When discussing the dominance of Manchester United during the 1990’s, there were several individuals that stood out. Sir Alex Ferguson was arguably the biggest figurehead of them all given his longevity as manager and sheer influence on the club, which has been felt well after his retirement in 2013. There’s the famous class of 1992 featuring David Beckham, Paul Scholes, Gary Neville, Ryan Giggs, and Nicky Butt. As well, the signing of Eric Cantona was incredibly influential because it brought United a different dimension in attack with his outstanding technical qualities and overall versatility.
The man who arguably helped knit it all together was Roy Keane, United’s answer to the energetic central midfielder that was (and in many ways continues to be) in high demand within English football. At his peak, it was almost akin to watching the Tasmanian devil with how he was able to cover numerous different areas. one minute he’d be up the pitch trying to box in the opponent within their own third through back pressure, another minute he is trying to stop a counter attack on the halfspace with one of his trademark defensive gambles.
In the years following his retirement as a player, there’s been a certain level of myth making regarding Keane’s career. It’s common to hear pundits talk about him being a ferocious leader who could take control of the game by the scruff of the neck. Though it could very well be argued that those things were true, I wondered if that undersold some of the nuance to how Keane approached his position during the peak of his powers, that there was more to him than simply someone who could be described through simple adjectives (for example: warrior, leader, tenacity). There’s a real danger that can come with this type of analysis because it ends up turning the player into something of a caricature of what he actually was, that it ignores the real reasons as to why the player was successful in the first place.
Similar to the deep dive done on Zinedine Zidane, I watched 30 matches involving Roy Keane from the 1995–96 season through 1999-2000. This was partly done to incorporate film from both before and after the ACL tear he sustained in September 1997, and irrespective of the injury, those five seasons would’ve covered the point of his career where his athleticism and overall skill level probably would’ve intersected.
Scouting Report
Perhaps the biggest area that’s overshadowed because of Keane’s personality and reputation is his passing. On initial glance, passing wouldn’t necessarily be the first thing that comes to mind when describing his talents, but he more than held his own in that department. One way to compare would be that Keane’s passing was the equivalent of a NFL running back always being able to generate 4.5–5 yards from the line of scrimmage, it wasn’t the flashy Hollywood passes that can lead to high quality chance (for example, some of the passes Steven Gerrard would attempt during his peak), but it consistently helped move the chains and progress play forward.
This isn’t to say that Keane wasn’t capable of contributing those absolute high level passes, but those plays were more so a bonus rather than something that came in a steady diet. His passing was helped by a couple of things, the first being that he possessed quite good touch upon receiving passes from teammates so it didn’t eliminate potential passing options right away. Secondly, he would show instances of high level spatial awareness that could amplify his passing. At his best, Keane was able to combine these different aspects of his game to make himself an efficient passer.
While Keane’s ability on the ball was solid, he did have his flaws. For as efficient a passer as he was, a fair criticism would be that he did have a slight tendency to opt for conservative passes through recycling possession, which leaves some value on the table. Part of that was he would sometimes receive the ball in a sub-optimal stance which would eliminate a potential switch of play ball going the other way.
As a ball carrier, Keane wouldn’t be classified as expansive or awe inspiring, especially compared to some of his contemporaries (Patrick Vieira as an example). Though it wasn’t uncommon for him to bust out a driving run through the center of midfield, particularly during his younger days, it wasn’t necessarily a big part of his repertoire. As he got older and recovered from his ACL tear, he became even more selective on when he’d make those rampaging on-ball runs. His ability and propensity to drive forward from midfield through his off-ball movement was steadier in the film watched before/after his knee injury, and while he was still more likely to make runs into the final third area when he was younger, playing in games featuring a more defensive minded midfielder like Nicky Butt in 1999 & 2000 did give him greater license to venture forward.
No analysis of Keane’s game would be complete without acknowledging the part that he’s probably most famous for when describing his talents, which was his combative style in controlling the midfield. Compared to his passing and overall attacking style, there was less subtlety with how he went about things defensively. If he saw an opportunity to make a tackle in the middle or final third, he was not afraid to take that gamble and live with the results either way.
On the whole, Keane’s general calculated aggression was a net positive and allowed him to break up possessions in areas and add value through his risk taking defensively that most midfielders couldn’t replicate. It could even be argued to some extent that part of the value came through the tactical fouling to stop transition opportunities that’s become quite en vogue in today’s era of football among the best clubs. He was equally as aggressive when it came to his ball pressure of nearby markers once they had their back to goal, though a danger he had was being susceptible to vacating the central areas and not recovering back in time. As well, he did have his moments where the opposition could make runs on his blindside and get themselves into dangerous areas.
Analysis
After going back and watching film from this time period, I do sympathize a bit with people who fixate on the aspects of Roy Keane’s skill set that lends itself to using superlatives, because it does pop out at you. He played on an insanely high motor, especially before the knee injury, and that allowed him to cover a ridiculous amount of ground. While he did curtail his game post-injury to maintain previous performance, helped by possessing solid positional discipline, there were still a fair share of moments in the later years where Keane would rev the engine back up. It’s also important to point out that part of his evolution was influenced by Paul Scholes eventually becoming a permanent fixture in United’s starting lineup, which necessitated Keane to become more of a controlling presence on both ends of the pitch.
It’s clear that Keane’s passing helped make him a useful contributor to United’s attack, though to what extent is up for debate. He clearly was comfortable making passes between the lines either during methodical buildup play or to initiate transitions, and could occasionally contribute the awe inspiring pass. However he wasn’t necessarily a great passer because of his pass selection, and that does matter since it made Keane’s passing additive but not necessarily game-changing. His ball carrying even at his physical peak was okay but not necessarily a strength of his, and it was gradually phased out as he got older. That being said, it didn’t matter much given United had other candidates to individually progress play when needed. Was Keane a press-resistant midfielder? Because of his scanning and overall touch before receiving passes, I think he had some press-resistance which aids his portability across other Premier League sides, but his limited value off the dribble is still a hindrance.
Defensively, there were to some extent two versions of Keane. The version from 1995–97 was quite aggressive and combative in part due to squad construction and being at his physical peak so he could play the box-to-box role for a longer duration. In his later years, Keane was more reserved and cranked up the engine when playing alongside a more cautious midfield partner, though he did have his issues in this arrangement because he wasn’t necessarily a true screening player and still had the instincts to charge all over the pitch. It did help that the style of play in English football during that 1995–2000 stretch suited how Keane played.
In comparison to someone like Zidane who was likelier to have a whole team be built around his talents, it could be argued that Keane was more of an enhancing talent, a ceiling raiser in the right environment which would help teams become very good-great. Fortunately for him, he was able to play in the right system with a very good surrounding cast. Those iterations of Manchester United during the mid-late 1990’s featured premium on-ball creators (Scholes, Beckham, Cantona), and mobile attackers (Giggs, Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke). To be sure Keane was also a big part in how Manchester United’s were able to hit teams with lightning counter attacks, aided by his passing, but it did help take the creative load off of his shoulders.
Roy Keane was a very good midfielder during his peak, it just so happens that there were tangible reasons as to why he ended up becoming one of the faces of English football, and it wasn’t just that he embodied the traditional ideals of a leader.
