Roy Keane has backed his former Manchester United teammate Cristiano Ronaldo after the forward was axed from the squad that drew 1-1 against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.
This was after Ronaldo refused to come on as a substitute when United took on Tottenham at Old Trafford last Wednesday night.
Ronaldo left the bench on the 89th minute and stormed towards the tunnel at the Stretford End. He also left the stadium before his teammates celebrated their 2-0 win over their top four rivals.
The 37-year-old was omitted from the United squad as a result.
Erik ten Hag cannot be expected to put up with such behaviour when he is trying to bring back a winning mentality to his team.
Roy Keane was accompanied by Gary Neville and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink on Sky Sports for the game.
The Ronaldo debate got heated as Keane defended his mate.
Keane said: “He [Ronaldo] certainly feels that he’s been unfairly treated. When you get that as a senior pro, it’s almost justified anger, he is going to react that way, but he’s got flaws like everyone else.
“He [Ten Hag] is talking about spirit after the game, don’t you think that’s a message to Ronaldo?
“I guarantee you if Ronaldo had played most of the games then he’d be the leading goalscorer.”
🗣️ "Manchester United are a better team without him" 😶
Rumour has it the Cristiano Ronaldo debate on Saturday Night Football is STILL going on… 👀🗣️ pic.twitter.com/Ay00tjoXvX
— Sky Sports Premier League (@SkySportsPL) October 22, 2022
Footage courtesy of Sky Sports
Regarding United’s form, he added: “Ten Hag has obviously got big decisions, he’s got to win football matches, but he’s not winning enough of them. United are fifth in the league.
“They beat Spurs the other night and I thought they won the European Cup. They beat Spurs. They beat them last year and Ronaldo scored a hat-trick.”
It goes without saying that Gary Neville – and ourselves – totally disagreed with Keane.
How he can defend Ronaldo is beyond me and I can’t help but wonder if it was any other player in the world, would Keane be seen bending over backwards with an absurd defence?
