Hamann at Newcastle and Liverpool.

And yes, I do have Jesus.

Nihilist:

Don't be silly.

Both the box to box and anchorman are variants of the defensive midfielder position with one variant given license to bomb forward given the opportunity.

Within that context, it is not far fetched to say that most anchor men can function in a box-to-box capacity....with varying levels of efficiency off course

First - I don't see the difference between what you stated and how I phrased you. The key point to note in your statement is that box-to-box is given license to bomb forward while anchor isn't given that license.

Second - a defender can operate as a center forward ..... with varying levels of efficiency off course (your words and logic). Since the level of efficiency is not so important, I wonder why coaches don't replace strikers with defenders when the strikers are not delivering. Why not switch the roles of Torres and Cahill? Just a thought.

If you of course agree that efficiency is important do you mind explaining why Vieira was selected more times than Makelele for France? Or why Davids started more games than Aron Winter when both were in the Dutch Team?

Nihilist:

Katsumoto you are seriously falling my hand with this opata yarns by attempting to define a player's position on pitch as measurement of his technical ability.

Did Yaya Toure have a lack of ability when he played as a DM and even in defence at Barca? What was his forward play like there?

Are you telling me that Matic cannot function as a box to box midfielder?

Do you not realise that the only difference between Fernandinho and Yaya at Man City is tactical instructions? Or perhaps you think the reason Fernandinho sits back is because he is limited otu who can't even tie his own shoelaces?


That's how you said that German players were rubbish because there were several Turkish players involved in their recent successes.

Oga come correct jor!

In essense your point is that all MFs have the ability to be box-to-box? The only difference between MFs is with instructions giving to them and not actual ability? Ok thats a new one and its noted.

Bimfo: Nairaland. Ehn There is nothing I wont Read.. Essien replaced Makelele Loool People that dont know anything about the Modern Chelsea trying to say something..

Essien cannot Lace Makelele's boot in the DM role.. When Makelele came back from an injury, he pushed Essien to Left back, and that was the End of Belletti in that Chelsea Squad..

You can watch Moscow 2008 Final for reference..

Why was Essien bought? To play as a left back?

Some of you come up with all kinds of ridiculous terms to make you seem more knowledgeable about football

Makelele role
Ball watchers
Modern Chelsea
I watch football more than you


Now tell us- what is modern Chelsea?

nateevs:


Comparing the regression in Mikel to any part of Makalele's career is utterly disrespectful. Show me any article of anyone talking about Mikel defining a role. Whether with British commentators or not, Makaklele was talked about on this level. What then is the sense comparing Makalele with Mikel?

Makalele was DM redefined - a fine player who had supreme technical intelligence to know when to intercept opposition play, dictate forward play and when to make a 3-yard pass. Makalele understood his role and it took an appreciable amount of know-how and ability to execute his duties.


Only ball watchers come to this board telling us Maka was limited.

Who or what is a ball watcher? Would I be correct in assuming you are not a ball watcher?

If you are not a ball watcher, what would you be? Please advise.

Nihilist:

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that Makelele did not go forward because he had limited technical ability which has been proven to be rubbish.

Ibime had earlier posted videos showing that Makele could function in an attacking role and showcase the required technical skills required to function in that advanced role.

Coogar has repeatedly explained to you the difference between a box to box central midfielder and a specialist DM. Vidal and Matic both play in central midfield and both have defensive responsibilities but do not have the same duties on the pitch.

Michael Carrick in his hey days for Manyoo would sit deep infront of the back 4, but only a fool will say he did so for a lack of technical ability going forward.

Ditto Sergio Okin Biscuit

We all know the differences between an anchor and a box-to-box MF. Box-to-box is an upgarde on an anchor because the box-to-box can defend as well as attack. If you could buy a car would you buy one without air-conditioning or one with air-conditioning? Both will get you from Lagos to Ibadan but only one will give you comfort in 30 degrees heat.

Why was it Vieira who replaced Deschamps in the French squad and not Makelele? Makelele got into the French squad before Vieira but it was Vieira who replaced Deschamps, became captain, and had over 30 more caps than makelele despite being 3 years younger and making his debut 2 years after Makelele? Simply because a box-to-box MF is better than an anchor. Almost all box-to-box MFs are starters for club and country - Gerrard, Vidal, Toure, Vieira, Keane, Davids, Matthaus, Pogba. Davids played with Zidane, arguably the greatest of his generation; why was Davids not asked by his coaches at Juvey to just sit in front of the back four in an ultra-defensive league? Keane played with Scholes; why was there a need for Keane to move forward. Yet Makelele played with lampard and still refused to move beyond the center circle.

Yes we were shown footage of Makelele in Nantes; now show us footage of Makalele advancing in Celta Vigo, Madrid or Chelsea.

Nihilist:

Edgar Davids played a different game to Makelele. Davids was proper box to box, Makalele was a sitter.

Makelele played a different game at Nantes to what he played at CFC and Madrid.

Bale started out as a Left Back...Now He is a forward....He will still have some of his defensive skills but no longer needs them on the pitch.

Mikel Obi was a 10 when he started his career, He will still have his offensive skils bu no longer needs them on the pitch.

If you've ever seen a training session for any pro footballers, you will already know that the vast majority of them have mad technical skills which they never show on the pitch because their roles don't require them.

Davids played the same game as Makelele and did more; it wasn't different. Davids, Keane, Vieira were all anchor men who HAD the ABILITY to go forward in top tier football. We have seen footage of Makelele doing the same in a second tier French league but not in Spain or England. Davids started in the second tier as well but moving to a top league (Seria A), he did not become limited. He excelled at Juvey.

Makelele played a different game in France than what he played in Spain and England because he was simply limited. Essien who replaced Makelele went forward more than Makelele or why wasn't Essien also just a sitter

Bale changed position to enhance the skill he has; Makelele didn't change position; he only stopped going forward in superior leagues possibly because his coaches and himself likewise realised he didn't have what it took to play box-box in top tier football.

Mikel is another example of a Makelele; he regressed as a footballer. Whatever Mikel may have done in Norway, he never attempted to replicate at Chelsea. Was it not the same Mikel we saw at the WC who kept slowing the Nigerian game down and did fork all?

Training and actual matches are very different things. The pressure and opposition are different. We can all do things when we have time to do it without the concomitant pressure. The best students at Uni don't usually become the most successful in life.

Anyway I have made my point; I won't belabour the point any further.

Makelele was an excellent anchor but he wasn't the best because he was limited, at least in a top tier league.

Nihilist:

I think you've missed the point somewhat.

Ibime's video was merely a rebuttal to the various assertions on this board that Makalele had a limited skill set.

Asking for stats for goals, assists, key passes of Makalele is completely irrelevant to discussion as his role on the pitch did not emphasise chance creation or goal scoring.

John Terry and John Oshea have exhibited decent shot stopping skills having had a few stints in goal at their respective sides. If I were to opine to you that both players had decent goalie skills, would you ask me for their clean sheet record?

Chilavert was a goalie who used to take and score setpieces. Would you request his goal per minute ratio before you believe he wasn't limited to being just a goalkeeper?

I think you missed my point.

The anchor men who are better than Makelele were all able to showcase their skillset in all the leagues they played in. If Makelele could only showcase more skillset in France but not in Spain and England, then he is limited. Davids, Rijkaard, Matthaus, Vieira, Simeone, etc all did it at the highest level; why was Makelele only able to show his skills in France?

Like I said, championship players are able to score magnificent goals in the championship but not in the premiership - the quality of opposition is key in determining whether you have a skill or not. If you take your 5/6 yr old nephews and their friends for a kick-about, I am sure you would display Messi like skills.

nateevs: The sound of quiet. Hehehe. The moment when folks realise oops! Makalele wasn't limited. Ibime brings sanity to the board.
Guapo you surprise me. Dey join these actors dey claim Makalele was limited. I don't claim to have seen footage of Makalele in Nantes but definitely saw enough of him at Real and Chelsea to laugh at the last 3 pages. Maka limited? Never seen so much garbage spewed with only two words.

The quality of the league matters. Why is it that players that score incredible goals in the championship can't replicate such goals in the premiership. Don't teams who win the Championship, move up to the Premiership, end up being relegated? Don't get me wrong, Nantes was a good team but shoe get size.

The french league is second tier in Europe. What did Makelele do in Spain and in England? and what was is consistency?
What are his stats in terms of goals, assists, key passes?

Isn't it ironic that a Chelsea supporter has to use footage from when Makelele played for Nantes to showcase his 'skills'? After Nantes he went to Marseille, Celta Vigo, Real Madrid and then Chelsea.

chic2pimp:

Kats you dey read my post ni? . Pretty much what i wrote really.

I wonder who we will blame for Bayern's failure to win the CL from 01 till 2013 or Milan failing to win it from 94 til 03 or liverpool's barren period from 84 till 05?

If we weren't banned for 5 years from European competition, the drought wouldn't have been that long. It would have been from 1990 to 2004.

chic2pimp:
If He was the reason why they never reached the high standard they set beforehand then why didn't He win the CL afterwards with chelsea?

Paulo Sousa as Dayo mentioned earlier has got more of a case than Makalele. Not only did He win the CL the very next season with Dortmund but also Juve are yet to taste CL sucess since he left them

This was the same Madrid that won two CL titles in 1998 and 2000 (with Redondo as Anchor 98, 2000 and Captain in 2000) before Makelele joined. Now Makelele is the reason Madrid didn't win for 10 years.

Nevermind that Chelsea didn't win the CL with Makelele.

If you take a poll for the greatest MF Anchors ever, Makelele would not make top 5 and may not even make top 10. He was too limited.

coogar:

lothar matthaus? a defensive midfield role? dayo, you are an idïot! matthaus was a rabid dog. the type that would be told to do man-to-man marking of a star player. if his marked target goes to the wing, lothar will follow him there.....

that's not a defensive midfielder - makelele never had to chase anyone to jericho. he simply followed the ball & not the man carrying it about. matthaus' stüpidity caused germany's defeat in 86. the maradona he was supposed to mark out of the game was dishing out key passes like a vatican santa claus giving out gifts.

Matthaus was a MF Anchor and he was a brilliant one at that.

coogar:

that's the problem of today's football fans - nearly everyone now is an addict of statistics. if a player isn't scoring x goals & making y assists then he's not good enough.

think about it - it took real madrid close to a billion pounds to win the champions league again after that mumu florentino perez said makelele had no special talents & sold him to chelsea.

your so-called "players willing go give more than what's required" were tried & tested for a period of 12 years. none of them was disciplined enough to babysit the defence like makelele did without getting carried away to add x goals & y assists.

if mikel had been playing in an era when accurate passes, positional discipline, tackling, crazy football skills had more weight than mere statistics, he would be one of the top 5 players in the world. however, with fans like you - rooney can play 1,000 poor passes and still win a MOTM as long as he scores 2 goals in the game.

modern football fans are idiöts!

So Italian fans must not have been impressed with Tardelli's goal in the 82 WC because they weren't obsessed with stats and only wanted their MF Anchor to sit in front of the defense.

Madrid winning the Champions league 10 years after the last one had nothing to do with Makelele. Did Madrid not win without Makalele? Or did Chelsea win the CL with Makelele?

Makelele did what he was meant to do but others did as he did and did more. He was exceptionally limited.

coogar:

because that was their first time of seeing anything like that. until then, the default formation was 4-4-2. nobody protected the hole. it's also one of the reasons players like bergkamp, zola, cantona, etc blossomed in the english league - having a withdrawn forward operating in the hole instead of side-by-side with a strike partner was alien to british pundits.



they did so in spurts - just like having drogba drift wide in a game to make a cross. makelele made a career out of sitting in one position like an electric pole.

his role looks so easy yet so difficult cos it's very easy to get carried away, cede position & join in the attack. tardelli scored a goal in a world cup final in 82. makelele would never ever wander that far from his position.

makelele would win a tackle(he's one of the best at this trade - his timing was pretty excellent) and play a simple pass to the midfielders in front of him that would quickly launch a counter-attack. when others ran, makelele was stationary.

he was the best at it!

That Makelele was limited in skillset is an issue for Makelele; it shouldn't remove from others who can actually join attack from time to time. It is like saying that a Tahoe is better than a Mercedes GL because it can go from point A to B and is not bothered by all the expensive gizmos in the GL. Makelele was very good at breaking up play but he was very limited.

coogar:

he had that role named after him cos he was brilliant at it & he was slightly different from his predecessors that used to anchor. makelele was a sitting midfielder - he never ceded position. his role is to sit in that space between the opponents midfield & attack lines and snuff out any threats between those lines.

with keane, vieira & co - they were box to box. they could attack at will when the game dictates & they could defend at will as well and that made them often vulnerable when they get caught out - thus the red cards & caution from the referee.

There were others who were much better than Makelele and these actually won the WC or Euros - Ardiles, Tardelli, Rijkaard, Mauro Silva, Deschamps

chic2pimp:

Wasn't the term the "Makalele Role" coined by the english press?


Dunga in his latter years actually became an extremely good passer of the ball.

Such ignorant words are usually coined by folk who don't watch much football and usually by England based followers. Nothing Makelele did that wasnt done by Souness, Rijkaard, Ardiles, Tardelli, Effenberg. Makelele role my ar.se.

hensben: 2006 world cup, zidane, viera and makelele was french midfield trio...viera was a box-to-box midfielder like yaya toure now, gilberto sylva was DMF for arsenal then.

read this;Claude Makelele (FRA)

The third Frenchman in a row on this list is the token unsung hero. For years, Claude Makelele was under-appreciated, so much so that Real Madrid let him go to Chelsea instead of increasing his wages.

It was at Chelsea that everyone saw what a quality player he was. In many ways he was the perfect defensive midfielder, simply winning the ball and making a short pass to keep possession. He was so successful in this position that it is now known as the "Makelele role".

During his career, Makelele won a Ligue 1 title, two La Liga titles, two Premier League titles, an FA Cup, a League Cup, and a Champions League. He made 71 appearances for France, including helping them to the 2006 World Cup final.
source:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/231097-greatest-ever-football-the-top-10-defensive-midfielders-of-all-time

the problem with you guys is that you argue football with sentiment, bro try to be neutral whn analyzing football, by doing that you will understand the game better.

So a report written by another is the basis for your position? Makelele role my left bum cheek. There were solid anchor men b4 Makelele and there have been solid ones after him. Makelele is not even the best anchor ever.

hensben: Redondo is not even known as world DMF,he is not even in top 10 of all time. Makelele make everyone to be familiar with that position in the world of football.

Are you suggesting Makelele is the reason everyone is aware of DMF? Someone needs to show you tapes of games for the last 40 years. What position did the following play: Effenberg, Van der Elst, Mauro Silva, Wim Jansen, Billy Bremmer, Clodoaldo, Frank Rikgaard, Edgar Davids, Vieira, Ardiles?

And Redondo was a solid Anchor. Was Makelele not 3rd choice behind Deschamps and Vieira? Makelele was a disciplined Anchor no doubt but to put the emergence of that role to him is inaccurate.

coogar:

the shogun is back!
you go just appear & disappear like a genie.

no predictions because - once beaten thrice shy?

anyways - who's watching falcao tonight? they face brazil in about 2 hrs time. heard falcao is starting alongside james rodriguez in miami.

hahaha

i made no predictions the last time.

my team hasn't won since 1990; i have no business predicting my team will win the league.

I would be happy to finish above United again and ecstatic to do the double over you.

Hmmmm I see Utd fans are confident of finishing above Liverpool.

Oh well, I guess we shall see.

BTW, no predictions for me other than Chelsea or Citeh for the title.