Fellaini

Status
Not open for further replies.
Imo - what made Keane stand out from the rest was
a) he never misplaced a pass
b) even under pressure he never lost the ball
c) he gave 100% always
d) he made sure everyone else gave 100% always
e) he was probably the only player at United, that could match Fergusons will to win.

But Keane did not have the vision and accuracy for making 1-touch-passes that Carrick has. Noone in the P.L can match Carrick in that area
 
Keane had fantastic vision and awareness. They only thing Carrick may have had on him was long passes.
 
Grinner said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cash wise Blackburn offered him more but yes overall playing for United tipped it if thats what you mean.
 
Amar__ said:
.....Hardly 10 people wanted him here when he played in central midfield..........
Click to expand...
Most people in here have never wanted him here period! And they've used all sorts of lame excuses to back it up. The claim that he never plays in midfield being the biggest of all. Especially when the player first became Key for Everton in that very role.
 
There always seems to be a tendency to underplay both Robson and Keane's abilities as footballers in favour of their drive, captaincy etc. They were both proper midfielders who could do the lot, particularly pass the ball.
 
peterstorey said:
There always seems to be a tendency to underplay both Robson and Keane's abilities as footballers in favour of their drive, captaincy etc. They were both proper midfielders who could do the lot, particularly pass the ball.
Click to expand...

Robson was a beast of a player. Had the lot apart from being injury prone.
 
You dont have to constantly spray the ball 50 yards tobe technically top class

Did you ever see keen lose control of a ball? No

Keane was the epitome of world class. There's not a team in the world who wouldn't have liked him in their midfield at his peak

How we are taking about Keane in a thread about Fellaini I will never know. The latter isn't fit to lace keanes boots
 
golden_blunder said:
You dont have to constantly spray the ball 50 yards tobe technically top class

Did you ever see keen lose control of a ball? No

Keane was the epitome of world class. There's not a team in the world who wouldn't have liked him in their midfield at his peak

How we are taking about Keane in a thread about Fellaini I will never know. The latter isn't fit to lace keanes boots
Click to expand...

Is correct, that Arsenal middle aged bloke above also has it bob on.
 
Liam147 said:
Fellaini isn't even a midfielder! Are people seriously comparing him to Carrick and Keane?!
Click to expand...

If you watched him prior to this season, then you'd know he is.

I'd have him in our squad easily. Can play DM, box to box or as a no 10. Could play alongside Carrick or instead of him against weaker teams and, like Carrick, you could see him playing with all of our CMs. He'd be a great counter balance to players like Toure in midfield defensively and is technically underrated.
 
Siorac said:
The feck? I know I shouldn't have looked in here, this place is dangerous for my sanity.
Click to expand...

acnumber9 said:
Carrick is a far better player than Fellaini the target man.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that 22 million pounds in 2013 doesn't compare favorably to the reported 18 million we paid for Carrick in 2006 and 17m for Hargreaves in 2007? Prices have gone mad since then and 22m is a reasonable fee.
 
peterstorey said:
There always seems to be a tendency to underplay both Robson and Keane's abilities as footballers in favour of their drive, captaincy etc. They were both proper midfielders who could do the lot, particularly pass the ball.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of anyone underplay Robbo's ability with the ball. More than anthing else, we remember him primarily for his ability with the ball. Leadership a close second.

You can't put Robbo and Keano in the same sentence, other than to say that both were United midfielders and both were legends. Two different players, in terms of ability on the ball.

Keane, conversely, was known primarily for his leadership, which manifested itself mostly off the ball (even in tunnels) by demanding excellence from his teammates and his destruction of opponents, his vision for where opportunities and dangers were developing and his incredible tackling...the most intense I've ever seen from a midfielder. Keane could definitely do some great things with the ball, but he was never the one who would unlock opposing defenses. His particular martial art was destroying attacks and getting the ball to mids whose dark art was unlocking defenses...Keane was possibly the greatest midfielder ever at this particular gift. But no one would ever list the great midfielders of that generation in terms of ability on the ball, starting with Zidane and whoever else and finding Keane close by.

Giggs was known for his mazy runs, Scholes for his exquisite passing and Beckham for his crossing and free kicks. They were all capable of much else, to be sure. But can anyone seriously deny that Keane was the beating heart of the club and did whatever it took to destroy the opponent, mentally and physically. In the end, he became a self-destructive force, but for the better part of a decade he was a destructive force (for good, in this sense), allowing his mates to do all the beautiful things with the ball we remember them for.

Let's not get misty eyed. The man crushed opponents and sprayed the ball to his mates in the middle third, but he wasn't known as a brilliant playmaker and creator of scoring chances. Still, Keano is a legend of legends.
 
I hope we don't sign this dirty thug. He should be banned from football before he elbows a few more players and causes some serious damage eventually.
 
Ruud10 said:
I've never heard of anyone underplay Robbo's ability with the ball. More than anthing else, we remember him primarily for his ability with the ball. Leadership a close second.

You can't put Robbo and Keano in the same sentence, other than to say that both were United midfielders and both were legends. Two different players, in terms of ability on the ball.
Click to expand...
Forget Robson for now, the rest of your eulogy is exactly the kind of false mythologising that denies Keane his essential qualities as a very good midfielder.
 
beergod said:
So you are saying that 22 million pounds in 2013 doesn't compare favorably to the reported 18 million we paid for Carrick in 2006 and 17m for Hargreaves in 2007? Prices have gone mad since then and 22m is a reasonable fee.
Click to expand...

£22m for a midfielder who doesn't play in midfield? I'd consider that a shit deal.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Most people in here have never wanted him here period! And they've used all sorts of lame excuses to back it up. The claim that he never plays in midfield being the biggest of all. Especially when the player first became Key for Everton in that very role.
Click to expand...

He's such a good midfielder he no longer plays in midfield and instead plays the role of Everton's Grant Holt.
 
He was bought for £15 million and bonuses, he'd have been a key player at Everton no matter the role because they cant afford to spend that on someone who isnt playing every game.

He's a good player but he's nothing like Lampard who was mentioned earlier. His goalthreat will be considerably reduced when playing in midfield as he doesnt have mobility and the movement off the ball that someone like Scholes or Lampard, goalscoring midfielders, have.

If he was available for the same fee Everton paid for him I think he'd be a decent addition to the squad. He'd be good to rotate with the other midfielders. But the current fees being talked about are way over the top when we'd never use him in his best position, second striker
 
peterstorey said:
Forget Robson for now, the rest of your eulogy is exactly the kind of false mythologising that denies Keane his essential qualities as a very good midfielder.
Click to expand...

I don't deny he was "very good midfielder". I'll even see your "very good midfielder" and raise you with he was "an outstanding midfielder" and perhaps was the greatest defensive midfielder, aka destroyer, in the history of the game. I'll even go so far as to say, and I really do believe this, that he was the single most dominant and influential player in the English prem, to date.

But to suggest that Keane was brilliant with the ball at his feet would be taking hagiography to a ridiculous new extreme. He was no Zidane, not even Gerrard. With the ball, that is. Of the ball, few could touch Keane.




(Yikes, I'm at the "Sleep Train Arena" in Sacramento right now waiting for the game with the Miami Heat and there's some dude wearing a Liberpool short, Gerrard 8. That's a first for this neck of the woods!)
 
beergod said:
So you are saying that 22 million pounds in 2013 doesn't compare favorably to the reported 18 million we paid for Carrick in 2006 and 17m for Hargreaves in 2007? Prices have gone mad since then and 22m is a reasonable fee.
Click to expand...

For the 18m we paid for Carrick we got a player who was a reliable key member of four title-winning sides, three of which got to the CL final as well.

For 22m we could get a player whose best position is that of the second striker, a position where we are well-stocked. He doesn't have the range of passing or the defensive nous of Carrick so I definitely wouldn't consider it a favourable deal.
 
Ruud10 said:
I don't deny he was "very good midfielder". I'll even see your "very good midfielder" and raise you with he was "an outstanding midfielder" and perhaps was the greatest defensive midfielder, aka destroyer, in the history of the game. I'll even go so far as to say, and I really do believe this, that he was the single most dominant and influential player in the English prem, to date.

But to suggest that Keane was brilliant with the ball at his feet would be taking hagiography to a ridiculous new extreme. He was no Zidane, not even Gerrard. With the ball, that is. Of the ball, few could touch Keane.
Click to expand...

Keane wasn't just a destroyer though, he was a classic box to box midfielder that was very good on the ball. Just cause he had a temper and liked a tackle doesn't mean that he was purely an inspirational clogger.



1.50 in that vid for example, ball is played to him, flicks it on with the outside of his right foot then charges into the box to get the pass, takes it round the keeper and then finishes from a tight angle with his wrong foot.

Pick out one part of that that describes a destroyer. Peter has it spot on, a lot of people do not give Keane the credit he deserves for his actual playing ability.
 
Ruud10 said:
But to suggest that Keane was brilliant with the ball at his feet would be taking hagiography to a ridiculous new extreme. He was no Zidane, not even Gerrard. With the ball, that is. Of the ball, few could touch Keane.
Click to expand...
Zidane and Gerrard are attacking midfielders (forwards in old money) not CMs.
 
peterstorey said:
Zidane and Gerrard are attacking midfielders (forwards in old money) not CMs.
Click to expand...

Thank you for reaffirming my point. Defensive mids have a different skill set than attacking mids. The former seek and destroy; the latter create. Some overlap, to be sure, but surely you must agree with me that their roles are different and are largely a function of their ability on the ball.
 
He's a good target man as a player played off a striker. He isn't better than our midfielders, nor good enough to get playing in any of the forward roles ahead of any of our forwards. He'd be great if we decided to play long ball football, but since we don't, what exactly would he bring us, other than competition with Chelsea for the team with the most overrated, stupidly curly haired feck of a player in the premier league.
 
peterstorey said:
There always seems to be a tendency to underplay both Robson and Keane's abilities as footballers in favour of their drive, captaincy etc. They were both proper midfielders who could do the lot, particularly pass the ball.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. He and Robson simply couldn't have been our midfield generals for over a decade without being top class passers, that's how it's always been at this club. Keane was the one running our midfield from the moment Ince left to the moment he went to Celtic. I can understand things like "Vieira was the more gifted footballer" and "Keane's will to win stood above all else" being misinterpreted by the younger fans as him being a destroyer but I can't understand people watching him week in, week out and thinking that. When he was named in the PL team of the year with Forest he was an attacking midfielder bursting on ahead of the forward time and again. In his first couple of seasons with us you'd see him running up the wing or getting into the box every bit as often as you'd see him in his own half. And to suggest he couldn't unlock opposition defences? Crazy. His passing unlocked plenty of defences and if that wasn't working he'd just go on a typical driving run like so:

 
Rozay said:
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.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
The Irish Lee Cattermole has a nice ring to it. I like the how he thinks that he's being kind to compare Keano's natural ability to Scott Parker.
 
KM said:
The Irish Lee Cattermole has a nice ring to it. I like the how he thinks that he's being kind to compare Keano's natural ability to Scott Parker.
Click to expand...

Didn't even see that post yesterday.

What can you say? It's as bad an opinion as I have seen on the caf.
 
If we have the chance to sign him, we should. He's not Roy Keane. Defensively he would be an asset and in midfield he would do a good job. Not sure what there is to debate. When we bought Dwight Yorke, there is no way in hell that anyone would say he was a 25 a goal season man but when he put the shirt on he became world class.

Fellainis performance against us, was the best individual performance for me, in a very long time. He would offer the squad a tremendous option, and he's at the right age
 
Out of curiousity, how many levels above Darren Fletcher do you guys think Roy Keane was in terms of footballing ability? (i.e - not drive, determination, leadership and all other non-technical qualities).
 
The only technical argument I have constantly seen here is not misplacing passes. Again, I have never implied Keane was useless with the ball. He had enough ability to form a platform for his key attributes to actually flourish, but not much more than that, is my view. It is important to keep the ball, but being able to give it to the guy next to you isn't the epitome of being a technical genius. Liverpool and Swansea midfielders have been doing it for ages, and while nobody says they are technically poor (which I am not saying about Keane either) - nobody particularly mentions them as technically outstanding either.

To add, I don't think Fellaini is technically poor either. I think he is technically good enough, although his technical ability isn't his main strength, like with Keane, who was still a great midfielder. This was the basis of my comparison of the two, in the sense that he could still possibly become a great midfielder for us despite not being technically outstanding. Players like Essien (who was most United fans' first choice to replace Keane) was similar. Great player, decent ability, but no more than that. In a Ghana midfield, for instance, he couldn't do what Kevin-Prince can with a ball. Does that make him worse? Not necessarily. But it is what it is. Because he can control the ball and pass it is not a basis for people to go around banging on about Essien's technical ability.

An example of someone who, on the ball, performs many similar duties as Keane did would be Busquets - in terms of lots of continuity passes etc. That said, for those who actually want to, a difference in technical ability can still be assessed between the two. It's way to simplistic to simply say 'he rarely gives it away' as evidence of great footballing ability. Rio Ferdinand (who I also think is a more naturally/technically gifted player than Keane) rarely gives it away either, but that's largely because he passes it square to Vidic more often than not.
 
Rozay said:
The only technical argument I have constantly seen here is not misplacing passes. Again, I have never implied Keane was useless with the ball. He had enough ability to form a platform for his key attributes to actually flourish, but not much more than that, is my view. It is important to keep the ball, but being able to give it to the guy next to you isn't the epitome of being a technical genius. Liverpool and Swansea midfielders have been doing it for ages, and while nobody says they are technically poor (which I am not saying about Keane either) - nobody particularly mentions them as technically outstanding either.

To add, I don't think Fellaini is technically poor either. I think he is technically good enough, although his technical ability isn't his main strength, like with Keane, who was still a great midfielder. This was the basis of my comparison of the two, in the sense that he could still possibly become a great midfielder for us despite not being technically outstanding. Players like Essien (who was most United fans' first choice to replace Keane) was similar. Great player, decent ability, but no more than that. In a Ghana midfield, for instance, he couldn't do what Kevin-Prince can with a ball. Does that make him worse? Not necessarily. But it is what it is. Because he can control the ball and pass it is not a basis for people to go around banging on about Essien's technical ability.

An example of someone who, on the ball, performs many similar duties as Keane did would be Busquets - in terms of lots of continuity passes etc. That said, for those who actually want to, a difference in technical ability can still be assessed between the two. It's way to simplistic to simply say 'he rarely gives it away' as evidence of great footballing ability. Rio Ferdinand (who I also think is a more naturally/technically gifted player than Keane) rarely gives it away either, but that's largely because he passes it square to Vidic more often than not.
Click to expand...

Then why is Rio a centre back and not a midfielder? If Rio's ability is greater than Keane's, a guy who do dominated midfields at the highest level for years, the surely SAF and everybody else has missed a major opportunity with Ferdinand.
 
Rozay said:
It is important to keep the ball, but being able to give it to the guy next to you isn't the epitome of being a technical genius. Liverpool and Swansea midfielders have been doing it for ages, and while nobody says they are technically poor (which I am not saying about Keane either) - nobody particularly mentions them as technically outstanding either.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you think Keane just played simple 5 and 10 yard passes.
 
Rozay said:
Rio Ferdinand (who I also think is a more naturally/technically gifted player than Keane) rarely gives it away either, but that's largely because he passes it square to Vidic more often than not.
Click to expand...

There's a world of difference between retaining possession in the middle of a clustered midfield and stroking it about unchallenged in defence (or even 5 yards in front of the back-line in the way that Makelele and Mascherano mastered).

What strikes me about the 1990s generation of central midfielders is that the very best had no chinks in their armour. In contrast many of the standout midfielders of the last decade have been specialists in destruction or lightweight creative types, but have mostly lacked the all-round skillset that Matthaus, Davids and Keane possessed.
 
Eugenius said:
If you watched him prior to this season, then you'd know he is.

I'd have him in our squad easily. Can play DM, box to box or as a no 10. Could play alongside Carrick or instead of him against weaker teams and, like Carrick, you could see him playing with all of our CMs. He'd be a great counter balance to players like Toure in midfield defensively and is technically underrated.
Click to expand...

I have seen him before this season. There's a reason he now plays high up the field, and it isn't because if his sterling performances in the middle. I'm not sure he's energetic/quick enough to play as a box-to-box, and I'm not sure about his overall defensive qualities to play as an outright DM.
 
Rozay said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen posted on here. And that is saying something. How old are you as a matter of interest?
 
Rozay said:
Out of curiousity, how many levels above Darren Fletcher do you guys think Roy Keane was in terms of footballing ability? (i.e - not drive, determination, leadership and all other non-technical qualities).
Click to expand...

It's not even close. You will never see someone that saw Keane properly ask that question. Never. You'll see who was better: Keane or Robson...and it usually comes down to sentimentality. It's not even close..

Keane was TOP drawer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.