£22 million for another striker, or a fairly good central midfielder. No ty
Fellaini
- Thread starter Bilbo
- Start date
- Status
The important part for me is that he would add some height to our midfield allowing us the option of not throwing Smalling at RB against sides like West Ham and Stoke. I don't see Fletcher regaining his old stamina and we don't have anyone that can cover for Carrick in the short or long term.
All could be achieved for a lot less than £22 million. Thats almost a Van Persie
Every fee looks shit compared to Van Persie. Compares favorably to the fees we put out for Carrick/Hargreaves.
Quite younger compared to RVP who was in last year of contract tbf.
We paid 7 mill for bebe!!!
He would add much needed physical presence and versatility to our team, add defensively and offensively with his aerial skills and he is goalscorer. Imagine him thriving on crosses from our wide players? Imagine his knock downs for wazza and RVP! Chasing the game lumping balls into the box- a real asset.
To me given his age and the fact I don't want Chelsea or city to have him this signing is a no brainer.
Sadly though I doubt we are in for him.
He would add much needed physical presence and versatility to our team, add defensively and offensively with his aerial skills and he is goalscorer. Imagine him thriving on crosses from our wide players? Imagine his knock downs for wazza and RVP! Chasing the game lumping balls into the box- a real asset.
To me given his age and the fact I don't want Chelsea or city to have him this signing is a no brainer.
Sadly though I doubt we are in for him.
While Carrick is good, he is not good toa level that a team like Manchester United couldn't upgrade on him. In fact i'd say that he and Clev are similar levels of 'good', although Carrick is more experienced of course. If we signed Fellaini for a good £5m more than Carrick, I think he'd back his chances to get games too.
I'm not fully convinced Fellaini's good enough, but then haven't paid enough attention to his all round game. My observation is that he's not as good on the ball as Carrick though, but obviously has a far greater physical presence. Roy Keane was probably no better technically than Fellaini, so it isn't impossible that he could still have a huge impact here if he came.
Personally, given the numbers we have in midfield, which isn't actually that small, I'd like our next midfielder to be a bit special - just so we have that game-changer in that area of the field.
That's just wrong on so many level. It's driven by the myth that Keane is just that 'hardman' and hardworker player.
Fellaini is way better than most care to admit. He is developing into a physical Lampard.
I don't think it's a matter of people not wanting to admit it. It's just hard to judge him as a midfield player when he seldom plays there.
It isn't. A spade is a spade, he was fairly limited technically - huge difference between himself and the Scholes', Xavi's, Pirlo's etc. Vieira is a perfect reference in the sense that he was known as the other great 'hardman' of that time, and the difference between him and Keane technically is clear.
For me, Fellaini certainly is no worse in that department.
no its not. you ever actually watched any of keanes games? seen any of his goals? or his passing range? he was no scholes technically but very few are. the notion Viera was somehow way above him is ridiculous. Keane was a marvellously gifted footballer. if anything his desire and will to win was so consuming it sometimes blinded people to what they were watching
you are spot on about Keane - the only player I've seen come close to Keane was Essien at his best and he lacked Keanes presence on the pitch before injuries screwed him
he was a one off though - there is no one in world football i can think of at the minute who can play and lead a team the way Keane did
Keane did everything very well without being able to ping 50 yard passes
I think Fellaini is a bit limited as a player when on the ball and maybe not a great fit for United.
There's no Keane out there but I'd be searching Europe for a more physical Michael Carrick
I watched pretty much all of his games. And I disagree. He was no more 'gifted' than Darren Fletcher in my view. Thankfully, being gifted isn't the only thing needed in the composition of a football player, and he was still a great midfielder. Certainly wasn't a patch on Vieira in terms of natural ability though, and my guess is that he'd not look as good in today's game either.
Keanes passing ability was more important to us winning games then his tackiling, thats why Carrick with his less aggresive style replaced him succesfully, Keane would have no trouble dominating in todays football
The feck? I know I shouldn't have looked in here, this place is dangerous for my sanity.
Agreed.
We've got absolutely fantastic service from Carrick. Tremendous signing. He has more than justified his price tag. Anyone who thinks that we have not got our money's worth with Carrick simply does not understand football and should throw themselves off a high building for the sake of humanity.
Yeah, this place is mad at times.
I would take Fellaini in a heartbeat. Prices don't bother me, could be 10quid or 100Million.
Agreed, Keane was an excellent all-rounder technically. Tackling, heading, passing, first touch - all great. Matty Holland said Keane was the best 10-15 yard passer he'd seen; every pass was a crisp, forward pass which opened up the game. People laud Keane for his spirit in Turin but it would've meant nothing if he didn't have the skill to back it up because we won that game thanks to his metronomic passing.
That's what annoys me. The way people, my brother included, talk about Keane you'd think he was a glorified Lee Cattermole.
Whenever I watch him I see good player obviously, but there is only one thing where he really stands out in, and that is aerial and physical presence, I don't see anything else spectacular about him. He isn't player the we need.
He spent his first 2 season's here in midfield proper, with Tim Cahill ahead of him behind the mains striker, unless the strikers of Everton were injured. People have no excuse really. All they do is keep shifting the goal posts when analysing him.
That's Cloughie for you. Keane was the must-have player when he was sold and nobody could compete with what Utd offered him at the time. The fact that he was a hard man and a leader does tend to over-shadow his excellent footballing ability.
Keane was the play maker of United at his peak.
Nobody, well not me anyway, was implying he was a poor footballer. As I said, however, I'm simply calling it as I see it and he was certainly technically limited. If he was technically brilliant, then what do you call the midfielders who are known for being, well, technically brilliant? The fact that he sat next to a technically brilliant midfielder for most of his career highlights the difference. Yes, he could pass the ball 10 yards. Just like the Swansea midfielders do. However, increase the pressure a few notches and his limitations will show. You speak of his first-touch, but it was merely competant for me. Of course, it was not a weak spot for him, but he didn't have the feet of Vieira who was as elegant and graceful as he was tough. I refuse to accept that as anything other than bias personally.
Michael Carrick, himself not revered as one of the great technical midfielders of the game, has better technical ability than Roy Keane. Does that mean he was as good? Of course not. In fact I'd argue that Rio Ferdinand is more technically gifted than Keane was.
Again, this is not the only factor in assessing a footballer. Some people are of the view that Valencia is better than Nani, for instance, although he's clearly not more technically gifted. Keane was what he was, he was a Valencia of central midfielders as opposed to a Nani.
His natural ability is closer to Cattermole, or to be kinder - Scott Parker than it is to Xavi, Pirlo or Scholes.
I rated Keane and was nervous whenever he didn't play, but that doesn't change this. Vidic is also a technically limited footballer, but at the peak of his powers, I'd cringe if he wasn't in the team.
I'm sorry, I just can't be convinced that Keane was a technically superb footballer. Technically competent, oh yes, but top-class - never. I remember his games clearly, and still see many of his re-runs on MUTV. I know he was a great midfielder, I just also believe that I know what made him a great midfielder.
This thread was made in 2010 and made less than 5 pages till start of this season(2012/2013), and half of those posts were moaning how he was always good against us, and average in other games. Hardly 10 people wanted him here when he played in central midfield.
Since the start of this season, this thread got almost 15 new pages.
Carrick is a far better player than Fellaini the target man.
keane had a competent first touch? competent. increase pressure on keane and his limitations show? what are you talking about? feck me there is opinion and then there is talking through your hole.
Yea, and from my posts, it is clear that I also think the same about your views so don't get all high and mighty.
Do you know what competent means? Do you know what brilliant means? In terms of first touches, I will give you some examples of brilliant - van Persie, Giggs, Berbatov, Messi. I'll also give you some examples of competent - Steven Gerrard, or appropriately - Marouane Fellaini.
theres nothing high and mighty about calling out someone for denigrating the technical ability of Keane. its just right. yeah I know what competent means and I know what brilliant means. maybe if you were clever enough to realise there are actually quite a few stages between both of those levels your knowledge of football would improve
There are clearly levels in between 'competent' and 'brilliant'. I could list examples for that too. Michael Carrick would be one that we can easily relate to. For me, while being a lesser player - he is technically superior to Keane.
At what? Did you watch Keane regularly?
It would be fair to describe Keane as being a better player off the ball (crunching tackles, midfield general, leadership on and off the pitch) than with the ball. His fitness may also be a bit underappreciated. Early in his career he seemed to have an average level of fitness but in his peak years he was one incredibly fit dude...imagine Manny Pacquiao and Uriah Faber in a football kit.
Keane was far more than "competent" with the ball, but he wasn't exactly brilliant with the ball either. He wasn't quite up to the class of Scholes or even Beckham with the ball at his feet. Maybe not even Vieira or Yaya Toure. But definitely a notch or two above Fellaini, whose getting far too much attention on the caf.
Keane was far more than "competent" with the ball, but he wasn't exactly brilliant with the ball either. He wasn't quite up to the class of Scholes or even Beckham with the ball at his feet. Maybe not even Vieira or Yaya Toure. But definitely a notch or two above Fellaini, whose getting far too much attention on the caf.
He always looks the type of player who believes he should be at United. I think hed raise his game
As Keane got older and he wasn't quite the box to box player. I thought he was excellent at dictating the tempo of our play. He wasn't flashy on the ball but he was excellent in possession and rarely gave it away and it wasn't all sideway passes. Also that man had drive and a fire in his eyes that few will rarely match. True Legend he made everybody around him 20% better what a player.
Fellaini is not Keane but he is the type of player we don't have in our midfield ranks atm and he would be a fantastic signing imho.
At what?
Keano was pub player with a great spirit 
what has Caf come down to
what has Caf come down to- Status