QuoteWell I think you might be happy to play in important games, but playing friendlies with an injury is too much to ask.Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
So, in order to demonstrate His 110-per-cent winning attitude and dogged commitment, He dropped out of friendlies because His international team-mates couldn't match even half of His desire? Their desire for a sun-tan trumped all. In essence, Roy was forced out of squads by the embarrassing vanity and downright incompetence of His supposed fellow footballers. Thus, Roy would offer a grand total of zero per cent to the international cause in the end? The narrative of the hampered hero; it just doesn't follow.
I'm not necessarily attempting to cast aspersions upon his commitment, when he did turn up for us, of course. And he wasn't in the same league of missing friendlies as his United team-mate Ryan Giggs was, to be fair. I'm just trying to debunk your rather fanciful assertion that merely serves to play into this mythical notion of Roy as a demigod who was right about everything, who was better than his mortal peers in everything he did and in everything he ever could have done - he could do anything, after all - and who was simply too good for us. The reality was that he was as fallible and vulnerable to human fault or critique as anyone else.
When he wore the green, he excelled and undoubtedly gave his all. If, however, he had come to the conclusion, as advised by his club and employer, that avoiding international friendlies would protect his long-term fitness and benefit the potential longevity of his career, that's another matter worthy of isolated discussion. I have more important things to worry about than let myself get agitated by players' apparent apathy or lack of commitment when they pull out of friendlies citing injury or injury concerns. I'm content enough to "admit" that Roy wasn't the most dedicated of our players when it came to showing up for friendly games whilst simultaneously acknowledging the qualities that made him such a great player for us; my idol and favourite footballer growing up.
Joey O'Brien, Kieren Westwood and Robbie Brady used the international breaks recently to see to what were long-term injury concerns rather than full-blown injuries at the time. James McCarthy was a similar case that season he continually pulled out of our international friendly squads but might then have appeared for Wigan in a competitive Premier League game the following weekend. They weren't injured per se but it wasn't exactly a case of them fabricating matters either. They were simply protecting the longevity of their professional livelihood, which, I think, is pretty reasonable in moderation. It would have been reckless for McCarthy, for example, to have risked aggravating a long-term injury worry by playing in a voluntary non-competitive fixture. The reason he might then have appeared in a competitive fixture for Wigan a following weekend was because that was the job for which he was receiving a salary. He was duty-bound by a legal contract.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 20/10/2013 at 1:05 PM.
Well I think you might be happy to play in important games, but playing friendlies with an injury is too much to ask.
Well, obviously, but a lot of fans often accuse players of lacking commitment when they pull out of friendly squads citing "dubious" injury concerns, especially when those players end up playing for their clubs the very next weekend. In fact, you seemed to regard the suggestion that Roy might have missed friendlies because they weren't worth the risk even when he wasn't actually injured as a possible mark on this "untaintable" character that "always gave 110 per cent". You went as far as fabricating an illogical narrative in his defence that held, not Roy's attitude, but his team-mates' alleged inferiority, accountable for his missing of friendly games. If it were even true, it would actually be an indictment of his character.
My basic point is that Roy Keane is and was as fallible as anyone else. As a result, there is no need to view his "suspect" record of turning down friendly call-ups on some black-or-white scale of extremes; one extreme being a treacherous lack of commitment to our cause with the other being this flawless notion you've dreamed up, that the natural inferiority of his peers, in contrast to his greatness, virtually forced him to reject friendly call-ups due to some innate impossibility to lower himself to their supposed bog-standards. For us to hope that he'd suffer the shame would be simply unwarranted on our parts!
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 20/10/2013 at 2:34 PM.
As I have said before, I can't really speak for Roy nor know the extent of his injuries, and I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) he was sent home so it was not his decision not to play.
SO the scenario you describe is in fact incorrect? He did was not allowed to play, so it was not Roys attitude but the attitude of Mick (and possibly the rest of the players) which prevented him from playing.
If that is the case then your criticism of Roy is invalid and the attitude problem rests with Mick and the squad ecause they were unwilling to play along side a because they did not like the way he expressed his opinion.Remember it was Mick who accused Roy of faking injury and I very much doubt Mick could prove he faked his injuries.
You can pick up minor injures in games which take a few fays to heal, it would not be sensible to play a game on them especially an unnecessary friendly because that could lead to a more serious injury.
Also not sure why he why expected to play meaningless friendlies in the first place, just what is the point?
For players at his stage of his career the are not helpful.
Last edited by tricky_colour; 21/10/2013 at 4:57 PM.
Keane regularly pulled out of a Ireland squads with flimsy excuses. Keane didn't travel to Tehran when he could have played, albeit on an injury. Lots of players play through pain or strains. He'd have traveled if we hadn't won in Dublin.
Mick was right to call him on this. The accusation of faking injury wasn't a calculated incision. It was a knee jerk response to a strong of insults laced at Mick by Keane when he was confronted with the Tom Humphries interview which he should never have given (and Humphries and the Irish Times should never have gone out of their way to get). Context is everything.
I think anyone but the biggest United fan in Cork would think its fair to say Keane opted not to play in some Irish games.
Keane himself said later he wasn't sent home.
Heard on the grapevine he was 'under orders' to do so from Fergie, at the time. Including having advance notice of a certain Pacific island.
Which wouldn't surprise me one iota...
I wasn't specifically referring to Saipan actually. There was no-one preventing him from playing in friendlies when fit or able, except himself and perhaps Ferguson. As for Saipan, it's ridiculous to suggest that it was the attitude of Mick and the squad that prevented him from playing, as if Roy should not be remotely accountable for his own words and actions. He was the very definition of a sentient and strong-willed individual.
Sure, why should we hope any of our players bother turning up for friendlies?Also not sure why he why expected to play meaningless friendlies in the first place, just what is the point?
Friendlies are essential for moulding the team and helping the players bond, both tactically and socially, if you will. They also count towards ranking points, so you can't just dismiss them as "unnecessary" and "meaningless"?
And what about Tehran?
In what sense? I think friendlies are a vital part of adequate preparation; something of which Roy was supposedly a staunch advocate. And he wasn't that old when he was missing friendlies. Sure Robbie's still playing away in them without problem.For players at his stage of his career the are not helpful.
Well it is a bit confusing isn't it because this is what Mick himself said at the time, I remember the words well.
Maybe Keane had also decided to quit at this point."I cannot and will not tolerate that level of abuse being thrown at me so I sent him home," McCarthy said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuqDypaZTHM"Mick sent me nowhere. I told him where to go. What? Do you think Mick McCarthy said to me, ‘I’m sending you home’?" said Keane.
And I don't know if you can say he opted not to play some games, it may not have been the sensible thing to do
to play in a friendly whilst recovering from an injury, certainly from my point of view, as a fan, if say we had a
friendly then a very important game, I think I would be of the mind that we should not be playing any of our
top players in the friendly injured or not. Even if they were fully fit I would be of the view to not play
them in the friendly and ensure they remained fully fit.
So I would not see a player not wanting to play in that match, I would see it is sensible, and I might well be
of the opinion that a top player wanting to play the friendly was being stupid, even disloyal by risking injury
before an important match.
Also as a fan I would have been disappointed with the poor preparation, especially given that Ireland had
EIGHT YEARS to prepare for it!!!!!
Also of this is a bit irrelevant to my initial point which regards competitiveness on the pitch, not off it.
Well I do not know too much about this, but let's face it Roy did actually go to Saipan against his club managers orders,
hence hardly disloyal to his country.
Had the preparation been better things might have been very different.
I think you need to put things into context, Keane as an established first team player.I wasn't specifically referring to Saipan actually. There was no-one preventing him from playing in friendlies when fit or able, except himself and perhaps Ferguson. As for Saipan, it's ridiculous to suggest that it was the attitude of Mick and the squad that prevented him from playing, as if Roy should not be remotely accountable for his own words and actions. He was the very definition of a sentient and strong-willed individual.
Sure, why should we hope any of our players bother turning up for friendlies?
Friendlies are essential for moulding the team and helping the players bond, both tactically and socially, if you will. They also count towards ranking points, so you can't just dismiss them as "unnecessary" and "meaningless"?
And what about Tehran?
In what sense? I think friendlies are a vital part of adequate preparation; something of which Roy was supposedly a staunch advocate. And he wasn't that old when he was missing friendlies. Sure Robbie's still playing away in them without problem.
If you put so much emphasis on preparation you then must agree with Roy about the Saipan preparations.
Same goes for Mick, if he expects Roy to do the preparation, then he should have done his job in
preparing for Siapan, I mean it is not as if managing the national team is even a full time job.
You could argue that Micks failure to prepare properly showed disloyalty. I can see how Roy might be angered
by seeing Micks accusation that he was letting the team down by not attending friendlies when Mick
let the side down by failing to prepare for the biggest tournament Ireland ever faced.
I wonder how many teams at the tournament had neither the right kit nor a suitable training ground
for their preparation for the biggest prize in football?
Nobody was more disappointed than me that Keane didn't play I might add, I genuinely believed
we had a chance of winning the tournament, a slim chance albeit, we were ranked in the mid teens,
but with the right preparation it was not out of the question.
I expect from Keane's point of view he felt we had thrown that chance away.
But at the end of the day, McCarthy was manager, the buck stops with him,
he must ensure the preparation was right and that the players are happy.
I dare say under a different manage things would have been, well different
But my main point was about competitiveness on the pitch Keane was a natural
competitor, he wanted to win stuff. Sometimes that might mean missing a friendly.
I don't see a contradiction in that.
Last edited by tricky_colour; 21/10/2013 at 7:59 PM.
Is this true? Why would Ferguson try to get in the way of his player heading off to prepare for a World Cup? Did he try to hold his other World Cup participants back? What did Ferguson make of Keane travelling to Saipan then?
I do. Roy had every right to be angry in Saipan. Indeed, Genesis backed up his criticisms of the set-up. I've always tended to side more with Roy than Mick on Saipan actually.
It might have been incompetent or amateurish in Roy's eyes, but I don't think an accusation of disloyalty would be appropriate. That would be rather twisted.You could argue that Micks failure to prepare properly showed disloyalty.
He missed friendlies because he wanted to win stuff? I'm not sure that follows. Can you elaborate?But my main point was about competitiveness on the pitch Keane was a natural
competitor, he wanted to win stuff. Sometimes that might mean missing a friendly.
Roy called it a shambles, Mick called it bedlam.
Roy called it bumpy, Mick called it uneven.
I suppose Roy had (slightly) more accurate perceptions of the organisational failures.
More players should have stood up and left, or just Roy?
OK maybe you were refering to just friendlies.
Maybe, but he might have just have not been bothered to do it same as people say Roy didn't
bother to turn up to friendlies, it's effectively the same 'crime', except more harmful IMO.
Yes if you have a friendly then a cup final it would be sensible to miss the friendly to make sure
you are fit for the final. Particularly as you get older and are more injury prone.
For example Man U play very few friendlies in the playing season, the risks involved far out weight the
benefits.
Roy's perfectionism was admirable, but in spite of his high standards, I'm not sure he conducted himself in the most professional of manners. Also, it would be unfair to hold Mick responsible for what were FAI failings.
I feel like I've been cracked up to 88mph.
Not quite. Different words have different connotations. To accuse someone of being disloyal would be to imply there was a degree of malicious intent behind their actions, or lack thereof. Whatever Mick's faults might have been, his intention certainly wasn't to do harm to his country's chances. It's naive and unhelpful to view the whole episode on a scale of such simplistic extremes, with one party viewed as absolutely "loyal" and in the right with the other viewed as "disloyal" and in the wrong. I'm not even sure a question of loyalty or disloyalty is wholly appropriate. If anything, it just seems like a way of fabricating some deeper significance or "crime" as a way of further undermining the party with which one disagrees in order to paint him as the "bad guy".
Is this debate really worth pursuing, more than ten years on though...
They both had faults, except one came out of this situation looking dignified and the other a dick. So what...
Well maybe that is the wrong word, seems I introduced it, but I think I read it elsewhere.
But to take issue with players. top players who need to look after themselves, not playing friendlies
is ridiculous. I expect when he did turn up at friendlies he at least had his boots with him.
In that case, why should any professional footballer be expected to turn up for an international friendly?
he shouldn't be, there are plenty of players who will turn up if he does not want to play, if they are good they might get a call up to for a proper cap,
sometime it may not be convenient, younger players tend to be keener, it's a new experience for them.
Older players may find the attraction has worn off, and anyway what have they to prove?
I mean presumable they have already shown they have what it takes at that level so particularly for
someone like Keane, what is the point? What will we learn about him? Nothing.
But players are different, some will love that kind of thing others not so much.
Presumable they get some sort of remuneration too, I mean I expect they get free food it nothing else!!!
Particular reassuring for people like Andy Reid!
I mean he has wasted away since he stopped playing for Ireland.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks