Why? You think Ramires will bench him. IMO Ancelotti is the one guy who can turn Mikel into a Pirlo. Back into the type of playmaker he used to be.
Ramires to Chelsea for £20M
- Thread starter Uncle Junior
- Start date
No funnily enough, I wouldn't play Belletti in midfield ahead of Deco/Ballack. The former is an experienced utility player. The latter two are experienced/former world class central midfielders. I'd play the latter in central midfield.
Why are you still banging on about Wayne Rooney? He was shifted out from the centre, but he was never an out and out left winger. Our 4-3-3 never places the two flanking attackers as traditional wingers.
O'Shea is a utility player. Hargreaves, when fit, is a better utility player. Hence I'd play the latter, if fit.
What has Mascherano done in the game that Fletcher hasn't? Come on. What has he actually done, individually or as part of a team? feck all - classic case of rating the foreigner more than a homegrown.
You can't play from the fecking treatment table mate.
What does 'profile' have to do with a player's worth?
There are a bunch of players who are overrated due to having good publicists. Vice versa, there are good players who are underrated because they keep their heads down. I'm not saying either of these cases are reflections of Essien/Fletcher, but it's strange that you'd use a player's 'profile' as evidence of superior ability.
When has Essien been 'world class'? Just name me a handful of his signature world class games. Please, do elaborate...
Juan Sebastian Veron.
Paul Scholes.
The difference is all in the pronunciation, my friend.
On crutches, perhaps.
But the midfield is an even more important area of the pitch and would have been much better if it had included Essien as opposed to Ballack.
Belletti would have done as fine a job at right back as Essien did. Essien wasn't even comfortable in that position.
---
You're not world class just because of the ability you possess. It's about application and results.
Yer man has made 40 appearances in two years. If he's rated this highly, he's clearly living off past glories.
Exactly.
If you predict him to become a flop, he'll be going to be world-class. Your post is good news for Chelsea.
Feed Me your injury argument is rubbish. Essien's a better player, it's just that simple. You're literally the only person saying otherwise.
By this logic I'm a better player than Maradonna 'cos he's fat and doesn't play anymore, whilst I sometimes go for a kick with my mates.
By this logic I'm a better player than Maradonna 'cos he's fat and doesn't play anymore, whilst I sometimes go for a kick with my mates.
There is no point having your strongest possible midfield and an absolute hole elsewhere on the pitch. As I said earlier, the midfield didn't seize being world class without Essien. Even though he'd obviously make it even stronger. But Chelsea over all was a much weaker without him at right back on many occasions. It's like saying Rooney wasn't good enough upfront that's why we used to play him down the left flank when Ronaldo was here.
That is completely wrong. Belletti is not even close to Essien there. Essien is infact a natural in the role. Up there with Maicon when he plays it. People just keep confusing the fact that just because C. Ronaldo in a super year gave him hell, mean he isnt a natural there. In fact that season many teams at home and some in Europe were desyoreyd by Chesle with Essien at right back. Even in the previous year, we were forced to drop 2 points at OT because Essien was shifted to the position.
---
Yes. & Essien delivers both when fit.
Not when he has been the star of the show in almost all those appearances. Alongside Lampard and Drobga. Essien is Chelsea's best player.
Maradona was a world beater. He's not anymore. That's rather shite logic from yourself there man!
All I've said is that you can hardly judge a player as being one of the best in his business if he's spending huge swathes of his career on the fecking treatment table.
You lot all seem to be judging only innate talent. There are a host of other important attributes to take into account for a player - i.e the ability to stay fit so he can actually play.
I don't give a flying feck if I'm the only person arguing. All I've said is that I'm not going to blow smoke up the arse of a player who has played so infrequently in the last two years.
Well you're wrong.
Since logic and words don't get through to you,
Fletcher=a very good player
Essien=one of the very best
Hence, Essien>>>Fletcher
Essien is a better player than Fletcher, but I sort of see where Feed me is coming from.
If you have a choice between a very good player who plays 40-50 games a season, and a world class player who plays 20-25 games a season, surely you'd have the former?
If you have a choice between a very good player who plays 40-50 games a season, and a world class player who plays 20-25 games a season, surely you'd have the former?
1) I asked people before, and funnily enough there was no response. Name me some of Essien's signature games. When he's been an absolute stand out. He definitely hasn't produced anything particularly stand out against us over the years.
2) So having Belletti in at right back would have represented an "absolute hole". I said it before, you lot are making out as though he's some sort of pub player. He was a highly experienced, winning player who had played plenty of times in that role.
I'm bored of this debate as we're going round in circles. All I've said is that he's made 40 appearances in two seasons - it's not enough to be rating someone so highly. I've also said that it was a crap decision to take their best central midfielder and plonk him in at right back. Belletti would not, contrary to the opinion in this thread, have completely capitulated. It would have been better to play your best midfielder and "one of the best in the world" in his rightful position.
If you don't agree, that's fine. I personally like my players in positions that maximise their ability. Essien is always going to be an average right back. He's also always going to be a class midfield player (when fit). I know where I'd rather play him. He needs to get a full season under his belt again first though, before we start showering him with all this "world class" praise.
He was superb against us 2-3 seasons ago at Old Trafford, 1-1.
I've really got all your knickers in a fecking twist haven't I?
Ok - fine, as I have known all along, Essien is (potentially) world class and has a greater level of ability than Fletchinho. Though, that's no slight on our man!
But I'm sorry, it's only potential, because he has to play first. He can't have this rating playing 20 games a season. That's all I've ever said. Not once have I said that he's overrated in the sense that he's not very good.
Yeah - nicely summed up actually. Essien has world class ability. Fletcher is just very good.
But the fact that Fletcher will bring greater consistency in terms of playing games and staying fit acts as a big equaliser.
I've really got all your knickers in a fecking twist haven't I?
Ok - fine, as I have known all along, Essien is (potentially) world class and has a greater level of ability than Fletchinho. Though, that's no slight on our man!
But I'm sorry, it's only potential, because he has to play first. He can't have this rating playing 20 games a season. That's all I've ever said. Not once have I said that he's overrated in the sense that he's not very good.
Oh god no. I don't think anything on the internet can get me worked up.
I don't take it very seriously.
It's not just potential. He's been one of the best midfielders in the world these last 5 years. Yes he's been injured a bit the last 2, but that just means he plays less than Fletcher. It doesn't make him less of a player. It's like saying Fletcher is better than Xavi because Xavi missed half of a season. Unless of course the latter comes back from injury an inferior player. That's a different story.
Is Fletcher better than Torres?
It's not about who you'd pick. It's about who is better.
If Messi is injured for most of the season, I'd rather have Fletcher in my team for the season, but it doesn't make him the better player.
But if Xavi had missed vast swathes of two consecutive seasons, then he'd have it all to do to prove himself - again.
Look at Iniesta, his stock dropped a lot last season thanks to his injuries. It was only once he returned that he was able to actually start doing the business onfield and get all the plaudits, at the World Cup.
Fletcher and Torres have completely different functions in their teams. Fletcher, of course, has less natural ability, but that doesn't stop him being one of his team's most influential and important players.
Yes he has. The year they murdered us 3-0 to secure the title he and Joe Cole wreckd us to pieces. Even in 2007, Ronaldo's break out year, his switch to right back put us in real jeopardy and cost us 2 points from a wining position at OT. & that is just against us. Over the last few seasons he has had a number of big games against top opposition in Europe and domestically.
He didn't have to be a pub player to never be good enough for Chelsea vs the best opposition. Remember at Chelsea he didn't have the luxury of a tracking back winger like most fullbacks in English football or 2 holding players to protect him ala his Barcelona days. To their system he was an inherent weakness because of his weak defending. That is why vs most top teams Essien was at right back.
It's enough when he performed mostly very well in all those appearances. Few appearances can never take away from the level of performances displayed.
I'm sorry mate but that's rubbish. Belleti in Chelsea's wingless one holding player system was a disaster waiting to happen vs top teams and Chelsea knew it. That is why in the end they bought the likes of Bosingwa and Ivanovic and turned him into a back up midfielder.
Which is untrue. Essien is an excellent right back. People on here have this dumb idea that because Ronaldo gave him hell there it isnt the case. Essien was consistently selected at right back for Cheslea in big games because of how good he is in the role itself. Not because he was merely doing a job.
Very Wrong. He hasn't ceased being world class because his games have got less! That is a weak argument. Look at his level of performance when he has been available. When it has dropped you can start questioning his being world class. Not before.
The thing is do you stop calling a player world class just because he played only 20 games for you in a season? Isn't it his level of contribution whilst available that determines whether or not he is world class?
But he will have missed a hell of a lot of big games in that time. It's not good if his world beating performances come only spasmodically, and then at non-critical junctures of the season.
A fit, very good Fletcher > An unfit, world class Essien.
I dunno what to say - we're coming from two opposing viewpoints. You can't be a world class player, playing 20 games a season. That's my viewpoint, and if you disagree, well so be it. It's personal preference - you can't build a team around a player with an inability to stay fit.
In the last three seasons Essien hasn't played many games, of those not all have been in midfield and even when he has played in midfield it's been as the holding player which isn't his best role. Everyone thinks he's the best box-to-box CM but he just hasn't done it with any consistency for quite a long time.
Going by that in your opinion Torres for example, is no longer world class because of his recent injury record. Am I correct?
Well it depends on how one views him. For me he is world class midfielder.
I'm not talking about innate ability. But performance has to be gauged on the field. If a player is spending vast swathes of time on the sidelines then their form is going to suffer.
Two games against Barcelona in 2008/9 come to mind.
True, depends how you see it I guess. I'd still regard him as one of the top players in the world personally. Like with Essien, I'd say he's a world class player, don't know whether I'd say he's a world class midfielder, does he really play there enough?
I've been reading this discussion from afar and I totally disagree with Feed Me, Chelsea were much better served on the night playing Essien at full back than in his preferred role as the midfield was world class whether he played in it or not.
Playing against Man United is a zero sum game, you have to match up and cannot leave any gaps - playing Belletti at full back against Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo would have been insanity.
Playing against Man United is a zero sum game, you have to match up and cannot leave any gaps - playing Belletti at full back against Rooney, Tevez and Ronaldo would have been insanity.
He did more over 180 minutes than anybody else.
Kaka really is living off the fat of his reputation. He's been no where near the player he was in 06/07.
But Essien got a roasting, especially in the first half. You were lucky not to be three down, and a lot of joy came down that flank for us. Your argument would carry a lot more weight if Essien had actually had a good game - he didn't.
I was being tongue in cheek - I felt for him on that moment actually. Especially given his wonder goal.
I rate him massively as a central midfielder - but he has to be fit to get all the plaudits. That's all I've said. He's not great at right back - I can't see why you'd even want to consider moving such a player out of his natural habitat. We'll have to disagree - I don't think Belletti would have been a disaster, especially given that Essien was taken to the races.
That still doesn't answer my question. Because as far as I can recall Essien's form hasn't really suffered, despite his fitness issues. Yet you are suggesting we shouldn't call him world class anymore.
That is because you simply refuse to accept Essien is 2 or 3 times the right back Belleti is. Yet even he could not deal with Ronaldo in WPOTY form supported by Evra. .
Perhaps it's got to be said again - you can't be that great box-to-box midfielder if you don't ever play the role.
Indeed
His stock dropped? He's been considered amongst the best midfielders in the world for the last 3 or 4 years, regardless of injuries. Because he comes back and then dominates a CL semi final, final and WC final. People don't suddenly claim he's worse than Fletcher.
You're talking about limelight. Iniesta wasn't in the limelight. Everyone knew he was a world class player all along.
He can be as influential as you want him to be but he's nowhere near Torres' level. Torres is simply a better player. If he comes back from injury as half the player he was before, then you can make your comparisons.
Same with Essien, when he's played these two years he's still been absolute class. And unless he comes back from injury a lesser player, there's no comparison between him and Fletcher.
To summarize your arguements, a simple question is asked.
On current form, when both players are 100% fit, who would you choose to play in a 4-4-2 ? Essien Vs Fletcher.
Essien... To sum it up as I've watch both players as consistently as ever since my best friend is a Chelsea mate...
Essien is a better dribbler + playmaker, he's short passing is great and once fit he was a monster I mean a true monster which could do everything... I mean his shot wasn't as good as Scholes but I'd take his overall game is very close ( not in the playmaking game cause Scholes is probably the best passer/long ballist in this world ) but Essien had everything in the tank.
Fletcher is constantly improving and definately has a better crossing ability as displayed last season, he's long passing has definately improved but still his lack of not being able to score afar ( well, he isn't entirely bad as there are many long shots that have hit the cross bar ... 06/07 vs Chelsea etc, but you have to admit his long shots usually aren't as accurate nor will he be scoring stunning goals like Essien have )
both are good box to box players and have a lot of stamina.
Still Essien would be the first pick as he is more dangerous on the ball. Sums it up really. Fletcher would get there if he had more ability on the ball attackingwise, hopefully he can still improve his game as he's 26.
Essien > Fletcher but not by much.
On current form, when both players are 100% fit, who would you choose to play in a 4-4-2 ? Essien Vs Fletcher.
Essien... To sum it up as I've watch both players as consistently as ever since my best friend is a Chelsea mate...
Essien is a better dribbler + playmaker, he's short passing is great and once fit he was a monster I mean a true monster which could do everything... I mean his shot wasn't as good as Scholes but I'd take his overall game is very close ( not in the playmaking game cause Scholes is probably the best passer/long ballist in this world ) but Essien had everything in the tank.
Fletcher is constantly improving and definately has a better crossing ability as displayed last season, he's long passing has definately improved but still his lack of not being able to score afar ( well, he isn't entirely bad as there are many long shots that have hit the cross bar ... 06/07 vs Chelsea etc, but you have to admit his long shots usually aren't as accurate nor will he be scoring stunning goals like Essien have )
both are good box to box players and have a lot of stamina.
Still Essien would be the first pick as he is more dangerous on the ball. Sums it up really. Fletcher would get there if he had more ability on the ball attackingwise, hopefully he can still improve his game as he's 26.
Essien > Fletcher but not by much.
What current form? Pre-season?
How have you watched Essien as consistently as you have Fletcher? Have Sky introduced a new gimmick? "Physioroom Cam".
Essien fully fit, I would have over Fletcher fully fit. But that's hypothetical. Can we be guaranteed that Essien won't succumb to another knee injury?
Whatever, I'll settle for my consistent, unsexy, consistent game dominating Fletcher.