[Archived] New Deal For Mokoena?

[rover6]

Don't be silly Philip.

By that logic, rather than having a decent CB as back-up to Nelsen and Ooijer, in Zurab, we should've settled for keeping Nils Eric Johansson. After all, at times he did a job, with good grace.....(actually with no grace whatsoever but u know what I mean.)

Rovers can do better than Mokoena.

It's all very well saying that he can come on for the last 20 and use his bulk to obliterate the opposition's view of the goal. BUT what happens when we're losing and need a player to revive us in central midfield? What happens when a starter gets injured in the first minute and Mokoena is required to play as a normal central midfielder, not some one-dimensional spoiler?

And is he that good defensively anyway? A specialist spoiler who impersonates Tiny Taylor in allowing Matt Taylor to get by him? Or does a rather uncanny impression of Darren Peacock when trying to compete with Teddy Sheringham in the air?

I think Hughes (and guys on this board) have to accept that Mokoena is a bad player. He may have his uses at times, like Jon Douglas and Lorenzo Amoruso had their uses. However, there is no way that Mokoena should remain with us for too much longer - even in a utility role. He's not good enough for that.

Passing ability and basic technique are, despite the worryingly common contrary perception, are of paramount importance in a defensive midfielder. Think about it - a defensive midfielder is usually the deepest lying midfielder - if he makes a wayward pass - he is gifting the opposition a chance to go at an unguarded defence. Mokoena's lack of technique and passing capacity will be a liability.

Edited November 28, 2006 by rover6

[ihateburnley]

I'm sorry but I've said it before and I'll say it again, Aaron Mokoena is NOT good enough for Blackburn Rovers. I'm not doubting his attitude, his work ethic or his professionalism or anything like that - it's just his ability.

Indeed, on paper he looks to have all the attributes of at least an average Premiership holding-midfielder. However, he panics when he recieves the ball, he looks underconfident, and doesn't seem on the same wavelength as the rest of the team.

Unfortunately for him, it's a vicious circle. I he continues to start on the bench and only play bit-roles, he's only going to be the same for as long as we keep him. However, if Hughes does seem to see something in him he will need to give him a run of games in which I'm certain he would disappoint, therefore possibly being relegated to the bench.

Top players need to be battle-ready at all times. That's one of the reasons I can see a chink of light at the end of the tunnel for Franny Jeffers - he looks like he's attempting to make more of an impact on the game when he is brought on as a sub.

At the end of the day, if Mokoena is happy being a squad player and he isn't going to cost too much, then I don't see much harm done by offering him a new contract. A three year contract is too long though, and I sincerely hope we can bring in another midfielder or two to make sure we aren't forced to play Mokoena as regularly as we are doing.

Don't be silly Philip.

By that logic, rather than having a decent CB as back-up to Nelsen and Ooijer, in Zurab, we should've settled for keeping Nils Eric Johansson. After all, at times he did a job, with good grace.....(actually with no grace whatsoever but u know what I mean.)

Rovers can do better than Mokoena.

It's all very well saying that he can come on for the last 20 and use his bulk to obliterate the opposition's view of the goal. BUT what happens when we're losing and need a player to revive us in central midfield? What happens when a starter gets injured in the first minute and Mokoena is required to play as a normal central midfielder, not some one-dimensional spoiler?

And is he that good defensively anyway? A specialist spoiler who impersonates Tiny Taylor in allowing Matt Taylor to get by him? Or does a rather uncanny impression of Darren Peacock when trying to compete with Teddy Sheringham in the air?

I think Hughes (and guys on this board) have to accept that Mokoena is a bad player. He may have his uses at times, like Jon Douglas and Lorenzo Amoruso had their uses. However, there is no way that Mokoena should remain with us for too much longer - even in a utility role. He's not good enough for that.

Passing ability and basic technique are, despite the worryingly common contrary perception, are of paramount importance in a defensive midfielder. Think about it - a defensive midfielder is usually the deepest lying midfielder - if he makes a wayward pass - he is gifting the opposition a chance to go at an unguarded defence. Mokoena's lack of technique and passing capacity will be a liability.

Rover6 - I agree completely. Unfortunately we will have to wait until January to improve our squad.

[Scotty]

Mokoena's a fantastic holding midfield player in a 5 man midfield - a system that we may need to play from time to time. He's also very useful to bring off the bench if we need to tighten things up (see Feyenoord). He's a useful squad player and I've got no problems at all with him staying at the club.

We of course also need to strengthen central midfield as well, something I'm sure we'll do in January.

[James No. 7]

when we have taken the lead against a team, and then maybe score again, then aaron in front of the back four is a useful player. however, only in that instance is he any good to us. if we are chasing a game then there is absolutely no point in leaving him out on the pitch or even leaving him on the bench.

He did a job chasing the win in the Man City game though, Blueboy.

Anyway, Mokoena is a squad player who plays a bit-part role in the first eleven (unless there are a whole host of injured players) and there's nothing wrong with that. He's content to play off the bench, he is probably on cheap wages, he is an international captain, and he provides a defensive option.

I'm happy enough with him if Hughes is.

[philipl]

There are any numbers of Reserve, Academy and Football League players being advocated by the same folks who are knocking the Axe.

There is a massive gulf now between these other forms of football and the Premiership.

The Axe can hack it in the Prem as Scotty says. All the other names being thrown into the ring are risks in comparison.

I am sure that is why the focus has switched towards older players who have produced the goods consistently at international level or for less glamorous clubs in the Champions League. Probably the best guide that a player will not be a complete flop although Nonda is currently doing his best to confound this particular theory- he is here on loan so has not blown a hole in the transfer budget.

I am not happy that extending the Axe is the better option at present but in the bigger picture, this is a very sensible move.

[FourLaneBlue]

Mokoena's a fantastic holding midfield player in a 5 man midfield - a system that we may need to play from time to time. He's also very useful to bring off the bench if we need to tighten things up (see Feyenoord). He's a useful squad player and I've got no problems at all with him staying at the club.

I've got no problems with him staying as a squad player but I'm not sure why Hughes didn't use him in a 5 man midfield when Savage was out injured. If it meant bringing someone like MGP, Gally or Bentley to play in as a third midfielder then so be it. Starting with Tugay and Mokoena as the two central midfielders is just throwing any hope of victory out the window. You say that 4-5-1 is "a system that we may need to play from time to time" but it seems that Hughes might have thrown it away. The very time when it was needed was recently yet Hughes decided not to go for it - and we lost the games against Aston Villa and Manchester United, more importantly we didn't ever look being capable of winning either. Even when Savage came off against Basle we were struggling but Tugay's brilliance saved the day. So...if we aren't to play 4-5-1 at all anymore then Mokoena's usefulness is going to be compromised somewhat.

'The Axe' is a very limited player and I don't see any point in retaining him unless he is on very low wages compared to the rest. Even then...it would hardly hurt the squad too much if he left, particularly if Hughes is looking bring in another defender and central midfielder in January. Alternatively, keep him but play 4-5-1 every now and then, particularly away from home.

Edited November 28, 2006 by FourLaneBlue

[joey_big_nose]

You say that 4-5-1 is "a system that we may need to play from time to time" but it seems that Hughes might have thrown it away. The very time when it was needed was recently yet Hughes decided not to go for it - and we lost the games against Aston Villa and Manchester United, more importantly we didn't ever look being capable of winning either. Even when Savage came off against Basle we were struggling but Tugay's brilliance saved the day. So...if we aren't to play 4-5-1 at all anymore then Mokoena's usefulness is going to be compromised somewhat.

'The Axe' is a very limited player and I don't see any point in retaining him unless he is on very low wages compared to the rest. Even then...it would hardly hurt the squad too much if he left, particularly if Hughes is looking bring in another defender and central midfielder in January. Alternatively, keep him but play 4-5-1 every now and then, particularly away from home.

I completely agree with that. Mokoena cannot play in a 442 yet Sparky did not shift to a 451, and I think that was a major contributing factor to us losing West Ham, Villa and Man U.

If we are not going to play 451 I cannot see the point in keeping the axe. He is a poor full back and central defender, and a poor central midfielder.

The one saving grace might be something TND suggested: playing a 442 where mokoena sits very deep and Tugay gets further forward. However in three or four games Mokoena has played this hasn't happend, and it doesn't look likely to happen. Mokoena consistently goes up the pitch and looks utterly out of his depth, giving away fouls and misplacing passes.

Edited November 28, 2006 by joey_big_nose

[speeeeeeedie]

I'm not sure where to add this so I'll stick it here.

Everyone's favourite football comic Sepp Blatter has actually come out with a few good statements: Sense from the FIFA bigwig?

Not in the article is an idea where he wants a 6 + 5 rule for all clubs. I can't remember the details but a club will have to field 6 home grown players for each game. I don't know if home grown means from their own academy or the nation in which the team plays. I think it's a good idea as it will stop teams buying cheap ready to play imports rather than nurturing local (but maybe substandard) talent. If this was to happen the likes of Mokoena, an average Premiership player, would not get a sniff in England's top league. It may also even up the league a bit, but probably not as all the big 4 would do is buy up all the homegrown players and stockpile them.

[rover6]

Mokoena's a fantastic holding midfield player in a 5 man midfield - a system that we may need to play from time to time. He's also very useful to bring off the bench if we need to tighten things up (see Feyenoord). He's a useful squad player and I've got no problems at all with him staying at the club.

We of course also need to strengthen central midfield as well, something I'm sure we'll do in January.

Of course, if we bring in a central midfielder (as we probably need to) will Mokoena make it onto the bench? Bearing in mind he's such a woeful defender?

I just do not buy this myth that Mokoena is a fantastic holding midfielder. It, imo, ranks alongside the myth that Vratty Gresko was undeniably outstanding in his initial loan spell with us. A fantastic holding midfielder can play in other roles - like Jagielka, Makelele or even the less than fantastic Abdoulaye Faye of Bolton who has been often used as a CB as well as DM.

It seems that these myths become apparent reality through repetition. And imo, they're 'invented' to justify the signing of a bad player by the manager by the 'our manager cannot do wrong' persona in fans. Mokoena did a job for us in a 5 man midfield. That doesn't mean that he will be able to do that job in the future - see Douglas, Stead, Amoruso, Tiny, Andresen....etc.

He has his new deal - and I'm prepared to put my reputation on the line (*insert sarcastic comment here*) that Aaron Mokoena will rapidly fall into the dregs of our squad and play a minimal role in the future of this club. It's already starting - he wasn't even trusted to deputise for Tugay today.

Hughes has made a mistake. An ambitious club needs squad players who can be relied upon to start games.

Edited December 3, 2006 by rover6

[broadsword]

If only he listened to you, eh?

The man's a fool.

[tcj_jones]

Come on guys, I have to agree with Rover 6 to a certain extent. If a club is to progess, it cannot offer a new contract to what is essentially a squad player at best. I can't remembe the last time Mokoena had a decent game. He is a pretty poor centre back and is limited in the sense that he only seems to be able to play as the holding man in a five man midfield.

Rover 6's concerns are very much understandable.

[pick32]

think this is good news for the club we have to keep hld of mokoena as we have no good central midfielders coming through the ranks. tugay and savage or getting on abit now and mokoena will need to step it up and become a vital squad player for rovers. and mokoena is the kind of player we need iff we find our selves in a relegation scrap.

[LeChuck]

mokoena is the kind of player we need iff we find our selves in a relegation scrap.

No he isn't, Mokoena is the type of player who will get us involved in a relegation scrap if he spends too much time on the pitch.

If we want a central midfielder, why don't we get a central midfielder instead of a poor defender? Even a journyman would be better than Mokoena, players like Matt Holland and Graham Kavanagh (to name two) would do a far superior job to what Mokoena is capable of.

Clearly not good enough to take Tugay's role, equally clearly not capable of playing in Savage's position, I don't see why the club feel the need to keep him longer.

[AxesFirstTouch]

If Mokoena was for sale, would any other Premiership purchase him? I think the answer is no, even Neil Warnock would reject him.

I do admire Rovers6 persistency on the Mokoena issue though, kind of like a mini Vinjay on a personal mission to make everyone aware of Mokoenas ineptness. In this case I hope you succeed Mr.6.

[AggyBlue]

I do admire Rovers6 persistency on the Mokoena issue though, kind of like a mini Vinjay on a personal mission to make everyone aware of Mokoenas ineptness. In this case I hope you succeed Mr.6.

There's another poster on here with a similar obsession with Gamst

[philipl]

To keep them both happy- rover6 actually wants MGP in the Axe role.

[Alan75]

I think Hughes have to accept that Mokoena is a bad player.

Sorry rover6. but Ill take Hughes judgement ahead of yours. If Hughes is prepared to give the Axe a new contract, he must see something in the lad.

Well I presume Hughes has watched the Axe more than some people who have made their judgement based on tv highlights.

[Bobby G]

He is a good squad option and I think keeping him is way better than letting him go. No one has said that he will be the pivot which our team is based around.

[rover6]

Sorry rover6. but Ill take Hughes judgement ahead of yours. If Hughes is prepared to give the Axe a new contract, he must see something in the lad.

Well I presume Hughes has watched the Axe more than some people who have made their judgement based on tv highlights.

Just like Graeme Souness saw a lot more of Jon Douglas than even the most dedicated fan, so obviously his judgement was infallible in awarding him a new contract.

I will respectfully acknowledge any argument putting forward the merits of Mokoena. But the convenient proposition - "the manager knows the players, therefore is right FULLSTOP" - is just weak, unless you are someone who will always accept that the manager is right.

I find it very strange that Hughes hasn't given Mokoena regular run-outs for the reserves. I am of the belief that should he start in central midfield for the second string, his level would become apparent.

When Hughes makes a comment like, "He (Mokoena) provides us with a lot of options as he can fill a number of roles in the team," does not the objective football fan within start asking a few questions?

I think I have bored everyone enough with my view on Mokoena - but I just hope that when the time comes, the relevant side of the house will be grovelling in their apology for ever doubting the other.

Edited December 3, 2006 by rover6

[Scotty]

Of course, if we bring in a central midfielder (as we probably need to) will Mokoena make it onto the bench? Bearing in mind he's such a woeful defender?

Er, yes...I'd have thought so.

I just do not buy this myth that Mokoena is a fantastic holding midfielder.

Myth? Whenever we've played 4-5-1 Mokoena has been outstanding.

It, imo, ranks alongside the myth that Vratty Gresko was undeniably outstanding in his initial loan spell with us.

But he was outstanding during his first loan spell.

A fantastic holding midfielder can play in other roles - like Jagielka, Makelele or even the less than fantastic Abdoulaye Faye of Bolton who has been often used as a CB as well as DM.

First of all neither Jagielka or Faye are fantastic. Secondly, why does Mokoena need to be able to play in other positions? He's a holding midfield player - he needs to be able to play well in that position.

It seems that these myths become apparent reality through repetition. And imo, they're 'invented' to justify the signing of a bad player by the manager by the 'our manager cannot do wrong' persona in fans.

It seems to me that yet again you're using any excuse to just have a pop and be a bit controversial.

Mokoena did a job for us in a 5 man midfield. That doesn't mean that he will be able to do that job in the future - see Douglas, Stead, Amoruso, Tiny, Andresen....etc.

What a ridiculous argument. Who knows what he'll be able to do in the future. What I do know though is that, at present, he'd be my first name on the teamsheet if we decided to play 4-5-1 - something I suspect we may need to do when we play away in Europe from now on.

He has his new deal - and I'm prepared to put my reputation on the line (*insert sarcastic comment here*) that Aaron Mokoena will rapidly fall into the dregs of our squad and play a minimal role in the future of this club. It's already starting - he wasn't even trusted to deputise for Tugay today.

He's not a central midfielder. Against Fulham though he was brought off the bench and helped to shore up the defence and seal the win following a period of Fulham domination, something he's done many times before.

Hughes has made a mistake. An ambitious club needs squad players who can be relied upon to start games.

An ambitious club also needs players who can adapt to different systems and circumstances. Mokoena helps us to do that. He's a useful squad player, I can understand why Hughes wants to keep him, and I'm sure he'll prove his worth in the future.

[James No. 7]

An ambitious club also needs players who can adapt to different systems and circumstances. Mokoena helps us to do that. He's a useful squad player, I can understand why Hughes wants to keep him, and I'm sure he'll prove his worth in the future.

That is the very definition of Guus Hiddink's "modern player". A player who is versatile, adaptable, and useful. His squad at the last World Cup was full of them.

Who knows what he'll be able to do in the future.

Just how many would have sold Emerton instead of renewing his contract in the summer?

[AxesFirstTouch]

Hughes is off his rocker offering the contract, this is up there with Douglas' 4 year deal for throwing money at damaged goods.

With Emerton we all knew he had the talent, since when has the Axe shown any talent or ever been touted as a hot prospect?.

Edited December 3, 2006 by wakefieldrawks

[RevidgeBlue]

I think it's really surprising that Mokoena has been offered a new contract. Since doing a sterling job when Hughes first arrived as the 5th man in midfield he has consistently shown since that he is not up to Premiership standard playing in any other position.

We don't have the players to play 4-5-1 imo so why retain Mokoena?

The only real reason I can think of is to keep his mate Benni happy. :ph34r:

In footballing terms there must be better options out there.

[Blue blood]

Have to say Scotty's reply to rover6 says most of what i wanted to say.

In terms of versatility i'm not sure that Mokoena is good enough, certainly when in defence I have worries about him. However as Scotty says he just needs to be decent at centre/defensive mid. We know he can cut it in a 5 man midfield - so he's not a poor player/without talent. He needs to adapt to playing in a 4 man midfield. Whilst so far he hasn't been too promising the fact he has shown that he's capable of playing in a 5 man midfield indicates he has some ability which can be worked with. (Unlike Douglas who was poor even in his prefered position)

I agree as first 11 goes Mokoena isn't the way forward. However we're already short on midfield cover and with Tugs and Savage over 30 the central midfield situation is going to see a fair bit of change - which means a lot of work for Hughes. Surely it will be better for Hughes to concentrate on getting a couple of class midfielders in rather than have to worry about a squad/cover midfielder as well. Especially when he has someone on the books who has potential and time to realise it.

Also factor in rovers are not a big club with a massive squad. Ok I personally don't think Mokoena is all that handy in defence but can rovers really afford to get a replacement? We've bigger things to think on i.e. improving the first 11, and with only having a small squad Mokoena's versatility however limited becomes more of an asset. And are any of the youth any better in those positions? As we've found out injuries do happen and you need squad players who can come in and do a job, even if not at the standard that's ideally desired.

Finally factor in the issue of time. You don't revamp a whole squad in a year or two. These things take time. Wholesale changes are dangerous (Souness' last full season demonstrated that) and some continuity is important, not only within training, but with regards to the manager's division of time (it's easier working with someone you're familiar with) fitting in, team spirit and the like.

Overall, if the deal isn't extortionate, which I doubt it will be, then rovers aren't really going to loose/be harmed by this deal and can only benifit. Having said that Mokoena has been mostly shocking this season, but then it takes players a while to really settle in, and the time it takes varies for each player. Reid, Emerton, Bentley, Oijer, are just a few who have been not that impressive at times during their rovers career but are looking the business now. Hopefully Hughes can bring the best out in Mokoena as well.

[rover6]

Myth? Whenever we've played 4-5-1 Mokoena has been outstanding.

He did a job in an ultra-defensive side. A real defensive midfielder cannot only defend but can pass. I wonder how many knowledgable but crucially objective football fans of other clubs would name Mokoena as an "outstanding" holding midfielder.

But he (Gresko) was outstanding during his first loan spell.

We got thumped by Newcastle and Gresko and Tiny were horrendous in the full-back positions. Relative to the previous incumbent of the left back spot, Nils Eric Johansson, Gresko was outstanding. However, normally speaking he was reasonable with the well-timed return to form and fitness of Damien Duff making things a lot easier for him as Duffers propelled us up the league.

why does Mokoena need to be able to play in other positions? He's a holding midfield player - he needs to be able to play well in that position.

Please name me another "holding midfielder" who is bad in all other positions? And I'm talking of a 'spoiler' not a playmaker like Tugay. The answer is very few - if at all. In the modern game "holding midfield" is not a specialist position. It is just a position that is filled by defenders or central midfielders, with adjustments made to their game.

Thus, Radostin Kishishev was employed quite effectively (although the fans didn't like him) as a holding midfielder. Phil Neville out-performed Patrick Vieira in that role in a few Man U-Arsenal ties. Abdoulaye Faye is sometimes put their by Allardyce, when he's not playing CB. Claude Makelele was tremendous as a defensive midfielder but is equally adept in a normal midfield role.

The fact Mokoena, unlike the aforementioned players, is inept in any other position is testament to the fact he is a terrible player whose weaknesses were disguised whilst he played a destructive role in an ultra-defensive team. Now that we are out of that survival phase and actually want to play football - he is exposed.

And further, why should Mokoena need to be good in any other position? Well, because Hughes has been eulogising about Mokoena's versatility. Does not that mean that he should be capable in a number of roles?

Finally, I will finish my retort with the comments of a Cercle Brugge fan on the official mboard:

- Mokoena went from Germinal Beerschot to Genk. He was a centre-back, but he was terrible in Genk at that position. Then he got a chance at playing defensive midfielder because of injuries. He did okay, but nothing spectacular. I'm still suprised Rovers wanted him.

Edited December 3, 2006 by rover6