How good was Claude Makelele ?

Luke1995

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,572
Recently I came across a Youtube video which showed his highlights in Real Madrid and was really impressed, he could tackle, run, dribble, had a good reading of the game...

Fernando Hierro once said: ''I think Claude has this kind of gift – he's been the best player in the team for years but people just don't notice him, don't notice what he does. But you ask anyone at Real Madrid during the years we were talking about and they will tell you he was the best player at Real. We all knew, the players all knew he was the most important. The loss of Makélélé was the beginning of the end for los galacticos… You can see that it was also the beginning of a new dawn for Chelsea. He was the base, the key and I think he is the same to Chelsea now.''

Zidane had this to say after Claude left and Beckham was bought: ''Why put another layer of gold paint on the Bentley when you are losing the entire engine?''

Amazingly, Makelele wasn't called up to the 1998 World Cup or to the Euros in 2000, but went on to have a great World Cup in 2006.

Thoughts on his career ?
 
He brought the defensive midfield position to another level. He was the reason Chelsea conceded only 15 goals in Mourinho's first season.
 
He was like Kante but better at everything. Could also pass and dribble with the best of them
 
Legend. The best pure DM I’ve ever seen in the game. Like Casemiro, Fernandinho, Gattusso (to name a few) but only better
 
Last edited:
John_Jensen said:
Like Kante, but better.
Click to expand...
Abe144 said:
He was like Kante but better at everything. Could also pass and dribble with the best of them
Click to expand...
Him and Kante aren't actually anything alike bar the fact they're both small guys from France.

Maka was a sitting DM who protected the defense and had an low-key top quality pass range (as Chris Coleman alluded to when he decided to man mark him) while Kante's an all action box to box player.

If you're going to down the road of comparing N Golo to an ex Chelsea player then Essien is a more appropriate comparison.
 
Dancfc said:
Him and Kante aren't actually anything alike bar the fact they're both small guys from France.

Maka was a sitting DM who protected the defense and had an low-key top quality pass range (as Chris Coleman alluded to when he decided to man mark him) while Kante's an all action box to box player.

If you're going to down the road of comparing N Golo to an ex Chelsea player then Essien is a more appropriate comparison.
Click to expand...
That's too complicated. Speak in buzzwords please.
 
Don't forget that the position was later named after him " the Makhelele role"
 
Sometimes I think, why we didn't get him in Cash plus player deal for Beckham. May be we could have squeezed in another title in that relatively barren period of 04 to 06.
 
Makelélé was underrated/underappreciated by many while at Madrid (most notably the powers that be that considered him surplus to needs and didn't fully fathom his effectiveness in a team where the Galácticos wanted the only ball on the pitch without always having to tackle or work for it), but then became a wee bit overrated because while there were defensively astute midfielders like Batty or Gilberto or Hamman over the years, continental or South American style anchoring/holding midfielders that operated in regimented zones in a very systematic and structured approach were a slight rarity in English football at the time, in comparison with two-way box-to-box midfielders that were considered more complete and a bit more glamorous (somewhat unrelated but even Cantona ridiculed Deschamps as a lowly water carrier). And he slotted in as an excellent ultra-methodical and ultra-defensive complement to Lampard (and later Essien) at the base of Chelsea's triangle to elevate the profile of that type of midfielder (prior to Mascherano at Liverpool, who set the stage for Gerrard and Alonso under Benítez).

A very good player, no doubt — a superlative reader of the game and the movement of the ball, efficient and crisp short passer rather than someone who was scared of the ball because of technical shortcomings, invariably in the right position at the right moment while intelligently scanning from the deep — integral to the success of Madrid and Chelsea and France (particularly in the 2006 World Cup where he didn't always receive appropriate acclaim after returning from retirement because of the brouhaha surrounding Zidane). However, even though the “Makelélé Role” was named after him on the basis of a quip by the ever-so-quoteworthy Mourinho who had coached a similar-ish but weaker anchor at Porto in Costinha, not a prototype for modern defensive midfielders (that would be Rijkaard by a mile and a half and subsequently Busquets for his excellence in ultra-possession methods) or someone who reinvented the wheel or added a never-seen-before dimension to the fundamentals or football because game-managing holding/defensive midfielders with a wide range and varying destructive capacities (like Monti, Gonçalves, Gallego in South America as exponents of the deep midfielder function) had thrived long before him and destructive midfielders like Mauro Silva plied their trade in La Liga at the same period, and some were even more influential in their team's framework as steering wheels.

P.S. Agree with @Dancfc...Makelélé and Kanté's roles shouldn't be compared — the former was a disciplined screen in front of the defensive line who willingly sat back and distributed the ball to more offensive-minded players, and the latter a more adventurous defensive box-to-box shuttler who excels at incessant pressing/harrying in several segments of the pitch (in that regard he has more in common with players like Davids or Cambiasso on a broad spectrum).
 
As a destroyer he's simply the best I've ever seen. Chelsea's defence was excellent but he was arguably the biggest reason then taking the lead felt like the game has already been won.

The comparison to are slightly misplaced becuase Kante is a more of a pressing/semi box to box CM whereas Makele was a specialist at breaking up play while sitting deep. But yeah, Makelele achieved a higher level of excellence than Kante IMO.
 
He was something else really. I was young so I dont know if I'm just exaggerating the past but the.guy literally shaped the role of a modern DM. One of the best DMs ever.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
As a destroyer he's simply the best I've ever seen. Chelsea's defence was excellent but he was arguably the biggest reason then taking the lead felt like the game has already been won.

The comparison to are slightly misplaced becuase Kante is a more of a pressing/semi box to box CM whereas Makele was a specialist at breaking up play while sitting deep. But yeah, Makelele achieved a higher level of excellence than Kante IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't like the comparison and think people confuse what kante does. When sari played him upfront it was also for a reason. Makelele was a different beast.

Damn france had some amazing african original players in the past.
 
I saw him live when he started at Nantes. He was part of a very special generation with Karembeu, Loko, Pedro's, under one of the best French coach ever, Coco Suaudeau.
I can't post YouTube links, but there is a full game on YouTube if you search for FC Nantes - Paris SG 1994/1995 to see a young Makelele and an iconic goal at 20:50.
But honestly at that time, Makelele was outshined by Karembeu at Nantes, and not in the discussion for the national team.
So it was a bit of a surprise to see how successful he was in Spain. It's really a good example of the time it take for midfielders to reach their prime.
One thing I'll say, is that people vastly underrate its technical abilities. He has always been very good with the ball, far better than Kante. The older he got, the simpler he played, but it was by choice. He said it in an interview, when you have guys like Zidane in front of you, your only job is to get the ball to them as soon as possible.except for scoring, his shooting is simply atrocious.
Strangely enough, I think people outside of France rate him higher than we do.
Most people in France would rate Deschamps, Petit, young DM-Desailly and Vieira higher than Makelele and it probably has something to do with the fact he never won anything with our national team.
I think he'll make a great coach at some point and I hope a top club will give him another chance soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Varun
Invictus said:
Makelélé was underrated/underappreciated by many while at Madrid (most notably the powers that be that considered him surplus to needs and didn't fully fathom his effectiveness in a team where the Galácticos wanted the only ball on the pitch without always having to tackle or work for it), but then became a wee bit overrated because while there were defensively astute midfielders like Batty or Gilberto or Hamman over the years, continental or South American style anchoring/holding midfielders that operated in regimented zones in a very systematic and structured approach were a slight rarity in English football at the time, in comparison with two-way box-to-box midfielders that were considered more complete and a bit more glamorous (somewhat unrelated but even Cantona ridiculed Deschamps as a lowly water carrier). And he slotted in as an excellent ultra-methodical and ultra-defensive complement to Lampard (and later Essien) at the base of Chelsea's triangle to elevate the profile of that type of midfielder (prior to Mascherano at Liverpool, who set the stage for Gerrard and Alonso under Benítez).

A very good player, no doubt — a superlative reader of the game and the movement of the ball, efficient and crisp short passer rather than someone who was scared of the ball because of technical shortcomings, invariably in the right position at the right moment while intelligently scanning from the deep — integral to the success of Madrid and Chelsea and France (particularly in the 2006 World Cup where he didn't always receive appropriate acclaim after returning from retirement because of the brouhaha surrounding Zidane). However, even though the “Makelélé Role” was named after him on the basis of a quip by the ever-so-quoteworthy Mourinho who had coached a similar-ish but weaker anchor at Porto in Costinha, not a prototype for modern defensive midfielders (that would be Rijkaard by a mile and a half and subsequently Busquets for his excellence in ultra-possession methods) or someone who reinvented the wheel or added a never-seen-before dimension to the fundamentals or football because game-managing holding/defensive midfielders with a wide range and varying destructive capacities (like Monti, Gonçalves, Gallego in South America as exponents of the deep midfielder function) had thrived long before him and destructive midfielders like Mauro Silva plied their trade in La Liga at the same period, and some were even more influential in their team's framework as steering wheels.

P.S. Agree with @Dancfc...Makelélé and Kanté's roles shouldn't be compared — the former was a disciplined screen in front of the defensive line who willingly sat back and distributed the ball to more offensive-minded players, and the latter a more adventurous defensive box-to-box shuttler who excels at incessant pressing/harrying in several segments of the pitch (in that regard he has more in common with players like Davids or Cambiasso on a broad spectrum).
Click to expand...
A fantastic post, can only say thank you for contributing and sheding some light on how good was he!
 
What kind of impact Claude had at PSG by the way ? Was he as good as with Madrid and Chelsea or he had declined a bit ?
 
Luke1995 said:
What kind of impact Claude had at PSG by the way ? Was he as good as with Madrid and Chelsea or he had declined a bit ?
Click to expand...
It's hard to say because that PSG team was truly awful. His legs were clearly gone but he was by far the best player in that team.
 
Was ok. Just like madrid was ok after letting him go. In fact he was so okay to the extent that they gave him the "makelele" role.
 
Makelele was similar to Kante at Celta. With us and Chelsea(and France) he played more like a classic defensive holding midfielder, breaking up play once it got to him rather than hunting for the ball

Still yeah, the whole "makelele" role is funny to me. It was nothing new. Damn english football really was tactically archaic back then, no wonder Mourinho found it that easy with Chelsea :lol:
 
Dancfc said:
Him and Kante aren't actually anything alike bar the fact they're both small guys from France.

Maka was a sitting DM who protected the defense and had an low-key top quality pass range (as Chris Coleman alluded to when he decided to man mark him) while Kante's an all action box to box player.

If you're going to down the road of comparing N Golo to an ex Chelsea player then Essien is a more appropriate comparison.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is one of those things in football that's just so annoying to me. Just because they're both small black midfielders from France doesn't make them alike.

Then you also see people comparing Pogba and Vieira as well as Son and Park. How convenient.
 
Excuse the football cliche but he would have been the type of player that was first on the team sheet week in week out. Top class.
Him, Lampard and Essien were one of the best ever premier league midfields
 
Think of Matics best season for Chelsea and double it. He was one of the best DMs there has ever been. He was brilliant protecting the defence but he was also equally good at switching the play to attack.

It's not wrong to say he was like Kante but he wasn't a high energy player like that, he preferred to sit back and pick his moment.
 
Baffled me that he wasn’t in the winning French squads. Never knew that
 
His defensive ability speaks for itself but one thing that is vastly overlooked with Makelele is his courage to get on the ball in deep positions and invariably recycle it with such unerring consistency that his team could play out from its own third repeatedly even under the most high pressured situation.

Carrick has more range in his passing but he was not press resistant - Makelele was and only Busquets surpasses him since. His first touch and nimbleness allowed him to twist and turn his way out of any difficult ball receiving situations and then he would hit straightforward short but usually proactive passes and get his team on the move.

His movement off the ball was also top notch in that he would always make himself available for the pass and give his team mates an out ball both in defence and as a backboard for his attacking team mates to restart the momentum of their phase in possession.

Not as great as a Rijkaard overall but ultimately underrated and generally misunderstood IMO as a footballer. Funnily enough Chris Coleman came closest to truly exposing the worth of a Makelele and how important it is to stop him.
 
One of the best pure DM in the world back then. I don't understand why Real Madrid willing to sell him, and it could be one of the main reason why the Real Madrid Galacticos has underachieved.
 
Lay said:
Baffled me that he wasn’t in the winning French squads. Never knew that
Click to expand...

Unfortunately a better player and the undisputed leader of the national team played the same role.
 
John_Jensen said:
Like Kante, but better.
Click to expand...

He wasn't like Kante, they had some similarities, but Makelele was probably the best DM of his generation while Kante is a box-to-box MF who due to his qualities is similar to Makelele in his contribution to protecting the back four, also covers a lot of ground and is very good at getting the ball back from the opposition.

And while Makelele was phenomenal DM, Kante is a much more versatile player, imo, he contributes to attack far more than Makelele ever did. Plus, Makelele was surrounded by better players, both at Madrid and at Chelsea and his duties were limited to holding the fort, so to speak. Kante is expected to do a job at both ends. Both are great in their own way, but far from the same.
 
RedRonaldo said:
One of the best pure DM in the world back then. I don't understand why Real Madrid willing to sell him, and it could be one of the main reason why the Real Madrid Galacticos has underachieved.
Click to expand...
Wasn't a big fancy name / galatico.

At that point Perez was intent on building a famous, sexy team and Makelele just wasn't that.

I guess a bit like Woodward at the start of his career, a rich man with lots of ideas but rarely the right one. You need water carriers to go with the flash.
 
Dancfc said:
Him and Kante aren't actually anything alike bar the fact they're both small guys from France.

Maka was a sitting DM who protected the defense and had an low-key top quality pass range (as Chris Coleman alluded to when he decided to man mark him) while Kante's an all action box to box player.

If you're going to down the road of comparing N Golo to an ex Chelsea player then Essien is a more appropriate comparison.
Click to expand...

It’s a good point, but I think you overexaggerate if you say that Makelele and Kante have no more in common than with Napoleon, Sartre and Ribery.

I’m thinking in particular on the role Kante had at Leicester and France, where his main role was protecting the defence, winning the ball and quickly setting up the right offensive players with the ball.

But of course there are differences as well.
 
Raees said:
Not as great as a Rijkaard overall but ultimately underrated and generally misunderstood IMO as a footballer. Funnily enough Chris Coleman came closest to truly exposing the worth of a Makelele and how important it is to stop him.
Click to expand...
We already defeated Chelsea earlier in that season before Chris Coleman's "tactical masterclass". I don't think the key was to stop Makelele but rather how to combat their three man midfield without sacrificing our attacking integrity. Fergie used Fletcher as the right wide midfielder who would come into midfield to stifle them. He would use the same tactic again 3 years later in the 07/08 CL Final by deploying Hargreaves on the right.

I like Makelele but English media has him as some sort of a mythical player who redefined his role which clearly isn't the case. Personally, I think he is quite overrated in England.

The deep lying/single pivot midfielder have existed in football for decades and used by virtually every top European team. It was a novelty in English football's because of their backward-ish tactics and fixtation with two box-to-box midfielders.

When Ranieri bought him in 03, he declared Makelele to be a "playmaker" and the "battery" of the team. Chelsea won nothing and nobody really took note because Raineri used mainly a 4-4-2 formation. His abilties became more renowned in Mourinho's 4-3-3 which allowed them numerical advantage in midfield. All of a sudden people were talking about the Makelele role like its some sort of a new thing when Makelele has always played the same be it under Del Bosque, Ranieri, Mourinho.
 
thepolice123 said:
When Ranieri bought him in 03, he declared Makelele to be a "playmaker" and the "battery" of the team. Chelsea won nothing and nobody really took note because Raineri used mainly a 4-4-2 formation. His abilties became more renowned in Mourinho's 4-3-3 which allowed them numerical advantage in midfield. All of a sudden people were talking about the Makelele role like its some sort of a new thing when Makelele has always played the same be it under Del Bosque, Ranieri, Mourinho.
Click to expand...

Bit harsh, we finished 2nd and got to the semi-of the Champions League, was arguably our best season for nearly 50 years!
 
France have a habit of turning out these sort of players. This guy was the best DM I have ever seen playing in the Premier league. Better than Kante Ndidi and even better than our own Nobby Stiles.
 
Bestietom said:
France have a habit of turning out these sort of players. This guy was the best DM I have ever seen playing in the Premier league. Better than Kante Ndidi and even better than our own Nobby Stiles.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by that?
 
Bestietom said:
I mean very good DM like Makelele , Kante, etc.
Click to expand...

Kanté isn't a DM, Deschamps, the midfield version of Desailly or karembeu would be better comparisons. I'm always confused by the link that people make with Kanté.
 
thepolice123 said:
We already defeated Chelsea earlier in that season before Chris Coleman's "tactical masterclass". I don't think the key was to stop Makelele but rather how to combat their three man midfield without sacrificing our attacking integrity. Fergie used Fletcher as the right wide midfielder who would come into midfield to stifle them. He would use the same tactic again 3 years later in the 07/08 CL Final by deploying Hargreaves on the right.

I like Makelele but English media has him as some sort of a mythical player who redefined his role which clearly isn't the case. Personally, I think he is quite overrated in England.

The deep lying/single pivot midfielder have existed in football for decades and used by virtually every top European team. It was a novelty in English football's because of their backward-ish tactics and fixtation with two box-to-box midfielders.

When Ranieri bought him in 03, he declared Makelele to be a "playmaker" and the "battery" of the team. Chelsea won nothing and nobody really took note because Raineri used mainly a 4-4-2 formation. His abilties became more renowned in Mourinho's 4-3-3 which allowed them numerical advantage in midfield. All of a sudden people were talking about the Makelele role like its some sort of a new thing when Makelele has always played the same be it under Del Bosque, Ranieri, Mourinho.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of truth in this post and I won’t disagree with a lot of it.

Point still stands though that even from a global or continental perspective he was a standout player in that pivot position hence why even the Galactico’s at Madrid recognised his worth.. he wasn’t your ordinary DM, he was a maestro for that role with everything you’d need to excel in that role on and off the ball.

Range of passing was lacking granted but like I said the way he would help his team transition from defensive phase to on the attack was very understated but effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.