Makelele is considered a "legend" in his owrn right. "He's so good they even named his position on the pitch after him. When it comes to playing "the Makelele role" then, quite simply, no one does it better than Claude Makelele, the defensive midfielder who gave his name to one of the hardest and least-celebrated jobs in football, the quiet man who makes Chelsea tick. He has become one of the most influential players of his generation". What do you guys think? I can understand the likes of: Matthaus, Rijkaard, Redondo, heck even Keane and Vieira being considered legends but Makelele? The aforementioned were able to create and destroy at will. They helped out on defense and also went forward (box to box midfielders) but Makelele was way too limited and just sat infront of the backline. Can we honestly call this guy a legend? He had poor passing skills, lacked vision, almost never went forward, etc. I'll admit his positioning and reading of the game was superb but is that really enough? Would you want him in your team? I would rather have: -------------------------RIJKAARD-------------REDONDO------ or ------------------------KEANE--------------MATTHAUS---- and or: -------------------ESSIEN/DAVIDS--------VIEIRA--------- all capable of winning back balls and distributing. heck how about Dunga, Tardelli, and even Deschamps over Makelele? Am I the only who thinks this lad is a tad overrated?
Yes he is truely a legend. All the proof I need is how real madrid became pathetically horrible after he left.
Depending the definition that each one gives to "legend", for me is in the same slot of players like: Frank Rijkaard, Roy Keane, Edgar Davids, Lothar Matthäus or Patrick Vieira, definitely between the best 10 all-time defensive midfielders.
well RM didn't bother to get the proper replacement for him. They stuck Beckham and Guti in midfield for crying out loud.
no Redondo? would you rank him higher than the names mentioned above? Do you think he was any better than Davids and or Essien?
Well, for me ... if and ONLY IF the legends list extend to like beyond 200 names then MAY BE .. Makele could make his names in! Why? 1- SKILLS: Makelele was very good in defense of midfield (blocking pass, recover ball, passing around) and THAT WAS IT! He is NOT same skillset as Keane, Edgar Davids, Vieira, Des Champs, Dunga, Van Hanegem ...and many others... so let along Sammer, Redondo, Rijkaard and Mathauss (in the same position per se) 2- SHINING & MAKE DIFFERENCE: Makelele did very good in his position (as the coach or team expected) or may be a bit better! But he DID NOT bring the game to another level, NOR getting out of his position and help the team in other area like Attack, build up confidence , leadership ... Redondo, Rijkaard, Vieira , Davids ... more than once got off from their position to save the team (build up assists, making visionary passes or even socre some decisive goals) so they were of course MORE APPRECIATED ! While Dunga, Des Champs, R.Keane could at least bring up the leadership and control the team on and off pitch ! Did makele ever make (some) differences like the above? well very very rare - only 1 game at WC06 over his career that I could remember!
In this site: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-the-top-10-defensive-midfielders-of-all-time he is ranked 4th ahead fo Keane and Redondo & http://www.footytube.com/forums/footytube-blog/10-best-defensive-midfielders-of-all-time-5294/ he comes in 7th place. I just don't see how he could be placed ahead of DAVIDS, KEANE, VIEIRA, REDONDO, MATTHAUS, and RIJKAARD? the others gave you so much more! I think even Essien has more potential and will eventually become one of the best holding midfielders (box to box) ever. Makelele on the other hand was way too limited, never contributed anything on the attack. He was a good short passer, you would think he would be afterall he's a pro. right? I don't know how many of you guys saw Davids in his prime play? This guy was lightyears ahead of Makelele. Sure Makelele was better defensively but not by much, IMHO.
Also Redondo, I was only mentioning few names of that slot. More specifically, I'd rank Makélélé just behind of Rijkaard and Matthäus of that group, Roy Keane, Davids, Vieira and Redondo in the same podium, definitely over Essien (in spite the Ghanaian is doing great and have enough potential to be soon in that group, I wouldn't rate him there yet).
To name only French players, I rank Tigana, Fernandez, Deschamps, Petit, Vieira ahead of Makelele. All of them were more complete than him, being able to go forward as well as to do the basic job of a DM.
He is in my mind one of the most interesting players of the last 10 years-in many ways he's become iconic in what he does at his position. How often have we heard that what team____needs is a,"Makelele?" Almost to the point that it's become a chic thing to say. I would not call him a "legend." His reputation was greatly enhanced due to the problems that Real Madrid had after he left. But there was more to that than him leaving. Not quite the cause-effect that people want to make.
Makelele is up there with all of them - I would probably have two or three ahead of him if I was picking a team - but yeah he is good enough to be mentioned in the same breath.
Matthaus, Rijkaard, and the Redondo these are your top 3 DM's (just like the top 3 Liberos are: Beckenbauer, Baresi, and Scirea) then comes: Keane, Vieira, and Davids (ALL were more complete than Makelele). The Makelele role is overrated as much as the Pirlo role!
People also name stuff after Hitler. I fail to see why this is a compliment. Fact is, modern football requires a defensive midfielder that can do a limited number of things very well. Makelele captured this zeitgeist because he was successful in what was at the time probably the most visible squad of all time. It made for a good narrative. But to call him a legend...
People do remember that Makelele left Madrid and played for another club, right? A club with which he also went on to great success and whose supporters are still huge admirers of him? As for whether or not he's a legend........I guess that depends on what a legend is. Also, comparing him to players like Keane, Davids or Matthaeus is daft - he wasn't anything like that.
IMHO the "Makelele the legend" discussion is only possible because of a) the sharp contrast between him and the galacticos concept and b) how badly Madrid did after he left. It's the story that makes it interesting. Without the story, it'd simply be the case of a very good player that had a decorated career and is remembered fondly in two large clubs, which is certainly praiseworthy but not particularly exceptional or compelling in this day and age. Which, BTW, is how I think it should be.
That's certainly a part of the story. But I can assure you, its hardly how I think of Makelele or how I'd frame the "legend" discussion.
It's just my take on it. I just don't think he is a "legend," whatever that may be. I think people get carried away because of the narrative behind it. From an outsider's perpective, his time in Chelsea looks to me to have been pretty predictable (in a good way): he had a certain age, reputation and transfer fee, and he performed at or somewhat above what those items would have predicted. But by no means did he reinvent the wheel. In fact, in Chelsea he had the benefit of a very systematized approach to the game, whereas in Madrid he basically had to run around covering for the most anarchic system I've seen in my life. Also, Makelele was nick-named "the tripod" by the Spanish press. Apparently that's how a lot of people think of Makelele. If there's any aspect in which he's a legend, that'd be it.
I'm totally baffled by the praise, notably started by Jose Morinho, given to Makelele when a Chelsea player at the end of his career. He had no pace, could neither shoot nor head the ball and a limited passing game. How strange in the modern game when tackling as been all but outlawed a position is named after him. If similar players like Bryan Robson or Patrick Viera won the ball on the edge of their own penalty area and then failed to join up with play up field they would have been rightly critizised. It's a total PR which everybody in the media was happy to join in.
Some people perfer their legends to be Talented at EVERYTHING. Others... Consider players that can only hit dead balls and right footed crosses and sport crazy haircuts as Legends... I'm not saying a "Legend" like that can exist in the modern game... but you never know!
Let's no forget David Batty was playing the so called 'Makelele role' back in 1992 and by no stretch of the imagination is he remembered as a legend.
He gave the defensive midfielder position a totally new dimension, so yes, I would say he is a legend. Now, everytime a new defensive midfield begans to rise, it is compared or called the "new Makelele", that speaks for itself.