Roy Keane

Brwned said:
Because it's about the collective, not the individuals. Rooney wanted to win the ball back all the time, but he rarely participated in an orchestrated press. Much like Bruno now, or Giggs in the 90s. Chasing after the ball as an individual - which you can see plenty of evidence of in that Leeds game - is not pressing.

If our pressing game falls apart without Keane, then it wasn't a pressing game at all - it was just that Roy Keane was particularly good at winning the ball back and ran all day. City rotate their key players all the time and play the same way. Some are better runners than others but this cohesive unit closing down spaces in packs over and over again is what defines their pressing game, and that's just something we never did. Which is why the 90s team could be described as "too open" - again that's the opposite of what pressing intends to do, it's about compressing the space.

One of the key things required to do that is playing a high line - it's such an obvious feature that we never employed. Bruce and Vidic simply couldn't play in a high line, and we knew that when we bought them. They were bought because we wanted defenders who could defend the box and dominate the air, not high up the pitch in tight spaces.

If the binary choice is between high press and sat deep, then we were much more often in the latter category. Of course there's plenty of variation in that spectrum and we weren't anything like Mourinho's teams, but the binary choice was created to simplify the discussion.

Just pick up any random game from Ajax or Netherlands in the early 70s and contrast that with United in the 90s. It doesn't matter which game you pick for any of them, the contrast is so stark, and while the term "pressing" wasn't used in the UK then, everyone could recognise that the Dutch were playing a completely different game. England was one of the last leagues to employ anything resembling a pressing game, and it didn't happen in the last century.
Click to expand...

I think you're underestimating that generation massively. They were top level footballers. I'm sure they knew the key to winning the ball back was to hunt for it in a pack.

Me and my pals at 5 a side know this. I'm sure Keane, Alex Ferguson and the rest of players also knew this. It wasn't just Roy Keane charging around with the rest looking on.

I'm not arguing it hasn't been improved upon thpugh, I've no doubt City's players are better drilled in it.


Sparky Rhiwabon said:
I could see back in the 80’s Liverpool used to what we now call “press” although no one called it that back then, and only Liverpool really used to do it (in this country anyway) - I thought at the time that it was their “secret” and why they were so much better than the rest back then. Even the players you thought of as purely attackers used to press (I think they called it “defend from the front” then, if anything), the likes of John Barnes and Ian Rush.
Click to expand...

Yep it was called defending from the front.

Now repackaged as high press. With all pundits contractually obliged to mention it 20 times per show.
 
Marwood said:
I think you're underestimating that generation massively. They were top level footballers. I'm sure they knew the key to winning the ball back was to hunt for it in a pack.

Me and my pals at 5 a side know this. I'm sure Keane, Alex Ferguson and the rest of players also knew this. It wasn't just Roy Keane charging around with the rest looking on.

I'm not arguing it hasn't been improved upon thpugh, I've no doubt City's players are better drilled in it.




Yep it was called defending from the front.

Now repackaged as high press. With all pundits contractually obliged to mention it 20 times per show.
Click to expand...
(Defending from the front) Goes right back to ze dutch and their total football philosophy and having players in every position who could positively contribute to the game. Refined at Barca and Pep has just taken it to another level in the modern game.
 
Marwood said:
I think you're underestimating that generation massively. They were top level footballers. I'm sure they knew the key to winning the ball back was to hunt for it in a pack.

Me and my pals at 5 a side know this. I'm sure Keane, Alex Ferguson and the rest of players also knew this. It wasn't just Roy Keane charging around with the rest looking on.

I'm not arguing it hasn't been improved upon thpugh, I've no doubt City's players are better drilled in it.




Yep it was called defending from the front.

Now repackaged as high press. With all pundits contractually obliged to mention it 20 times per show.
Click to expand...

I'm not underestimating them. The 90s United team was clearly better than this team. I think Pele's as good as any player to play the game. If I have any kind of generational bias it's towards older players - I certainly rate them higher than the average person these days.

Di Stefano was an amazing player who ran all day but he never played in a press. That's not a criticism of his quality it's an assessment of the tactics he was employing.

You can't press high up the pitch without pushing your defenders high up the pitch, so if you don't want your defenders to be threatened in behind then you have to drop deeper. If the front three press high but the defenders sit back then you've got acres of space between attack and midfield or attack and defence, and everything falls apart. That was the conundrum they were wrestling with back in the 50s.

Lobanovskiy, Michels, Sacchi, Klopp etc. tackled that problem head on with aggressive offside traps, defenders who preferred the ball on the ground rather than in the air, etc. We obviously didn't do that. We knew that the quickest way to win the ball back was to crowd the player on the ball, but we weren't going to go that as aggressively and as high as a Klopp team because we didn't build a defence that likes to play high. We built a defence that was very good at protecting the box. It wasn't stupid for us not to employ a pressing game, it was a judgement call that weighed up pros and cons.
 
RooneyLegend said:
Regardless, he still had a better first touch and passing than Keane, this shouldn't even be a debate. He was a better ball player than Keane. He didn't even have to join us for that to be obvious.
Click to expand...
He absolutely did not have a better first touch than Keane - his touch was exceptional. There's some discussion to be had around passing range, although Keane was both an excellent metronomic passer and, similarly to Carrick, passed through the lines opening teams up.
 
Oranges038 said:
High press / Low block - fancy new works for working hard to get the ball back and catenaccio.
Click to expand...

They mean different things

High press/working hard to get the ball back - There are different pressing systems, a high press specifically will involve pressing high into the opposition's half in order to put pressure on the opponent's backline, and to facilitate that the backline will be positioned very high up the pitch in order to compact the playing pitch. "Working hard to get the ball back" can apply to any pressing system, but for example someone like Conte has his teams work very hard to get the ball back (after regaining their defensive shape) but he obviously doesn't play a high press.

Low block/Catenaccio - Catenaccio refers specifically to the tactic, it's far more encompassing than just defending deep. Herrera's Catenaccio had many functions, as well as his innovative use of the sweeper and the way he employed fullbacks, it wasn't just a defensive system but one that facilitated the entire team, including their fast counter attacks.

So while you could maybe say that Catenaccio used a low block, you couldn't say that a low block uses the Catenaccio.
 
Cascarino said:
They mean different things

High press/working hard to get the ball back - There are different pressing systems, a high press specifically will involve pressing high into the opposition's half in order to put pressure on the opponent's backline, and to facilitate that the backline will be positioned very high up the pitch in order to compact the playing pitch. "Working hard to get the ball back" can apply to any pressing system, but for example someone like Conte has his teams work very hard to get the ball back (after regaining their defensive shape) but he obviously doesn't play a high press.

Low block/Catenaccio - Catenaccio refers specifically to the tactic, it's far more encompassing than just defending deep. Herrera's Catenaccio had many functions, as well as his innovative use of the sweeper and the way he employed fullbacks, it wasn't just a defensive system but one that facilitated the entire team, including their fast counter attacks.

So while you could maybe say that Catenaccio used a low block, you couldn't say that a low block uses the Catenaccio.
Click to expand...



High press / working hard to get the ball back - is the same system when you employ it in the opposition half. It's just defending from the front. It wasn't very prevalent in England because not many teams played around too much at the back, they always tended to be more direct, so in that sense it wasn't really used as a high press. When the teams were playing more direct, it's when working hard to get the ball back that was used to put pressure on the defending team in their own half to stop them getting out easy. Look at what Klopp's Liverpool did when they won the league, with his famous "gengenpress" - long balls, long diagonal balls, swinging cross after cross into the box and pressing high to pen teams in once the ball went up there. That's a tactic Jack Charlton employed to great success with Ireland in the late 80's and early 90's. "Put 'em under pressure" was the motto.

Low block is just a fancy word for defending deep which is just another way of referring to catenaccio - it's not a new tactic - it's been around for as long as football - it's just the same old catenaccio with a new name - in most of them the sweeper has moved from behind the defense to be in front of the defense. The tactic is still the same sit deep and clip long balls into the channels or look for full backs to release down the wings. Herrera's 532 is pretty much what Nuno utilized at Wolves. Conte's 352/532 is pretty much the same only he inserts more attacking players at full back and in centre midfield to increase the attacking output from the system.

The systems may be more fine tuned nowadays but football hasn't been reinvented - like everything else it's cyclical, what's used today might not be used in 15 to 20 years. But maybe in 30 years someone will come along and have a new system which incorporates a few ideas from the old ones. Who knows, In future years we might see the return of 442 and proper all round box to box midfielders like Roy might be all the rage again.
 
Oranges038 said:
High press / working hard to get the ball back - is the same system when you employ it in the opposition half. It's just defending from the front. It wasn't very prevalent in England because not many teams played around too much at the back, they always tended to be more direct, so in that sense it wasn't really used as a high press. When the teams were playing more direct, it's when working hard to get the ball back that was used to put pressure on the defending team in their own half to stop them getting out easy. Look at what Klopp's Liverpool did when they won the league, with his famous "gengenpress" - long balls, long diagonal balls, swinging cross after cross into the box and pressing high to pen teams in once the ball went up there. That's a tactic Jack Charlton employed to great success with Ireland in the late 80's and early 90's. "Put 'em under pressure" was the motto.

Low block is just a fancy word for defending deep which is just another way of referring to catenaccio - it's not a new tactic - it's been around for as long as football - it's just the same old catenaccio with a new name - in most of them the sweeper has moved from behind the defense to be in front of the defense. The tactic is still the same sit deep and clip long balls into the channels or look for full backs to release down the wings. Herrera's 532 is pretty much what Nuno utilized at Wolves. Conte's 352/532 is pretty much the same only he inserts more attacking players at full back and in centre midfield to increase the attacking output from the system.
Click to expand...

I disagree with all this mate, at least the stuff pertaining to the phrases. These terms come into popularity because it makes it easier to convey how we see the game and what our approach is. They're just useful descriptors . High press refers to a specific pressing system, low block a defensive shape, Catenaccio a tactic (it's a lot more than just a low block). I know people can get annoyed with buzzwords but they serve a useful purpose.

Oranges038 said:
The systems may be more fine tuned nowadays but football hasn't been reinvented - like everything else it's cyclical, what's used today might not be used in 15 to 20 years. But maybe in 30 years someone will come along and have a new system which incorporates a few ideas from the old ones. Who knows, In future years we might see the return of 442 and proper all round box to box midfielders like Roy might be all the rage again.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this

Cascarino said:
It's not really about a generational thing, I've watched football from the 50s (the little we have) and more football from every decade onwards. Everything in football is recycled, I've spoken about how pressing has become such a ubiquitous part of the PL but we had Rinus Michels brilliant Dutch side employing a high octane press in 1974 with a high line, Arrigo Sacchi's Milan was heavily inspired by Michels, but applied their own pressing system involving zonal marking and greater compactness. These systems have heavily inspired modern football and we can see their essence in Guardiola's Barcelona and the sides that came afterwards, where he built his own style from the blueprints of his predecessors, using his 6 second rule to regain control of the ball and then relying on the compact shape to stop counters if unsuccessful. Klopp's spin was to instead of relying on the press as a strategy to stop counters, or regain control of the ball, was to use it as an offensive strategy in order to create chances during the transitional period before the opponents can regain shape.

Every era of football is different, and heavily recycled, with approaches that may have gone out of fashion being once again reintroduced, or a manager puts his own innovative spin on one of the classics. Every period has it's own strengths and unique style, so when I say the technical standard in the PL player for player is better now than it was in the 90s, it's not as a derogatory remark but an acknowledgement of how the game has changed.
Click to expand...


I think very much the same as you, everything in football is cyclical.
 
Tom Van Persie said:
Yeah great decision by England. They definitely didn't need a Carrick to bring balance to the side. They were better off by trying to shoe-horn Stevie me and Lampard in midfield. :rolleyes:

Pep Guardiola called him one of the best holding midfielders he's ever seen. I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Carrick was mint. What I wouldn't give for even one of Keano or Carrick in midfield the now.
 
We are talking about Roy Keane as a potential successor to OGS right?
 
Marwood said:
It'd probably be a disaster but the first 6 month would be crazy entertaining.
Click to expand...

I think I would be well able to control my mirth.

Keano seems to think it all comes down to a relentless attitude, working your socks off and total loyalty and conviction. That is:

- a terrific trait in a team captain
- a good trait in a midfielder, especially if he's got the necessary quality
- a tiresome trait in a pundit
- a complete disaster in a manager.
 
Dans said:
We are talking about Roy Keane as a potential successor to OGS right?
Click to expand...

Not even one person has said that.
A few have flippantly suggested he could be the number 2, to run around demoralising, sorry...encouraging players though.
 
Brwned said:
I'm not underestimating them. The 90s United team was clearly better than this team. I think Pele's as good as any player to play the game. If I have any kind of generational bias it's towards older players - I certainly rate them higher than the average person these days.

Di Stefano was an amazing player who ran all day but he never played in a press. That's not a criticism of his quality it's an assessment of the tactics he was employing.

You can't press high up the pitch without pushing your defenders high up the pitch, so if you don't want your defenders to be threatened in behind then you have to drop deeper. If the front three press high but the defenders sit back then you've got acres of space between attack and midfield or attack and defence, and everything falls apart. That was the conundrum they were wrestling with back in the 50s.

Lobanovskiy, Michels, Sacchi, Klopp etc. tackled that problem head on with aggressive offside traps, defenders who preferred the ball on the ground rather than in the air, etc. We obviously didn't do that. We knew that the quickest way to win the ball back was to crowd the player on the ball, but we weren't going to go that as aggressively and as high as a Klopp team because we didn't build a defence that likes to play high. We built a defence that was very good at protecting the box. It wasn't stupid for us not to employ a pressing game, it was a judgement call that weighed up pros and cons.
Click to expand...

I mean you're suggesting individual players might have worked hard but they were doing so independently. Not in any kind of coordinated way. I think that is an underestimation. Keane and thw rest were top level footballers. They probably didn't make a big deal out of it, didn't have a trendy phrase for it but I'm sure had the intelligence to purposely win the ball back as a group.

Again I suppose its memory and perception. I don't think of Bruce/Pallister or Stam/Johnsen as playing particularly deep. Maybe not on the halfway line like City but advanced enough. Just because Bruce was slow doesn't mean he played purely on the edge of his area.

It's a shame with all these interviews they do with Keane and others they don't ask about this stuff. What those teams worked on, what the collective idea was going into a game. Would be very interesting.
 
Marwood said:
I mean you're suggesting individual players might have worked hard but they were doing so independently. Not in any kind of coordinated way. I think that is an underestimation. Keane and thw rest were top level footballers. They probably didn't make a big deal out of it, didn't have a trendy phrase for it but I'm sure had the intelligence to purposely win the ball back as a group.

Again I suppose its memory and perception. I don't think of Bruce/Pallister or Stam/Johnsen as playing particularly deep. Maybe not on the halfway line like City but advanced enough. Just because Bruce was slow doesn't mean he played purely on the edge of his area.

It's a shame with all these interviews they do with Keane and others they don't ask about this stuff. What those teams worked on, what the collective idea was going into a game. Would be very interesting.
Click to expand...

They pressed as a unit to a limited degree but most of our strength was in winning individual battles, on or off the ball. The wingers would destroy the fullbacks, Keane and Ince would dominate their individual midfield battles, that’s the game we played and we were very effective at it at home so I don’t see it as a criticism at all, just an observation.

It’s all relative. United played higher up the pitch than most teams they played against, but then no team in England played a pressing game at that point.

Before Heysel Liverpool were a symbol of tactical modernity on the continent (while e.g. Forest were the symbol of English traditions) but after the ban all English clubs had taken a step back. Once we got on top in the league we had great individuals but consistently underperformed in Europe, and once we got past the excuses of the foreign player quota, the focus went to our tactical choices being better suited to the domestic game than the continental one.

We just weren’t one of the tactical innovators and at that time very few teams were playing a pressing game, Sacchi’s team stood out in the same way Michel’s Ajax did.

Agreed it would be good to get more insight on that, but I’ve seen Rio, Giggs and Rooney talk about Sir Alex’s tactics in the past and they just don’t have any insight to offer. A lot of footballers aren’t that articulate and Rooney was among the worst of the bunch in that regard, but if they’re able to articulate so little, it also fits with the narrative that Sir Alex didn’t place much emphasis on tactics.

He covered off the necessities but most of his focus went on getting great individuals in his squad and getting them motivated. Which also fits with the likes of Keane, Rooney and Giggs not being very good managers, as they had little tactical insight to pass on and no-one can create Sir Alex’s motivational power.
 
justsomebloke said:
I think I would be well able to control my mirth.

Keano seems to think it all comes down to a relentless attitude, working your socks off and total loyalty and conviction. That is:

- a terrific trait in a team captain
- a good trait in a midfielder, especially if he's got the necessary quality
- a tiresome trait in a pundit
- a complete disaster in a manager.
Click to expand...
I agree except Moyes has his moments.
 
Keane's ability is massively underrated because how good the other players were, especially Scholes. I feel the same way about Butt.
 
justsomebloke said:
I think I would be well able to control my mirth.

Keano seems to think it all comes down to a relentless attitude, working your socks off and total loyalty and conviction. That is:

- a terrific trait in a team captain
- a good trait in a midfielder, especially if he's got the necessary quality
- a tiresome trait in a pundit
- a complete disaster in a manager.
Click to expand...
So true!
 
Red00012 said:
Butt would have made more tackles Saturday than Fred has all season
Click to expand...

Not that anybody will care, but making few tackles isn't actually among the things you could reasonably accuse Fred of. His tackling stats are actually good to very good.

From Fbref (last 365 days) (Stats per 90/percentile (87 percentile = better than 87% of central midfielders)).


Tackles3.02
87​

Tackles Won1.96
85​

Tackles (Def 3rd)1.24
79​

Tackles (Mid 3rd)1.44
87​

Tackles (Att 3rd)0.35
73​

 
justsomebloke said:
Not that anybody will care, but making few tackles isn't actually among the things you could reasonably accuse Fred of. His tackling stats are actually good to very good.

From Fbref (last 365 days) (Stats per 90/percentile (87 percentile = better than 87% of central midfielders)).


Tackles3.02
87​
Tackles Won1.96
85​
Tackles (Def 3rd)1.24
79​
Tackles (Mid 3rd)1.44
87​
Tackles (Att 3rd)0.35
73​
Click to expand...

Considering that as a team we’ve made fewer tackles than any other club in the Premier League it really shows how unfair it is to constantly scapegoat Fred for all our woes..
 
thebelfastboy said:
(Defending from the front) Goes right back to ze dutch and their total football philosophy and having players in every position who could positively contribute to the game. Refined at Barca and Pep has just taken it to another level in the modern game.
Click to expand...

:) yes and especially started at Ajax because Johan Neeskens could run non stop all day. Peit Keizer used to be good in closing down the channels when he was the left winger. Also the defense would push up and make the field so small. Their keeper Schrijvers and Stuy used to sweep up and very good with their feet.
So it was defending from the front and hunting in packs. What worked for them was also they inter change positions so that attackers could defend too.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Considering that as a team we’ve made fewer tackles than any other club in the Premier League it really shows how unfair it is to constantly scapegoat Fred for all our woes..
Click to expand...

Yep. It may be of course that he has also declined in this area this season (these stats being last 365 days), but I think you're fundamentally right about that. It's become an easy and lazy response.
 
Oranges038 said:
High press / working hard to get the ball back - is the same system when you employ it in the opposition half. It's just defending from the front. It wasn't very prevalent in England because not many teams played around too much at the back, they always tended to be more direct, so in that sense it wasn't really used as a high press. When the teams were playing more direct, it's when working hard to get the ball back that was used to put pressure on the defending team in their own half to stop them getting out easy. Look at what Klopp's Liverpool did when they won the league, with his famous "gengenpress" - long balls, long diagonal balls, swinging cross after cross into the box and pressing high to pen teams in once the ball went up there. That's a tactic Jack Charlton employed to great success with Ireland in the late 80's and early 90's. "Put 'em under pressure" was the motto.

Low block is just a fancy word for defending deep which is just another way of referring to catenaccio - it's not a new tactic - it's been around for as long as football - it's just the same old catenaccio with a new name - in most of them the sweeper has moved from behind the defense to be in front of the defense. The tactic is still the same sit deep and clip long balls into the channels or look for full backs to release down the wings. Herrera's 532 is pretty much what Nuno utilized at Wolves. Conte's 352/532 is pretty much the same only he inserts more attacking players at full back and in centre midfield to increase the attacking output from the system.

The systems may be more fine tuned nowadays but football hasn't been reinvented - like everything else it's cyclical, what's used today might not be used in 15 to 20 years. But maybe in 30 years someone will come along and have a new system which incorporates a few ideas from the old ones. Who knows, In future years we might see the return of 442 and proper all round box to box midfielders like Roy might be all the rage again.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....adapted-Jurgen-Klopp-Pep-Guardiola-today.html
 
Might have posted this before but I think it’s worth posting again just for those of you who haven’t heard it or didn’t see Keane in his pomp.
There’s a comedian/ impressionist here in Dublin called Mario Rosenstock.For anyone who hasn’t heard him I highly recommend him.
He’s a brilliant impressionist and does a Jose Mourinho impression so good that even Mourinho loves it.
When Mourinho was in his first spell at Chelsea the team hired Rosenstock to come over to Liverpool to entertain them and Jose the night before they played Everton.
Rosenstock recounted this on radio several years ago.The evening went very well, Jose was delighted and everyone enjoyed the gig.
Afterwards when all the players went to bed Rosenstock had a couple of drinks and a chat with Jose.When the banter stopped he asked Jose if he could sign one player for Chelsea who it would be, Jose replied instantly Roy Keane.
Rosenstock asked him why expecting a lengthy analysis of Keane’s strengths.
Instead Jose said with complete seriousness & sincerity “Because Roy Keane is invincible”.
Enough said.
 
The Brown Bull said:
Might have posted this before but I think it’s worth posting again just for those of you who haven’t heard it or didn’t see Keane in his pomp.
There’s a comedian/ impressionist here in Dublin called Mario Rosenstock.For anyone who hasn’t heard him I highly recommend him.
He’s a brilliant impressionist and does a Jose Mourinho impression so good that even Mourinho loves it.
When Mourinho was in his first spell at Chelsea the team hired Rosenstock to come over to Liverpool to entertain them and Jose the night before they played Everton.
Rosenstock recounted this on radio several years ago.The evening went very well, Jose was delighted and everyone enjoyed the gig.
Afterwards when all the players went to bed Rosenstock had a couple of drinks and a chat with Jose.When the banter stopped he asked Jose if he could sign one player for Chelsea who it would be, Jose replied instantly Roy Keane.
Rosenstock asked him why expecting a lengthy analysis of Keane’s strengths.
Instead Jose said with complete seriousness & sincerity “Because Roy Keane is invincible”.
Enough said.
Click to expand...

he was the guy who did a version of "where's me jumper?"as the former pm, right? Loved that one. :)
 
Theonas said:
I've no idea why this very evident is missed in this discussion. The history of football is basically 11 players randomly running on a pitch and gradually, someone will come in and gradually organize, structure and refine that running and movement. This will naturally lead to coaching levels getting more and more honed with time. PL teams in the '90s played with more basic setups and simpler tactics than their counterparts even at the time, let alone how football is played today. This was exposed at the European stage where only us could compete with the best of Europe in almost an entire decade. The idea that that level of coaching that was required to compete back then could simply be copy pasted against the competition of today is really absurd.
Click to expand...
What a load of shite. English clubs have won loads of European competitions long before you're claiming.

Claiming English teams in the 90s weren't tactically savvy is ridiculous given English teams dominated Europe in the 80s and in the 90s consistently went deep into European competitions.
 
Green_Red said:
What a load of shite. English clubs have won loads of European competitions long before you're claiming.

Claiming English teams in the 90s weren't tactically savvy is ridiculous given English teams dominated Europe in the 80s and in the 90s consistently went deep into European competitions.
Click to expand...
The ban in the mid 80s did put English clubs back a bit.
 
Green_Red said:
What a load of shite. English clubs have won loads of European competitions long before you're claiming.

Claiming English teams in the 90s weren't tactically savvy is ridiculous given English teams dominated Europe in the 80s and in the 90s consistently went deep into European competitions.
Click to expand...
The statistics for once are telling. The performances of the English clubs in European competitions were horrendous. We boasted 8 or 9 of the best players in their position and only managed one final in that era. It's true that we were unlucky at times but we also were never a Real, Bayern or Juventus in those days. Arsenal were a juggernaut locally but never made even a semi final in the CL. Sir Alex would speak time and time again about how we needed to adapt to European teams, how often do you hear that from Klopp or Guardiola nowadays?

Also, winning European Cups in the past does not have anything to do with my main argument, which is that even if the PL was equal to its counter parts at the time as you suggest, it is still inferior to the tactical standards of today. I am honestly not sure how that this is a controversial point considering how highly regarded Mourinho, Benitez and later on the current crop are regarded in terms of their contribution to English football. Sir Alex kept growing and adapting to the new developments. Solskjaer wants to copy paste what worked in the '90s in a way Sir Alex himself did not try to copy paste 10 years later.
 
I think the closest player to Keane today would be Kimmich.

Keane was very aggressive in the tackle but he definitely wasn't the Kante type of player who would press all over the pitch. I wouldn't be surprised he had lower sprints per match or distanced covered.

His greatest strength was his ability to take control of any situation in midfield and offer a solution be it off the ball or on it. He had an extremely reliable first touch, he wasn't pass master like Xavi but his decision-making was spot on everytime. Whenever he was on the pitch you get the feeling he was always there to offer himself as either as a passing option or to close down attackers. It's something quite lacking from our midfielders today. They lack both the talent and application on the pitch.

I think Kimmich is the same as well, he is definitely not as talented as someone like Kroos or Thiago but what he brings to the table is invaluable.
 
Theonas said:
I've no idea why this very evident is missed in this discussion. The history of football is basically 11 players randomly running on a pitch and gradually, someone will come in and gradually organize, structure and refine that running and movement. This will naturally lead to coaching levels getting more and more honed with time. PL teams in the '90s played with more basic setups and simpler tactics than their counterparts even at the time, let alone how football is played today. This was exposed at the European stage where only us could compete with the best of Europe in almost an entire decade. The idea that that level of coaching that was required to compete back then could simply be copy pasted against the competition of today is really absurd.
Click to expand...

Know your history…..

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....adapted-Jurgen-Klopp-Pep-Guardiola-today.html
 
Just slated Maguire for that celebration. Dead right. Hope Keane is on I'm a Celeb. Not a fan of the show but he's TV gold
 
I know it's non-United related but has anyone seen/heard his comment about Kane should be used to disappointments because he plays for Spurs. Genuinely gave me a laugh.
 
Rightnr said:
I know it's non-United related but has anyone seen/heard his comment about Kane should be used to disappointments because he plays for Spurs. Genuinely gave me a laugh.
Click to expand...


He loves his little digs at Spurs. It's funny as I'm sure he supported Spurs growing up too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.