It's quite in order to say a post is moronic. It's not in order to insult the person who posted it, so don't bother with that report, @Andrade .
Nordic Ghost Yeti (Scandi Carroll) | Haaland at City
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
I feel the same way as Zehner as well, but regarding the value added premise at the end, I don't necessarily see the last bit the same way.
A quarter back is infinitely more valuable to an American football team than a running back. If your team has Tom Brady already, you wouldn't kill yourself to sign another great quarter back because you are set. Signing the ancillary pieces would do more to strengthen your team (I.e. they are more valuable to your team specifically, than more valuable in general). I think you might have even alluding to the same thing in your post.
I'm not sure Sheringham or Yorke were any more valuable than Beckham was. But sometimes, a team's needs in a particular area (chance creation) are filled and it makes more sense to focus on the other areas.
Yeah. I kinda expected him to get 2 last night.
Wait a minute, that's a completely nonsensical logic but let's switch our brains off and just stick with it for a moment. This means an assist is rarer than a goal, so isn't the rarer thing more important because it happens less often? And moreover, isn't a parade by a keeper as important because it is actually the denial of a goal, so should be valued equally?
And now, let's switch our brains back on again: Without great passes, there are far less chances and far less opportunities for great striker's to make their finishing qualities count. Haaland currently outperforms his expected goals by roughly 25%. Which means when an average striker scores 12 goals from 20 chances, Haaland would increase the output to 15 (+3). However, if you introduce a good playmaker that increases your chances from 20 to 30, the average striker would score 18 goals instead (+6). So the conclusion is the quite obvious: It depends who is more important.
That's obviously an incredibly basic calculus by the way. Haaland is as great as he is ebcause he's extremely good at creating chances through his movement as well. And having a great playmaker will also allow you to defend much better with the ball. It's far more complicated than this. But I doubt you're interested in that because your agenda works best when things are oversimplified.
Yet almost every club in the world doesn't adhere to this, transfer fees are far higher for attackers than midfielders, defenders or goalkeepers on the whole, despite the position supposedly not being more important than the others.
Yawn. And cringe.
Insulting another member
That's not true. The highest fees aren't for the highest goal scorers. Neymar, Mbappe. Hazard, Coutinho, Dembele, Joao Felix, Grealish, Sancho, Havertz, Pogba, ...
It's also such a stupid point
It was a discussion of creators vs scorers and he butted in to in provide his "evidence" that crestors aren't as valuable because goalkeepers don't command fees as high as attackers do.No the rarer thing isn't more important, if you create ten great chances, you're still relying on another player to finish them, ten great finishes results in ten goals, with assists you're relying on another player to score the goal or it doesn't result in anything. You might argue haaland relies on other players, but he's been scoring at a similar rate at every level, with different teams in different competitions.
Again I'm not saying it's as simple as more goals equals better. But goals are the most valuable thing, 10 big chances missed vs one goal scored, the goal scored wins the game. This modern trend of equating goals to assists on a one to one basis has massive flaws, two players can play the exact same passes, and one can end up with multiple assists and the other with zero, finishing and goalscoring is far more binary
Is that what I said in that post? I said attackers go for more than midfielders, defenders or goalkeepers, all those players, apart from pogba, are attackers
If we compare his goals per mins in his best season in BL, it’s even better than this season in England. Just that he has been injured quite a bit in Dortmund, would also affect his goalscoring form abit for sure.
19/20: 44 goals in 2747 mins (1g per 62min)
22/23: 48 goals in 3158 mins (1g per 66min)
Also back then he was still too young at Dortmund, other top goalscorer in the game (Messi, Ronaldo) usually didn’t enter their goalscoring peak until age 22-23. Haaland only start to reach 22 this season. He is a monster but he still need time to grow/develop into one.
Why do you love Mahrez so much?Interesting coming from someone who believes Mahrez has always been an average winger
That was what I meant, I am sorry if that point was badly made.
I don't. To be honest, I actually find him boring, but seeing you calling other posters clueless got me thinking about that thread.
Yeah I see it the same way you do. If one "need" us satiated, you fulfill the other.
Players perferomances are quite often a lot better in international football because it's simply not as competitive as club football.
If you play ofr a top nation especially. Just look at Maguire.....
Is saying that someone is ignorant insulting them? Not stupid, not a 'moron' but ignorant. Serious question.
Ok so that's why Messi's performances for Argentina were so much better than his performances for Barcelona between 2006 and 2018
About the thread where I didn't say what you just claimed I said?
You are indeed right. Look at Ronaldinhos transformative influence on that Atrocious Barca that he joined. I highly doubt that lieterally anyone that scored more goals, joins Barca instead and has the same effect on the team. Ronaldinho allowed and gave the platform for the whole team to flourish. In 03/04, he got outscored in the league by the likes of Salva, Tamudo and Mista, in 04/05 by the likes of Ezquerro, Urzaiz, Di Vaio and Pacheco. Would you say that they were more valuable because they scored more goals?
Dinho would ultimately transform that team into double league and Champions league winners, winning the Ballon D'or along the way.
Furthermore, for the "he who scores more goals is more valuable" brigade, the great Romelu Lukaku will finish his career with more goals than Torres, Owen, Rooney and Drogba. He is 70 to 80 goals away from Titi Henry, so is likely to pass both he and Etoo. Logic dictates that he will go down in history as more valuable than all those players, just cause he scored more goals.
Damn, and he's nearly outscored Maradona already.
Madness.
You've read that wrong he's saying the other poster calling your post moronic isn't an issue, calling you a moron would be but calling your viewpoint moronic isn't an issue, so don't bother reporting it, he's not claiming you insulted the other poster.
Sorry but this is just stupid. When you have €100M available and can spend it to double the chances created or improve your finishing by 20%, you obviously go for the doubling of chances because it will double the output instead of increasing it by 10%.
And if even the finishing of Haaland is only 25% better than that of the average striker, it tells you a lot. Chance creation is what wins you titles, not finishing.
How does that support your point? None of those players are primarily finishers but chance creators - the discipline you value as less important. Obviously not the clubs.
That assumes that better finishing is the only reason haaland scores more goals, his movement and pace get him into positions where his xG might be high but another striker wouldn't, there's more aspects in a player being a great goalscorer than just finishing.
Well mbappe is the second most expensive player ever and he's a goalscorer, when Ronaldo went for 80m, in terms of the way fees have inflated that would have exceed neymar if it was today. The biggest issue of course is that teams simply don't sell the top goalscorers at their peak. Suarez went for 80m before fees went totally crazy too, kane was talked about as 160m at his peak, what would a peak lewandowski have sold for, what will haaland sell for? Goalscorers are so valuable, teams rarely sell them, they either run their contracts down or they keep extending and stay at the same club.
Look at the fees lukaku has commanded despite the fact he actually offers nothing outside goals, and doesn't score at a rate close to what haaland manages
The post I was replying to said that it's based on a team's need, but attackers are more valuable, so it's not as simple as players value being based on what a team needs.
How so? What we have in club football now is far too much hoarding of the best talent sitting on benches of top sides and not playing football like they did in the past. In turn that means über squads present something never before seen in football to such absurd extents, which is severely tilting the game as it was known and generating absolutely absurd points totals and goals scored - life has never been easier for big club players than it is now. International football is a bump back to what football used to be like for a lot of players and we’re seeing that many of these stars of the club game can’t cope when everything isn’t just perfect for them.
The prerequisite has always been what a player does across every platform available to them, and it should always be thus.
The quality of international football might well be questioned; it’s not of the same quality as it used to be, but it still serves an essential purpose and gives us a clear idea of who wilts and who shines in less than ideal circumstances, for the most part. The greatest players shouldn’t miss much of a step as individuals whether they play for a great or crap nation - it’s all factored and contextualised.
I noticed nobody mentioned Ingebrigtsen. Is he not famous?
Oh so chance creation is important after all but only when it is the striker's movement that leads to it but not when it's the playmaker's ability?
And Mbappe is and Cristiano 2008 were far more than goal scorers. They were among the most lethal dribblers and chance creators as well.
Plus, the transfer fees were the best indicator that the quality looked for in footballers is goal scoring but when you've been pointed out that the most expensive players were creators, then it's suddenly because nobody wants to sell goal scorers?
Why would this be important? Let's play a bunch of games at high altitude and whoever loses the least steps is a better player? Let's make players play with ankle weights on, and see who shines in more difficult circumstances. Let's play on muddy waterlogged pitches and see who can adapt the best. It's ridiculous.
Given that most international football people don't really care about qualifiers, firstly you have players who basically no matter how they play in qualifiers will be judged as lesser for not playing in tournaments. And second, it means that you're judged off a tournament that takes place entirely inside of a month every 4 years. Which means if you're carrying a knock or in poor form it massively affects international football in a way that carrying a knock or a short period of poor form doesn't affect you that much at club level.
We signed maguire in large part because he played well for England, was that 90m well spent, was signing James based off a good world cup a great idea for madrid? How many of these players that are signed off the back of a good international tournament ever really end up being worth it? Not enough to see international football as a good judge of players
Oh so chance creation is important after all but only when it is the striker's movement that leads to it but not when it's the playmaker's ability?
And Mbappe is and Cristiano 2008 were far more than goal scorers. They were among the most lethal dribblers and chance creators as well.
Plus, the transfer fees were the best indicator that the quality looked for in footballers is goal scoring but when you've been pointed out that the most expensive players were creators, then it's suddenly because nobody wants to sell goal scorers?
No, it's that scoring goals matters more, but there's more to a player being a great goalscorer than good finishing. A player with no positional sense and no pace can be the best finisher in the world and he won't score many goals. I'm saying being a goalscorer is more valuable, but there's more to being a goalscorer than finishing.
Well yes, that should be obvious, when they're sold, goalscorers go for huge amounts. Ronadlo at 33, by that point basically a pure goalscorer went for 100m. People on here will be happy if we spend 100m on a top goalscorer, but there were reservations over 70m on casemiro, not because he isn't talented but because there's the expectation that goalscorers are more expensive. Lewandowski moved once on a free transfer then for 50m when he was forciny his way out at 34 with a year left on his contract, kane hasn't moved, benzema was signed for 35m in 2009 before fees went crazy, still a promising prospect, suarez went for 80m in 2014, haaland went for 50m but that's because of a release clause. Ronaldo moved for 80m when it was a world record and Messi didn't move until 33 when his contract expired.
It's quite obvious that top goalscorers are more valuable, its not reflected in the recent transfer fees because the best scorers haven't moved in this period
You volunteering?
But agreed, it would be a painstaking exercise with quite a few revisions.
Is "clueless" the insult or have I missed something worse? Is that even an insult (genuine question as I'm not a native speaker and sometimes miss the nuance)?
I find it a bit bizarre that calling a post "moronic" is perfectly fine, but calling a poster something as mild as "clueless" (if there was indeed nothing worse). Taking the "attack the post not the poster" so literally is a bit silly in my view. It makes the joke people sometimes post ("that post was a cnut" or something to that effect) not a joke but an actual hack to insulting people
You make a lot of strawmen arguments that nobody actually put forth in the first place, then argue against them until you are satisfied. That’s to go with reductive reasoning that has many more counter arguments than the outliers you present to support your reasoning. You’ve to present both sides of the argument if you’re being objective not just what you think is supporting your point(s). For example: is James an outlier? I don’t believe Maguire was signed in the manner that can be put forth for James.
I was just using James as a recent example, we had people wanting to sign martinez as our first choice goalkeeper off of a decent tournament where he really only excelled in penalty shootouts. Miroslav klose set world cup records but he was never as good a goalscorer as any of the top strikers at club level. Great performances at international tournaments take place over a maximum of 7 games, it's not a huge sample size. After 7 games, some people were hailing weghorst as the second coming, and are now coming round to the idea that he's shit.
My point is these 7 games over a month and that's only if you reach the final, can be affected by so many factors like form or injury or having a shit manager for that tournament , which as united fans, we should really be able to appreciate how damaging that can be. If it was the reverse and international football was played year round, the best managers went to that level rather than almost exclusively to club level, you got to train with those players at more than a couple of intervals throughout the year, and club football was all played over a month then that would be an argument. But to give equal weighting to what a player does in his team that he trains with year round over the course of a whole season, to what they do in a tournament that takes place for a month over a maximum of 7 games clearly isn't right
There are always outliers, no matter what - Klose has always been a famed one, but go ahead and extrapolate on both sides and see if your argument stands up to scrutiny. “7 games” can also elevate an already acknowledged or expected great to levels untold. Those “7 games” are the highest level of pressure a footballer will ever face, there can also be an extreme fallout once a WC is won, as some players simply lose interest in the conventional game and bask in “completing” football with no other high as high to chase.
But it’s more infrequent for a player to be heralded solely off a major alone. What mostly happens is a deep dive on his career and a full assessment then gleaned amidst any clamour that came by way of the tournament itself. For the greater players the World Cup is supplemental to their legacy. Your overarching point about international football requires context; players like Keane, Bale, Zlatan enhanced their standing via qualifying campaigns, with Roy’s legendary performances against Holland and Portugal en route to WC’02 blasting his standing as a great into orbit. Nobody expects minnow nations to do anything out of the ordinary, but when they do, those players, in contextual form, receive just as much praise as players for bigger nations doing what is the equivalent extraordinary for their nations. Relativity is always assessed.
What makes you think he‘d want to go to Real?
Going to Spain for a holiday is as near as he’ll ever get to RM.
I don't pretend to know what he would and wouldn't do. But I sure hope Real take him away from the PL at some point. Preferably, sooner.
The thing Is though this was in the discussion of haaland vs mbappe and I asked the other poster whether his ranking of one over the other would hold without the world cup performances because its a tad unfair with one playing for France and the other for norway, and he tends to give more credit to international football.
I don't think it's totally useless but compared to a player's club career it's a very small sample size and that should be reflected in the weighting it's given
"Can a player be the greatest of all time without international performances of repute?" Is a thread you should start and see what criteria comes up for such a person to be in the running.
I don't think there's such a thing as a true great who hasn't delivered on the international stage relative to his nation's relative capabilities, though.
Well obviously yes, Messi was considered a true great before he won the copa America and the world cup, its not as if that status had only been attained in the last couple years, people were saying it as early as 2012. Same with Ronaldo, he's the all time top scorer but he was considered a great before that, around the same time as Messi (a bit later but not much). So while these players did add international achievements they were considered greats before either did