as much as I do, you might find Channel 4 worth watching tomorrow (Tuesday) night at 10pm when there is a psychological profile of the mindless yob.
Is this for real? Now I'm not Roy's biggest fan either by a long way, but if this is true it is way over the top and quite typical of the British media who are determined to portray him as some kind of psychopath. Do you think he would receive this type of attention if he were an England player? Will they also be profiling Gerrard who once again demonstrated his nasty side live on TV over the Christmas?
Re: Re: If you despise Roy Keane Amen---it's like he's the first player with a mean streak, while Vinnie Jones, who wasn't good enough to carry Roy's jock gets to act and is now a regular celebrity. Roy Keane is the best player the Republic of Ireland has ever produced, and it was a tradegy that he did not play in WC2002 (both side were at fault). You need him on your national team if you want to qualify for Portugal.
Re: Re: Re: If you despise Roy Keane As I recall, Vinnie Jones was pilloried for being a thug when he was playing football. Now he has stopped playing and is acting, he's seen as a lovable kind of rogue and having met the man, I have found him to be a very pleasant fella. Roy Keane is a nutter, he admits he knows what he's doing and also admits he is powerless to help himself when he is comitting these infractions, on and off the pitch. He is the best player Ireland have right now by a mile and is needed in the team. Sometimes you have to overlook the bad bits if you want to succeed, Alex Ferguson has put up with all his antics and wouldn't swap him for anyone. Personally, I think he would have been better off biting his lip at the World Cup and retiring from international football after the tournament as he originally said he would do. Because of the brouhaha surrounding his exit from the squad in Japan he will be criticised if he plays for the new manager or not and the new manager will be criticised if he picks him or not.
Re: Re: If you despise Roy Keane It's got bugger-all to do with how the British media want to portray Keane and everything to do with the awful public image which the man has created for himself. Comparing nasty tackles by other players is missing the point. Gerrard's attack on Naysmith was disgraceful and should be heavily punished but the fact is, Keane has repeatedly carried out sickening acts of thuggery against fellow professionals and even goes so far to boast about it in a cynical attempt to cash in on his 'hard-man' image. Of course you got the usual pathetic apologists in the programme such as Eamonn Dunphy, who - predictably - bleated out tired old cliches like "It's his competitive nature" and "If you take that edge away he wouldn't be the same player." Horseshît. I can think of countless players who were competitive and hated losing and yet didn't resort to petulant acts of violence when things didn't go their way. Take Stuart Pearce. Hard as nails and hated losing with a passion yet I can't recall him being sent off (although of course I'm sure he was at some point). He managed to combine a fiercely competitive nature with a stable mentality, something which has eluded Keane. He repeatedly disgraces himself and injures or attempts to injure fellow players (Southgate, Shearer, McAteer, Haaland - the list goes on) and acts like the biggest dîckhead on the planet. That is why he is portrayed as some sort of psycopath, because - quite frankly - he is one. Why would the British have a vested interest in tarnishing his reputation? I think most Irish tend to view Keane through emerald-tinted spectacles, which means they are prepared to forgive him some of his crimes since he performs so well in a green jersey. That's not meant as a criticism - I'd probably be exactly the same if the guy was English - but it does mean you don't have quite the same perspective as we do.
Re: Re: Re: If you despise Roy Keane I am not defending Keane's bad tackles etc but I think you have been reading the british press a bit too much yourself! To respond to some of your points... "He repeatedly disgraces himself and injures or attempts to injure fellow players (Southgate, Shearer, McAteer, Haaland - the list goes on)" OK. Four examples. And the McAteer one was handbags. The list goes on? Does it? Is Keane the only player to have committed a number of bad tackles in his (long) career? Take Alan Shearer for example, did you see Newcastle's last game against Inter Milan? The much respected number 9 viciously elbowed an Italian defender in the face. Mr. Shearer has a bit of a temper himself and been involed in a number of incidents over the years too. Take Steven Gerrard. This guy is relatively young and yet I've seen him lunge at players at least three or four times already. Are these not sickening acts of thuggery against fellow professionals? In what way is comparing Keane to his fellow players missing the point? "Why would the British have a vested interest in tarnishing his reputation?". I never said they had, I said the British press had, and they do it to sell papers. "I think most Irish tend to view Keane through emerald-tinted spectacles". Some of us are able form our own objective opinions! For what its worth I am not a big fan of his and do believe he does have a nasty streak, my point is there are other high profile players out there who are just as bad and worse than him.
Re: Re: Re: Re: If you despise Roy Keane Yes, that's fair. Frankly I don't think this relates at all to any nationalist feeling - well, not on my side anyway. I am sick and tired of people making excuses for footballers clogging other players and then saying it's OK because that's what they're like. In this regard I was extremely pleased to see Wayne Rooney being sent off for a bad tackle recently. This sort of behaviour needs to be stamped on when they're young.
Re: Re: Re: If you despise Roy Keane You make some valid points, but to be fair I find the "most Irish tend to view Keane through rose tinted spectacles" line something of a generalisation. If you scan through this board, and I'm not claiming it is fully representative of Irish footballing opinion on Keane, you'll see as many people (myself included) who despair of some of his actions as people who think he is God's gift. I totally agree that Keane could clean up his act, and Stuart Pearce is a fine example of a 'hard man' who excelled without the nastiness. However, I constantly ask my English workmates have they seen the full videos of Ireland's world cup qualifiying matches against Portugal and Holland, home and away. Invariably the answer is no. If they had seen them, they would get an idea why this cult of Keane has built up in Ireland. I've said it before, but I personally have never, ever seen displays of the calibre put in by Roy Keane in those games. He was literally the single difference between three draws and a famous win, and four (pretty abysmal) defeats. Nothing I have seen from Zidane, Figo, Beckham, Ballack etc has ever come close to the sheer dominance he exercised in those games. He carried a team of journeymen through a world class qualifying group, almost on his own. Now I accept, being Irish, that I can be accused of bias, but I will only listen to that criticism from someone who has sat down and watched all 4 games in their entirety and honestly believes Keane was anything short of incredible. That said, I will never forgive him for what he did in Saipan.
Nigel and e_k1, Fair points - I agree that the British tabloid press is an absolute disgrace. On reflection, maybe Keane's nationality is an issue, since the press adopted a much more hostile stance towards him after the outburst in Saipan when it was (apparently wrongly) reported that he called McCarthy an 'English c**t'. For my part, Keane's nationality is irrelevant (except of course that - in a bold statment of hypocrisy - I would probably love him if he was English!), it is more his attitude that grates. Other players may be dirty but they don't seem to see it as their right to inflict damage on others if they feel they have been affronted. Yes, he's honest about his shortcomings but I don't see that as an excuse. And all this 'honour' and 'respect' claptrap that he comes out with just seems like so much juvenile chest-beating. With regards to the WC qualifiers, I haven't seen any of them in full except the home game with Portugal (when I believe Keane scored and generally held the Irish team together) but I admit his presence in a team is hugely important and he is one of the most influential players in the world. But I don't like him.
Now this is difficult for me to do, as anyone who has read my previous posts will know, but I have to congratulate Nigel, Mobile, ek & Andy for their contributions on this issue. There is nothing really to add to their (surprisingly!) well thought out rationale which is devoid of the oft seen hysteria and subjective comment one can find on here. This has possibly been the most well balanced Keane debate on a messageboard over the last 8 months.
I wonder who was the one to made up the "English c**t" staement. It's either one of the reporters (e.g. Dervan) or one of the players or backroom staff. I've just got done reading Keane's book and his side of things in Saipan. I don't think anyone could complain that his gripes were not legitimate but in the end it was two incidents that finished the whole thing. Mick Byrne had presuaded him to leave things as they were until after the tournament but Roy said he had an obligation to do an interview the the Irish Times. There he spilt the beans and that was basically the end. I guess he thinks he was being honest but really was not tactful enough to think that telling his story to the press would not make things worse. Mick and Co fumed over the article, called the team meeting and from that point on there was no turning back. Mick asked if there was anyone who had problems with the set up and noone said anything even though several of the players had privately told Roy they were not happy. If you really think about it, it is all about communication and the lack there of. If everyone had been on the same page there would not have been all of these surprises and the result would have probably been different.
The whole Keane saga is so polarising, too often it is difficult to see the wood from the trees. Equally, it is often assumed that one is either in the Keane camp or the McCarthy camp, and to be fair, many on these boards are either black or white, with compromise not being a word in anyone's lexicon. The rights and wrongs have been discussed almost ad nauseam, and those in either camp are not for turning. Even if either Keane or McCarthy suddenly walked on water, critics would say that's only because he can't swim, to paraphrase Berti Vogts. Regarding Keane, there is no doubt that Ireland was a better team with than without during the qualifying campaign. And absent the baggage of the last 6 1/2 months, there is no reason to disbelieve that anything would be any different. There is still a good chance that Ireland would have lost the opening two games of the qualifiers, as he wasn't available anyway. The whole idea of his return is being mooted like the second coming, and that he has to but take the field and there will be six victories out of six. I'm not sure I necessarily buy into that scenario, as, despite overtures, I think significant and serious bridge building must happen. He will still be seen as a disruptive influence. He can play, no doubt, but what happens when your fellow professionals don't trust you? McCarthy was hung for, on the Keane side of the equation anyway, in essence, not seeing eye to eye with him. What about a new manager? And the long serving members of the squad? If I remember correctly, perhaps only 4? 5? have called for his return. Clearly, there is much more to be done than just give him a shirt and send him out on the park. McCarthy, Keane and Niall Quinn all came out with books after the WC, all promoting various agendas and all made for interesting reading. The most eyebrow raising aspect was that in both McCarthy's and Quinn's books, both of them said that they were mystified as to where the animosity between Keane and McCarthy arose. Now allowing for the fact that McCarthy (and/or that arsehole, Dervan) may have been somewhat disingenuous here, Quinn does appear to be the honest broker here. Quinn makes no attempt to hide the fact that Keane is a troubled individual, but he was puzzled from where this deep seated animosity sprang. Keane is a man who frequently, it appears, allows his demons shout down his greater angels, and often pays a price. Reading all three accounts of Saipan, there is little doubt in my mind that Keane bit off more that he could chew, found himself backed into a corner, primarily of his own making, and decided to damn the torpedoes. These were not the actions of a competent professional. These were not the actions of someone who had given any thought to the long term. These were not the actions of someone who could see tomorrow. Football is increasingly played not only on the field, but also off it. Keane does not appear to have the marbles to play the game off the field. In that respect, he is an incomplete professional. If his book did anything, it was to viciously expose this aspect (or lack thereof) to his game. He appears to be a driven, one track mind individual, and as has been pointed out here by other posters, he does like to revel in the hardman image too much. To change him, would change his game, no doubt, but as things stand now, his game is being changed more and more by his own abberant behaviours, in any event. Keane promoted his book on the basis of being a truth teller and having an internal imperative which allowed him only to tell the truth, warts and all. He could do nothing else, because uncompromising is an intrinsic part of his psyche. Yet when it looked like the admissions were going to, and subsequently did, land him in trouble, he claimed, as is the claim of every sleazy politican caught with his pants down, that he had been misquoted. This after not once, but many times of having uncatergorically stood over his book. So his uncompromising, unerring, unfailing imperative to be a teller of the truth lasts only until he feels he has to lie to to extricate himself from the latest mess in which the demons on his left shoulder have landed him. Looking at Saipan again, and reading everyone's account of who said what to when and why, there is little doubt that Keane had a lot of it right when it came to conditions, etc. But what he singularily fails to have missed was that Saipan was a base for acclimatisation, not a tactics camp. Based on fitness levels at the WC, most everyone would have to admit McCarthy got that one correct. The overriding sense of what happened in Saipan was that Keane had huge, unresolved problems with McCarthy. Problems which he never made any attempt to either bring into the light or fix. Again, Keane is not the complete professional. And then he walked out on his country. More demons shouting down greater angels. And when heaven and earth were moved to try and pave the way for his return, with moves between Connolly, Michael Kennedy, Ferguson, Quinn, Menton, Bertie, with everyone bending over backwards and around a little more again, when all it needed was a phone call from Keane to McCarthy, he stood firm on his principles. Principles which, as has been seen, are elastic enough to allow him stand 100% over his words and take then back down crying "Out of context" and "Misquoted", when he is in trouble. And these above reasons, Ladies and Gentlemen, are why I have zero respect for Roy Keane.
He really walked out on Mick McCarthy because he had no respect for him. Oh, go on and accuse me for appologising for Keane but thats my opinion. Actually Mick Byrne persuaded Keane to return to camp. Then he told his story to the Irish Times, McCarthy got pissed, called a team meeting, accused him of feigning injury for the second Iran game, Keane shot back at him. At that point on there was not going back for anybody. Plus McCarthy did not exactly get on the phone and appologise to Keane for his feigning injury accusations.... I'm not saying Keane was right, far from it, but I think McCarthy and the FAI were as responsible as Keane for the whole mess. Should he be let back in to the Irish team? I don't know but two things are for sure: he will do it on his terms and if we want to have a chance to qualify for Portugal, we need him.
But as a professional, an extremely professional, why did he wait til he had rounded the corner of no return? After 4 or 7 years? Fu ck me, that's far from professional. Sorry, I forget, who was the manager again? You mean where Keane said he picked and chosed his games, friendlies and competitive games included? Now whose demons again? Keane on his terms is about as safe as North Korea. Keane walked out on his country. End of story.
Simple question lads, will Ireland achieve better results with Holland/Kinsella or with Roy Keane? Personal feelings or "He walked out on his country" really mean nowt, it's all about achieveing something. Clearly, we're better with him, that's all that matters, his team mates have said they want him and the only debate is about personal feelings and opinions on who was right and who was wrong, that means nothing. Nobody can honestly tell me we're better without him, and weather you love him or hate him, that alone means we need him.