Saipan - Who was right?

Trap junior wrote: Baldrick wrote: Fitz you know it’s possible to say that Keane was at fault and that Mick failed also.  Eveyone says Mick should have taken him aside on the quiet. How would that have solved anything?   Keane would have f**ked Mick out of it in person as is his way and Mick would still have sent him home.  Keane only wanted an excuse to unleash all his bitter hatred towards him.   Ok, say it worked and some sort of truce was agreed, Keane had still sl*gged off the team and the clubs they played for.  There would have been resentment from the other players towards Keane and Roy was never going to say ''Sorry  lads I was out of line there''.  So that resentment and ill feeling would have been let fester and it would have come out on the pitch and in fighting would have occurred in now time. It would have had a detrimental impact on team spirit and performance.

Badgersboys9 wrote: Why, did something happen?

Edited by Fitz - 22 Nov 2022 at 8:35pm

Baldrick wrote: Fitz wrote: Baldrick wrote: micks job is not to be a nice guy or a decent man. His job was to get the football team on the pitch and prepare the team as well as possible.  He failed on both of these.  Keane was a prick. Many players are l. Mbappe is.  Mick is good working with average players who are nice guys.  But you don’t win things with a team of nice guys.  You need to be able to manage ****s who are world class too.  Mick couldn’t and he couldn’t manage up either.  He was a nice guy with the FAI also. You need to put pressure on your boss too and manage up effectively.   And Keane’s behaviour was that of a world-class player, was it? A world-class player would’ve publicly slated his manager and team-mates on the eve of a World Cup, would they? No Keane’s behaviour was shocking.  But that doesn’t mean Mick should get a free pass and not be called out for appalling management of a prized asset. You don’t poke the bear when the bear is key to your hopes of success.  Would deschamps be doing a good job if he had a run in with mbappe if he was acting the ****.

horsebox wrote: Yes, it's the right thing to do. No player is bigger than the team.

Cabra Hoop wrote: Fitz wrote: horsebox wrote: Yes, it's the right thing to do. No player is bigger than the team. Absolutely! If he didn’t he’d be clearly demonstrating that he was weak, indecisive and unfit to lead.  doesn't work like that, not in football, not in life. If you are needed badly enough, eyes will become blind and allowances will be made

Both ****s.

Ferguson only f**ked him out when he no longer performed on the pitch.  You don’t get all principled when it comes to your best player.  Allowances are given for someone who is fundamental to success. Ferguson let Keane do his bidding many times before but drew the line when he did it and was finished as a player.  His time at Celtic showed that.  The same with Utd and Ronaldo.  Exceptions are made for generational talents.  Neville has confirmed that the mutv interview was no different that what Keane has said many times before.  The difference was Keane’s ability had reduced massively.  Keane at his peak would have been fined and kept.  In an ideal world Keane wouldn’t have did what he did and he has little excuse to say what he said about the players.  But Mick was too nice a guy esp with the FAI.  It’s a bad state of affairs when it’s a player who has to ask for things to be done properly and the manager just accepts the mediocrity.  

Fitz wrote: Cabra Hoop wrote: Fitz wrote: horsebox wrote: Yes, it's the right thing to do. No player is bigger than the team. Absolutely! If he didn’t he’d be clearly demonstrating that he was weak, indecisive and unfit to lead.  doesn't work like that, not in football, not in life. If you are needed badly enough, eyes will become blind and allowances will be made To some extent, yes, and Keane had gotten away with more than most for that exact reason. But when you’re undermining your boss - even in circumstances where you may have a valid point - you’re treading on very thin ice. No boss can let themselves be clearly undermined. If Mick was going to accept that, then, he may as well have been the one who packed his bags. I often feel that Keane gets unwarranted support and defence from people because we needed him so badly, but that’s a kind of ‘rise-tinted-specs’ approach. If we had produced 50 world-class footballers instead of probably less than 5, then, Keane’s actions would’ve been viewed with a lot more accuracy and a lot more contempt.

Trap junior wrote: Baldrick wrote: Ferguson only f**ked him out when he no longer performed on the pitch.  You don’t get all principled when it comes to your best player.  Allowances are given for someone who is fundamental to success. Ferguson let Keane do his bidding many times before but drew the line when he did it and was finished as a player.  His time at Celtic showed that.  The same with Utd and Ronaldo.  Exceptions are made for generational talents.  Neville has confirmed that the mutv interview was no different that what Keane has said many times before.  The difference was Keane’s ability had reduced massively.  Keane at his peak would have been fined and kept.  In an ideal world Keane wouldn’t have did what he did and he has little excuse to say what he said about the players.  But Mick was too nice a guy esp with the FAI.  It’s a bad state of affairs when it’s a player who has to ask for things to be done properly and the manager just accepts the mediocrity.   Wrong.  He would have f**ked him out at any stage of his career.  He got rid of Jaap Staam and Van Nistelrooy and Beckham when they acted above their station and they were in the prime of their careers and performing well at the time.