yogic Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 ... is the jury still out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gem Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Although he hasn't wowed, I think he's done a decent job. I'd have him over Mikel at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loz Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 I think whilst the team is struggling to find fluidity Sidwell is probably the better bet than Mikel purely on the grounds of the work he puts in and the fact that he will chase lost caauses more. However once things settle down (and they will) then Mikel is by far the more talented player and gets the nod from me comfortably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coombsie Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Although he hasn't wowed, I think he's done a decent job. I'd have him over Mikel at the moment. Me too Gem, purely because he's likely to stay on the pitch longer than MJO. Hope I've not tempted fate here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim W Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 He's done okay I'd like to see him when we're playing well - reckon he's got a few goals in him. And as in the other posts, he doesn't lunge in with his studs up. To be honest I haven't been impressed at all by MJO so far, personally I reckon he slows our game down too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pauly Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 you mean slows us from losing the ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g3.7 Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 he's done as well as could be expected, however he is a little out of his depth here. IMO he wouldn't be guaranteed a place in a midtable side, and he's not a better player than the likes of: diarra tiago smertin parker etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianwatkins Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 He is far better then Parker, I think we all need to see a lot more from him in the blue of chelsea b4 anyone can really pass comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SydneyChelsea Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 I think he is equal to Smertin or Parker, or Jarosik, but some distance away from either Tiago or Diarra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g3.7 Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 he's worse than parker- but then you never rated scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethicalstrategy Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 He is far better then Parker, I think we all need to see a lot more from him in the blue of chelsea b4 anyone can really pass comment. I'm rather hoping that things don't get to the stage where we have to see more of him in blue. Without injuries he shouldn't be getting a sniff at regular first team football with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gem Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 And who should? Mikel? Ballack? Top 3 for me are, Essien -- Maka -- Lamps ... and I would start with them 3 everytime, unless there is a serious drop in form. After that? I'd pick Sidwell. He hasn't done anything wrong (well okay, handball excluded, but its about time we got some luck) and in a game when we will need to scrap, dig in, win balls, run box to box and generally give EVERYTHING...I'd rather him in my team than the former two. PS- I am not anti-Ballack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Sidwell has been ok so far for me, nothing spectacular but decent enough. He looked a bit nervy when he started against Blackburn but improved in the game against Fulham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g3.7 Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 sidwell... not really good enough in a 2 man central midfield. I wouldn't use him if we are playing 442. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethicalstrategy Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 And who should? Mikel? Ballack?Top 3 for me are, Essien -- Maka -- Lamps ... and I would start with them 3 everytime, unless there is a serious drop in form. After that? I'd pick Sidwell. He hasn't done anything wrong (well okay, handball excluded, but its about time we got some luck) and in a game when we will need to scrap, dig in, win balls, run box to box and generally give EVERYTHING...I'd rather him in my team than the former two. PS- I am not anti-Ballack Yep - both of those. Ballack is one of the best midfield players of the last few years and Mikel has a huge amount of potential, is strong on the ball and the most composed and intelligent passer we have. I agree that he needs to watch his temperament - although out of three sendings off two were not justified and the other was for stupidity rather than any dangerous or rash play. Funnily enough it is his attitude that is his biggest danger. Jose had to be quite hard with him and this season he has looked a little lackadaisical at times. Sidwell is a decent enough and useful back up player to cover injuries and, as you say, for times when we might need some extra bite and scrapping in midfield. I just don't see him as ever being a regular choice ahead of any of the other 5 when they are all fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUENUT Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Ballack is one of the best midfield players of the last few years For who exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abramovich Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Mikel is hands down a better player than Sidwell, i'm not sure why are even discussing this. What he lacks is an ability to control his temper and that keeps getting him in trouble on the pitch. He needs to mature,learn and sort out his attitude, in terms of natural ability he is already one of the best youngsters in modern football. Steve may be a great guy,hard worker and a team player but as talents go he is not in the same league as Mikel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g3.7 Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 mikel has also been unlucky with a couple of his red cards, that can't be forgotten either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yogic Posted October 10, 2007 Author Share Posted October 10, 2007 I've only really seen Steve play in the Bolton game. I thought he was more in the .... 'i want to try and show that i am useful' by running around and trying too much. Mikel is more relaxed and plays his game ... I dont think Steve has calmed down yet .. he needs to relax and play his game before I can judge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethicalstrategy Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Ballack is one of the best midfield players of the last few years For who exactly? Germany, Bayern. I know he wasn't great for us last year but then again he wasn't as bad as some think. Sidwell isn't now nor ever will be fit to lace Ballack's boots in footballing terms. To suggest otherwise is pretty laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SydneyChelsea Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 he's worse than parker- but then you never rated scott. Actually, if I were gay, I'd hit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g3.7 Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 he's worse than parker- but then you never rated scott. Actually, if I were gay, I'd hit it. well, I wasn't talking to you, but that's nice to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishBlue Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 The guy has great potential, Readings best player and spearheaded there championship winning season. Box to box, honest player always gives 100%. I reckon he'd to a job if anyone of our central midfielders were missing. He's only going to get better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g3.7 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 we have enough "honest* box to box players". *does anyone else instantly think "limited" when they hear a player described as "honest"? I hear it in my head in a broad yorkshire accent: "He's a good honest pro, the lad, who goes from box to box in all of 90 minutes, commitment personified" p.s. sounds like i'm on a bit of a crusade against him. I'm not- I like him, decent player, seems a nice guy. hope he proves a more useful player than I think he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorkleyblue Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 he's worse than parker- but then you never rated scott. Actually, I'm gay so I'd hit it. I'm sure that is a HUGE exciting revelation for poor old Scotty down in the depths of wherever he's playing now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts