Mikel obi Vs Ndidi

[Bigpokey24]

This is the beauty of the internet. we can all post whatever we like

[Tobi17]

Prime Mikel was the more technically gifted player, but Mikel was just too mentally lazy, dude had all the tools to even be a better version of the player he ended up been... and despite winning some trophies... he was still easily overshadowed in that prime Chelsea era by the likes of Essien, Ramires etc. I could be wrong but Mikel despite having some good seasons with Chelsea, was never that pivotal player for them as Essien was... Ndidi would be far more pivotal in literally any top team in Europe right now... the only edge a PRIME Mikel has over Ndidi is that unique intelligence and ability to command a game so well, and with such ease and panache.

[Lolly]

This is an insult to Mikel.
Have you guys forgotten so soon?

Wake me up when Ndidi actually PERFORMS in the GWG!

Tell dem o.

[Bigpokey24]

We have some 18 year old kid stating Mikel is mentally lazy

[oscar52]

Mikel: Lexus?
Ndidi: Toyota?
Your pick?

For me it depends on who the opponent is. Both have areas of their game lacking. Ndidi better with the ball in the air and Mikel better with the ball on the ground. Ndidi has better eye for goal but Mikel more comfortable in the middle of the pitch. I still don't think Ndidi can ball in a game with very skillful midfield players like Real Madrid and Juventus but Mikel did. Mikel will look better on camera but Ndidi will do more on the pitch. Overall Mikel is a better player because he can hold his own in the middle of the pitch and boss it and is a box to box midfielder but Ndidi has better workrate and hence impact on the game but needs a supporting holding midfielder by him otherwise his team wont be able to retain the ball.

[Sir V]

Mikel for me any day.

[green4life]

Ndidi is a better midfielder. Ndidi at 22 is already a world class defensive midfielder at a club without too many stars. Do not be surprised to see him soon at either PSG or Man City or Barcelona or Real Madrid or Liverpool. His trajectory is up. Meanwhile Mikel was a decent but not standout DM for Chelsea and the minute he left it was all downhill.

Who did Mikel compete against in midfield as early as 19 years old and compare that to whomever Ndidi has competed against in Midfield so far. The point is, it was much more difficult to stand out in Chelsea's midfield back in the day than Ndidi standing out in Leicester's midfield today.

Mikel's performance on that rag tag olympic team in 2016 gives you an idea of his quality (later in his career). One game away from a gold medal on a unit that was not where near comparable to the glorious 1996 Atlanta team.

[YemiBrazil]

Unnecessary comparison...
With that said, world class Ndidi for President anytime, anyday!

[green4life]

Prime Mikel was the more technically gifted player, but Mikel was just too mentally lazy, dude had all the tools to even be a better version of the player he ended up been... and despite winning some trophies... he was still easily overshadowed in that prime Chelsea era by the likes of Essien, Ramires etc. I could be wrong but Mikel despite having some good seasons with Chelsea, was never that pivotal player for them as Essien was... Ndidi would be far more pivotal in literally any top team in Europe right now... the only edge a PRIME Mikel has over Ndidi is that unique intelligence and ability to command a game so well, and with such ease and panache.

Mikel and Ramires never played the same role in midfield. Likewise Mikel and Essien rarely competed for the DM role. To illustrate in today's Chelsea, Mikel would be in direct competition with Jorginho whereas you've compared him to Kante and Kovacic. Also, when you in the same midfield with Lampard, Ballack, Essien, Maka, Deco, etc., and your boss is Roman who wanted to win trophies every season, suffice it to say that it's a different level of competition and pressure with all due respect to Leicester City - who could win a trophy this season but not expected to win anything. Finishing top 4 will be massive for Leicester while finishing 2nd in the league was grounds for getting fired during Mikel's tenure at Chelsea.

The choice of who folks prefer mostly hinges on whether the person favors an all-action midfielder over a midfield controller. The average fan tends not to fully appreciate the impact of a controller until that player is missing from their midfield (like Jorginho in Lampard's and Sarri's Chelsea). Whereas, all action players like Kova and Kante are more quickly appreciated by fans.

That said, Ndidi is a quality midfielder who has earned the right to transfer to a big club and should do well at the final level of competition as Mikel did over his 10 year career at Chelsea. I prefer the both of them as they both bring different qualities to midfield play. Too bad they both played during different periods.

[Bigpokey24]

[/video]

[maceo4]

Prime Mikel was the more technically gifted player, but Mikel was just too mentally lazy, dude had all the tools to even be a better version of the player he ended up been... and despite winning some trophies... he was still easily overshadowed in that prime Chelsea era by the likes of Essien, Ramires etc. I could be wrong but Mikel despite having some good seasons with Chelsea, was never that pivotal player for them as Essien was... Ndidi would be far more pivotal in literally any top team in Europe right now... the only edge a PRIME Mikel has over Ndidi is that unique intelligence and ability to command a game so well, and with such ease and panache.

Mikel and Ramires never played the same role in midfield. Likewise Mikel and Essien rarely competed for the DM role. To illustrate in today's Chelsea, Mikel would be in direct competition with Jorginho whereas you've compared him to Kante and Kovacic. Also, when you in the same midfield with Lampard, Ballack, Essien, Maka, Deco, etc., and your boss is Roman who wanted to win trophies every season, suffice it to say that it's a different level of competition and pressure with all due respect to Leicester City - who could win a trophy this season but not expected to win anything. Finishing top 4 will be massive for Leicester while finishing 2nd in the league was grounds for getting fired during Mikel's tenure at Chelsea.

The choice of who folks prefer mostly hinges on whether the person favors an all-action midfielder over a midfield controller. The average fan tends not to fully appreciate the impact of a controller until that player is missing from their midfield (like Jorginho in Lampard's and Sarri's Chelsea). Whereas, all action players like Kova and Kante are more quickly appreciated by fans.

That said, Ndidi is a quality midfielder who has earned the right to transfer to a big club and should do well at the final level of competition as Mikel did over his 10 year career at Chelsea. I prefer the both of them as they both bring different qualities to midfield play. Too bad they both played during different periods.

Voltron has spoken

[kali]

Mikel could have been so much more. He could have been another Socrates of Brazil who was a midfield general but Mikel settled to play DM and make money. If you want to see how influential Socrates was:

[/video]

[metalalloy]

Prime Mikel was the more technically gifted player, but Mikel was just too mentally lazy, dude had all the tools to even be a better version of the player he ended up been... and despite winning some trophies... he was still easily overshadowed in that prime Chelsea era by the likes of Essien, Ramires etc. I could be wrong but Mikel despite having some good seasons with Chelsea, was never that pivotal player for them as Essien was... Ndidi would be far more pivotal in literally any top team in Europe right now... the only edge a PRIME Mikel has over Ndidi is that unique intelligence and ability to command a game so well, and with such ease and panache.

Mikel and Ramires never played the same role in midfield. Likewise Mikel and Essien rarely competed for the DM role. To illustrate in today's Chelsea, Mikel would be in direct competition with Jorginho whereas you've compared him to Kante and Kovacic. Also, when you in the same midfield with Lampard, Ballack, Essien, Maka, Deco, etc., and your boss is Roman who wanted to win trophies every season, suffice it to say that it's a different level of competition and pressure with all due respect to Leicester City - who could win a trophy this season but not expected to win anything. Finishing top 4 will be massive for Leicester while finishing 2nd in the league was grounds for getting fired during Mikel's tenure at Chelsea.

The choice of who folks prefer mostly hinges on whether the person favors an all-action midfielder over a midfield controller. The average fan tends not to fully appreciate the impact of a controller until that player is missing from their midfield (like Jorginho in Lampard's and Sarri's Chelsea). Whereas, all action players like Kova and Kante are more quickly appreciated by fans.

That said, Ndidi is a quality midfielder who has earned the right to transfer to a big club and should do well at the final level of competition as Mikel did over his 10 year career at Chelsea. I prefer the both of them as they both bring different qualities to midfield play. Too bad they both played during different periods.

Voltron has spoken

y'all still going at it for over 20 years.

[jette1]

The difference is two world top club teams Battled over one of them whom won every trophy possible while the other plays for minuscule above average one hit wonder team

[Aswani]

I will take Ndidi over Mikel as a defensive midfielder for the the reasons below.

1) Mike was prone to footballing indiscipline by drifting even further ahead of the strikers which forced other players to cover for him while he was trotting back from wherever (if you ever watched the Eagles play live, you will see this, not so much watching on telly)

2) Secondly, he held on way too long to the ball for a defensive midfielder.

Ndidi is lucky that he is in a partnership with Etebo and vice versa (this "relatively" early into their SE careers), two similar players that seemingly understand each other, Mikel never had a fruitful stable partnership like that.

I would have loved to see Mikel play in front of Ndidi and Etebo at the height of his prowess, freeing him of any defensive responsibilities and ensuring the other two are aware they have minimal attack supporting responsibilities. However, his legs are gone and Iwobi wasn't up to it at the Nations cup so we need to keep searching or hope Iwobi gets his confidence from somewhere.

Now if we could snag QPR's Eze from England, we might be on to something with that midfield triumvate.