Erling Haaland

Status
Not open for further replies.
United need to fix the right hand side and manage Pogba's situation before we sign Haaland.

I get Lukaku vibes from Haaland anyway. Good striker and would get goals but he's not fixing this team alone and definitely shouldn't be signed before we can feel confident hed do well.

I'd rather not go through another big hype player flopping.
 
I feel we have better players at no 9 that will improve even if we sign a Sancho or a Grealish type to replace Pogba.
 
Maybe it's a controversial opinion but if Haaland costs 100m and will only guarantee the length of one contract (ala Pogba) I'd rather sign Kane for 130m.

Better attitude, more complete and a genuine leader and team player .
 
I think City should go for him and they'll be unstoppable. My Dad reckons he's not a Pep player but I think he's off the chart and would be amazing as the focal point of their attack. He signed Lewandowski at Bayern so don't think he has any problems with that sort of player. Can't see him coming to us or Chelsea over City or one of the Spanish pair.
 
Kaivalya said:
I feel we have better players at no 9 that will improve even if we sign a Sancho or a Grealish type to replace Pogba.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion is, that we lack creativity. There's no games I can think of from top of my head, where I can think we absolutely battered a team but failed to win or draw, because we didn't have a player like Haaland. Even Cavani missed a couple of chances against the likes of Arsenal and some others, but didn't have the chance to put the next one away.

City's highest goal scorer is Ilkay who is number 7 in the PL scoring charts, and they're well ahead. Whereas Spurs have Kane number 1 & Son at 6 but are miles behind City. The difference is City will create lots of chances and spread the goals, whereas teams like us and Spurs rely heavily on one or two individuals.
 
Kaivalya said:
Maybe it's a controversial opinion but if Haaland costs 100m and will only guarantee the length of one contract (ala Pogba) I'd rather sign Kane for 130m.

Better attitude, more complete and a genuine leader and team player .
Click to expand...
Considering Kane is a full seven years older, he would also only guarantee the length of one contract - he'd be 33 at the end of a hypothetical 5-year contract. So yeah, your position makes very little sense - sign someone for the same amount of time for 30m more.

I'm not sure where the "better attitude" thing comes from.
 
red thru&thru said:
Has he got the supporting cast at international level? This is a genuine question as I don't watch Norway play.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously not as much as at Dortmund, but we do have Ødegaard who was crap as well. Still, that’s no excuse for messing up first touches and passes. He was just OFF in terms of everything really. Looked lazy and disinterested. Like fat Lukaku his last few months at United.
 
Floyd said:
Haaland’s been utter utter crap all three games for Norway this week.
Click to expand...
There's barely a handful of elite players in the world who play close to their domestic levels for their national teams. Wouldn't look too much into it.
Kaivalya said:
I feel we have better players at no 9 that will improve even if we sign a Sancho or a Grealish type to replace Pogba.
Click to expand...
How would signing a wide attacker replace Pogba? We need to retain Pogba, or replace him with a top class central midfielder, and sign a Sancho/Grealish-level creative wide attacker.
 
As much as I’d like to see Haaland join I can’t help but feel that signing him this summer would be an expensive mistake. He’s gonna cost twice as much as his reported buyout next year which could be used to improve us in other areas, plus I don’t see him as someone who will stay at a club for 10 years and can see him wanting out in a few years especially if we aren’t winning leagues or champions leagues. I’d much rather we look for some cheaper alternatives and build a squad than punt it all on one player
 
red thru&thru said:
My personal opinion is, that we lack creativity. There's no games I can think of from top of my head, where I can think we absolutely battered a team but failed to win or draw, because we didn't have a player like Haaland. Even Cavani missed a couple of chances against the likes of Arsenal and some others, but didn't have the chance to put the next one away.

City's highest goal scorer is Ilkay who is number 7 in the PL scoring charts, and they're well ahead. Whereas Spurs have Kane number 1 & Son at 6 but are miles behind City. The difference is City will create lots of chances and spread the goals, whereas teams like us and Spurs rely heavily on one or two individuals.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, I don't see what problem Haaland would fix for us. We have good finishers already, what we lack is quality in the midfield. If Pogba goes this becomes even more of a priority to fix.
 
Kaivalya said:
Maybe it's a controversial opinion but if Haaland costs 100m and will only guarantee the length of one contract (ala Pogba) I'd rather sign Kane for 130m.

Better attitude, more complete and a genuine leader and team player .
Click to expand...

Short term - he will be better. But Kane will have zero value in 4-5 years, Haaland will be worth just as much as we sign him for in 5 years. Signing a 28 year old for £130 million is suicide.
 
IncyWincySpider said:
I completely agree, I don't see what problem Haaland would fix for us. We have good finishers already, what we lack is quality in the midfield. If Pogba goes this becomes even more of a priority to fix.
Click to expand...

We have good finishers ? Who would that be ? Martial and Greenwood have scored 5 goals combined this season. If we had a striker like Kane or Haaland this season - we would be very close to City.
 
Floyd said:
Well, obviously not as much as at Dortmund, but we do have Ødegaard who was crap as well. Still, that’s no excuse for messing up first touches and passes. He was just OFF in terms of everything really. Looked lazy and disinterested. Like fat Lukaku his last few months at United.
Click to expand...

That is a concern. Or could it be he has played loads of football and is suffering? Sometimes forget how young he is and what toll it is taking on their bodies?

I don't know, I may just be making excuses for him. Everything I have seen of him up to this point, just screams elite mentality...hence why I'm trying to think of things to cut him some slack?!
 
red thru&thru said:
That is a concern. Or could it be he has played loads of football and is suffering? Sometimes forget how young he is and what toll it is taking on their bodies?

I don't know, I may just be making excuses for him. Everything I have seen of him up to this point, just screams elite mentality...hence why I'm trying to think of things to cut him some slack?!
Click to expand...

We’ve also just switched national team coaches, and the coach himself said he was surprised at how much of what he wanted to implement was news to the team. Not our most cohesive performance, and as has been pointed out; Ødegaard didn’t look particularly good either.

That said, Haaland had a fair few shots and touches that were surprisingly poor, and seemed to make fewer runs than usually. He also seemed quite annoyed with himself and frustrated.
 
IncyWincySpider said:
I completely agree, I don't see what problem Haaland would fix for us. We have good finishers already, what we lack is quality in the midfield. If Pogba goes this becomes even more of a priority to fix.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We have a problem of lack of depth in creativity with Pogba playing, and this will only be exasperated if Pogba leaves in the summer.
 
red thru&thru said:
I'd love Haaland here, I really would.

However, looking at it holistically, he'd be better served going to a team like City this year. We as a team still have so much to do, to get the best out of a player like Haaland. But if some how we get to plug the gaps this year on the wing, in central midfield & at the back, then I believe we are better equipped to have Haaland in our team next season.
Click to expand...

He’d be guaranteed success at City, but personally I think he could become a superstar if he came here. He would very much become the focal point of the team, as opposed to City where he would likely be just another cog in an already successful machine.
 
Zen86 said:
He’d be guaranteed success at City, but personally I think he could become a superstar if he came here. He would very much become the focal point of the team, as opposed to City where he would likely be just another cog in an already successful machine.
Click to expand...
City won't splash the cash on him, they are smarter with their transfers.
 
Can’t believe some of the opinions and sentiments toward Haaland turning just cos City are now reportedly in for him / Aguero is leaving.

Wherever he ends up, he’s going to improve that team immensely. I think it’s defensive for us to say things like he’s not for us / expensive flop /etc. let’s be honest if he come to man Utd he’d improve us no if’s and buts.

I hope we do everything in our power to convince him we are the right place to be next. As for the future - who knows.
 
Don’t want him. He looks like a big baby and has the attitude to match; he comes across as a bit of a horrible human (based on interviews and social media, not a great source, I know).

Furthermore, although he’s a fantastic player, I’m not sure how suited his style is to the modern game. How many successful teams play an out and out striker these days? Look at City, for example- great chance of a quadruple and their only real striker (Aguero) has mustered 1 goal this season. United play with a fluent front 3 (the “striker”, Martial, has scored 4 league goals) and are second in the league. Barça, Madrid, Liverpool all play without this traditional front man.

Even if we wind the clock back 20 years. United had dominated for a decade, signed Van Nistelrooy and everything pointed towards an even greater stranglehold on domestic football and more influence in Europe. RVN broke individual records and is rightly remembered as a class striker, but in that time United won 1 league and 1 league cup in 5 years. He left and the United’s dominance returned for another few years.

I may regret this, but I hope he goes to City.
 
lysglimt said:
We have good finishers ? Who would that be ? Martial and Greenwood have scored 5 goals combined this season. If we had a striker like Kane or Haaland this season - we would be very close to City.
Click to expand...

What we have is Rashford Martial and Greenwood. 3 winger/striker hybrids who don’t excel creatively or through aggressive/clever off the ball movement. The different kinds of finishing/headed/scrappy goals isn’t there either. Cavani with his work rate and movement has totally shown our young stars up this year.
 
Spaghetti said:
Don’t want him. He looks like a big baby and has the attitude to match; he comes across as a bit of a horrible human (based on interviews and social media, not a great source, I know).

Furthermore, although he’s a fantastic player, I’m not sure how suited his style is to the modern game. How many successful teams play an out and out striker these days? Look at City, for example- great chance of a quadruple and their only real striker (Aguero) has mustered 1 goal this season. United play with a fluent front 3 (the “striker”, Martial, has scored 4 league goals) and are second in the league. Barça, Madrid, Liverpool all play without this traditional front man.

Even if we wind the clock back 20 years. United had dominated for a decade, signed Van Nistelrooy and everything pointed towards an even greater stranglehold on domestic football and more influence in Europe. RVN broke individual records and is rightly remembered as a class striker, but in that time United won 1 league and 1 league cup in 5 years. He left and the United’s dominance returned for another few years.

I may regret this, but I hope he goes to City.
Click to expand...
:wenger: :wenger: :wenger: :wenger:

Sure pal convince yourself now so that you don't get upset. :lol:
 
Kaivalya said:
Maybe it's a controversial opinion but if Haaland costs 100m and will only guarantee the length of one contract (ala Pogba) I'd rather sign Kane for 130m.

Better attitude, more complete and a genuine leader and team player .
Click to expand...
I see this more as common sense than controversial :)
 
Kaivalya said:
I feel we have better players at no 9 that will improve even if we sign a Sancho or a Grealish type to replace Pogba.
Click to expand...
As a matter of interest who? Don’t say martial as he’s had his chances, don’t say Rashford because he looks like a duck out of water, cavani is old and may go anyway, so who exactly? Greenwood? A kid who was consistently erratic this season? Hugill who’s never played for the first team? Who?
 
VP89 said:
I see this more as common sense than controversial :)
Click to expand...
How is it common sense to pay 30m more for a player who is seven years older and would have no resale value at the end of that one contract?

Signing Kane if you can't get Haaland is a good move for a really rich club that desperately needs a striker. Signing Kane if you can choose between the two... it's insanity.
 
Everyone seems so sure he's going to leave this summer. I'm 90% confident he will stay another year and then you'll have all the big clubs offering him silly money after triggering his release clause next year.

I just don't see Dortmund accepting anything less than 130m and I can't see anyone stumping up that amount this year. Not even City.
 
Kaivalya said:
Maybe it's a controversial opinion but if Haaland costs 100m and will only guarantee the length of one contract (ala Pogba) I'd rather sign Kane for 130m.

Better attitude, more complete and a genuine leader and team player .
Click to expand...

Don't know about controversial, but it's certainly not practical. The way you set up this hypothetical scenario, United could be getting plenty of money back in four years time for a 25 year old Haaland with a year left on his deal, at which point, Kane would be 32. Kane is quite clearly a world class player and would be a very exciting signing, but if those are the two options, we'd be wise to gauge their recent injury records too. I'd imagine a team would recoup at least half their outlay on Haaland if they sold in 4 years, which in this case would be 50m. With that in mind, 4 years of Kane would cost 130m while 4 years of Haaland would cost 50m

Don't think Haaland arriving at United is likely for two reasons. I don't think we have the money (the sporting ambition and club-running-competence) to spunk a big fee on a superstar, and I think he'd rather go somewhere where he'll win trophies and not be part of a slow-building cultural-reset.

And would Kane want to join United unless he'd see it as a guarantee of winning things? He'd have the same dilemma, but less time to bring in the trophies.

Signing any big player for a club in our situation is probably akin to getting together a huge cast for a little known script - you need to convince them everyone else is joining, so they see the ambition. Wouldn't be surprised to see Bruno make some noises if we fail to show ambition this summer either.
 
Siorac said:
How is it common sense to pay 30m more for a player who is seven years older and would have no resale value at the end of that one contract?

Signing Kane if you can't get Haaland is a good move for a really rich club that desperately needs a striker. Signing Kane if you can choose between the two... it's insanity.
Click to expand...
Because Haaland more than likely won't stick around for as long as you think. The only perk is a resale, but the potential issues still arise in forcing moves when shit hits the fan and agent drama. Whereas Harry Kane is a a proven quantity in this league who has a terrific mentality and respect for the club that employs him and likely will make his next move the final one. There is a known quantity that you deal with in that regard and whilst I'm not saying Haaland is a spoilt, unprofessional twat, there is more uncertainty on how he reacts to tough times with a big club, how impressionable Raiola will be on him etc.

It's not insanity at all to favour Kane over Haaland because you're getting more security in that regard. Kane is 27 with peak years ahead - with his style he can go into still being 32/33 and being a very good striker. With Haaland you'll get him for 5 years and he'll be angling for his next big move after 3, that much is virtually a given. I'm sick and tired of those types of moves to be frank.
 
Spaghetti said:
Disagree do you?

I suppose it could also explain why his team are struggling to get into the Champions League places in the German league.
Click to expand...
Yes, massively.

If you think he's the reason Dortmund are struggling :wenger:


NoLogo said:
The "he is actually pretty shit" and "never wanted him anyways" phase is going to start pretty soon, isn't it? :lol:
Click to expand...
Yep, seems people are preparing themselves for the worst already, too many heartbroken muppets
 
Adam-Utd said:
Yes, massively.

If you think he's the reason Dortmund are struggling :wenger:



Yep, seems people are preparing themselves for the worst already, too many heartbroken muppets
Click to expand...

Not exactly what I said but ok.

Is it compulsory to put those “you’re an idiot” emojis whenever you disagree with someone on Red Cafe, or is it school holidays?
 
Floyd said:
Haaland’s been utter utter crap all three games for Norway this week.
Click to expand...

Haaland isn't Neymar or Messi, players who can create things out of absolutely nothing. He's essentially the heir to Lewandowski - a player that will absolutely trash everyone if he's surrounded by players that can help him get into position or give him a ball to run at.

His header game is a bit of a weak point and something that I'm sure he's working on. But yeah, pair Haaland with the player in the Premier League that creates the most chances in the league in Bruno and I'll book tickets to the parade.

Barcelonas rapid direct style of tight corner football probably doesn't suit Haaland that much, and the big reason to even go there is probably retiring in the next 2-3 years.

"Hit them on the break" United is the dream team for the football version of Usain Bolt. And I'm actually being serious here.
 
VP89 said:
Because Haaland more than likely won't stick around for as long as you think. The only perk is a resale, but the potential issues still arise in forcing moves when shit hits the fan and agent drama. Whereas Harry Kane is a a proven quantity in this league who has a terrific mentality and respect for the club that employs him and likely will make his next move the final one. There is a known quantity that you deal with in that regard and whilst I'm not saying Haaland is a spoilt, unprofessional twat, there is more uncertainty on how he reacts to tough times with a big club, how impressionable Raiola will be on him etc.

It's not insanity at all to favour Kane over Haaland because you're getting more security in that regard. Kane is 27 with peak years ahead - with his style he can go into still being 32/33 and being a very good striker. With Haaland you'll get him for 5 years and he'll be angling for his next big move after 3, that much is virtually a given. I'm sick and tired of those types of moves to be frank.
Click to expand...
Kane will be 28 in July so his next club will get him at 28. So you'll get him, realistically speaking, for 5 years as well. Except in this hypothetical scenario he'd be more expensive with zero resale value. Probably higher wages as well.

The only thing in favour of Kane is the intangible of 'stability' and I'm not sure that's a strong enough argument for the tremendous extra cost. Especially as that stability hinges on two assumptions: that Kane is not yet past his peak - which he might be, Shearer had his best season at 26, Van Nistelrooy at 27 - and that Haaland will start angling for another move in three years.

And also, 130m! Disregarding Haaland for a moment: I wouldn't want Kane at that price at all. That smells like a Barcelona transfer. One of those that took them to the edge of bankruptcy, like Griezmann or Coutinho.
 
If there’s any chance we can sign Haaland I’d be happy to just sign Grealish this year with Pogba leaving with a CM also coming in.

Greenwood/Cavani in the striker position.

Bruno/Rashford/Grealish/Diallo/VDB/Martial fighting for the other spots.

Then Cavani and Martial out in 2022 with Haaland and pellistri coming back from loan.

Pipe dream though.
 
Spaghetti said:
Don’t want him. He looks like a big baby and has the attitude to match; he comes across as a bit of a horrible human (based on interviews and social media, not a great source, I know).

Furthermore, although he’s a fantastic player, I’m not sure how suited his style is to the modern game. How many successful teams play an out and out striker these days? Look at City, for example- great chance of a quadruple and their only real striker (Aguero) has mustered 1 goal this season. United play with a fluent front 3 (the “striker”, Martial, has scored 4 league goals) and are second in the league. Barça, Madrid, Liverpool all play without this traditional front man.

Even if we wind the clock back 20 years. United had dominated for a decade, signed Van Nistelrooy and everything pointed towards an even greater stranglehold on domestic football and more influence in Europe. RVN broke individual records and is rightly remembered as a class striker, but in that time United won 1 league and 1 league cup in 5 years. He left and the United’s dominance returned for another few years.

I may regret this, but I hope he goes to City.
Click to expand...

55155977_401.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Bayern_Munich#Honours
 
Status
Not open for further replies.