So for those who voted Keane over Robson...

peterstorey said:
Of course now when you can see every game played by Real and Barca there are still muppets who want to tell you than Ronaldo is better than Messi.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, some people, me included, think that Ronaldo is far more suited to the English game than Messi. If I had the choice of both to play for United, I'd go for Ronaldo all of the time.

You'd obviously go for the flair that has won you feck all for 7 years.
 
WeasteDevil said:
I've seen both play, live and on TV, and Keane had almost everything Robson had, yet also had something more, he was far more tactically aware, and he was also far more skillful in the pass.
Click to expand...

Respect your opinion but I'd say Robson had more than Keane in that he was a better passer, two footed, headed well, led the team, tackled and was by far the bigger goal threat.

He was also a brilliant player for England in the same capacity.
I don't wanna get into what Keane did at the 2002 WC, but could you imagine Robbo walking out on England after a spat with his coach?

The only thing Keane had was his longevity; Robson was always injured due to his excessive lifestyle, Keane was more disciplined in that sense...
 
WeasteDevil said:
Not necessarily, some people, me included, think that Ronaldo is far more suited to the English game than Messi. If I had the choice of both to play for United, I'd go for Ronaldo all of the time.
Click to expand...

If Nani can as many goals/assists as he has for us, why could Messi not do much better if he came to this club and adapted over a few years.
 
WeasteDevil said:
Not necessarily, some people, me included, think that Ronaldo is far more suited to the English game than Messi. If I had the choice of both to play for United, I'd go for Ronaldo all of the time.
Click to expand...
As I wrote that I didn't really think there were any trogs left apart from Cal that would argue it.
 
Raees said:
If Nani can as many goals/assists as he has for us, why could Messi not do much better if he came to this club and adapted over a few years.
Click to expand...

Messi doen't play like Nani, it's comparing apples to oranges. Messi would require a complete change in the way United play. Ronaldo wouldn't. Ronaldo is also far more flexible in terms of where you can play him.
 
I'd snap the Messi 'problem' up in an instant Weaste! Fact is we don't know how he'd do in the English league. I suspect fecking fantastic, but there you go

Some good point about the different way the game is shown these days, we see it warts and all, in yesteryear you saw a handful of games of a top player unless you supported and attended that teams games. And no doubt the passage of time makes you forget the dreary and polarises views. How else could so many still claim Messi isn't in Maradona's league, when at the same age he's already achieved so much more than Diego had, and shows every sign he can maintain it

Nothing between Keane and Robson for me. I'll go Keane because he was more professional (in a different football culture to be fair), and because even a side as successful as we were during the 90's missed him so badly when he wasn't out there
 
peterstorey said:
Because Keane was a fantastic player too and played in a team which won a heap of shit.
Click to expand...

This is spot on. For feck sake guys, they weren't leagues apart.
 
While Robson had arguably more talent. I don't think we would've won half the trophys we did without Keane. Also, I would add Keane should have won world player of the year in 1999/2000.
 
I think they're two of the best 3 wing halves (DMs) I've ever seen (Souness the other).
 
peterstorey said:
I think they're two of the best 3 wing halves (DMs) I've ever seen (Souness the other).
Click to expand...

Wing-halves, have you travelled back to 1952?
And also, why are they 'defensive midfielders', why can't they just be midfielders?
Keane was less attack-minded that Robson, but both covered every blade of grass which hardly puts them in the same bracket as a Makelele...
 
They were indeed 2 examples of the now almost mythical box-to-box midfield dynamo. Clone either in their mid 20's and you could ask what you wanted for their signature today.
 
Scoreboard Red said:
Wing-halves, have you travelled back to 1952?
And also, why are they 'defensive midfielders', why can't they just be midfielders?
Keane was less attack-minded that Robson, but both covered every blade of grass which hardly puts them in the same bracket as a Makelele...
Click to expand...
Well I was making the point that they weren't inside forwards like Charlton, Scholes or Fabregas.
 
peterstorey said:
Well I was making the point that they weren't inside forwards like Charlton, Scholes or Fabregas.
Click to expand...

Well in a way, Robson was more like Fabregas than you'd think, he was always the focal point of the team, much in the same way Cesc is for you lot.

As Wibble pointed out earlier, if Bryan Robson in his pomp was around today, every single club in Europe would be after him and he'd be in higher demand than Iniesta, Fabregas, Ozil or Sneijder. All differing sorts of player but those who occupy the same area of the pitch albeit in differing styles.

Robson was another level...
 
WeasteDevil said:
And you could take Keane at his peak today, and Barcelona would want him in their midfield, feck Busquets.
Click to expand...

No argument from me in that respect, anyone would have Keane in their team, hence the reason Juventus were after him in 1999/2000 even though they had Zidane, Davids, Conte and Deschamps etc.

I'm not being detrimental toward Keane, he was amazing but in my opnion, Robson edges it due to his qualities.

Overall, I'd say Keane was a better tackler and potentially a better leader but Robson dragged United through several seasons and games, not just the odd one here and there like the famous example Juventus in 1999. Of course Keane didn't need to do this as often as Robson because he was blessed with a much better team so may have stood out even more had he played in the 1980's for us...
 
WeasteDevil said:
Such a shame for me that he was not able to play in the 99 CL final, the game would have been very different.
Click to expand...

Yep, Scholl, Baslet and co had it pretty good against Butt and Beckham.

Obviously we won so can't really be that mithered about it, but in hindsight wouldn't it have been better to play Berg or May at centre-back alongside Stam and stick Ronny Johnsen in midfield as the enforcer? That way, keep Giggs left, Beckham right and Blomqvist back to Sweden...
I was a fan of Ronny, good versatile player...
 
feck's sake you don't know the rules and you can't judge a player.
 
Pete, Keane aside who did you rate higher Souness or Robson?
 
I think Robson was better due to his athleticism and goal scoring, people often forget his passing ability. Souness and Keane are pretty much inseparable IMO.
 
peterstorey said:
feck's sake you don't know the rules and you can't judge a player.
Click to expand...

No, you don't know the rules, and you can't judge a football player. You've been shown to be a fool time after time after time, and you keep coming back for more.

Anyone that thinks that Robson was a better football player than Keane is a fool. Did Robson have a better engine? Possibly, but there is not much in it. As I said, I've never seen a more complete central midfield player than Keane, live or on TV, he broke the mould.
 
WeasteDevil said:
No, you don't know the rules, and you can't judge a football player. You've been shown to be a fool time after time after time, and you keep coming back for more.

Anyone that thinks that Robson was a better football player than Keane is a fool. Did Robson have a better engine? Possibly, but there is not much in it. As I said, I've never seen a more complete central midfield player than Keane, live or on TV, he broke the mould.
Click to expand...

Weaste, I don't think anyone who thinks Robson is better than Keane is a 'fool'.

If you were to say Djemba-Djemba was better than Keane for example, then you'd be a fool but to seemingly insinuate that Robson was far less a player than Keane was is a travesty.

I'll openly admit Keane may have been a better player but there's not a lot in it, if anything.

It's not exactly a foolish opinion...
 
Waltraute said:
...in Randall's thread - why?

My inner 9 year old wants to shout 'How could you, ignorant swine?!?' - but that's hardly a great invitation to a decent discussion, is it? And I honestly understand that those of you who weren't there during Robson's pomp won't really be able to comprehend the vast difference between the two.

I have to admit, to me it's like voting for Messi over Maradona just because you weren't there to watch Maradona.

So, do your worst trying to convince me Keane is even fit to shine Robbo's boots! :)
Click to expand...

Does being born abit later than you makes someone an ignorant swine?

Or not having seen Robbo playing and praising him like god and belittling what people actually seen playing with their own eyes and thinks that he's the best United captain he ever watch is a sin?
 
WeasteDevil said:
I've seen both play, live and on TV, and Keane had almost everything Robson had, yet also had something more, he was far more tactically aware, and he was also far more skillful in the pass.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, although I never seen Robson in the flesh.

They are both brilliant players in their own right and I have no idea why some people take issue over the fact that some people rate one better than the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.