But only in England/the UK for the most part. He doesn't have anywhere near the same reputation on the continent because he didn't leave his mark on the World Cup or the Champions League.
Haaland at City | Signs new 9.5 year contract
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Ronaldo was playing in Serie A when it was at its peak, the level of defending in the PL these days is laughable in comparison. VVD is supposedly the best the league has had to offer in recent years and was part of a team that conceded 7 against Ollie Watkins and co.
The CL is also as weak as it's ever been, based on this seasons form you could make a strong case for the knockout rounds in the EL being tougher considering it featured 2 of the top 3 from England, the league leaders in Spain and the real number 2 in Italy based on actual points won.
The point is that comparing goalscoring stats between generations is meaningless. Even trophies don't mean all that much when you look at the vast financial inequalities between teams like City and an Arsenal, Liverpool or even Bayern Munich nevermind the likes of Leipzig. Teams in the 90s were operating on a far more equal footing and it was, therefore, harder for individuals to stand out when it came to putting up goalscoring numbers and trophy hauls.
Honestly don't see him moving here, Haaland likes it at City, and he is a norwegian, they usually prefer english football anyway.
Also, competing with City financially is not something we can do, you will probably have to deal with him for a long time.
I think a lot of people in England never watched him at Dortmund and don't understand that he plays differently for City (whilst still scoring a lot of goals).
I did not argue otherwise. My point was players who get you goals cost more than other positions. The Balon D'or list is full of players who get you goals. Rarely a defender or strictly a creator and thats because goals win you games.Basketball is completely different because of so many reasons. The first is that basketball is a highscoring game - you get much more chances and it is far easier to create those chances by yourself. Attacks are also much more replicable since there are far less variables and a smaller field. There's not really an equivalent to a poacher in basketball since you create your points by plays of types that are typically attributed to playmakers in football.
And I wonder on which basis you claim that goal scorers were always in highest demand or held in the highest regard. Just a quick look at the Ballon d'Or history shows you that the best scorers were rarely if ever considered the best players - and if it was then the player usually had much more to his game than just goals. That's also backed up by the list of transfer record fees: Neymar, Mbappe, Coutinho, Felix, Enzo, Griezmann, Grealish, Lukaku, Dembele, Pogba, Hazard, Cristiano - how many of those were strikers with as little overall contribution as Haaland at the time of their moves? Probably Lukaku alone.
But you said something very good: "hardest to do consistently, whilst being the most important" - this is clearly playmaking. While I think the midfield role is the most important on the pitch, you find more players able to do the job while playmaking/chance creation is the most difficult discipline but only makes a difference when the basics are ensured.
I mean, you're free to believe what you want about Haaland but history or paycheck doesn't back your point upIt's never been the highest goal scorers that created the highest demand, it's been the best playmakers/chance creators - often in combination with scoring but not necessarily. Nobody had van Nistelroy over Zidane, Eto'o over Ronaldinho or Müller over Beckenbauer.
The transfer record (although recently skewed by premier league desperation and inflation, is also full of goal getters if you look at the full list. Even the list you provided has 7 players who were principal scorers for their teams.
The best comparison would be players who are primarily creators vs primarily scorers
Id be interested in an actual academic research article that went into depths about the greats and their overall contributions.
For example Mbappe is a better footballer than Haaland. Most would agree on that. Mbappe scores prettier goals, but significantly fewer goals. He dribbles more, and loses the ball more. In that sense he is both a better footballer, and a more wasteful footballer. He also has the ball more. A lot of his plays end up in nothing, and some end up in something productive.
Using all available statistical data it would be viable to make an algorithm that accurately predict league difficulty comparable to the rest, and apply conditions like successful involvements and remove the "fluff" from a players action, ie. dribbles that goes nowhere, attempted fancyplays that look nice but ultimately contribute nothing, and look at hard data that shows measurable outcomes that impacts a game directly or indirectly down to a fixed level where the previous play is deemed to not impact play.
Tbh that would be a good subject for a PhD or at the base levels a Masters degree.
I hear ya, Del Piero was my personal favourite during that era. I saw him as more of the playmaker forward although he did play out on the left and behind the striker at times so this was normal.
But by the same logic, strikers are there to score, so if they miss 3 chances then they’re not doing their job even if they score.
You are wrong. Haaland very much wants to play in Spain. It is in his plans, if we are to believe to his father. Its just that Haaland and co dont want to rush things.. 2-3years at City and then Spain and Real are real possibility.
depends on your definition of significantly more. Mbappé has 31 goals in 32 this season. He had like 40+ last season. Dude has been consistently scoring at close to a goal per game ratio since he was 20 years old. Haaland scores more, yes, but at that level of scoring, does it matter?
I don't disagree, but being a great player is different from success which is winning stuff, and Shearer definitely had less success than a player of his quality should have
Oh yes, he is one of my favorite players too
I just think the metric "scorers" is super misleading. You don't play for your personal scorering stats, you play for goals for your team and when you make an important play it doesn't matter if it is the last or second to last touch before the actual goal. Of course "playing well" correlates with scoring goals and assisting to an extent but people obsess way too much over them. So much so that they compare players based on these scorers (as evidenced in this thread) and ignore the productive stuff they do outside of them almost completely. R9 especially in his prime had so many outrageous plays not reflected in a goal or assist while Haaland is almost invisible outside of them. As said, the "density of good plays" by Ronaldo is much, much higher than Haaland's.
See, in the end it is about the question whether or not the player makes the team better. Haaland might end up with a gazillion goals but if his transfer only lead to a redistribution of goals and doesn't improve City's attack in the end, it is pointless. Especially when this redistribution also means that a larger proportion of their goals happen against minions because they're less dominant against top opponents.
Of course if you can pick between two players who offer basically the same but one of them also scores a lot, the latter is more expensive/important/whatever. But the one quality that's always prioritized above everything is creating. And that's because creation is more difficult than refinement and destruction. Playmaking in it's different variations is clearly the top priority in a player by all the evidence, may it be Ballon d'Ors, lists of all time greats, highest transfer fees, fee record holders and so forth. But those attributes are very poorly reflected by goal and assist stats because many play deeper than pure strikers and thus have a higher proportion of great plays that won't show up in their goal or assist records. And Haaland is probably the most extreme example of this to date.
This all sounds more negative than I actually see him by the way. I think he's a worldclass striker which is incredible at his age but I also believe he's overrated because the goal record of a player is overrated in general. When it comes down to stats, I prefer a more wholistic assessment that also involves stuff like pre-assists, chances created, dribbles completed, progressive passes/carries, progressive passes received, and so forth.
True but still. Remember that clip from Rooney when the ref threw the ball to the ground and he killed like 3 people in 5 secs. Think that wasn't even carded. Nowadays he would get a 5 years sentence.
It's the gap between super teams and the runner ups. Those two used to be much closer to each other. It's much easier to score when your team outclasses the opponent in every area by a level or two.
Comparing Haaland to Brazilian Ronaldo (atleast the pre-injury version) is a bad joke. The later had a far far superior allround game.
Haaland is the second coming of Gerd Muller. A player whose entire game is about scoring ugly goals that win games and at a freakish rate. A player like Haaland (as was the case with Cristiano in his later years at Madrid) will succeed an uber dominant team like Citeh but put him in a team which is less than perfect and I guarantee he will struggle.
Haaland is the second coming of Gerd Muller. A player whose entire game is about scoring ugly goals that win games and at a freakish rate. A player like Haaland (as was the case with Cristiano in his later years at Madrid) will succeed an uber dominant team like Citeh but put him in a team which is less than perfect and I guarantee he will struggle.
At Saltzburg, Dortmund and the national team he's been a goal a game player. Do you think these are perfect teams? City on the whole don't play to Haalands strengths. Put him in a team like United, which is far from perfect and I'm betting he'd have a similar output with Bruno getting 20+ assists per season.
It doesn't matter where this fella plays. He'd still be knocking in those goals for fun.
While I agree it's actually quite impressive that people now have to go to R9 to get in a dig at him. Just a shame he's not doing it anywhere where it counts for anything.
Apparently he is not as talented nor as good footballer as other all time greats.
But if there is one player who is going to break all the all time records in future (mostly Ronaldo's and Messi's records), chance is its going to be Haaland.
But if there is one player who is going to break all the all time records in future (mostly Ronaldo's and Messi's records), chance is its going to be Haaland.
This is simply not true... He has 21 in 23 games for Norway, a team far more discombobulated than any United team during the last couple of years. Hell, you can even look at his CL record for Salzburg and Dortmund. Hardly teams that ar dominant in the CL.
No one is comparing their abilities. The argument is whether Haaland and his attributes would allow him to have the same success as R9 if he swapped into his teams. If Haaland played for PSV, Inter, Brazil, Barcelona, Real, would he also smash the scoring records, win the trophies etc
as demonstrated below. He is 1:1 in every situation.
He's a certified 1:1 striker
Some feat for a limited player
I do find it amusing when people choose to compare one of the (for me) top 10 players in history like R9 to have a go at Haaland. Others go a different route and say it's only because he's playing at City that he's racking up astronomical numbers even though they don't play to his strengths. I find it hard to understand why people can't just admit he's a generational talent that's going to break all kinds of records even if as some people believe, he isn't a very good footballer.
it was my fault.
Such a ridiculous point given his stats for Norway and Salzburg.
In fact I’d nearly say it’s closer to the opposite, City’s style isn’t even helping him, some games they don’t feed him the ball. A team with a simpler playing style of just passing to him in behind constantly and he might score more than he is doing.
Then into the sin bin you go. Your punishment is to make parodies of the first 3 threads in the generals that would make horsechoker proud.
Salzburg is dominant in its league and Haaland also primarily played against weaker opponents with Norway. It's also only logical that he struggles against opposition on par since he's no player that drops back and creates dangerous situations himself. He can catch you on the break but that rarely happens against top teams.
And yes, that's criticism on a very high level. But people begin comparing him to Mbappe, CR7, Messi and Ronaldo and if you see to what ridiculous standards Messi is held by now, it's clear that people start seeing Haaland more critical over the years as well. He's a player that can be fully invisible when his team isn't playing well and that is going to be a constant point of criticism over his whole career.
He’s capable of bullying good defenders though and giving them the run around, all he needs is an average ball in behind or to feet. The evidence - every level and every team he’s played at since the age of 17. Doesn’t matter who he is playing for.
Also I haven’t seen anyone say he was better or as good as Messi? But just to let him be his own player, sky is the limit, we’ll see where we’re at in 4 years. He is capable of being considered as good as both Ronaldos. You can’t sleep on a 1 in 1 level player, they don’t come around too often.
Since 18/19 Haaland has scored a goal every 76th minute, while Mbappe has scored a goal every 91th minute. Haaland has also played for inferior teams until this season.
Its safe to say Haaland's a significantly better finisher.
Last edited:
Dude, you've clearly not a fan of Haaland and your bias is showing. Try to get your facts straight.
Haaland was a beast in Champions League for Salzburg, against SIGNIFICANTLY better teams. As for his matches for Norway, he basically carried them during the latest Nations League and his performances singlehandedly made Norway win vs teams higher ranked then them for the first time in like 10 years.
What records... the scoring records. Ronaldo and Messi have so much more than that.
Of course not, that's completely absurd.
Basic fact of football: Almost all attacks fail. Games are decided by the few occasions where they don't. Attackers have to create. Defenders have to disrupt. The odds in any given situation is heavily slanted in the latters favour - it is much, much easier to stop an attack than to convert it into a goal. And the attackers job is really about things that are much more difficult than merely not making mistakes.
Even the best attackers in the world convert only a small minority of their attacks into goals. No one puts away all of their scoring chances, the very best convert maybe 1 in 3 over longer stretches - and in the great majority of attacks, they don't generate a scoring chance at all.
Defences by contrast generally win the vast majority of battles - almost all attacks are stopped. When they aren't, it's usually because a defender makes a mistake, or at any rate gets beaten.
So, the basic, normal state of a football game, what we're seeing 95-100 % of the time when watching a game, is that one team tries to attack and the other team stops them. The task of the attackers is to break that normality at least once or twice in 90 minutes. The task of defenders is to keep that normality going for the full 90 minutes. It doesn't really matter how many mistakes the attackers make as long as they manage more goals than the opposition, and it's a given that they mostly fail. For the defender, it's perfectly feasible to go through a whole game without making any mistakes, and it is also perfectly feasible to have 100% success rate as a unit, regularly (ie, a clean sheet).
Last edited:
As good as or better than Cristiano is possible since the primary strength of both is scoring. As good as pre injury R9? Doesn't have the talent to equal o fenomeno.
There has been such a player in the past in Gerd Muller. His scoring rate in whatever competition is astonishing. Yet he is considered below Cruijff and Backenbauer mainly due to limitations in other aspects of his game.
This is how Haaland will be looked at once everything is done and dusted.
He may beat the scoring records of Ronaldo and Messi but he will never have the magic that Messi possesses, neither will he have the assists record.
They're not very similar as players, are they. Müller was small, not fast (although reportedly capable of very explosive bursts of speed over shorter distances) and not exactly noted for his athleticism (heavy smoker). Other than that they both scored a lot of goals, why compare them?
These player comparisons really misses the point, which is that there has probably never been a player quite like Haaland - with that combination of pace, power, movement and scoring ability.
You’re still talking about Gerd Muller 50 years after his peak, it would be great if Haaland was considered with the same reputation as Muller. He’d be around top 10 all time. Not sure why that’s a bad thing.
A lot of people consider Gerd Muller better than Ronaldo overall, career wise.