Mascherano vs Keane (vs Busquets)

tastyt

Keane was a better midfielder than mascherano for the simple fact that as well as having mascheranos defensive and tactical head he was also much more influential going forward .

Busquets and makelele. Two great players but doing a basic and limited role that looks a lot easier when in the great teams they were in. Very hard to look classy and composed as a holding defensive midfielder for hull.

Also, when people mention their names it's usually by saying " the hugely underated busquets or makelele" . Surely if everybody says your underrated it means your very highly rated , no?

JPA

Mascherano vs Makelele would have been a better thread.
Mascherano and Keane are not comparable.
Keane vs Vieira was always a great comparison.

gosplan

JPA wrote: »

Mascherano vs Makelele would have been a better thread.
Mascherano and Keane are not comparable.
Keane vs Vieira was always a great comparison.

Someone could bite the bullet and start a Keane vrs Gerrard thread.

CSF

gosplan wrote: »

Someone could bite the bullet and start a Keane vrs Gerrard thread.

No. Don't do it. Think of the children.

Will I Amnt

gosplan wrote: »

Someone could bite the bullet and start a Keane vrs Gerrard thread.

Oranage2 tried to suggest that earlier... I was shocked.

LuckyLloyd

gosplan wrote: »

Someone could bite the bullet and start a Keane vrs Gerrard thread.

Keane was clearly a better player than Gerrard and Vieira (though that was closer). I didn't really think those points were in anyway debatable.

CSF

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Keane was clearly a better player than Gerrard and Vieira (though that was closer). I didn't really think those points were in anyway debatable.

Vieira was always number 1 for me

LuckyLloyd

CSF wrote: »

Vieira was always number 1 for me

*Shrugs*

I guess it's subjective ultimately.

Shanotheslayer

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Busquets is not too dissimilar to a ninja,

I say you wrote that with a straight face as well.

gosplan

CSF wrote: »

No. Don't do it. Think of the children.

Yeah, maybe something with less fireworks.

Kewell vrs Obertan

gosplan

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Keane was clearly a better player than Gerrard and Vieira (though that was closer). I didn't really think those points were in anyway debatable.

This is why I don't buy all this.

There's a huge amount of people that say things like 'Keane over Vieira and it's not really up for debate'.

It's like if you took a bunch of Bulgarians and Romanians and gave them the Hagi vrs Stocihkov question. Each side would say it's not even up for debate.

I can't see what clearly separates Vieira and Keane tbh.

Shanotheslayer

gosplan wrote: »

I can't see what clearly separates Vieira and Keane tbh.

A sea and a few countries






:pac:

bucketybuck

gosplan wrote: »

I can't see what clearly separates Vieira and Keane tbh.

It was Graham Poll as far as I recall.

Backstreet Moyes

Can i ask AIG how much you seen of Keane playing in his prime. Maybe i am wrong but i thought i read you saying you were early 20's. So when Keane was in his prime you would probably have barely seen him play? I could be wrong though.

RGDATA!

MagicIRL wrote: »

If Mascherano was on the level of Keane there wouldn't be a hope of Barca playing him at CB at all. If Mascherano was as good as Keane, you would play Mathieu at CB and leave Macherano at DM. But he's not as good as Keane. Not even close.

On that point, I imagine if Keane had played in the Barca team of recent years (and he was plenty good enough to in my mind), he'd probably have played a fair number of games at CB too.

adox

Nuts102 wrote: »

Can i ask AIG how much you seen of Keane playing in his prime. Maybe i am wrong but i thought i read you saying you were early 20's. So when Keane was in his prime you would probably have barely seen him play? I could be wrong though.

I was just about to post that people having in depth opinions on players from the past really should quantify it with their age.

blinding

Sometimes Keane is/was a bollox

But he was better than Mascherano.

efb

One has a World Cup winners medal

LuckyLloyd

efb wrote: »

One has a World Cup winners medal

I know, mark of the really good players that.

Ulysses Gaze

efb wrote: »

One has a World Cup winners medal

Courtesy of Zidane, Deschamps and a World Class Back 4.

efb

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I know, mark of the really good players that.

would anyone say Keane is better than Messi?

But I'd imagine some would argue Keane over C Ronaldo...


I'd always rather have Vieira than Keane

LuckyLloyd

efb wrote: »

I'd always rather have Vieira than Keane

you're an Arsenal fan, of course you would.

efb

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

you're an Arsenal fan, of course you would.

I'm sure some arsenal wouldn't and some united fans would.

SlickRic

Amazing.

Keane v Masch v Busquets.

Masch doesn't come into the debate IMO. He's at least a level below both. I don't need to be Irish, Argentinian, Spanish, Icelandic or Kenyan to come to that conclusion.

And I love Masch.

If you want a cog in a machine, who has been moulded into a specific kind of player for a specific style of play, then Busquets is your man.

If you want a player who can both control a game AND grab a game by the scruff of the neck and make it happen for your team through any adversity, then you want Roy Keane. The notion that he 'ran around the pitch shouting and making tackles' is so incredibly laughable I can't believe I actually read it.

Keane just had more strings to his bow. It's as simple as that for me.

And that doesn't make me ignorant. It doesn't mean I don't understand Barcelona. It doesn't mean I don't understand tiki-taka. It doesn't mean I'm not knowledgeable about football. It doesn't mean I don't "know my stuff". Or whatever other garbage might be thrown at me for that opinion.

I've watched football for 20 years. I've eyes like everyone else.

Busquets is absolutely brilliant, but Keane wins.

Skylinehead

efb wrote: »

One has a World Cup winners medal

Playing for France, while Keane played for Ireland. Do we discount George Best, Keane, Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Cruyff, Bergkamp, van Basten as "not as good" because they didn't win the World Cup?

Farcically poor argument - made worse that Vieira didn't do much at that particular tournament, he was a sub. As much as I love him as an Arsenal fan, he didn't do much there, he was too young.

gosplan

SlickRic wrote:

If you want a player who can both control a game AND grab a game by the scruff of the neck and make it happen for your team through any adversity, then you want Roy Keane. The notion that he 'ran around the pitch shouting and making tackles' is so incredibly laughable I can't believe I actually read it.

Keane just had more strings to his bow. It's as simple as that for me.

And that doesn't make me ignorant. It doesn't mean I don't understand Barcelona. It doesn't mean I don't understand tiki-taka. It doesn't mean I'm not knowledgeable about football. It doesn't mean I don't "know my stuff". Or whatever other garbage might be thrown at me for that opinion.

I've watched football for 20 years. I've eyes like everyone else.

Busquets is absolutely brilliant, but Keane wins.

Any adversity? Like seriously, ANY adversity?

People need to stop believing this.

For a team that dominated England so well, Utd weren't that great in Europe.

bucketybuck

gosplan wrote: »

For a team that dominated England so well, Utd weren't that great in Europe.

Because they didn't win every time they played there?

United did as well in Europe as any other top team. Even the peak Barcelona team under Guardiola only won 2 Champions leagues, no team has defended the trophy, Madrid went what, 11/12 years without winning it?

United won the thing twice under Ferguson, lost two finals, got to the the quarters and semis with as much regularity as any top team. They didn't win every game, they lost to the galacticos, they were robbed once or twice, they weren't always at their peak but thats just cup competition. To say United weren't great in Europe is such an inane statement to make, their record stands up there with any top club.

SlickRic

gosplan wrote: »

Any adversity? Like seriously, ANY adversity?

People need to stop believing this.

For a team that dominated England so well, Utd weren't that great in Europe.

And that's Keane's issue alone?

And ok, 'any' might be a bit strong. But you're bring slightly picking out the one phrase to criticise.

Liam O

There used to be a lot more difficult teams in the tournament back then too. Juve, Inter, Milan, Bayern, Leverkusen Lyon, Porto, Real, Barca, sometimes Valencia, Arsenal, United, Chelsea and Liverpool were capable of beating anyone 10-15 odd years ago. Now there are 3 teams who are at that level, I wouldn't rate Juve at having joined that echelon as they will be pillaged.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Was coming in to post when I saw this, which pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter, bar the last line.

SlickRic wrote: »

Amazing.

Keane v Masch v Busquets.

Masch doesn't come into the debate IMO. He's at least a level below both. I don't need to be Irish, Argentinian, Spanish, Icelandic or Kenyan to come to that conclusion.

And I love Masch.

If you want a cog in a machine, who has been moulded into a specific kind of player for a specific style of play, then Busquets is your man.

If you want a player who can both control a game AND grab a game by the scruff of the neck and make it happen for your team through any adversity, then you want Roy Keane. The notion that he 'ran around the pitch shouting and making tackles' is so incredibly laughable I can't believe I actually read it.

Keane just had more strings to his bow. It's as simple as that for me.

And that doesn't make me ignorant. It doesn't mean I don't understand Barcelona. It doesn't mean I don't understand tiki-taka. It doesn't mean I'm not knowledgeable about football. It doesn't mean I don't "know my stuff". Or whatever other garbage might be thrown at me for that opinion.

I've watched football for 20 years. I've eyes like everyone else.

Busquets is absolutely brilliant, but Keane wins.

Comparing Keane to Busquets is like comparing Keane to Zidane, or Busquets to Zidane, you cannot compare them in a like-for-like manner, I think the majority of people see that.

If you're not comparing them in a like-for-like manner then you (obviously) compare them in their preferred positions, that being Keane as a box-to-box midfielder, and Busquets as a pure DM.

As SlickRic says, Keane has more strings to his bow. He is a far more versatile player than Busquets and in a team where your central midfielders don't have very refined positions, which would be the majority of teams around the world, then Keane would be a much more valuable, and better player. If you are taking leadership into account, then Keane also wins hands-down. He was a fighter, he never backed down from anyone and he was a source of inspiration.

However, there is a flip-side to that argument. Busquets couldn't be more different as a person than Keane, I'm not saying that's better or worse, I'm merely stating it. Busquets, as stated above, is a pure defensive-midfielder. He has one position and one position only. I have seen him as a CB, in which he didn't excel, and I've seen him thrown up top when Barca were chasing a game, and he was downright awful. He is simply a DM, no more, no less. However, he is an absolutely incredible defensive midfielder. In a team where players do have very refined positions, which would be the a lot of top teams, them Busquets would be a better player to have than Keane. He is someone that knows his role and sticks to it. I've rarely seen him give a bad performance; he is remarkably consistent.

Now to some people, the fact that Busquets is a pure DM, and a very understated DM at that, is seen as a negative, and to other people it's seen as a positive. It simply depends on your point of view and what role in the team you want your players to have, whether they be utterly refined like Busquets, or whether they be all-round brilliant like Keane.

In my opinion, I would have Busquets, marginally. Obviously, if it was a position other than DM, I would have Keane, but if I was the manager and if I was ever in the position to have the choice of either at their peak, then I would pick Busquets.

SlickRic

i'd just like to point out that the days are long gone where Busquets is underrated or 'invisible'.

THFC described him as understated, which is correct, but i still see him described as underrated all over the place from certain people.

he's not. he's rightly recognised as the best DM in the world. anyone who follows football at all knows how good he is at what he does.

i always get the feeling that those who tell me that Busquets is 'underrated' are hipsters of the most annoying nature; dying to tell me how they know the game better than everyone else, and understand the nuances of the game (or some other shíte), that most mere mortals don't.

he's brilliant. everyone knows it. move on.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

SlickRic wrote: »

i'd just like to point out that the days are long gone where Busquets is underrated or 'invisible'.

THFC described him as understated, which is correct, but i still see him described as underrated all over the place from certain people.

he's not. he's rightly recognised as the best DM in the world. anyone who follows football at all knows how good he is at what he does.

i always get the feeling that those who tell me that Busquets is 'underrated' are hipsters of the most annoying nature; dying to tell me how they know the game better than everyone else, and understand the nuances of the game (or some other shíte), that most mere mortals don't.

he's brilliant. everyone knows it. move on.

By the general population he is still remarkably underrated. I have a friend who still, to this day, maintains that Song should have taken his place when he went there.

But in relation to discussions on this website then I would tend to agree with you. The reason he doesn't get the plaudits he deserves is because he is a subtly brilliant player playing with several obviously brilliant players.

bucketybuck

THFC wrote: »

By the general population he is still remarkably underrated. I have a friend who still, to this day, maintains that Song should have taken his place when he went there.

But in relation to discussions on this website then I would tend to agree with you. The reason he doesn't get the plaudits he deserves is because he is a subtly brilliant player playing with several obviously brilliant players.

But he does get the plaudits he deserves, you having a friend with one opinion doesn't change that.

gimmick

THFC wrote: »

By the general population he is still remarkably underrated. I have a friend who still, to this day, maintains that Song should have taken his place when he went there.

But in relation to discussions on this website then I would tend to agree with you. The reason he doesn't get the plaudits he deserves is because he is a subtly brilliant player playing with several obviously brilliant players.

Well your friend is an idiot then :pac:

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

bucketybuck wrote: »

But he does get the plaudits he deserves, you having a friend with one opinion doesn't change that.

Don't understand what an example is do you?

dfx-

SlickRic wrote: »

i'd just like to point out that the days are long gone where Busquets is underrated or 'invisible'.

THFC described him as understated, which is correct, but i still see him described as underrated all over the place from certain people.

he's not. he's rightly recognised as the best DM in the world. anyone who follows football at all knows how good he is at what he does.

i always get the feeling that those who tell me that Busquets is 'underrated' are hipsters of the most annoying nature; dying to tell me how they know the game better than everyone else, and understand the nuances of the game (or some other shíte), that most mere mortals don't.

he's brilliant. everyone knows it. move on.

Perhaps it is lost when Barcelona win the treble and he gets credit, but over the barren couple of years, there are quite a few who would not.

I'd pick him over the other two by quite some distance. And I'm a fan of Mascherano as a central defender - he can do that job 100x better than Busquets who has been a disaster when he has moved back there.

bucketybuck

THFC wrote: »

Don't understand what an example is do you?

Anecdote is not data. You stated that he was remarkably underrated by the general population, but I suspect your "example" of that claim extends to your one friend.

gosplan

SlickRic wrote: »

And that's Keane's issue alone?

And ok, 'any' might be a bit strong. But you're bring slightly picking out the one phrase to criticise.

No but it's part of the standard hyperbole/nostalgia about Keane. This is why I pointed it out.

And it does him a disservice because he was a brilliant footballer. And to be honest I'd say he'd be insulted by it too.

We have this idea that his force of will dragged Utd over the finish line in countless games. That's not true at all, he was an excellent midfielder. He won the midfield battle, put the opposition on the backfoot and gave the rest of his team the platform to win it, unless he just went ahead and won it himself.

These Gilesisms like 'force of will' or 'moral courage' are bullsh1t ideas about an incorrect view of football. Keane didn't have Utd punching above their weight, overcoming ridiculous odds. He had them consistently performing well ... as they should have been.

It's like in the remembering, we suddenly think that Holland and Juve were exactly how all the matches in Keane's career played out when that's plainly not true.

Man Utd were a fantastic team. They had fantastic players and a fantastic midfield leader. However they started and finished most games ahead and for years very few teams could get close to them.

My point about Europe is not whether Utd had an outstanding record or not (they do obviously) but for a top team with Cork's answer to Zeus in midfield, they shouldn't have been going out to teams like Monaco, Bayer etc. It doesn't fit the false narrative.

The year after the treble they went out to Madrid, I think everyone said that a combination of Raul and Redondo won the match for Madrid - there was nothing that Keane could do about it. That's fine and everything. That Madrid team won something like 3 in 5 years. But when you hear people talk about Keane's superhuman abilities,it doesn't fit either.

Utd's best spell in Europe was at the end of the last decade. 3 finals in four years built on Roanldo, Rooney and an late on an amazing back two of Ferdinand and Vidic. Quality footballers win trophies, not just people that try really hard.

Judge Keane on his football quality not falsehoods.

In this thread you have some hugely intelligent contributions citing Keane's ability to pick neat forward passes in between the lines, to drive the team forward, 1-8 scoring ratio, the way he did all of this as a two man midfield, the way he adapted to become a DMF.

Then you have people saying no one ever got the best of Keane, that he could overcome anyone, that he could drag his team through any challenge.

When it comes to judging how good he was, there exists a clear bias that changes the reality that 'Keane was a brilliant influential midfielder in a great team' into some romanticised Irish notion about this great fighter that just never gave up, a man that drove him teams forward by sheer force of will, the general that other men followed into battle and the one man on the pitch that would always always give 100%.

My problem is that in that last paragraph, I just equally described Joey Barton.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

bucketybuck wrote: »

Anecdote is not data. You stated that he was remarkably underrated by the general population, but I suspect your "example" of that claim extends to your one friend.

No, you're right, if ever I want to make a generalisation on here again I'll make sure to conduct surveys and compile data first. How foolish of me.

bucketybuck

THFC wrote: »

No, you're right, if ever I want to make a generalisation on here again I'll make sure to conduct surveys and compile data first. How foolish of me.

Generalise all you want, but if you are going to make claims that are at odds with common sentiment then you need more evidence than just what some random friend told you once.

I know a guy who will swear blind John Arne Riise was the best full back ever to play in the premier league. Thats what he says, but you can be sure I'm not going to come on here and argue that Riise is the PL's best full back and then use him as my cite. Because that would be silly.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

bucketybuck wrote: »

Generalise all you want, but if you are going to make claims that are at odds with common sentiment then you need more evidence than just what some random friend told you once.

I know a guy who will swear blind John Arne Riise was the best full back ever to play in the premier league. Thats what he says, but you can be sure I'm not going to come on here and argue that Riise is the PL's best full back and then use him as my cite. Because that would be silly.

Jesus I'd say you're some craic. The common sentiment, in my experience, is that Busquets doesn't get the recognition he deserves, from having chats with colleagues and friends. Happy?