Haaland vs Mbappe - Heirs Apparent

[Tallis]

Haaland would easily win the Ballon d’Or if he scored 10 goals in 5 games in the CL quarters, semis and final like Ronaldo did in 2017, even if he never touched the ball outside those goals.

He did score 50 odd goals and won the treble but no Ballon d’Or for him. If his overall play was at least premier league level (and not Championship), perhaps he would have a shot. Don’t hate me for the comment on overall play. That was as per Roy Keane.

 

[Fugeeface]

And Kane was a better player than Haaland. Outside of goals Haaland is useless, he doesn't contribute much to the passing game, he doesn't carry the ball and his defensive contribution isn't out of the norm for a striker.

As much as I dislike Haaland, what does "useless" aside from goals even mean. He is the most prolific goal scorer of our time and all that counts for way more than passing stats. A striker that scores more goals than anyone else, oh he must be shit then.

 

[Tallis]

As much as I dislike Haaland, what does "useless" aside from goals even mean. He is the most prolific goal scorer of our time and all that counts for way more than passing stats. A striker that scores more goals than anyone else, oh he must be shit then.

It doesn’t matter as much when City are bull dozing teams in the premier league. But in a tight CL match with thin margins between teams, one player not contributing outside goals can make a big difference.

 

[JPRouve]

As much as I dislike Haaland, what does "useless" aside from goals even mean. He is the most prolific goal scorer of our time and all that counts for way more than passing stats. A striker that scores more goals than anyone else, oh he must be shit then.

No one said that he was shit and it means what is written. Haaland only contribution is goals, the moment he doesn't score he has next to no contribution. The same was true for Inzaghi who is rightfully considered a great player but specifically as a goalscorer.

 

[Hammondo]

As much as I dislike Haaland, what does "useless" aside from goals even mean. He is the most prolific goal scorer of our time and all that counts for way more than passing stats. A striker that scores more goals than anyone else, oh he must be shit then.

Depends, that doesn't even mean they score more with him than without him so individual goals are meaningless.

 

[Wand of a right foot]

This was not to say that Sneijder should've won instead of Messi, but that I don't think Modric should've won in 2018.

Ronaldo had by then become a poacher and he was just terrible in the final and semi of the UCL and in the world cup after the opener vs Spain.

Modric having won the ucl as a key player and one of the best players of the world cup and voted player of the tournament was a worthy winner of the ballon d'or.

It was very different in 2009/10. Messi was playing football from a different galaxy. I do not think anyone could have stood vs him.

 

[adexkola]

As much as I dislike Haaland, what does "useless" aside from goals even mean. He is the most prolific goal scorer of our time and all that counts for way more than passing stats. A striker that scores more goals than anyone else, oh he must be shit then.

It doesn't mean anything sensible.

Again people are doing the same thing they did/do with Ruud. If a striker doesn't have the ability to run from the wing or play through passes, when he's not scoring goals he's "useless". I blame the draft forum snobs that see the classic number 10 as the pinnacle of everything on the football pitch

I honestly think if Haaland scored a reasonable 20 goals per season, he'd be criticized less. He (rightly) attracts so much attention due to his volume of goals that it becomes nitpicking looking at the rest of his profile, and some of it becomes making up stuff. City didn't benefit much yesterday from "more passes and silks" from Marmoush.

 

[Dannn411]

He did score 50 odd goals and won the treble but no Ballon d’Or for him. If his overall play was at least premier league level (and not Championship), perhaps he would have a shot. Don’t hate me for the comment on overall play. That was as per Roy Keane.

Only because Messi won the world cup. No player in history is ever winning over that combination.

 

[Kwabs]

It doesn't mean anything sensible.

Again people are doing the same thing they did/do with Ruud. If a striker doesn't have the ability to run from the wing or play through passes, when he's not scoring goals he's "useless". I blame the draft forum snobs that see the classic number 10 as the pinnacle of everything on the football pitch

I honestly think if Haaland scored a reasonable 20 goals per season, he'd be criticized less. He (rightly) attracts so much attention due to his volume of goals that it becomes nitpicking looking at the rest of his profile, and some of it becomes making up stuff. City didn't benefit much yesterday from "more passes and silks" from Marmoush.

I mean, not really. There's nothing wrong with being solely a number 9 type goalscorer, but you're not going to be considered a better player than a 10 that can score and dribble and pass and make the play etc. That's the way it has always been and the way it always will be.

BTW, I'm not saying that Mbappe is way better at all these things than Haaland, I'm just speaking generally. Mbappe is a probably a better all round player, but I wouldn't say he has loads of elite creative qualities outside of goals either.

 

[adexkola]

I mean, not really. There's nothing wrong with being solely a number 9 type goalscorer, but you're not going to be considered a better player than a 10 that can score and dribble and pass and make the play etc. That's the way it has always been and the way it always will be.

BTW, I'm not saying that Mbappe is way better at all these things than Haaland, I'm just speaking generally. Mbappe is a probably a better all round player, but I wouldn't say he has loads of elite creative qualities outside of goals either.

Eh.

Messi at his peak, yes, because he was elite at playmaking AND elite at scoring. Let's take his 2010. Imagine you had a player who scored 200 goals in that calendar year compared to Messi's 92, plus whatever else he did in term of playmaking. Or a keeper who saved all shots that year. Who had the better season?

For me, I'm not as dogmatic on this. IMO, you can be so good at your primary job on the pitch that you're better (in that moment or that period) than another player who's more "rounded", or "can do more".

 

[Redfrog]

Agreed, but Haaland has a better physical presence, can play with his back at the goal, has better heading and can also defend when needed. He is also mentally stronger and composed every game regardless of opponents.
There is not much between them at this moment, I believe.

No sure he is mentally stronger. Mbappé is the definition of a big game player. And Haaland is often missing in the big games.
Scoring for fun against weak opposition isn’t being mentally stronger, when Mbappé scored a treble in the World cup final and also in big games.
He is the first player to have scored 3 goals at the Bernabeu and at the Camp Nou.

So, you had a kind of a mare here mate. Biggest players are judged by the big games. Haaland is often missing in them and doesn’t have any kind of magic in his game. Very good player but so robotic and boring. He is a perfect fit in his plastic club. He doesn’t have the class and skill to play for Madrid.

 

[JPRouve]

It doesn't mean anything sensible.

Again people are doing the same thing they did/do with Ruud. If a striker doesn't have the ability to run from the wing or play through passes, when he's not scoring goals he's "useless". I blame the draft forum snobs that see the classic number 10 as the pinnacle of everything on the football pitch

I honestly think if Haaland scored a reasonable 20 goals per season, he'd be criticized less. He (rightly) attracts so much attention due to his volume of goals that it becomes nitpicking looking at the rest of his profile, and some of it becomes making up stuff. City didn't benefit much yesterday from "more passes and silks" from Marmoush.

It was a simple answer to someone that suggested that he was more rounded than he is. Haaland is a great goalscorer, it's extremely valuable but if he didn't score goals he would be as useful as the corner flags. Now it's fair to criticize the hypothetical because it is a bit silly but the point was that he is highly specialized, Haaland is a goalscorer and nothing else and there is no point pretending otherwise.

 

[Kwabs]

Eh.

Messi at his peak, yes, because he was elite at playmaking AND elite at scoring. Let's take his 2010. Imagine you had a player who scored 200 goals in that calendar year compared to Messi's 92, plus whatever else he did in term of playmaking. Or a keeper who saved all shots that year. Who had the better season?

For me, I'm not as dogmatic on this. IMO, you can be so good at your primary job on the pitch that you're better (in that moment or that period) than another player who's more "rounded", or "can do more".

Messi would still be a better player than the person who scored 200 goals (assuming that the.player scored 200 goals and did nothing else).

Being the best player has never been just about goals, although people in modern times have tried to reduce it to that. I'm sure there were plenty of players who scored way more goals than Zidane, or Ronaldinho, or Maradona, or George Best, but they weren't better players.

 

[Ace Krampus]

No one said that he was shit and it means what is written. Haaland only contribution is goals, the moment he doesn't score he has next to no contribution. The same was true for Inzaghi who is rightfully considered a great player but specifically as a goalscorer.

From 1997-2012, Inzaghi had 130 league goals. From 2020-now, Haaland has 144. Haaland's unfortunately not just a great goalscorer, he's an absurd goalscorer.

 

[JPRouve]

From 1997-2012, Inzaghi had 130 league goals. From 2020-now, Haaland has 144. Haaland's unfortunately not just a great goalscorer, he's an absurd goalscorer.

That's beside the point. The point was that being labeled as a pure goalscorer doesn't mean that you are not rated, Inzaghi being an extreme example.

 

[Fugeeface]

Depends, that doesn't even mean they score more with him than without him so individual goals are meaningless.

Alright then. Some truly bizarre viewpoints to take in.

 

[NicolaSacco]

Messi would still be a better player than the person who scored 200 goals (assuming that the.player scored 200 goals and did nothing else).

Being the best player has never been just about goals, although people in modern times have tried to reduce it to that. I'm sure there were plenty of players who scored way more goals than Zidane, or Ronaldinho, or Maradona, or George Best, but they weren't better players.

I think the problem here is that you, (and others) are seeking ownership of the concept of “best”. You don’t get to define it. No one does. Posters are arguing using their own personal understanding of the term.

 

[Hammondo]

Alright then. Some truly bizarre viewpoints to take in.

Really isn't, it's a very normal one. T
How many goals a team gets is what's important, not how many an individual gets.

 

[Frostie]

Mbappe has magic. Haaland is a poacher. It's a bit like comparing a quicker Suarez to a taller, faster Klose.

The latters might have the better gtg ratio, but I'd rather go watch the formers.

You'll never see Haaland score a hat trick like Mbappe's v's City. He doesn't have the skillset to do it.

I'm not even someone that rates Mbappe that highly, I think he's wildly over-rated compared to players of the past and spends a lot of games on the periphery sulking or nothing comes off, but when he's on it and his confidence is up he does have that little bit of 'je ne sais quoi' about him. He's entertaining to watch when he's in form, whereas Haaland is just there, almost invisible, then he'll score when he's set up nicely.

We've gone from Ronaldo v's Messi to Haaland v's Mbappe. That's a pretty big drop in quality.

 

[stefan92]

Mbappe has magic. Haaland is a poacher. It's a bit like comparing a quicker Suarez to a taller, faster Klose.

If you want to compare Haaland to a German striker of the past two decades, than compare him to Mario Gomez. Who could never convincingly replace Klose, because Klose offered much more than just poaching. Haaland has amazing but limited skills, Klose had much more in his locker (albeit not on the same level).

 

[Roger Myerson]

Salah is comfortably better than both now.

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

He did score 50 odd goals and won the treble but no Ballon d’Or for him. If his overall play was at least premier league level (and not Championship), perhaps he would have a shot. Don’t hate me for the comment on overall play. That was as per Roy Keane.

But he didn’t play that well from quarter finals to final. Whereas Ronaldo did. He missed loads of chances against Courtois and did very little in the final. 0 goals. Whereas Ronaldo scored 5 goals in 3 games in the semi-finals and final. For all the talk about playing style, if Haaland scores winners in CL semi-finals and finals he will win the Ballon d’Or.

 

[Kwabs]

I think the problem here is that you, (and others) are seeking ownership of the concept of “best”. You don’t get to define it. No one does. Posters are arguing using their own personal understanding of the term.

I'm not seeking ownership of anything, it's just common sense.

 

[Kwabs]

Mbappe has magic. Haaland is a poacher. It's a bit like comparing a quicker Suarez to a taller, faster Klose.

The latters might have the better gtg ratio, but I'd rather go watch the formers.

You'll never see Haaland score a hat trick like Mbappe's v's City. He doesn't have the skillset to do it.

I'm not even someone that rates Mbappe that highly, I think he's wildly over-rated compared to players of the past and spends a lot of games on the periphery sulking or nothing comes off, but when he's on it and his confidence is up he does have that little bit of 'je ne sais quoi' about him. He's entertaining to watch when he's in form, whereas Haaland is just there, almost invisible, then he'll score when he's set up nicely.

We've gone from Ronaldo v's Messi to Haaland v's Mbappe. That's a pretty big drop in quality.

Well it would be weird if another Messi and Ronaldo popped up when the old ones hadn't even retired yet.

 

[Frostie]

If you want to compare Haaland to a German striker of the past two decades, than compare him to Mario Gomez. Who could never convincingly replace Klose, because Klose offered much more than just poaching. Haaland has amazing but limited skills, Klose had much more in his locker (albeit not on the same level).

You're right there actually, I'd forgotten about Gomez. I don't think I'm the only one that's forgotten about Gomez though.

Well it would be weird if another Messi and Ronaldo popped up when the old ones hadn't even retired yet.

It would be be weird discussing heirs apparent in a thread titled heirs apparent? OK mate, gotcha. Do players usually wait in the wings until the current best players retire before exploding out of their academy egg like some footballing Kaiju that's been brewing away?

Go back through generations, there's always 2-3 absolute ballers that pass the baton to 2-3 more. Messi and Ronaldo have passed the baton onto two players that wouldn't have been mentioned in eras prior. Give it a decade until they're almost retired and they still won't be getting mentioned in GOAT discussions so it's not even a hindsight thing.

Will Mbappe get mentioned in the same breath as Zidane, Platini or Fontaine? I seriously doubt it. Now extend that to every other nationality other than French.

Haaland will likely go down as the best Norwegian ever, but then that's a low bar to jump anyway given his dad is likely in the top 10 and he's most famous for pissing off Roy Keane.

 

[adexkola]

It was a simple answer to someone that suggested that he was more rounded than he is. Haaland is a great goalscorer, it's extremely valuable but if he didn't score goals he would be as useful as the corner flags. Now it's fair to criticize the hypothetical because it is a bit silly but the point was that he is highly specialized, Haaland is a goalscorer and nothing else and there is no point pretending otherwise.

If you take most player's best qualities away they'd no longer be eligible to play at the top level. What do you get if you take Mbappe's pace away?

This is ignoring the fact that of course he's more useful than the corner flags even when he doesn't score, but I'll assume you're exaggerating for humorous effect

That's beside the point. The point was that being labeled as a pure goalscorer doesn't mean that you are not rated, Inzaghi being an extreme example.

There's no need to be dishonest, we're amongst friends. No one has ever compared someone to Inzaghi as a compliment in these kinds of conversations on here. Or Ruud. It's damned near an epithet.

Messi would still be a better player than the person who scored 200 goals (assuming that the.player scored 200 goals and did nothing else).

Being the best player has never been just about goals, although people in modern times have tried to reduce it to that. I'm sure there were plenty of players who scored way more goals than Zidane, or Ronaldinho, or Maradona, or George Best, but they weren't better players.

This only makes sense if you have a dogmatic, fixed definition of "better". And you listing off players who fit a specific mold (creative 10s for the most part) proves my point. Why would a player who scored way more goals than Zidane in a certain season for example, not be the better player? What would a classic no nonsense non playmaking defender have to do to outperform Zidane in 2005?

 

[adexkola]

Alright then. Some truly bizarre viewpoints to take in.

We're now at the final stage of this line of thinking where goals are useless and magic isn't

It doesn’t matter as much when City are bull dozing teams in the premier league. But in a tight CL match with thin margins between teams, one player not contributing outside goals can make a big difference.

This gigantic claim is false. Related to a player, you would specifically have to link their non-contributions to a specific team deficiency in order to even come close to being right.

 

[Tallis]

We're now at the final stage of this line of thinking where goals are useless and magic isn't



This gigantic claim is false. Related to a player, you would specifically have to link their non-contributions to a specific team deficiency in order to even come close to being right.

Gigantic claim? I wasn't aware I had shaken the world of football with my claim.

I am putting together a team of football scientists and data analysts to forensically establish that a players lack of skill-set can make a difference to their teams performance.

 

[Kwabs]

If you take most player's best qualities away they'd no longer be eligible to play at the top level. What do you get if you take Mbappe's pace away?

This is ignoring the fact that of course he's more useful than the corner flags even when he doesn't score, but I'll assume you're exaggerating for humorous effect



There's no need to be dishonest, we're amongst friends. No one has ever compared someone to Inzaghi as a compliment in these kinds of conversations on here. Or Ruud. It's damned near an epithet.



This only makes sense if you have a dogmatic, fixed definition of "better". And you listing off players who fit a specific mold (creative 10s for the most part) proves my point. Why would a player who scored way more goals than Zidane in a certain season for example, not be the better player? What would a classic no nonsense non playmaking defender have to do to outperform Zidane in 2005?

Because the player who is better at football is the better player. I'm amazed that this is controversial.

Being better at football means having the most footballing ability and utiiliing it in consistent, all round performances. I'm not sure why that is dogmatic. It has been the commonly held belief since the beginning of time.

How can you judge someone other than by looking at the level of their overall performances? How can someone who only scores be better than someone who scores, dribbles, passes and controls an entire attack at a high level? I don't get the logic. Even if you score a lot, you are reliant on other people to create chances for you, scoring doesn't just happen in a vacuum.

 

[adexkola]

Gigantic claim? I wasn't aware I had shaken the world of football with my claim.

I and putting together a team of football scientists and data analysts to forensically establish that a players lack of skill-set can make a difference to their teams performance.

A big difference? You have to prove it.

Some examples of this would be nice. Where a striker who could score goals and not do much else made a substantial difference to their team's performance in a tight game in the CL, causing the result to flip. Precisely because of those deficiencies.

Your team can take your time with the forensics, I have all month.

 

[Tallis]

A big difference? You have to prove it.

Some examples of this would be nice. Where a striker who could score goals and not do much else made a substantial difference to their team's performance in a tight game in the CL, causing the result to flip. Precisely because of those deficiencies.

Your team can take your time with the forensics, I have all month.

Right after I have proved the Earth is not flat, will get to it.

 

[TenonTen]

Agreed, but Haaland has a better physical presence, can play with his back at the goal, has better heading and can also defend when needed. He is also mentally stronger and composed every game regardless of opponents.
There is not much between them at this moment, I believe.

Nope. Mbappe is way more clutch.

 

[Fugeeface]

Gigantic claim? I wasn't aware I had shaken the world of football with my claim.

I am putting together a team of football scientists and data analysts to forensically establish that a players lack of skill-set can make a difference to their teams performance.

Maybe this is the issue in your line of thinking. Not everything can be forensically established. Unless you can show me how City in their treble season were worse with Haaland and his goals. Oh, I forgot, individual goals are "useless". The best striker in the world is not a complete footballer, so he is kinda useless, too. Madness.

 

[JPRouve]

If you take most player's best qualities away they'd no longer be eligible to play at the top level. What do you get if you take Mbappe's pace away?

This is ignoring the fact that of course he's more useful than the corner flags even when he doesn't score, but I'll assume you're exaggerating for humorous effect



There's no need to be dishonest, we're amongst friends. No one has ever compared someone to Inzaghi as a compliment in these kinds of conversations on here. Or Ruud. It's damned near an epithet.



This only makes sense if you have a dogmatic, fixed definition of "better". And you listing off players who fit a specific mold (creative 10s for the most part) proves my point. Why would a player who scored way more goals than Zidane in a certain season for example, not be the better player? What would a classic no nonsense non playmaking defender have to do to outperform Zidane in 2005?

It's a good a thing that I don't care about who is better(outside of Kane who has been scoring at a similar clip) and only described the player. You can determine who is better or not on your own.

 

[Tallis]

Maybe this is the issue in your line of thinking. Not everything can be forensically established. Unless you can show me how City in their treble season were worse with Haaland and his goals. Oh, I forgot, individual goals are "useless". The best striker in the world is not a complete footballer, so he is kinda useless, too. Madness.

I never said Haaland was useless or City would be worse off without him either in the past, present or future. I am pretty certain I have not used the word useless in this thread before this post. Please don't attribute things to me which I have not mentioned.