I don't disagree with most of those strikers and I agree that saying he's a top three player is absurd, but Fabregas doesn't remotely compare and Bale still needs a few more top years at Real to compare too.
Alexis Sanchez
- Thread starter DanClancy
- Start date
thought I was alone thinking that.
I find that pretty extreme tbh, not in the same breath as Zlatan?
At their best, I'd definitely pick Bale over Ibra and I'm sure plenty of others would too.
100 percent.
How is he past it? He's scored a lot of goals for us already including two in his last game. He makes a ton of chances happen and would have had around 13 goals if the goalkeepers weren't all of a sudden magically amazing whenever they play against us.
And the whole "Ligue 1 is a shit league" is a load of bollocks. Sick of hearing about it now. Hazard, Payet, Mahrez and others came from that league and they're 3 of the best players in England. You tellling me Cavani, Thiago Silva, Lacazette, Fabinho, etc wouldn''t cut it in the Premier League? You're deluded.
I don't know why I'm even wasting my time. It's obvious he's still a top class player. You rival fans are just desperate for United to fail, thats all.
Yes, prime Ibra was better than Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Lampard, Gerrard(duh, striker vs midfielder), Bale, Suarez and Neymar are still playing and two of them are hitting their prime right now so we'll have to wait and see, Henry's prime ended when Ibra's began, Eto'o, Villa, RVP were never as good as him and xabi alonso, ozil and fabregas I guess is a joke?
Nope. First half of the decade the money was still very much in Italy. Until abramovich showed up, Man united was the only english club with the money to compete with them financially. Then it was united and chelsea. Money left Italy after calciopoli and with the world economic crisis, around 2008. That's when PL started to become the richest league. BTW, PL was already the best league in the world even before they became the richest. And they are the richest now, have been for years and yet not only have they not been the strongest league these past few years, the premier league itself is weaker than it was 7-8 years ago, when it wasn't as rich. More money does not automatically translate to stronger teams, fortunately.
Yeah, argentinians tend to be hit and miss in england. Some adapt, other don't. Sheva was damaged goods when he went to chelsea and mourinho actively undermined him, turned the locker against him from the first in a bizarre power struggle with abramovich.
Uh, what? 3 teams in thee semifinals and 2 in the final in 2003? 5 years before england managed the same thing?
Right now, sure. During Ibra's prime? Not so much. Ibra's teams won, because of him. I'm not convinced the premier league of the last 4-5 years was better than serie A between 2004-2011. Leicester are the current english champs ffs...
Prime Ibra was a 25+ goals a season #9/#10 hybrid striker. No midfielder, no matter how good, can compare to that.
Well then you won't have a lot to choose from. If United don't finish in the top 4 this season, it's 3 out of 4 seasons that has happened.
If you want a player who is going to want to come to United above ANYONE else, you'll first have to get into the Champions League and then subsequently will need to start winning major trophies (which doesn't look to be likely in the future) or continue to buy money mercenaries.
Or spawn another Manchester born class of '92. Rashford is a fantastic start, mind. And Welbeck should have been, too.
Btw back on topic. Great player, absolutely, just needs to be THE man up front to be effective. Cage him in a limited role, like ar barcelona, and you take away half of his effectiveness
I stopped here. Just no.
Fair enough, I don't agree but I understand where you're coming from. While it is tricky to compare forwards with midfielders, I just think Xavi was so incredibly dominant on the pitch that Messi aside, there's no player in the last 10 years I'd have in my team over Xavi.
With regards to Sanchez, I love him but I'd like to see Wenger play with the formation a little in order to have Sanchez playing off Giroud. Though I guess in the current setup Walcott does come central when Sanchez goes deep so it is kind of a faux two upfront system.
Bramble > Zidane
Xavi can't compare in terms of quality with Ibra because he doesn't score a lot of goals. Are you sure about that?
Since when was Xavi's job related in any way to scoring goals?
The thing is, midfielders, you need to build the right team around them to make 'em effective. Xavi was always great, but it wasn't until iniesta, villa and torres matured into WC players themselves that he started getting recognition as the best midfielder in the world. Put him in a different system, with different teammates, and do you think he would've been that great? Whereas truly great strikers like Ibra, they will win you games regardless of teammates or playing style.
No, wenger's getting it right here. Alexis plays a lot better when partnered with another mobile, pace-y striker
That's my point. What's the hardest and most important thing to do in football? Scoring goals. That's why a striker who can score lots of goals on his own, i.e. no need for a great team behind him, setting him up, is always going to be better and more valuable than any other position.
To put it in simple terms: if you're making a team from scratch, it's far easier to build a title-winning side around a Ibra/sheva/henry/drogba/cristiano ronaldo than it is around a xavi/pirlo/iniesta/scholes/lampard
I strongly disagree with that, I understand your point regarding Xavi and how a possession orientated system is important to getting the best out of him, but most top teams do look to dominate possession to some extent. With Ibra, if he was to play in a system like Leicester employed last season, do you really think he'd be as effective?
I think if you put Xavi in a different system, he's always going to be effective to some level. His close control, vision, passing and ability to retain the ball under pressure means he should be able to perform to some level. He's played as a midfield 2 as well in his Barcelona career and done so to a high level, so I can't imagine him joining any strong side and failing to perform regardless of the tactical set up.
I agree with that (I remember him bossing it in Italy alongside Di Natale), and when Walcott is attacking the space vacated by Sanchez it's a really effective way of going about things, it's just when a team has sat back (like United when they were trying to see the game out) I think having an aerial presence is such a necessity. When teams aren't conceding space in behind I just think Walcott doesn't offer enough of a threat, whereas in the form Giroud is in he'd be a more effective option.
Though I get that against the bigger sides Giroud's lack of pace in behind can be damn frustrating.
The 6 points dropped at Burnley, Stoke and Liverpool say 'hi'.
Yes. Though Ibra's a special case in that he's a system unto himself. Teams that have Ibra tend to play Ibra's football.
It's the reason why he failed at barcelona.
Sure, but he wouln't have been as effective. As i said, it boils down to this: truly great strikers are less reliant on teammates and systems to be effective.
Agree, but that's arsenal's problem. Sanchez is at his best when he can run at the defence in space. He's made to play fast, vertical football(he was built in a lab to play for klopp). He's just not as effective when teams sit back and don't give him space. Arsenal are doing the right thing right now in that they are playing a style that suits him the best. When it doesn't work and the other team can sit back and wait, well, that's what giroud is for
@Rhyme Animal i was talking about prime Ibra, not 35 year old Ibra
hilarious.
Would take Sanchez at united in a second if there was any chance it could happen. Second best player in the league for me behind Aguero and just ahead of Hazard and De Bruyne.
He's a great player - why are people saying they wouldn't want him at United?? Ludicrous. Sanchez is close to a complete player.
On the Zlatan vs Xavi argument above, what a waste of time! Different in every aspect of their game and different positions - you can't say Ibra is better because he scored more goals, by that logic you would have someone like Darren Bent over Xavi!!
On the Zlatan vs Xavi argument above, what a waste of time! Different in every aspect of their game and different positions - you can't say Ibra is better because he scored more goals, by that logic you would have someone like Darren Bent over Xavi!!
Would take a monumental feck up for Arsenal to let this guy go. If there's anything we can do to cause that, go for it.
Zlatan has long been underrated, but this is madness.
It's impossible to compare him with midfielders. But him and Suarez are comfortably the best strikers I've seen in the past 5 years.
Everyone acts like he's past it just because he joined United. It's hilarious cause everyone loved him at PSG and his other clubs. If he joined their club, they would love him. He would walk into every Starting 11 in the Prem.
Debatable. I think Guardiola and Conte would have him on the bench instead of dropping Aguero and Costa. I don't see him starting for Spurs over a fully fit Kane either, and I don't think Ibrahimovic would suit the way Klopp wants us to play (which is why Sturridge struggling to get game time at the moment). Wenger would most likely prefer Sanchez considering he's already dropped Giroud, who has more in common with Ibrahimovic.
If you had the choice, would you pick Ibrahimovic over any of Costa, Aguero, Kane or Sanchez?
Arsenal fans have been wanting Zlatan ever since he rejected them back in 2001.
Kane over Zlatan? Not a chance. As I said before, I wouldn't have Sanchez at United purely because he rejected us twice. I want players who want to play for us. Plus, given the choice I would rather go for someone else.
Costa is a good striker but Zlatan is different class in my opinion. As for Aguero... he is injury prone and plays for our rivals, so I'm more than happy having Ibra over him.
He would never join those teams anyway cause they're not big enough. His ego wouldn't allow him to join a small club. He has played for the biggest team in England, France, Italy and Spain.
It's not about who Ibrahimovic would join. My point is that based on where Ibrahimovic is in his career, it's not accurate to say that he is a better striking option than what United's rivals have. If you prefer him over the others then fair enough but for me Costa, Aguero, Kane and Sanchez are all currently better strikers.
How can you say that? Ibra has 8 in 17. Thats not a bad record at all considering we're still only in November. He'll comfortably finish with 20+ goals at the end of the season, barring any serious injury. Put him in another team and he would probably score more than 20. It's alot to do with our play style and mentality. We're struggling to create chances at times. Nothing to do with Ibra.
Didn't you create a bucket load of chances against Stoke and Burnley? Many on here were complaining that Ibrahimovic was missing sitters.
He started well but over the season I think he might struggle to have the impact that you would have hoped for. I expect the four strikers I've listed to have more impressive seasons than Ibrahimovic.
Not that impossible.
Zlatan has a strong claim to be one of the best forwards of his generation. Xavi has a strong claim to be the best midfielder of all time. Settled.
As someone who follows team/player stats for Fantasy Football reasons, I can tell you that the bit in bold is entirely wrong. Zlatan has had plenty of chances this season.
In fact by the start of November he had more shots than any other PL player this season (57). He just failed to score from 42 of them in a row. Compared to Costa who at that point had seven goals from just 27 shots, half as many. Ibra should have scored a lot more than he has, to the point where his dry spell was (statistically) baffling. He's maintained those stats since too.
Beyond that, you can judge a striker on more than just their goalscoring. Based on what we've seen this season, all of the players Klopper mentioned are indeed better than this current version of Ibra.
Edit: Actually tbf Kane hasn't looked great this season either, though he's had injury issues.
Last edited:
Heaton and that Stoke GK were outstanding that day. What about Firmino missing that sitter against Palace last week?
It was Southampton but yes that was a bad miss. Firmino's been consistently scoring or assisting for us throughout the calendar year though so one bad miss doesn't concern me. If it becomes a regular occurrence then I will start to wonder if it's worth Sturridge being given a go. Ibrhamovic has been struggling in front of goal for a while now (Swansea excluded) despite getting numerous chances to score which is the difference. You could also argue that Ibrahimovic is more of a focal point for your attack than Firmino is for us. He's played to score goals whereas Firmino has a wider role involving regaining possession and creating space for other players in our attack.
As @sullydnl pointed out Ibrahimovic's conversion rate is pretty poor at the moment compared to someone like Costa. He needs to start turning chances into goals as regularly as the likes of Aguero/Costa do for me to rate him in the same league as them. I'm talking about the Ibrahimovic of right now by the way, not the one from previous seasons.
Great posts, nice to see there's still reasonable and objective Liverpool fans.
Hammer, nail, HEAD.
Strange claim when us Arsenal fans didnt even know about that trial until his book came out a decade later. even then 2001 was Henry's breakout year and 20 year old Ibra was still at Malmo.