Arteta Vs Cahill

Cahill or Arteta

  • Cahill

    Votes: 166 73.5%
  • Arteta

    Votes: 60 26.5%

  • Total voters
    226
Status
Not open for further replies.
Arteta was the better player in his pomp. Both as a right mid where he took the piss out of fullbacks all day and then as a playmaker, where he ran the show. We've never replaced him.

Cahill is the better bloke, he was more of a talisman, he got Everton more and he scored some boss goals, but Mikel was more talented by a good margin. I do miss seeing the pair of them in their primes.
 

Interested to see if it's as close as I think it will be.
Different styles of play, but answer this, who would you rather have played AGAINST.
Mikel was hardly a squeaky clean player as he was snidey with some of his tackles. But he was far too inconsistent and only played well for a while before his injury (2008 I think it was), and never got it back right up to the point on transfer deadline day.
But Tim, Jeez, he was like an angry wasp. Forever in your face. A true Blue.
Tim for me. Every time.
 
2006-2008 Arteta was one of the best midfielders in the league

Cahill was a level below but he got Everton more and was a much technical player than people credit him
 

Cahill was the man for the big occasion but Arteta was boss, around 2006-2008 he was unbelieveable, possibly looked even better due to being surrounded by the likes of Neville and Osman but who knows
 
As a skilled footballer - Arteta
As a gutsy talisman - Cahill
Both loved scoring against 'them' - so that'll do for me :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top