I mean, if thats your opinion then fair enough, but the facts don't seem to back it up. City were better last year at this stage. So maybe they sacrificed other areas to get him his 21 goals?
Nordic Ghost Yeti (Scandi Carroll) | Haaland at City
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
I don't think many will agree with you. He is a phenomenal finisher who can score pretty much any type of goal so clinically.
He's absolutely smashing records wherever he goes, so to say he's just performing in line with how any striker should at City, given the chances they create, is specious at best. Aguero was a great, arguably more rounded, striker, but Haaland is annihilating even his numbers.
City were only 2 points better off after 16 games last season. Not exactly any noticeable drop off. And they actually have a better goal difference by 4 this season.
I think what people are underestimating is how surprisingly good Arsenal have been.
They also had more points last year and conceded almost half the goals.
Yes but you'd expect a bigger impact when watching them sign exactly what they needed last summer. He was supposed to be the last piece of the puzzle and the best at what he does.
Some embarrassing takes here. He’s scoring record levels and people are arguing over his creativity.
This thread is peak caf in terms of mental gymnastics. He has been blamed for their leaky defence, for Arsenal only having dropped 5 points and has been labelled an average footballer.
Their defence is Lewis-Stones-Akanji-Ake and they're starting a 100m pile of stinking turd on the wings so who is to blame? The guy breaking all scoring records and treating the PL as a farmer's league of course.
City are playing really well, it doesn’t matter who they sign, improving on their record in the league would be difficult simply because it’s already really good. What did you think that Haaland would lead them to straight victories with 0 losses and 0 draws? they’ve also had some problems with injuries in defence this season.
the only reason city are 2nd right now is because arsenal have had an insane season so far. They’ve only 1 loss and 1 draw ffs.
The guy is scoring at will and is breaking all sorts of records. I'm not sure how much more impact you can expect? He is clearly the best striker in the league right now, it's not even a contest.
I think you missed the rest of his post. It’s not exactly the same teams you are comparing looking at their defense.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,369
- Supports
️
It does yes but I don’t believe that City are playing poorly as a result of it. I think City have suffered from injuries in their back 4 that has caused the problem.
For example:
Big Chances Created:
- Manchester City 50
- Liverpool 44
- Brentford 34
- Newcastle 34
- Arsenal 32
- Manchester United 32
Passes:
- Manchester City 10,910
- Liverpool 9556
- Newcastle 11
- Arsenal 14
- Manchester City 16
- Manchester City 44
- Arsenal 40
- Liverpool 33
- Newcastle 33
- Tottenham 33
But look at the underlying:
XG: 33.6
XGA 11.9
And there is only 2 games where City’s xG is not better than the xGA. In other words stats wise you’d have expected City to win every game apart from:
- 16/10/22 Liverpool xG 1.0 xGA 2.1
- 25/10/22 Dortmund xG 1.2 xGA 1.2
Has Haaland ever won the Champions League? The World Cup? The UEFA Intertoto Cup? Because Inzaghi has.
2 more points.
Is Haaland to blame for the goals being conceded? I mean it could be one explanation, but it would be very far down on my list. Sometimes teams just get worse from one season to the next. It happens all the time. To put the blame on Haaland is really strange to me when he's producing disgusting numbers.
I actually think the argument could be turned around. Imagine what Haaland could do if the City players were as good as last season
He didn't make them better.
I don't think thats a big deal considering its city we're talking about. 2+ world class players in every position and pep.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,369
- Supports
- ️
So what evidence do you have to suggest they were better without him? What are the facts you would use to say they were better without him?
And how much impact is the absences of Dias and Walker going to have on them defensively over having Haaland in the side? How responsible is Haaland for the slight underperformance in xGA compared to the massive over performance in xG?
No it can’t be the defence isn’t the same as last year due to injury. Don’t be silly Samid!
I also think Haaland's technique and passing is a bit underrated. While he can be a bit clunky he also has moments of brillance in which he links up extremely well or goes past multiple defenders.
To me his lack of involvement is not really a lack of technique or ability. He magically ends up in a lot of great goal scoring positions because of instinct but he seems to lack this kind of instinct when it comes to the build up. Because no matter how you put it, when the guy has games in which he has 3-4 touches in a complete half, this is not good in a system like City's. Guardiola's football is all about positioning, creating numerical superiorities, etc. and naurally most time in a game is dedicated to recycling possession. If you effectively play with 10 men, this affects the team.
I said it when City signed Haaland: As good as he was for Dortmund, Dortmund didn't really become a better team by his arrival. From a player with such mindblowing statistics, you'd expect that he immediately elevates the team he joins. Especially when those teams lacked a real striker to begin with. But so far you have to conclude that this wasn't the case up until now. Maybe a coincidence but neither Dortmund nor City improved drastically with him in the team.
So it's a pattern?
I thought I was going insane for a second here. I understand the rivalry and wanting City's transfers to fail, but the Haaland criticism is so strange.
I do not understand why this point about their defence being worse isn't talked about enough. Haaland hasn't impacted them negatively at all, their backline has. He has made their attack better, what else can he do about the backline?
The evidence has been posted many times already, they aren't better than last year at this stage in every metric. Your only excuse seems to be defensive injuries. Surely a freak phenom like Haaland should be able to mask those deficiencies and help them outscore the opposition? When you add his 21 goals to their already impressive output?
I think he could be. Peps solution to Englands counter attacks was the false 9 type formation. It allowed them to keep to a tighter unit and over recycle the ball. This isn’t me making a point, I’ve said on here when they were linked with other strikers that I hoped they’d sign one of them since nobody could touch them over a league season playing like that.2 more points.
Is Haaland to blame for the goals being conceded? I mean it could be one explanation, but it would be very far down on my list. Sometimes teams just get worse from one season to the next. It happens all the time. To put the blame one Haaland is really strange to me when he's producing disgusting numbers.
I actually think the argument could be turned around. Imagine what Haaland could do if the City players were as good as last season
Now KDB isn’t running on past the forward like last year because Haaland doesn’t come deep to open up the space nor do the wide men get played in because they’re there to Supplement Haaland and nothing else. It kind of goes against how modern football is with the goal threats from wide and the striker playing a lot deeper knitting the midfield and inside forwards into the game.
Man City’s goals are buffed by two 6 goal wins. That’s ok, you have to score them but they’re looking like the exception now if we are comparing to last year. Plus they were early on in the season when the team wasn’t bogged down with looking for Earling every time as they are now, everything wa as bit fresher. Now you don’t see KDB around the box, he’s either out wide spamming crosses in for him or deeper trying to slip through balls theough tight spaces but it’s worth it because Haaland is good enough to get on the end of them. How many home games v lower teams do they have to struggle to break down before we get the hint?
Do you sign Haaland? Yes. Is it worth so much that you lessens the diversity of your goals to score slightly more than last season with a lot less goals from around the team? I don’t know.
You never saw Ronaldo on his own, he had fantastic forwards at Madrid and United that went out and scored their fair share. Same with Messi and his teammates. Now imagine you signed one of those in their prime, sold your second highest goalscorer last year in Sterling, sold Jesus and pushed your top scorer further away from goal and didn’t have another goalscorer around them. How better off are you really? You’re just replacing goals you already have at that stage.
Aye, they only scored 99 goals and amassed 93 points
Haaland is absolutely incredible, a phenomenon, but they’d be a much better side with Kane up top. Curreny they are projecting at 85 points, 8 less than last season.
That ain't the fault of the player that's on record breaking goal-scoring pace. He's scored 21 goals from 34 shots on target. That's incredible.
If he had scored 21 for the season that would have been considered a good return from a young player in a new league. But we aren't even halfway through the season yet.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,369
- Supports
- ️
@mu4c_20le read this if you don’t mind.
Haaland has helped City outperform their xG of 33.6 by getting them to 44 goals.
His xG is 15.23 but his actual is 21 so +5.77 overperformance. He’s contributing to 47.7% of City’s goals so far.
His xG per 90 is 0.88 and his actual G per 90 is 1.13 so essentially by being on the pitch you are expecting City to have a goal. He’s the closest equivalent of starting 1-0 up you’ll find.
Please explain how in your opinion or with facts how that makes City worse. I am genuinely trying to understand your position and I believe I’ve made mine clear.
Now tell me how is Haaland making City worse based on the above and not the loss of Dias and Walker?
I can’t see it here so could you summarise why with facts you believe they are better in every metric or could you quote me the posts that show this? I can’t find them?
Haaland has helped City outperform their xG of 33.6 by getting them to 44 goals.
His xG is 15.23 but his actual is 21 so +5.77 overperformance. He’s contributing to 47.7% of City’s goals so far.
His xG per 90 is 0.88 and his actual G per 90 is 1.13 so essentially by being on the pitch you are expecting City to have a goal. He’s the closest equivalent of starting 1-0 up you’ll find.
Please explain how in your opinion or with facts how that makes City worse. I am genuinely trying to understand your position and I believe I’ve made mine clear.
Maybe that's down to the player being too good for his own good. He hasn't added to City's totals, he's only replaced them. His finishing is so good that the team are constantly looking to drive the ball to him, that they've become a tiki-taka-haaland team. Compare the numbers to last season and everyone else looks like a passenger now, with only Foden having more than 3 goals.
See above. His finishing is grand, but it seems to be at the expense of everyone else. He's changed the team dynamic, and neither the eye test nor the numbers tell me that City are better this year. That's why I doubted your statement of being 100% certain that they are a better side.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,369
- Supports
- ️
https://fbref.com/en/squads/b8fd03ef/Manchester-City-Stats
Since Haalands arrival City have lost 3 games:
- Community Shield vs Liverpool - No data
- League vs Liverpool fair result should have lost based on xG
- League vs Brentford should have drawn at worst based on xG
- League vs Newcastle should have drawn at worst based on xG
- League vs Aston Villa should have won Villa got lucky based on xG
- Champions League vs Copenhagen should have won Copenhagen got lucky based on xG
- Champions League vs Dortmund equal xG fair result
- League vs Everton should have won Everton got lucky based on xG.
Edit: added draw information
Last edited:
Well Haaland is 22? And Norwegian? I doubt he’ll ever win a World Cup but he has plenty of time for CL trophies.
If he doesn't win the World Cup, he will never be on Inzaghi's level, in my opinion. Please bite.
You haven't included the xG and xGA values of last season. This season, City is at 37.27 xG (slightly down from 37.54 in 21/22) and 13.99 xGA (up from 9.66 in 21/22). So they're creating roughly the same amount of chances but conceding more. Their xPTS is also down to 36.7 (from 37.96). And while Arsenal has less xG and more xGA, their xPTS is very close with 35.77, probably hinting at City's better xG difference coming from a select few games instead of being evenly distributed.
I mean, you have a point with the injuries to key defenders. But by bringing in a striker who scored 21 goals after 15 games, you'd definitely expect that to be reflected more clearly in the xG statistics. That suggests at the very least that Haaland's goal output cannibalizes those of others. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing as I'm sure Guardiola won't mind if Haaland's clinical finishing means he converts more. The question is if it is sustainable - and right now the results kind of suggest that City is less consistent and have higher peaks but also lower lows both in terms of defensive stability as well as chance creation.
An interesting contrast to Jesus, who is far far less clinical but is excellent in essentially every other area of the game (pressing, dribbling, playmaking, versatility).
I don't buy this argument that it's Haaland's fault City aren't walking the league.
Though I do think Jesus has really helped transform the Arsenal side despite not being a clinical finisher.
I don't buy this argument that it's Haaland's fault City aren't walking the league.
Though I do think Jesus has really helped transform the Arsenal side despite not being a clinical finisher.
So is inzaghi better than Ronaldo then?
Reading the last few pages, it makes sense how a lot of United fans underrate RvN now (ascribing our relative failure in the mid 2000s to him rather than the nonsense we gathered around him)
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 18,369
- Supports
- ️
Thanks this is what I was hoping someone could do so I could see the other side.
This just suggests they are defensively a bit more frail this season but I’d put that down to defensive injuries over Haaland making them a worse side. They statistically should have only lost 1 game and drawn 2 so I don’t think there is a significant change in their underlying numbers to suggest they are worse with Haaland however I’m not open to the idea that they aren’t definitely better with him more that in an attacking sense they seem to be performing just as well with a shift in focus as to who gets the goals.
What I would say though is that Haaland’s consistency at outperforming his xG I think hides the actual attacking threat City gain from having him. He’s able to convert consistently above xG (something he’s shown over several seasons) and I don’t see any reason why he would revert down significantly anytime soon barring injury.
So Im willing to say he’s not 100% improved their attack as a unit. But I do still believe there is enough actual performance vs expected performance from Haaland to believe they are better with him then without.
Inzaghi wasn’t insanely good though, I’ve seen him mentioned a lot in this thread, he scored 20+ goals in the league once, for Milan he scored 126 in 300, very good but well off 1 in 2, never mind 1 in 1, even if you allow for it being a more defensive era.
Haaland is stronger, faster, better technically, more powerful shot, better passer than Inzaghi. Just several levels above. Haaland is in Messi/Pele territory for total percentage of goals for his team. Not saying he’s as good as those players but he is a phenomenon - to be compared with the greatest strikers, not with someone like Inzaghi.
You’re right his current trajectory means he’ll be comparable to someone like Muller, Messi Pele even Ronaldo he is not though it takes more than just goals to reach that level.
I think it will heavily depend on the distribution thing. I'm not watching many City games so I follow through tickers, highlight videos, etc. and my impression is that they struggle against smaller teams more often than they used to but also absolutely slaughter their opponents when they're at it. If that's really the case, it might be less sustainable.
This also has less to do with Haaland for me but is rather a systemic question. Haaland is obviously a great player but it might be the case that a lesser player fits the system they're playing better.
Here you go:I bet if you were to do those stats for everyone at Haaland’s age, the difference would be ridiculous. He’s scoring for fun at the age of 22, in what’s supposed to be the most difficult league in the world and people are calling him an average footballer
Numbers from club football (all comps) from top 5 league teams uptill the season before they turned 23:
Haaland (Dortmund and City):
1,15 goals/90
0,26 assists/90
1,41 goals+assists/90
Lewandowski (Dortmund):
0,41 goals/90
0,18 assists/90
0,59 goals+assists/90
Suarez didn't play in a top five league before he turned 24
Benzema (Lyon):
0,58 goals/90
0,25 assists/90
0,83 goals+assists/90
Aguero (Atletico):
0,52 goals/90
0,23 assists/90
0,75 goals+assists/90
R9 (Barca, Inter):
0,82 goals/90
0,17 assists/90
0,99 goals+assists/90
RVP (Arsenal):
0,53 goals/90
0,05 assists/90
0,58 goals+assists/90
Kane (Spurs):
0,68 goals/90
0,14 assists/90
0,82 goals+assists/90
Henry (Monaco, Juventus and Arsenal):
0,43 goals/90
0,10 assists/90
0,53 goals+assists/90
Eto'o (Real, Espanyol, Mallorca):
0,44 goals/90
0,07 assists/90
0,51 goals+assists/90
Rooney (Everton and United):
0,42 goals/90
0,22 assists/90
0,66 goals+assists/90
Let's add RVN, Messi and CR7 to the list as well:
RVN didn't play in a top five league before he was 25
Messi (Barca and PSG):
0,73 goals/90
0,32 assists/90
1,05 goals+assists/90
CR7 (United, Real and Juventus):
0,32 goals/90
0,25 assists/90
0,57 goals+assists/90
And then Mbappe (needs to be tested outside of PSG soon):
0,86 goals/90
0,42 assists/90
1,28 goals+assists/90
....and Lukaku since so many likes to compare the two:
0,53 goals/90
0,20 assists/90
0,73 goals+assists/90
The thing is that Haaland occupies 2 defenders whereever he goes, so the "effectively play with 10 men" argument doesn't quite work with him.
Defensively City has suffered a couple of key injuries and has played with many different 4s and 5s in the back this season, which has seriously hurt them. As I mentioned in an earlier post they have conceded 7 goals on penalties, corners, set pieces and direct freekicks this season, while they only conceded 2 goals (1 pen and 1 corner) from these situations last season, over 38 games. Last season they conceded 1 goal from 31 corners (that lead to a finish), 17 set pieces (that lead to a finish) and 9 direct freekicks, while they already this season has conceded 5 from 16 corners (that lead to a finish), 6 set pieces (that lead to a finish) and 6 direct freekicks. It's just silly to blame Haaland for City conceding more low xG goals from dead ball situations. When they sort out their weaknesses when defending their own bow on set pieces they will be just as good defensively as before.
From open play City conceded 0,65 G/90 from open play last season, while they have conceded 0,56 G/90 from open play this season.
Offensively you are right that they created around the same amount of chances as this season compared to after 16 games last season. The difference is that they scored 33 from 37,54 xG last season compared to 44 from 37,27 xG this season. It's hard to argue that Haalands finishing hasn't massively improved their output in front of goal.
16 games into last season Bernardo Silva was their topscorer with 7 goals, the rest of the squad had 26 goals combined. The second topscorer was Sterling with 4.
This season Haaland has 21 goals while the rest of the squad has 23 goals combined. The second topscorer is Foden with 7.
It is only natural that playing with a pure striker, ends up with him being more often in good scoring positions and a natural target in the box than a false 9. I can't see how he's cannibalizing the teams chances to a degree that hurts them.
The team as a whole has been scoring more goals than the season before, but I'm pretty sure City hasn't optimalized their style and approach to playing with him yet. So unfortunately I think City will only get better as they adapt to each other.
Compare this to the "Ronaldo-situation" last season where we ended up scoring a lot less with Ronaldo in the team and him eating up his teammates goaltallies
We scored 73 goals in the PL in the 20/21 season. Topscorer Bruno had 18 goals - rest of the team shared 55 goals
We scored 57 goals in the PL in the 21/22 season. Topscorer Ronaldo had 18 goals - rest of the team shared 39 goals.
(In the CL it was worse)
Defensively it's also hard to argue against playing with Ronaldo up top didn't effect us negatively:
We conceded 26 goals from open play in the 20/21 PL season.
We conceded 49 goals from open play in the 21/22 PL season.
This is cannibalism.
Last edited:
Nah he isn't the problem. He has changed how they play but it hasn't been the reason for the more goals conceeded. He hasn't been costing them the goals they've conceeded. He hadn't been giving the ball away resulting in a load of counter attacks or anything like that.
The fact they play a mish mash of different defenders often out of position each week is the real issue they are less consistent
If they where playing a consistent back 4 from one of their previous seasons they'd be fine.
I think there are a lot of us United fans kind of desperate to find fault in Haaland because we didn't get him.
Personally I just can't dislike him because I loved watching him for Dortmund.
As a result I've watched the majority of City games this year and it's clear the fact they play a different defence every week with often half of it playing out of position is what's costing them the couple of goals and extra points.
I dislike him a lot and his team tbh. I just don't cross the line where I try to convince myself of things that make no sense
A United fan can’t dislike a City player cause he loved watching him at Dortmund… what the holy feck
It's also the season where we changed managers and lost Greenwood halfway and was plagued by dressing room leaks, so its a mental comparison. But at least you did acknowledge that both teams had to change their style to suit the 9, only one did it better for obvious reasons.
Do you think City are a better team this year compared to the previous ones?