What you're saying is true, but what he's famous for and what he was good at are two different things. The perfect example of that is the Juve game. He's remembered for the goals but what everyone appreciated at the time was him dictating the midfield with metronomic passing.
He was an essential part our aggressive style not only because of how effectively he won the ball back, but how quickly and intelligently used it. He was the one that ran the midfield singlehandedly for years, while Scholes played as an auxiliary attacker or Butt played the Herrera role alongside him. He very rarely wasted the ball, much like Butt. The difference was he very rarely played pointless passes either. Almost every pass was forward and purposeful. It was all just very understated. Hence why we replaced Keane with Carrick rather than Scott Parker. We replaced his quality on the ball not his energy.
He's not as good a passer as Xavi, in any sense, but then very few are. I'd say he was a better passer than Pogba is now in some ways, though. Nowhere near as capable of the creative passes and a less expansive range of passing, but when it comes to quick, short, purposeful passing to up the tempo of the game, Pogba's not there yet. That's where Keane's vision was at an elite level.
If you think that's revisionism, just listen to the commentary at the time e.g.
in the Millwall game:
"Here's Keane, as ever, directing the traffic towards that Millwall goal." He was recognised as the person that directed the play, not someone that just broke up the play. That's just the caricature he's picked up afterwards because of some of his most dramatic, and thus most memorable, moments.