He was always going to go there. When he was younger he received the armband of his favorite player Lothar Matthaeus, and he's been wearing it underneath his own ever since. His dream was always to play for Bayern. It's a shame we didn't make a proper move for him when he was still in Ukraine.
But it would've been a temporary solution. I'm thinking more of getting a stud midfielder that you can build your midfield around. You can't really do it with Tymoschuk. I am thinking if he were to move to England, it would've taken him a good year to adjust to the English game, and by then he's already 31, going on 32... no, it would've made sense to move for him when Zenit got him in 07, it's too late now. True that. But really, I don't see anyone matching Essien anywhere. He's just a monster that you hope you contain. But besides Diarra, who, again, is a work at progress, I'm not sure there are any players that are worth spending money on. Then again, I can't really say I know much about youngsters from Belgium or Holland or the ones that play in inferior teams in big leagues.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Tymoschuck's adjustment period would be different than someone who comes from South America or Southern Europe. He's conditioned to play in a physically demanding league and he's a pretty disciplined character ontop of his experience, so he'd want to get in and prove himself immediately. He could still have been a good enough pickup considering we need leadership in that role and someone to inspire the team that's already built around him. A short term solution is probably even more helpful than going for a youngster who we can groom to play the role to perfection in four years or so. I don't disagree that we shouldn't have moved for him before, but I don't think it would have been too late to go in for him now. Players like him are a rare breed, they're good at any age, and he's in his peak and will be for four more years.
Interesting reading that DS, actually very informing. So who would you take Robson or Keane, Robson may have been the captain marvel that dragged us over the line many times but for me Keano is everything that a leader should be, by making others better than they are. Also interesting to see the similiarities between us and Liverpool, the start with boring but solid football, good in cups, having a Captain who drags them out themselves, very interesting.
I know that you rate Robson ahead of Keane by the way. And yeah still missing some piece on Souness please.
Read the posts after the opener. Someone asks that q, I think. What do you want to know about Souness? He was a brilliant player with a fantastic moustachefro combo.
And perhaps somebody who goes missing when we talk about our midfield generals is the Guvnor. Like him or hate him, we could have done with him. And perhaps a mention to Nicky Butt wont be out of place, he wasnt the greatest player or the general but he was very essential.
I think you just said it though. I think his tendency to maybe not play up for the big ones hurt him in Fergie's eyes - I just finished Fergie's autobio a few months ago, and I think that was his knock on Ince, along with his ego, etc. I can't remember for sure.
Yeah I think he called him Bottler and Big Time Charlie, but if you give a thought someone with Ince attributes is someone we need.
Both Souness and Robson were better all-round footballers than Keane, by some margin. Keane was superb at what he did, namely, playing it sensible, safe and with high pass retention percentages for his sides. Keane, in comparison to Souness, was dependable and sensible with the ball because he had to be. Souness could be economical with the ball playing it safe, sensible and metronomically - that was Liverpool's 'Way' once they went a goal up, so he could comfortably do what Keane could. Souness and Robson were much better in the final third than Keane because they could shoot, through-ball, move into dangerous positions (ghost) as casually as they could sweep up in midfield on the defensive end. Souness and Robson didn't need to 'pass the ball off to someone better in the final third' like Keane next to our better attackers would be 'advised' to as they would be able to take the shot on as well as anyone else in their sides. If Robson and Souness paired up you'd have a central pairing with next to no fault or flaw. It's hard to go further really as their fundamentals (Robson and Souness) were just as good as Keane's and they both had his will to win and appetite for the fight but could do more than him. Where Keane comes into his own over either is stamina.
In a team like this - wonderfully talented in every area, yet sometimes found wanting in mentality - I would take Roy Keane over any midfielder to ever play the game. Regardless of Souness or Robson's other attributes, it is still hard to argue otherwise. Were this the team we had fro mabout 04-06, my answer would porbably be different, but with this current unit it is not even a point for discussion imo. The only reason to put either higher than Keane in this team is their goal-scoring/attacking abilities to offset us being overly-elaborate at times, but as we have been chirping for years, a proper #9 is all that is needed to fix that. It's hardly like Keane was unable to put the ball i nthe net either - his shot from the edge of the box was very underrated, nad he actually has about the same number of both games played and goals scored as Souey, iirc.
I keep thinking if we were going to spend 30 million for a player why couldn't we have done it for Essien back when Chelsea bought him. February 1st the Liverpool with Masch and Chelsea without Essien game versus last Wednesday's game when Liverpool had no Mascherano and Chelsea had Essien back in the lineup caused two distinctly different results. It might be overly simplistic but to me it does demonstrate the value of the position.
Because Chelsea would have just made a £35mn bid. If we upped that to £40mn, they would have come in at £45mn... and so on.
Someone mentioned it earlier, but the view of alot of people that Keano was just a midfield engine focused on breaking things up just doesn't do him justice. The amount of work he did up in the attacking third, and his scoring ability was superb as well. I think his pass completion rate was always only a few percent back of Scholesy, and usually up in the 90s every season IIRC. The guy was just a do-it-all, incredible player.
Not only that, he was an attacking midfielder when he came. He tamed his instincts to do what was best for the team. Ince and Robson may have been more cavalier and perhaps more talented, but a team with either of them as the man between the opposition midfield and our defence would not have achieved what we did with Keane.
That was great, but the double against Le Arse was pretty special too - especially when he just ran up infront of their stand and stood still. All those Arse fans were giving him the V, yelling at him - just great.
There was something special about him we don't see in players right now. Even players like De Rossi only offer a fraction of what Keano had.