I disagree - the 'giant robotic' bit might have been sarcasm - but the asserted comparison to Keane was meant to be 'accurate' - hence Noods' own remark about
his point being the chief 'might as well have' or 'effectively' (can't be bothered to check actual usage) said that OH was better than Keane.
Noods was attempting to use this remark to bolster his argument - it wasn't 'just a joke' - he was helping his argument by misrepresenting that of his opponent (using, by your analysis, elements of sarcasm).
That's misrepresenting his opponent to help advance his argument -
exactly what I first complained about and consistent with numerous other remarks he made, even when the context should be 'serious' - for example, during an 'explanation'.
The 'robotic Keane' remark wasn't the only point in Noods' post to which I replied - it wasn't even the focus of my reply - which was the 'Bayern lost 2-0 [proving something]' remark - the Keane remark was just the one Plech decided to use because it helped his case more - Noods avoided the 'losing 2-0' remark like the plague as well when challenged.