How good was Claude Makelele ?
- Thread starter Luke1995
- Start date
Makelele was comfortably better than Simeone on the ball.
I'm also confused why you rate Desailly as some kind of holding midfield great, when he played by far his best football as a centreback.
I agree that Souness and Rijkaard were a level above Makelele, but not the others you mentioned.
Tier 1:
Souness, Rijkaard
Tier 2:
Redondo, Vieira, Makelele, Davids
Tier 3:
Hamann, Simeone
I wouldn’t class Viera as a DM, he always played his best football along side one. Gilberto,Petit and Makelele himself for France.
Makelele's main strength on the ball was the simple 5-yard pass. At everything else Simeone was better. He had more range in his passing, could carry the ball forward and consistently scored 7-8 goals a season whilst keeping the midfield locked down. He was a proper two-way player, whereas Makelele was a close as you could find to a 'one-way player'.
Capello often used Desailly as a holding midfielder after Rijkaard left. Including in the European Cup final when they blanked Barca 4-0. He was pretty good on the ball and it's not an unreasonable opinion to hold.
As for Makelele, he was good, very good but not as good as his myth suggests.
Makelele wasn't nearly as good when you stuck a man on him. Kevin Keegan once stuck Antoine Sibierski him and shut him out of the game when City beat Chelsea 1-0 in 2004/05 and then again when they drew at the Bridge.
Fernandinho who is not unlike Makelele in what he does is a better player with a far more impressive passing range and willingness to drive forward.
They also let Cambiasso walk before he ever realized his potential, if memory serves.
Last edited:
Would have preferred Davids to Veron or Makelele in that timing.
I don't really get why Madrid sold him. I get that he was under-appreciated by the Madrid higher-ups who wanted Galacticos etc, but he was starting every week in a successful side, and selling him left a hole they didn't fill. He can't have wanted to leave, and they only got 16m for him anyway. It doesn't really make sense.
I haven't heard people say "Makelele Role" for awhile. I think it's already forgotten.
He was underpaid and asked for a raise, when Madrid refused, he put in a transfer request.
It would have been very good in Europe, in the same way that Veron was. But the main problem the Veron midfield had in the Premier League was that the third central midfielder wasn't really necessary and United didn't need that extra layer of security in the middle to run over the top of domestic opposition. Imagine Makelele would have been similarly redundant in some ways, at least until Chelsea and Liverpool embraced the third CM around 2004ish.
Can't speak to the Simeone comparisons but Makelele's ability on the ball definitely was/is underrated.
One of the most over hyped players of all time, its ridiculous on here some of the players he's compared with.; He never ventured more than 10-15 yards from Chelsea's 2 centre half.
He barely ever passed it more than 10 yards and was very limited on the ball. He was excellent in his role for Chelsea because not too much was demanded of him, miles off the likes of Keane as a player.
4 goals in his last 475 games for Real Madrid, Chelsea & PSG says it all.
He barely ever passed it more than 10 yards and was very limited on the ball. He was excellent in his role for Chelsea because not too much was demanded of him, miles off the likes of Keane as a player.
4 goals in his last 475 games for Real Madrid, Chelsea & PSG says it all.
Last edited:
I remember him being a great defensive shield and Jose called him his player of the season in 04/05. Made the game look very simple.
Had a look at some of his stats from 06/07 season and they're pretty good as he was probably coming to the end of his career at this point.
29 games
1,445 passes (84% success)
72 tackles
33 interceptions
I know they're different types of players but I prefer the likes of Keane, Vieira, Petit, Ballack etc to be honest but he was still a top player.
Had a look at some of his stats from 06/07 season and they're pretty good as he was probably coming to the end of his career at this point.
29 games
1,445 passes (84% success)
72 tackles
33 interceptions
I know they're different types of players but I prefer the likes of Keane, Vieira, Petit, Ballack etc to be honest but he was still a top player.
When they sold him and bought Beckham, Zidane complained, saying something along the lines of:
"Why would you sell the engine of your Bentley and buy a layer of gold paint??"
It's nice to know that his teammates thought he was as good as I used to pretend I knew he was, to sound like I knew loads about football.
This is a bad take. Makaelel enhanced some of the best teams in Europe and was even rated Chelsea player of the seaosn. Why Simeone could not make the best teams in Europe, of which Makalele shone in?
I don't know if this is right but was Makelele one of the main reasons that the formations flipped from 442 to 433?
The ability to shield the defense by a single central defensive midfielder? I know the tactic was used but Makelele did really well in that.
The ability to shield the defense by a single central defensive midfielder? I know the tactic was used but Makelele did really well in that.
We were comparing their ability on the ball, which is a slightly different discussion than what they brought to the table as players.
Anyway, Simeone spent his career at Atletico Madrid winning the La Liga title - breaking a 12-year Real/Barca dominance - Inter and, Lazio where he won the Serie A title and reached the CL semi-final as part of the most expensively assembled side of all time at that point. He also won 106 caps for Argentina, breaking Maradona's record, including 2 Copa Americas. His CV compares comfortably.
None of these were top European sides and he has never got past the quarters of CL so his teams were small time (cost of the squad is irrelevent). Argentine were largely unsuccessful on the world stage. Makalele played in a world cup final.
Last edited:
Simeone also played for Inter Milan when they won the UEFA cup and came 2nd to Juventus in what was by far the hardest league in the world at that time. Batistuta only really played for Fiorentina and Roma in his pomp and his teams did less than Simeone's so does that hurt Batistuta when compared to less players who won more on bigger teams?
He played for Lazio, Inter and Atletico. Are you telling me these sides are small time whereas Roman-backed Chelsea weren't? He joined Inter the same summer that Ronaldo did - who was the biggest 20-year-old sensation to hit the game since Pele. And this is how Lazio were perceived at the time:
They had a superb team around then - Nesta, Nedved, Crespo, Veron, Simeone, Salas, etc.
All of that said. I don't think it's a hugely relevant point, because Real Madrid signed any number of mediocre midfielders during the 2000s. Is Gravesen a superior player to Simeone because he was sought after by a bigger club? Or Diarra? Or Flavio Conceicao?
His CV is highly impressive and he was massively influential for club and country. Compared to the Frenchman he was much more of an all-round box-to-box force, whereas Makelele was a more adept screen in front of the defence. They were both excellent off the ball but in different ways.
Speaking of kante vs makelele I wonder who is the best at tackling. More so under Conte and Sarri, kante was phenomenal at winning the ball. Players running towards him, chasing from the side, chasing from behind. Kante would win balls that were difficult to win consistently.
I was a young teen when Maka was at chelsea but I get the impression he didn't put his foot in as much as Kante. He obviously was a good tackler but I remember him mainly having great positioning and awareness. He could nip in to take the ball at the right time but would often press the player quite strongly and show him the less dangerous option.
I get the impression he manipulated or encouraged the opponents to make safer decisions because of his positioning. But then I was young and might be talking complete crap
I was a young teen when Maka was at chelsea but I get the impression he didn't put his foot in as much as Kante. He obviously was a good tackler but I remember him mainly having great positioning and awareness. He could nip in to take the ball at the right time but would often press the player quite strongly and show him the less dangerous option.
I get the impression he manipulated or encouraged the opponents to make safer decisions because of his positioning. But then I was young and might be talking complete crap
Was one of the best to play his rather specialised position. Doubt if he would have got into any top teams if asked to play anywhere else but then I wouldn’t play my goalie on the wing either.