In defence of Roy Keane .... and other suicidal comments

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unofficial Newcastle United Football Club BBS : One Thread

Sorry folks (he said pinning the target to his butt and taking a big gulp), but I beg to differ on the anti-Roy Keane consensus that appears to have built up on here. And no, before anyone asks, I haven't turned into Lanky Red overnight !

I don't disagree about him being a bit of a tw#t personally, not least with the 'hard man' image he likes to create. But on the pitch his value is unparalleled in the EPL. Make no mistake, Roy Keane is a winner through & through. IMO he is unquestionably the reason why ManU have the record they do in recent years (alongside Taggart, Rudolf & 'Les sardines following ze trawler' perhaps) . The guy knows how to win and is all-consumed with doing so in a way that few do. He is a Bryan Robson with extra grit. He is David Batty multiplied by 5, with skill and shooting ability thrown in. No other midfielder in England gets close to him in terms of consistency and effectiveness. In short, he is the sort of player every other player and manager would love to have in their team. And that is why he could (and indeed should) have won the awards he has.

Sure he could smile a bit more often and kick fewer legs, but there again McEnroe could've upset fewer umpires or Georgie Best drunk Kaliber. That's the nature of beasts like these. I'm not claiming that it's the only way to win. There's also a rare breed of sportsmen who are just as effective, the Steve Davises, Bjorn Borgs, Pete Samprases, maybe even Tiger Woods, Big Al etc. But these types are icemen - they are quiet achievers who don't get fair recognition because they fail to provide the media (we all read) with sufficiently controversial headlines. In contrast, relative hellraisers like Keane get too much press, but that doesn't mean that their influence and skill should be ignored and ridiculed.

People like Roy Keane are champions purely & simply because they love to win. And here's the bit that will have you dropping your rotten fruit and running for the twelve bores and petrol to douse me in:

The ability to win is a quality that few English sportsmen in recent years appear to have had. Which is why the English national teams, filled with overpaid and comfortable non-achievers, have so consistently underperformed (in the eyes of those that support them - others might say they have achieved precisely what they deserved). The English psyche is conditioned via upbringing and social norms to belittle achievers and lop the heads off tall poppies, to accentuate the rights of the individual over collective good, and to aim always for the lowest common denominator. Except in fields that don't matter to the chattering masses and which we therefore ignore, like scientific invention or decathlon. The best chance England has of becoming a great nation is for its children, by decree, to be shipped offshore at a tender age and not allowed to return until they have learned the art of achievement in teams and how to bite heads off chickens without remorse.

There it is then. I've done my bit to liven this bbs and donned my suit of armour. Come and get me. Put 'em up. Who's first ?

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000

Answers

I think I may have held back too much just now - for "No other midfielder in England gets close to him", please read instead "No other player in the UK, and few in European leagues ...."

Right. No counting to 100 with me eyes shut. I'm off & running now in the hope you can't hit me !

-- Anonymous, May 01, 2000


You didn't see the story in the Mag, then?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

Oi, Looney

That's sort of what I was trying to say on the other thread, but not so articulatley. His footballing talent andwill to win are unparallelled in British soccer. However, the two flaws in his character are his arrogance and his temper.

Canny footballer, tho.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000


Loony - I`m with you all the way with your posting. My only worry is that he may ruin someone else`s playing career with a tragic tackle. Other than that, I am a big admirer. So you are not alone. (:o)

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

No arguments about his playing ability. I first saw him playing for Ireland and loved him...until I saw him with Newton Heath(since that other name is copyrighted and I can't afford to pay off any lawsuits right now ;-)). I still rate him as a player, which is what makes me even more angry at his bad behaviour. And I feel that way about any player who acts that way when it's simply not necessary, whether or not they're 'stars'. Still, while the awards may be for his ability as a player, I'm still think it sends a bad message to kids. They want to be like their heroes, and will emulate the bad behaviour as much as the good. I'd rather the award went to someone who is a better all-around role model.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000


Maybe there should be another award for "Best Role Model"....succesful people in life aren't always nice and whilst I would agree somewhat with the comments that he goes over the top and that he can act the thug very well indeed I still think that he's a winner.....a winner I'd like in my team!

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

But he's still a prize c**t

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000

I don't think anyone in this debate has questioned Roy Keane's ability, his influence on manure's performances over recent seasons, or his will to win. I guess what we've really been debating is whether our Player of the Year (however, selected) should be expected to behave in a particular manner or not in winning (never mind losing!).

As Loony Toon's post exemplifies, this particular debate boils down to a debate over whether winning is indeed everything, or whether other factors should come into consideration.

Ex-pats often come to espouse the virtues generally espoused in the USA, and although without personal experience, I also suspect applies in Australia, that winning is the ONLY thing that counts, and how it is achieved is irrelevant. This view naturally denegrates the perceived 'old-fashioned' British belief that how one conducts oneself in sporting endeavour matters, and by extension to business and indeed all walks of life. Loony Toon articulates this philosophy to life beyond sport far more eloguently than I can.

Having lived in the US for several years, I flirted with espousing similar views. However, I have subsequently revised my outlook. I now believe firmly that such a 'dog eat dog' philosophy is decivilising, in that it promotes self before community, and is an unhealthy, even dangerous social phenomenon.

It is grossly simplistic to link Britain's decline as a World power to its relative recent failure on the sports field, and to the belief of a declining number of its inhabitants that ones behavioural values in achieving success in any walk of life is of any import whatsoever.

I happen to believe such values are important, providing the essential difference between civilised society and the jungle. I for one DON'T want our children "to learn how to bite heads off chickens without remorse". I want them to learn how to win, but win because they are the best/most skilful/most talented:

NOT

how to win through gamesmanship and cheating. I profoundly want our children to believe that such victories are hollow and not worth having. I then want our children to grow up to espouse those same values in all aspects of their lives, because how we behave towards each other shapes the kind of society we live in.

THAT is why I feel so strongly that someone like Roy Keane is such an awful role model to our children, and by inference why I can not think of a worse choice for someone to be publicly revered as our "Player of the Year".

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2000


Dougal - so what was The Mag article? Any chance you can cut& paste? I have to admit giving up checking their web site after it seemed for ages last season that they'd given up maintaining it

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000

Definitely some thought-provoking ideas by all. Clarky may be surprised after my initial posting that I actually agree with most of his sentiments about not allowing humankind to slip back into the jungle (with the obvious exception of Mackem chimps). He probably won't be surprised, though, to hear that I still believe Keane was the only choice for this year's Player of the Year awards.

There seems common agreement the shaven one would go up in all our estimation if he dropped the thuggish acts. I play (in the loosest sense of the word) in a Sunday league and just about every team seems to have a Roy Keane. Without the footballing ability, naturally. The real question though is whether these rottweiler-wannabes behave thus - in part at least - because they mimic piss-poor 'role models' like Roy Keane, or do they also act the d$ckh%@d in areas of their lives other than football ? I suspect that the answer, as so often, is some of each.

Without wanting to wax all phillysofical, where I depart from Clarky's doomsday model (no offence intended) is that the ills of society (or the EPL or any group you care to mention) ultimately boil down purely and simply to the behaviour of individuals. I just don't buy the theory that individualism is an evil cult that was concocted by Maggie T and Ronnie Raygun (as heinous as those two were as political figures). Sadly a little cliched nowadays but we are all responsible for our own behaviour and for others to point the finger at the likes of Keane and to claim that they make or even encourage others to behave like idiots is scapegoating and a cop-out. If finger-pointing is required, it need go no further than the hoons themselves who run around spraying old grannies with graffiti or forcing their pets to do unspeakable acts for Funniest Home Videos. The easy bit is condoning or condemning the behaviour of others. The real challenge for every individuual is perhaps to take 100% responsibility for our own.

I hear what you're saying Clarky when you say of today's kids "I want them to learn how to win, but win because they are the best/most skilful". Unfortunately it appears that the world of today has moved on substantially from the days when so-called old-fashioned values were (allegedly) practised by the majority. As saddened as it makes you old mate, the only way most of these kiddies are likely to become winners on your terms is if we change the whole definition of 'winning'. Perhaps we're back to Gav's idea of a separate "Role Model of the Year" award !! What would be critical though would be whether it were just one more award (eg. "Best Musical Score" at the Oscars), or whether it was the ultimate accolade afforded by the PFA / Footy Writers Assocn or whoever (like the Brownlow Medal in Aussie Rules, awarded for the most outstanding contribution - not just play - over the season. See Clarky, it's not just about winning in Australia (aka. little USA) you know ;o))

ATB LT.

BTW my orig. posting was deliberately about English, not British, performance as I firmly believe (as much as any generalisation about a whole nation is valid !!) that there are some significant differences / explanations for the Scots, Irish etc. I also referred to England "becoming" a great nation, as I don't personally buy into the claim of us previously being a "World Power", not unless you'd count as "great " or "civilised" a British (or any other for that matter) Empire so successful at invasion, murder, rape, seizing what the hell it liked in war or peace, buggering off when the going got too tough etc. etc. But that's another thread eh ? :-}}

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2000



Moderation questions? read the FAQ