Wasnt that kind a bit what Van Basten was known for? Being the complete striker in every sense of the word?
Nordic Ghost Yeti (Scandi Carroll) | Haaland at City
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Wasnt that kind a bit what Van Basten was known for? Being the complete striker in every sense of the word?
And they're 35 and 34 years old. Haaland is 22. Who says he can't develop his game?
He has 8 years left of his prime. I can easily imagine he'll have a fair amount of assists as well when he retires a long time from now.
Benzema and Lewandowski changed a lot through the past 10-15 years. I reckon Haaland will develop and have different "phases" of his career, like any player.
But none of this has anything to do with the original argument where you said it was ridiculous to think haaland would have matched R9's success had he played in the same teams. Not about whether he's a better player or would have contributed more, but would he have managed the same success, and at club level the likely answer is yes, and had he been playing for Brazil in 2002 instead of Ronaldo I'd still have them as favourites
I'm saying that people who say haaland just relies on service from his teammates are overlooking the value of his movement to create those chances. There's a reason he's scoring at a higher rate than just about any player in modern times
Please don't reply to my posts in future when you have not bothered to read, nowhere can you find me perpetuating a narrative that Haaland is not a top striker
In the context of a comparison to Ronaldo, its not actually being overlooked is it?
Your paycheck is defined by supply and demand. There are lots of players who can demand more than their efforts on the pitch justify because of the commercial advantages they bring with them.
May I ask if you ever played football yourself? I think your perspective is severely limited and superficial. You also didn't address one of the arguments I brought up about goal record stats. Basketball is a very different sport to football, especially regarding scoring. I think you lack a bit of attention to the details.
Certainly not me.. But we're not talking about potential but about the current version of him.
By the way, Benzema and Haaland didn't change that much. Lewandowski only became more clinical at some point, he always had exceptional alround game. Same goes for Benzema - for him, it is primarily his role in the team that changed after Cristiano left. And that's also very logical since motoric abilities are developed at an early age. Gladly, I think Haaland is much better in that regard than given credit for. But as good as his final movement is, he's too invisible in the build up.
Great team, ignored PSV though.
They are both quality strikers, they play differently.
No one can assume Haaland could have had the same impact at PSV and Barca, just as much as no one can say Ronaldo would have the same impact in the PL today.
They game is different today than it was then
Same. I did not think this would be controversial based on the archetype of forward that was successful during the 90s.
Think this one looks better tbh
Man I didn't even see this wonder! Put the pipe down please.
What's missed in such a discussion is that whole teams set up to try and contain Ronaldo. Literally no other striker active during his time (or at any other time) had that much attention and deliberation put on stopping them and them alone. Sans Van Basten, who paid a severe price being forced to retire well before his organic end.
Plenty of strikers tallied heavily, and Bierhoff outscoring him is often brought up, but nothing like the measures put in place to stop Ronaldo were applied to others.
Haaland would never have gotten the attention Ronaldo did - their paths are not alike.
Plenty of strikers tallied heavily, and Bierhoff outscoring him is often brought up, but nothing like the measures put in place to stop Ronaldo were applied to others.
Haaland would never have gotten the attention Ronaldo did - their paths are not alike.
Last edited:
I would be very confident in Haaland destroying it as PSV. he has done at every league. Luuk Nillis scored 31 goals the year ronaldo scored 35. One could argue Nillis was better than Ronaldo if you really think deeply.
Don't know what that should mean - you made a point of a player only ever receiving the ball after give and goes, which is evidently and factually incorrect, as the video displays.
Depends on your definition of "destroying".
You are making it up or just putting big names without any context. Stoichkov was already in huge decline spending previous season in Parma where he was shit. Blanc was a flop. Prosinecki didn't play a single game for Barcelona that season (as he was absolute shit in the previous one) and was loaned to Sevilla in December. The rest of that group aside from Figo and Luis Enrique aren't that impressive.
This City team is much superior individually and collectively having Pep as their manager.
If you read my early replies I was playing competitive football during the Serie A peak level. Yes I played up to semi professional. I feel people overcomplicate football imo.
Why is the demand for high scorers so big and the supply low? is it because it is the hardest to do consistently, whilst being the most important? Even City who won the league at a canter, still bidded 130million for Kane and then signed Haaland. Basketball is similar. In fact scoring is even more important in football as you have a keeper and very few people can finish effectively past that keeper.
See this is the problem with your analysis in the first place. The 35 in 36 and PSV and 46 in 49 at Barca was between the ages of 17-20
At the same age Haaland was playing in Norway and Austria and wasn't close to those numbers at all.
Its not a given he would have had the same impact as Ronaldo especially at that stage of his career, unfortunately for Ronaldo his injuries kicked in early, but he was a different type of freak and people clearly either do not remember or do not know this.
As for Haaland his is a phenomenal player, but we don't need to start comparing him to Ronaldo.
Stoichkov was Balon d'or winner ony 4 years before and made Euro team of the tourney 2 years prior. Scored more than Grealish. Blanc being a flop is as relevent as Grealish being a flop. Still a great player and big name in the squad. Pep wasn't impressive? De La Pena was niiiice. Nadal and Couto are legendary defenders in my book. Giovanni was once the best player in the Brazilian league.
Yes but someone still has to score goals. Lets not be so tweed and tophat. Goals are fun
I know he isn't better than Ronaldo but he would of replicated his success is all I said. he has proven a goal a game striker in all leagues along with immense, size, pace, power, finishing on both feet. disgusting
While it's evident that Haaland possesses exceptional talent, some may argue that he tends to be inconsistent in his performance. He may remain relatively inactive during certain games, but then suddenly emerge with a flurry of goals, leading to an inflated goal-scoring average. Although he's undoubtedly a skilled goal scorer, some may contend that his all-round game leaves room for improvement.
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 up
It'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.Only 4 years ago (and even 2 years ago) is a long time in football (ask our friend in Al-Nassr). Only previous season Stoichkov flopped in Parma which says it all. Blanc was a bigger flop than Grealish and Prosinecki didn't even play. I will give you Pep (with Figo and Luis Enrique) who was a good player in his days. The rest of them, meh.. Nadal is probably more famous for being Nadal's uncle than a football player. Couto was always error prone and erratic.
They were far from any definition of super team.
Yeah, but if the rest isn't fun to you, football might just not be your sport since you're bored 99% of a game
Why does he need to be "complete" when we might be looking at the most natural goalscorer in all of modern football?
No players bags goals like he does.
It doesn't matter if it's all he does because the quantity he's scoring is simply unheard of even for a poacher
No players bags goals like he does.
It doesn't matter if it's all he does because the quantity he's scoring is simply unheard of even for a poacher
I'm not saying Ronaldo was better than Cristiano or Messi (though peak level is similar to Cristiano, both below Messi). But you mentioned him comparison to Haaland... Come on. Haaland is a terrific poacher. He's just a pure goalscorer. But as a player, while he might set goalscoring records, he is lacking a ton to his game to actually ever get him in the greatest ever conversations. Let's not go overboard here. Haaland is excellent but he's ultimately just a pure poacher and isn't the overall player that Ronaldo was, or Mbappe currently is. These are guys who can do it all on their own whereas Haaland has great movement so he'll maximise the goals of a team given he gets the service (which he has better than anywhere at City).
If playing for the same teams, then it's still not guaranteed the same success.
Ronaldo ran that PSV, Barcelona, Inter team than just scoring/attacking. Great goal scorer alone still couldn't get you as far because unlike today with lack of elite scorer, other teams in that era had great goal scorers to compete too. It's more difficult to get all the pieces together back in the days. Ronaldo is a transformative player who elevate the team all round beside goal scoring. He brought with him elite ball carrying, very good level of play making beside the forward required work.
PSV, Barcelona, Inter could have still lost those few trophies and being in worse position, with different type of forward in his place.
World Cup 2002 with Brazil maybe because Ronaldo freshly came back as more of poacher than his healthier days. However, nothing is certain even then. Ronaldo had his clutch moments. Something that can't be certain. Many great scorers, great players failed to deliver those clutch moment for their teams. It may take a bit more of chemistry with the team. Ronaldo had that chemistry. Haaland, or someone else however good they are may not have. Benzema didn't have as good chemistry with his France team for example when he's easily better player than Giroud. Benzema is no less selfless on the pitch than Giroud, too. On paper, Benzema would improve that France team in Giroud place, but reality had shown a different story.
Going back to Ronaldo era, France team revolved around Zidane. Henry did have great impact, but he's not as influential in France NT. Whenever Zidane not in form/retired, France had trouble despite their also talented packed squad, and Henry was still at his peak. Certain settings can't be easily replicated.
Last edited:
I'm big fan of R9 but he was never a playmaker although decent at the final pass. His best attributes (before injury) were is explosiveness, dribbling, power, skill, technique and goalscoring ability. His one on one's with the keeper are the best and most brilliant I have seen.
Henry had probably more vision/awareness/selflessness compared to any other striker including R9. In addition to great speed, good technique and finishing ability.
Haaland is essentially a goal poacher who is also fast and powerful. He is absolutely average at everything else.
Cristiano has been about power, pace, incredible athleticism, incredible drive and goalscoring ability be it tap ins, headers or pile drivers. His technique while very good is not Henry or R9 level, his dribbling/playmaking probably decent at best in his prime.
He certainly is one of the best goal scorers (possibly the best) of the modern era. I wouldn't say though he is one of the best footballers in terms of skill and overall ability but you can't argue with his numbers or his physical attributes which are beastly. I wonder if he will decline a lot when he gets older and he loses that physical edge he currently has but right now he is exceptional at putting the ball in the back of the net.
R9 was absolutely a better footballer in his pre injury years than Cristiano even if the later is greater due to longevity and much more club level success.
Please point to where I said this?!?
Woah now, Haaland isn't close to the class of Van Basten.
The question is can he be stopped? Going by him blanking in multiple games this season, it seems like while he is awesome at finishing, good teams can figure out a way to stop him. We will need to see how the rest of the season goes. Maybe he will tear apart big teams as well in coming games.
Easily suggested that.
Valencia, Barcelona was all around better, while Galaticos without Makelele and Hierro was unbalanced group of brilliant individuals. Also sacking Del Bosque to downgrade the manager position didn't help the issue.
Real Madrid problem is not goal or chance creation. It's the defensive part. Haaland certainly wouldn't fix that for them.
It was somebody else I quoted who said that but you said me suggesting that haaland being able to replicate Ronaldo's success could only come from someone who hadn't seen him play
I wonder how long it's gonna be until his body breaks. His movement patterns just reek of brutal mechnical strain. Regardless of his young age, we might see peak Haaland right now.
What are you referring to specifically? Success as in "goals scored"? Yeah, probably. Success as in "trophies"? Possible. Success as in "equal performances"? No way, Haaland isn't even remotely as good all things considered. Don't want to be rude or anything but the underlying notion that the possible surplus of goals by Haaland makes up for the gigantic gap in overall contribution makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
Replicating his success yes, but again not a given as previously pointed out, especially not between 17-20 years of age, and also considering his success went far beyond how many goals he scored.
I'd always consider success as trophies. Loo, at Harry kane, I don't think people will talk about his success at spurs because he hasn't won anything, regardless of how well he's played