Saipan - Who was right?

Baldrick wrote: Fitz wrote: No offence Bakdrick, but holy f**k you’re as blinkered as Keane is. You’ve made a few points that are accurate and fair, but most of that last comment is just pro-Keane drivel tbh   Sorry I am the one who is saying that Keane was bang out of order and was acting the **** but that mick mismanaged it also and not just in Saipan.   You and Trap can only see Keane has been 100% wrong and that Mick did no wrong. And yet you call me blinkered.   Mick mismanaged Keane from 1996 as he always felt inferior to him.  Keane smelt that weakness and abused it because he is at the heart of it a bully and Mick is a decent guy.  But Mick should accept that he made mistakes as a manager and his forte is managing lads like Kilbane and a Breen and kinsella. Managing highly strung world class talents is tough and Mick was not up to it. But who is the more decent guy, mick is.  Who is the better manager, Mick is.   So I don’t know how you can call me blinkered and one sided.

I think Keane had some mental health problems back then, looking back

You couldn't say anything, you were just thinking, 'for f***'s sake, you knew that was it. From our point of view as players, we didn't have a problem [with the video].'

Keane is wrong about that though.  He has tried to say it was all about the insult of faking injury.  But that came after he threatened to leave in the first place. It suits Keane to paint the narrative that mick had a pop at him in front of teammates and accused him of faking injury. We all know there was more to it than that. I am no Keane fan boy far from it I just think mick has serious questions to answer over his role and he is never asked them as people try to turn it into one was right and one was wrong.  The true facts are that Keane was wrong, Mick was wrong and the FAI were totally wrong. So justifying micks behaviour and actions by saying Keane was worse is no defence.  When you have a **** of a player you don’t antagonise him in public and expect it to work out.  My view more than 20 years later is that they both f**ked up and Keane was a horrible **** to deal with at that time but Mick showed is level and his lack nuance and people skills for dealing with difficult people. 

I am laughing at the pop psychology presented as some sort of fact.  Who the hell knows why Keane behaves like he does and I would be suspicious if a trained psychologist offered an opinion never mind randomers on the internet.  Drink withdrawals, utd not winning a trophy, missing his family, trouble at home have all been given as possible reasons and all of it conjecture. 

Baldrick wrote: Trap junior wrote: Baldrick 2 final questions before I log off: 1. How should Mick have handled Keane's interview and do you think it was possible to have kept him sweet for the duration of the WC? 2. Ronaldo has done a 'Keane/Humphries' with his Piers Morgan interview.  Do you think Man Utd handled this situation well or should have kept him as he was their top goalscorer? Like the Irish lad asked for directions.  I wouldn’t start here. So bad management and Keane’s intolerant behaviour led to the situation developing.  The same with Ronaldo and Utd.   However leaving that aside, when faced with the Humphries interview and the fact they were heading to Japan the next day, Mick should have had a one to one meeting with Keane and said that while he understood his issues with prep and for sticking up for the players welfare but that he can’t be saying the things he said about teammates to the media and it was not acceptable.  They could agree to disagree and Mick could outline the high standard of facilities in Japan and that Saipan was a mistake.  In relation to Ronaldo.  He is 37 and is a fading star and they player better without him So I would have offloaded him before the interview if possible and the interview was just a mechanism by Ronaldo so that it could be done while he saves face. I would have dumped him During the summer.   Keane in 2002 was a lot different to Ireland than Ronaldo is in 2022.