he's started 4 league games this season out of 12. 6 out of 19 in all competitions. 

 

"good enough" to be a rotation option under jose while we have our weakest midfield options in years? 

 

again, praise indeed. 

 

Oh I'm sorry. Remind me again how many games our best player in two consecutive seasons for us has started under Jose?

Oh I'm sorry. Remind me again how many games our best player in two consecutive seasons for us has started under Jose?

 

he has competition for his place. lots of it. 

 

& the answer is "more than mikel". which doesn't appear to scream "good enough for jose" to anyone. 

he has competition for his place. lots of it. 

 

& the answer is "more than mikel". which doesn't appear to scream "good enough for jose" to anyone. 

 

For me, Mikel is the type of player who can be extremely useful depending on the opposition and the situation. If we're playing Crystal Palace at home, it'd be pretty pointless playing Mikel, wouldn't it? Just because he doesn't start every game for us does not mean he is not good enough for Mourinho.

 

Sure, he does under perform at times but so do the rest out of our players.

 

Edit: And I might be mistaken, but when Mourinho compared Mikel to what he was like as an 18 year old, I don't think he meant that in a negative manner. What I think he meant was that he could rely on Mikel right from the start and he still can today. He gets heaps of praise from our manager(s) and our players, but is continuously overlooked by many of the fans. It doesn't look like that's going to change anytime soon.

Edited November 26, 201312 yr by Amputechture

For me, Mikel is the type of player who can be extremely useful depending on the opposition and the situation. If we're playing Crystal Palace at home, it'd be pretty pointless playing Mikel, wouldn't it? 

 

except, this season those have been the games he has done well in. lesser teams in the relegation zone who sit back and let us have the ball, like west ham or fulham (his two best performances this season?). in the one "bigger" league game he's played this season he was hauled off at half time.   

 

 

Just because he doesn't start every game for us does not mean he is not good enough for Mourinho.

 

i didn't claim he wasn't good enough for mourinho. you claimed that he was. based on the available evidence, i would say the jury is still out. 

 

it is likely, imo, that he knows that mikel can do a job but he doesn't see him as a viable long term option. i could be wrong though.

 

 

He gets heaps of praise from our manager(s) and our players, but is continuously overlooked by many of the fans.

 

players tend not to slag off their mates and managers tend not to slag off their players. 

 

fans don't really care about upsetting players if they don't think they are good enough. in the time torres has been here he has received nothing but praise from managers and team-mates. the fans have been much less kind. who, in general, has been right? 

your stats are wrong. i sense i may have learned why. 

 

I'm sure you'll point me in the direction of the correct ones then.

 

The official CFC site mirrors wikipedia except for 06-07 which is off by one game. So I guess the official site is wrong too.

 

Maybe you'll point me to the correct ones then.

What a bellend

29 of Townsends 135 posts on this forum have been in this thread.

 

 

 

What is it about Mikel, a player who has contributed to the most successful period in the clubs history that riles up some of our fans so much?

 

I mean Andy Townsend is a complete prick and yet we have a forum member honouring him with their screen name. Mikel has contributed more to the club than the plastic paddy ever did and yet gets constant scorn for apparently not being Zidane or something. 

It showed what Mikel means to the players when he scored against Fulham, if they did not rate him I doubt he would have got a reception like that.

It showed what Mikel means to the players when he scored against Fulham, if they did not rate him I doubt he would have got a reception like that.

Get ready for another Mikel-Torres comparison from Mr. Townsend

Only 205 more to break the record.

I'm sure you'll point me in the direction of the correct ones then.

 

The official CFC site mirrors wikipedia except for 06-07 which is off by one game. So I guess the official site is wrong too.

 

Maybe you'll point me to the correct ones then.

 

on the official site, the first number is total appearances & the number in brackets is times brought on as a sub. if you subtracted the second number from the first number you would get the correct stats. 

 

He has pretty consistent starting numbers. High of 49 low of 35.

 

 

wrong. 

 

29 of Townsends 135 posts on this forum have been in this thread.

 

 

21%. 

 

roughly a 5th. 

 

i haven't been here long and i have had two long-ish discussions on this thread...including this one...where i have multiple people posting at me (and one doing nothing but insulting me). 

 

that does not seem to be that outlandish. i bet you had hoped for more when  you started that search, no? 

 

Get ready for another Mikel-Torres comparison from Mr. Townsend

 

too easy, right? 

Now if only you could point that out in the first place without being an asshole that would be great for everyone. (but ofc you have to repeat yourself being a dick in the very next line)

 

His high for starts is now 47 and low of 23 (his first season).

 

80% of his appearances being starts.

Edited November 26, 201312 yr by Stim

21%. 

 

roughly a 5th. 

 

i haven't been here long and i have had two long-ish discussions on this thread...including this one...where i have multiple people posting at me (and one doing nothing but insulting me). 

 

that does not seem to be that outlandish. i bet you had hoped for more when  you started that search, no? 

 

 

 

1/5 of your time hear slagging off a loyal servant to the club, whatever floats your boat mate. 

Now if only you could point that out in the first place without being an asshole that would be great for everyone. (but ofc you have to repeat yourself being a dick in the very next line)

 

"your stats are wrong anyway". 

 

= 

 

"asshole". 

 

you really are a bunch of thin skinned, pissy little girls with sand in your vaginas. get a grip lads. 

 

 

His high for starts is now 47 and low of 23 (his first season).

 

80% of his appearances being starts.

 

in the context of your reply to me...where i said that only one manager "truly and consistently relied on mikel" and you disagreed; i don't see how starting stats like his (23, 28, 31, 27, 32 in 50-60 game seasons) really illustrate your point. at the risk of repeating myself; he was definitely trusted by rdm...he has the stats of a starter in 2008-09 & 2010-11 but was dropped for the biggest games in those seasons. that doesn't indicate to me that he was "truly and consistently trusted" by all our managers (yet alone "always"). 

1/5 of your time hear slagging off a loyal servant to the club, whatever floats your boat mate. 

 

show me "slagging him off". show me giving him "constant scorn". 

 

quote it.

 

only 30 or so posts to choose from...can't be that hard. 

 

drama queens the lot of you. 

It makes me cringe a bit when loyal servent is banded about these days. Being paid more than double in a week than most do in a year for doing a "job" that most of us would gladly do for half the price doesnt make someone a loyal servant in my book.

Im not having a pop at you, i just hate that saying relating to most footballers now days.

"your stats are wrong anyway". 

 

= 

 

"asshole". 

 

Yeah totally based it off that one post.

Lampard had better stop scoring or it's never going to happen.

yeah. that's proof you're not a drama queen. 

 

you really are a bunch of thin skinned, pissy little girls with sand in your vaginas. get a grip lads.

It's bizarre behaviour to spend a considerable amount of time on here just slagging off Mikel, what negative energy. You must be a barrell of laughs to be around. It's not that your opinions are invalid, it's the fact that you get on like a faux-intelligent, condescending asshole who would argue with his own shadow.

It makes me cringe a bit when loyal servent is banded about these days. Being paid more than double in a week than most do in a year for doing a "job" that most of us would gladly do for half the price doesnt make someone a loyal servant in my book.

Im not having a pop at you, i just hate that saying relating to most footballers now days.

Being his ten times the footballer we aspire to be, then that is one good reason he gets paid as much as we would like to be paid, secondly, he never ask to be paid such a obscene amount  so is not going to refuse it.

Also he has never been one ounce of trouble since he signed for us, never moaned, groaned or besmirched Chelsea's name, so in my book, a loyal servant.

It's bizarre behaviour to spend a considerable amount of time on here just slagging off Mikel, what negative energy. 

 

show me where i "slagged off" mikel. 

 

are you guys really so thin-skinned in your adoration for the man that anything that isn't nuthugging man love is "slagging off"?

 

cos...if not...what do you think i said that was "slagging off"?

 

i can show you "slagging off" me...multiple times...if you would like a frame of reference for that.  

 

Also he has never been one ounce of trouble since he signed for us, never moaned, groaned or besmirched Chelsea's name,

 

really? never? the guy who burst into the referees dressing room and threatened to break his legs?

the guy who burst into the referees dressing room and threatened to break his legs?

 

The referee was Clattenburg.

 

Mikel deserves a pat on the back.

The referee was Clattenburg.

 

Mikel deserves a pat on the back.

 

i would have done it to several referees and not stopped at the threat. 

 

but you can't say he's "never been one ounce of trouble since he signed for us, never...besmirched Chelsea's name" when he did that.