Lampard at the tip, with Malouda on the left, where he was excellent last season, Essien in a slightly more withdrawn role than usual and Ramires on the right. IMO he is the perfect player for a diamond of his kind, as he has played extensively on the right of midfield for club and country over the last year, which suits his style, as he is by no means a winger but operates well centrally or to the right, depending on tactics, team balance etc.
Ramires to Chelsea for £20M
- Thread starter Uncle Junior
- Start date
Lampard at the tip, with Malouda on the left, where he was excellent last season, Essien in a slightly more withdrawn role than usual and Ramires on the right. IMO he is the perfect player for a diamond of his kind, as he has played extensively on the right of midfield for club and country over the last year, which suits his style, as he is by no means a winger but operates well centrally or to the right, depending on tactics, team balance etc.
SSN is reporting a few has been agreed.
In his early years maybe. Not at the peak of his central midfield powers.
Essien has been criminally wasted by Chelsea. I've never denied he's a class act and never denied his ability. All I've done is rail against the argument that he's one of the best central midfielders in the world - he's barely played there in three years.
I don't see Essien as a comparable player to Makelele. One is a very talented all-round footballer, the other was very good at performing a limited role. If you're telling me that Chelsea managers thought Makelele was a better/more talented player than Essien, then Essien definitely cannot be regarded as one of the world's best!
Rooney was played off the left because Ronaldo was the better player. Simple. In any case, he wasn't playing left-wing like you're making out. More a flanking player in a 4-3-3 - very different roles.
Belletti would still be a better right back option than Essien, by virtue of him having been... a right back.
Asking Belletti to deal with Ronaldo was asking for trouble? Well Essien didn't actually fare that well did he? He was the proud recipient of a new arsehole after that game.
It's the equivalent of you saying you'd rather Fletcher play right back in a Champions League final than say, Rafael. Rafael may be impetuous and rash, but he's a natural right back. Fletcher would make mistakes in that position, they just wouldn't be as spectacular.
It's just personal preference - if you have a former Barcelona and Brazil player who can play right back, then you don't leave him on the bench and move your best central midfielder into that position. Two things:
1) It was a dire decision by Grant;
2) It would indicate to me that Essien isn't regarded as an indispensable midfielder for Chelsea. Which is surprising given that some have touted him as one of the best on the planet...
That hasn't been disclosed yet.
Your logic is very odd.
The fact that Essien can be used as a right back points at his versatility, how is it supposed to be bad? So because Essien can play a fullback position he's not as good a midfielder as his fans think he is?
Maybe, just maybe Chelsea options in midfield were so good, Grant felt he could sacrifice Essien's presence in the middle to cover the team's problematic spot on the right side of defense. Sure, it's not an easy decision, but he had played there before and did very well. So he had a mare against Ronaldo on the day, so did every other fullback that season, doesn't mean Beletti would have done better.
I don't think it's odd logic at all.
If anything, it's illogical to take your best central midfielder out of the fray and play him at right back. That defies all logic!
I'm not saying it makes him a bad player, just because he's versatile. I'm saying that the fact that he is readily shifted around would suggest that he's not considered to be an indispensable pick in the midfield.
You guys have talked about Juliano Belletti as though he was a pub player. He was an experienced player who'd won the lot and played a lot at right back. It would have made more sense to go Belletti right back and Essien in central midfield.
I'm just all for playing players in their proper positions. Essien didn't even look comfortable at right back.
And before anyone thinks to get all clever when Essien plays well this season and bump this thread, I'd like to underscore the fact that all I have said is that he can't be regarded as one of the world's best in terms of what he has actually done in the last 3 years. I've never doubted his ability.
It's just that, in my view, talent is nothing if not applied.
It's just that, in my view, talent is nothing if not applied.
So Essien isn't one of the best central midfielders in the world because he was injured and he was managed badly? By that logic United shouldn't have signed Carlos Tévez, afterall his previous manager rated Carlton Cole ahead of him at times or should never have returned Scholes or Ferdinand to the team after missing half a season.
You really think Essien won't establish himself in Chelsea's central Midfield because of this? You really think he'll fail to live up to his reputation.
I would like to know who you really think is the best player in Essien's ilk, regarded by many managers, pundits, players etc. as the best defensive midfielder in the planet.
I've said, on a number of occasions (!), that: a) he's been injured a lot and b) he's been shifted out of position a lot.
Now the first issue is not really his fault, per se, but it's still a black mark against his name. An important attribute of a player is to have a good fitness record. The second issue, of him being something of a utility player, indicates to me that he's not considered to be an indispensable midfielder for Chelsea. You wouldn't move one of the best midfielders in the world out of position, especially to plug a gap at right full back.
Another thing - how can a player who has played so infrequently in the past two seasons be considered one of the best in the world? 40 appearances in the past two years means that he doesn't deserve that billing.
At no point have I doubted his ability - it's just that I don't rate him as highly as some others do, and there are a fair few other midfielders I'd rather have in my side - including Darren Fletcher.
Feed Me, if Belletti wasn't an indispensible pick in defence at Chelsea then clearly he wasn't their best rightback option.
Falacious Logic which ultimately contridicts itself.
How so?
Belletti may not have been their first choice right-back, but ultimately he was still a right back. And one with tonnes of experience and know-how.
Moving Essien to right back ultimately weakened their midfield and their backline in one swoop.
Surely, given your rating of Essien as a midfield player, you should agree with me on this point?
Edit: would you advocate playing Fletcher ahead of Neville if we got to the CL final this year?
So in your opinion Darren Fletcher is the best defensive midfielder in the World without competition, better than Mascherano, Yaya Toure, Owen Hargreaves, Diarra etc. etc.
Micheal Essien is only 27, younger than the Roy Keane you say was reaching his peak.
No I don't believe that at all.
But he has been one of the most effective and consistent of his sort. He may lack finesse, but you cannot deny his performance. This game isn't all about aesthetics.
In any case, I think Fletcher is an infinitely better overall player than Mascherano, who is the epitome of limited. Hargreaves? He has barely played football in the last three years. Diarra? He's moved from big club to big club and failed to hold down a place. Fletcher has been the ugly duckling at one of the world's biggest clubs and has fought and scrapped to become one of the most important players.
On Essien: he is 28 in December - he's missed out on some good years of his career. From a neutral point of view, I hope he doesn't end up seeing his peak come and go...
On Fletcher:
He's not sexy, but he is fecking effective.
Beletti was given a stint at rightback and he obviously was seen to be attacking enough for Grant, Beletti ironically played midfield too in Essien's and done the job quite well there, often at the expense of a Ballack or Deco. Clearly you wouldn't do that.
You try to distance yourself from the Ronaldo argument, but let's face it, why play Rooney on the leftwing when you have the likes of Park, Giggs, Nani etc. who are real wingers ... you only hurt your attack and wings ... well because it worked he gets goals.
Sometimes the versatility of players pay off, after all wasn't Fletcher United's only real central-midfielder, when the makeshift leftwinger/utility player was saving United from slipping to 3rd in the absence of Scholes and Keane etc. O'Shea was picked because he had a better defensive discipline than Fletcher at the time and because playing alongside Giggs, that's pretty necessary.
And yes I would put Fletcher at rightback in the Champion's League final if it were necessary. You're the hypocrite who would drop O'Shea for Hargreaves after moaning about Essien at rightback destroying Chelsea's defence.
No I don't believe that at all.
But he has been one of the most effective and consistent of his sort. He may lack finesse, but you cannot deny his performance. This game isn't all about aesthetics.
In any case, I think Fletcher is an infinitely better overall player than Mascherano, who is the epitome of limited. Hargreaves? He has barely played football in the last three years. Diarra? He's moved from big club to big club and failed to hold down a place. Fletcher has been the ugly duckling at one of the world's biggest clubs and has fought and scrapped to become one of the most important players.
On Essien: he is 28 in December - he's missed out on some good years of his career. From a neutral point of view, I hope he doesn't end up seeing his peak come and go...
On Fletcher:
He's not sexy, but he is fecking effective.
As did Gattuso at AC Milan, but you still haven't answered the question who you think is the best defensive midfielder in the world if not Fletcher, Essien, Mascherano etc.?
The unproven Ramieres perhaps?
I can't believe this 'debate' is still going on.
Essien's a superior player to Fletcher, and always will be, no matter how injured or dead he becomes. The end.
Essien's a superior player to Fletcher, and always will be, no matter how injured or dead he becomes. The end.
How big a profile does Darren Fletcher have outside of England away from the domestic game, whilst Essien is considered massive the world over is Fletcher?
Well said. Fletcher is a very good midfielder and perfect for us, but Essien is world-class, it's as simple as that. Pointless debate and nothing to do with Ramires.
My opinion is right so it's pointless to give yours.
I agree. If I'm not mistaken Ramires is supposed to be competition for Mikel to allow Essien to be freed to occupy the attacking role down Chelsea right.
But what makes a player world class? I remember a time when Veron was rated ahead of Scholes who, at that time, was considered (at least outside Britian) as a fantastic goal machine with little to add to it. This mentality found solid proof when SAF brought Veron to OT in a bid to 'give us a more continental approach to the game'. It turned out that Scholes was a much better player then Veron was.
Homegrown talent tend to be underrated in every part of the world. Its maybe because they haven't really proved themselves anywhere else or else because they haven't attracted enough attention towards them. Mind you I still think that Essien is slightly better then our Fletch. On the other hand one must also notice their age difference and take in account on whether he would settle down in our midfield. Lets face it, not many foreigners where capable to do that with us.
Essien would walk into every single midfield in the world.
I don't think you can say Scholes was a better player based on Veron's United/Premier League form. Veron just did not manage to settle into the pace/style of English football. Scholes had been doing it for years prior to Veron's arrival.
I'm not saying Veron is better than Scholes, or Scholes is better than Veron; I'm simply pointing out that is a poor way to compare who's better.
I think the answer to your comment was given by Veron himself. Few months after signing with us he stated on the italian media that he was literally shocked by what was demanded of him and that he lacked the all roundeness (workrate, ability to drop deep and win the ball etc) needed to succeed in the EPL. He also said that he was determined to learn such skills and do well at United, something that he failed to do. Anyway the Veron vs Scholes debate is beyond the scope of our discussion. I mean anyone can see what Scholes and Veron had achieved, how they developed after Veron left OT etc. The point is that while the grass may look greener on the other side that is not always the case.
...If they play the diamond formation. I'd wonder how the diamond would work with Mikel and Ramieres, with or without Essien.
I don't think so. Ramires is a versatile player but he is not a traditional defensive player, he is just a worker who is capable of playing there. As I've said before, I think it's most likely that Ramires would be deployed on the right of a diamond if that formation is in place. Where that leaves Essien, I don't know.
Best purely defensive midfielder?
Mascherano.
Exactly. He's a beast.
Essien is superior down the right to Ramires. It would make far more sense for Ramires to be used in Mikel's role and developed into another Pirlo type.
My prediction is flop.
Ramires is more than just a defensive midfielder. He would be wasted playing Mikels role.
He is more in the Essien mould than a Mikel.
He is more in the Essien mould than a Mikel.
Based on what? You being a spoon?
Mikel is not Makeleleish either. He was converted from an attacking mdfield playmaker.
The one thing I like about Ancelotti, nay the only thing I like about him , he never has a Makelele type as his main DM. He prefers an a Essien or a passer like Pirlo. & just going by the fact Essien is superior to Ramires on the right, me thinks Ramires will be Mikel's competition for the anchor role. But I could be wrong though.
good player. helps chelsea's age profile. not a player that'll change the dynamics of a title race though IMO. right now as it stands, it still will comedown to injuries..the fitter team will win since the talent difference really isn't there
Which were in his early years at Chelsea around the same age as Keane at United. He has been wasted but such is his talent and willingness to play many positions. Has he played RB since 2008? And he's been injured much of the last two years so of course he hasn't played much. Form is temporary class is permanent. Of which Essien has class in abundance. He'd be hands-down the best in the world with United or Arsenal, where he'd play in his preferred spot regularly, injuries presiding.
BTW, Keane dropped into CD in his prime when necessary. This wasn't something that just happened a few times at age 33. It should also be noted that Keane played for a single brilliant manager where as Essien has had four (or is it five) managers in his stint at Chelsea. Each with their own view of plugging holes as necessary. Not to mention different playing styles employed by each manager.
And he's not a fecking defensive midfielder either. Why do people continue to label him that? It's asanine.
Only for about 20 games a season though
About 5 fewer than Roy Keane averaged with United.
When he is better than all the right backs you have at playing right back & you have a midfield that would still remain world class with him missing, you can.
Essien verstility allows him to fit anywhere seamlessly. Not because he suffer Gerard's disease
Because you have midfield packed with player of that caliber. Essien's case is a matter of occupying all your best world class players on the same pitch to the best benefit of the side than anything else. His versatile make some forget how good he is his original role.
I'm more concerned about Mikel in this Chelsea side, from a Nigerian perspective