RedRonaldo
Wishes to be oppressed.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2003
- Messages
- 18,996
I wonder if anyone would call Keane as an attacking defensive midfielder, or a box-to-box defensive midfielder.
He was a box to box type but after his hip started coming apart he lost that element of his game and sat in front of the defence a lot more. This was only for like the last two seasons though iirc.
Generally though I agree with you, Keane at his peak was a box to box midfielder like Robson.
Geez, I don't see anything wrong with being a DM, or labelling Keane with a DM. You got sports car, luxury car, city car etc, what's wrong with a more descriptive description? It's not like we're using the stupid Inside Left Defensive Midfielder
DM doesn't mean all he can do is defend and tackle, it's like saying that a striker can not tackle. Its just that his main position and 80% of his time spending in that area. No body said a Sweeper or Centre Back can not go out and score goals. I wouldn't disagree that Keane is mainly a DM, a very good and complete DM with vision and long range shots so he can help going forward.
Although if someone blatantly argue to only call him a DM and nothing else there where it agitates me.
PS: Spare me the FM mode please.
Moving swiftly on from this whole "DM" label thing, I think that people must be remembering his last couple of seasons if they think that he spent 80% of his time in defensive areas.
He had an uncanny ability to pop up where the defence most needed him, time and time again, but he was just as likely to spend almost entire games, camped outside the opposition box, spreading the ball round and trying to pass his way through the opposition defence. He was also a master at late runs into the box and got more than his fair share of goals.
If Makalele is the definitive holding midfielder, I would say that Keane (and Robbo before him) are the definitive versions of a "box-to-box" midfielder (not a big fan of that label either but you know what I mean)
Well.. I can't blame them. For some FM is the only footballing source, been there done that. Way before I even know that there's a leaque called EPL.
I don't think a player other than a Goalie can be fit with a description, a cb could be a libero , Full back acting as Wing back, what's the gray line on determining they're a wing back / full back. If you catch my point.
The point is, Keane can be called watever but he is more than watever that description is.
Haaland retired because of an injury to his other knee.
Yep. Haaland himself said that.
(I loved him tackling that twat though. At the first moment I didn't understand why he kicked him hard like that. It was kinda horrible as well.)
I heard some people said Keane is one of the best defensive midfielder we've ever seen. I keep arguing he's not, Keane by all means is a central midfielder but not a defensive midfielder. He is box-to-box, Robson type of midfielder, but not the Makelele type of defensive midfielder who only sits in front of the back four. But they disagree with me and said there are lots of different types of defensive midfielder too, so some DM will particpate in attack whereas some will not. WTF.
Now when I try to explain to them back in those time when we played 442, there's not such thing as DM or AM in our system, but only CM. They then said we played more like diamond, with Scholes taking up the attacking role and Keane taking up the defensive role. What???
I think I give up already. So what do you all reckon?
Haaland retired because of an injury to his other knee.
It wasn't Keano's finest hour, whichever way you look at it. But it bugs me when people talk about him ending Haaland's career, that simply isn't true.
He was a midfielder. Breaking it down any more than that is gay.
I heard some people said Keane is one of the best defensive midfielder we've ever seen.
It's true insofar as it's the truth but not the whole truth. Keane was a great defensive midfielder. But that was not all he did. There was much more to his game than that. It's like saying Cantona was a great penalty taker or Scholes is a great passer.
It wasn't Keano's finest hour, whichever way you look at it. But it bugs me when people talk about him ending Haaland's career, that simply isn't true.
I've done so many times to my chagrin. Very few poeple nowadays seem to really know what a defensive midfeilder is. They debase the role by claiming players like Makelele are defensive midfielders. Worse still they dare to call people who play the postion water carriersThat's the problem. Those who argue with me hold the same exact views as you do. I think that has to do with how one define the term "defensive midfielder" then.
Interesting though if you look into Wikipedia, they never group Keane as a defensive midfielder, rather they either say Keane is a midfielder or a box-to-box midfielder.
Check it out here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midfielder
You wish. We refer to him as a DM because he was our ball winner in chief, protector in chief of our back four too, all the time. Whether he was attcking box to box, or as in his later United years, not. The idea that a DM only stays in front of the defence in some sort of stationary role is darn farcical. It's midfield position for crying out loud. NotMoving swiftly on from this whole "DM" label thing, I think that people must be remembering his last couple of seasons if they think that he spent 80% of his time in defensive areas.
Proving my point further. There's no written rule that states a defensive midfielder must sit in front of and ONLY in front of his defence at all times. His job is to win the ball, shackle the opposing attacking center midfielder, break up opponents play and when not winning it to help the attack. All things Keane did to perfection. Things best done in between both boxes.He had an uncanny ability to pop up where the defence most needed him, time and time again, but he was just as likely to spend almost entire games, camped outside the opposition box, spreading the ball round and trying to pass his way through the opposition defence. He was also a master at late runs into the box and got more than his fair share of goals.
He never will be. He is a 3rd center back. An old style sweeper. Operates like on. Sitting in between or just infront of his to center back. Never contributing anything to attacking play. A player usually very limited in attacking ability. There to just intercept balls infort of the defence. Tacklng is not even a pre-requisite. A true water carrier. A pseudo midfielderIf Makalele is the definitive holding midfielder.....
I have such interest. Only a mad man like yourself would believe that. I prefer the plain facts of a matterI know you love the semantics of a technical argument, but I'm not going there.
That's because your a simpleton. A fault that is yours alone.If someone who didn't know much football asked me where Keane played, I'd say a midfielder because, y'know, thats where he played.
You flatter your self a bit to much. I could care less what a neanderthal type like you thinks. Since intricate details of most matters are a bit too much for your thought processes.You would no doubt go on to write a thesis on the purities of Keane's positional sense and attributes, none of which would be of the slightest interest.
You need to chill the feck out you irritating little cnut.
today's self-awareness award goes to PM
Keano played pretty defensively for his last two or three seasons, after his hip injury. Before then he was the complete midfielder. And even in his latter years, most of the play went through him - not like say Makelele, who generally just lays it square and hangs back screening the defence.
true or not haaland claimed it to be the source..ill do my best to find a link
Generally though I agree with you, Keane at his peak was a box to box midfielder like Robson.
But without the goals. Keane was never a patch on Robbo.
For those of you who never had the chance to watch Bryan Robson play, think Keane+
That's complete bollocks!
Why?
Presumably because Keane was arguably just as good as Robson? Less injury-prone, that's for sure.
Personally, I think Robson might just shade the comparison but saying Keane is "not a patch" on him is... well... complete bollocks.
Why?
It's complete bollocks that tends to get spouted by "top reds" especially in Keane's last couple of years at the club or even since he retired.
Yes Robson was a brilliant player and he was an idol to any of us that were lucky enough to see him play.
But Keane took the mantle when most of us thought that Robbo was irreplaceable and he brought us to a different level. His level of consistent brilliance and influence was taken for granted as it was the norm for a decade.
I'll leave the last word to Fergie though "he's the best player that I've had here".. he's usually a decent judge of a footballer![]()