Why do some people say Keane is a defensive midfielder?

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.

Agreed....except he started to have hip problems as early as 2000/01.....

If you look at the record books...he played most of the 1993/94 seasons at right back........

From 1994/95 to 1999/00 he was a box to box midfielder......but dont compare him to Robson.....Robson was injured twice as much....and still scored three times as many goals!!!!!!!

So Keane was not as attacking even in his prime....

From 2000/01 he started to drop deeper and clearly could be described as more defensive.....
 
When he was Ince's junior partner, Keane was box--box, probably the most in his career. When Scholesy became a regular Keane was slightly more defensive in the sense that he was more responsible and tackled more but still got forward shitloads.
 
Since no two players play in the exact way are we then gonna create new tags for each kind of style?

So Makelele is a DM and Scholes is an AM, how about guys in the middle like Carrick? And guys that are a bit more attacking or defensive than that?

Tags are silly. It should only be used when you're playing table football where the players are confined to a small section.
 
The defensive midfielder tag only appeared towards the end of Keane's career when he was slowing down and less able to move into the attack.

I think the impact of Claude Makalele's departure from Real Madrid on their record, and the improvement of Chelsea upon his arrival really put the "defensive midfielder" role into the spotlight.
 
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.
 
Definitely box-to-box midfielder, anchorman and often orchestrator/playmaker as well. Nope, not defensive midfielder.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.

Now that I agree with :devil:
 
It's all just semantics and your opinion on what the different terms mean. (which differs greatly from one person to another)
The one constant is that he was a midfielder, that can't be disputed. You can probably go one more without dispute, he was a central midfielder.
If you choose to then describe his way of playing in more detail then fine.
Like Pogue says, beyond that there aren't any more absolute distinctions, there is a whole spectrum of ways of playing a central midfield role and each player has a different way of doing it. To try to pigeon hole them all to be exact "positions" is daft and pointless.
 
:nono:

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.)
 
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.)

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.
 
anyone who thinks Keane was just a defensive midfielder is off his fecking head
 
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?

Keane was obviously more than a defensive mid but lets be clear here. The accusation that keane was a defensive mid is generated from 99. In a midfield of giggs, scholes and beckham keane was by some distance the best defensive force.

Accordingly he did what all good team players do and performed a role for the side that was certainly more defensive than offensive. He curbed certain aspects of his game. Im not saying that he couldnt do them...he just saw that with the gung ho nature of the side we needed someone to balance it...so more often than not scholes was in advanced positions while keane sat a bit deeper..that is fact. Add to that he didnt get as many goals as the other 3 and you start to see why some may think him defensive. No one is saying he didnt get forward but a lot less than scholesy... thus i can see why some naive souls may call him a defensive mid. I mean there are a lot worse misinterpretations flying around these boards!!

Its interesting to note that like essien keane often took on a more offensive/general role playing for his national side. So it was simply a case of fergie and him deciding its better for utd if he curbed his forward runs a bit.

:nono:

Haaland retired because of an injury to his other knee.

Indeed but he attributes the source of the injury to THAT tackle. I remember reading that he said something about how people are "stupidly coming up to him and saying how could keane have ended your career when it was the other knee that keane nailed. When in fact anyone that knows anything about knee injuries knows that the knee that was planted on the ground was the one that bore the brunt of the injury."

its a hazy memory as you can tell but he def came out with it..must have been around the time he was seeking damages
 
I just want to say that Haaland is a total ABUer.. he can't even conceal his attempt for United and its fans in interviews... A real shithead.
 
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'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.

Well said surf
 
Why is Keane seen as a defensive midfielder? Probably because the dynamic box-to-box goalscoring era was quite short and the shouty cum hobbledy era went on for too long.
 
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.

True. But whenever I see that video I feel a bit off. Looks on some of the City players at that incident were pretty down as well. many looked at Keano like they have seen a ghost or a killer.They were like shaken off.
 
That'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
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 carriers:annoyed: As if players like Cocu, Davids or Rijkaard were water carriers...
 
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.
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. Not
a defence position. And the middle of the field encompasses the area in between both boxes. The domain of a proper, box to box, ball winner like Keane. No DM worth the name fails to operate in this whole area.

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.
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.


If Makalele is the definitive holding midfielder.....
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 midfielder
 
I know you love the semantics of a technical argument, but I'm not going there.
I have such interest. Only a mad man like yourself would believe that. I prefer the plain facts of a matter

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.
That's because your a simpleton. A fault that is yours alone.

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 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 need to chill the feck out you irritating little cnut.

:lol: 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.
 
:lol: 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.

:confused: Your point being?
 
true or not haaland claimed it to be the source..ill do my best to find a link

I think you'll find that the injury that ended his career was an injury to his left knee (Keane clobbered his right...).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf-Inge_Håland

Håland retired through injury in 2002. It was said on Håland's web site that it was not as a result of Roy Keane's tackle (according to the website the injury that ended Håland's career was in his other knee, not the one that got hit in the Keane tackle).
 
nicky butt was defensive midfielder DMC
also
if i remember correctly in fm 99\00 Keane was MC (midfield centre)
 
Keane was a central midfielder FFS.

He attacked and defended as all midfielders do. Simply because he excelled at both doesn't mean labelling him with a stupid positional tag makes any sense.

Calling him an attacking midfielder is misleading, as is calling him a defensive midfielder.

Roy Keane: Central Midfielder.
 
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+
 
Peoples interpretations of a defensive midfielder differ. In them saying keane is a defensive midfielder, maybe a perfect description of keane, in what they believe a defensive midfielder is.

Some may class a defensive midfielder as box to box, neat passing, intercepting play and starting off attacks.

Keane did all that but had a major influence on the team with his simple but clever passing.

Scholes is a box to box midfielder but his defending leaves questions. Keane was a box to box midfielder but his tackling and positional sense was awesome. Maybe thats why a lot of people seem him more of a defensive midfielder than attackive, but his passing and attacking play was still great.

The question is what makes an attacking midfielder. Do you have to score a lot of goals to be one if yes, does it make you a defensive midfielder if you do not, do you have to get a lot of assists to be one. It's hard to judge what classifies an attacking midfielder or just a plain midfielder. Watching keane play however I would just call him a complete midfielder, had everything a midfielder needs, what stood out most was his heart.
 
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.

I think he said Keane +.........so for me Robson was like Keane plus three times as many goals.....
 

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 :)
 
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 :)

Football is all about opinions.......I wouldn't agree that Keane on his own 'brought us to a different level' at all.....

In fact.....after watching United all through the 1970's....Robson raised the bar big time when he signed in 1981......he certainly 'brought us to a different level.....and did it on his own!

And even Fergie has got it wrong in the past.....

For me personally......I would take Robson over Keane any day of the week....

Both wonderful players mind......