Nordic Ghost Yeti (Scandi Carroll) | Haaland at City

[Bebestation]

I remember thinking about C Ronaldo as an Anomaly in the footballing world when he first became this consistent young player.

Then of course Messi showed up and all of a sudden there were two anomalies.

I know it looks very unlikely considering Haaland is beating all the records in his first season - but something tells me there will be another anomaly where Haaland plays.

Who knows - maybe he is someone we already know of like Mbappe who ends up playing in the same league as Haaland or even just someone who has yet to come in to fruition.

As amazing as he is - I just can’t see Haaland eating up the world for the next 15 years by himself like Maajin Buu. I’m not sure football really works likes that but I guess we just have to wait and see.

Amazing young player. Well done.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

He is not, he isn't more talented than Modric, he neither is more talented than R9, Zidane, Ronaldinho, Baggio,Rivaldo,etc

He will be the greatest goalscorer in history of football, but when it comes to pure talent, there are players more talented than him, wether or not he will be more successful than these players.

We are talking about pure talent, not success.

He was a huge talent, though? He's been scoring for fun at all ages, made his debut in senior football at 15, a mainstay in all junior national teams ++++, even before his physical attributes developed into what they are now.

What does "pure talent" mean anyway? And why do you think/how do you know that Modric, Baggio etc were more talented?

 

[Righteous Steps]

What do you consider talent? He’s been destined for stardom since he was about 17. It’s not like he’s a seasoned journeyman pro who worked flat out and rose to the top through pure hard work. He has a lot of natural gifts other players wish they had.

He has a lot of talent, I think in football talent is mostly defined but what you can do on the ball technically but being one of the most impressive players physically to ever kick a ball I guess could be said to be a talent in itself.

But comparing him to Benzema, Messi, Ronaldo, Zidane, Rivaldo, R9, Figo, Ronaldinho and most of the b’allondor winners of the last 30 years I would say he has less natural ability, but again that’s biased to what he does on the ball rather than what he can do off it with his movement pace and intelligence of the position he plays.

 

[Righteous Steps]

He was a huge talent, though? He's been scoring for fun at all ages, made his debut in senior football at 15, a mainstay in all junior national teams ++++, even before his physical attributes developed into what they are now.

What does "pure talent" mean anyway? And why do you think/how do you know that Modric, Baggio etc were more talented?

People are biased to technically gifted players and sometimes forget Football is still a sport and being able to run faster than everyone, be stronger than everyone is still pretty important in itself.

I think the poster you talk about is simply talking in regards to technical attributes, passing, dribbling, ball control, touch and what not, I don’t think he is more talented than Baggio but he was born and honed physical attributes that Baggio and 99.9% of players to play this sport simply don’t have.

 

[Bebestation]

I’ve never been wowed as much as fans of players like a Messi or Maradona who run through half of the team and slot the ball in to the back of the net. It’s like they believe that’s the only type of technical ability that exists.

I always got more wowed by the strength-y-ness of traditional number 9’s who were deadly and scored things like bycicle kicks or fast powerful shots - like Zlatan Ibrahimovic’s goals vs England. I remember back in the Italian times I used to love the AC Milan strikers.

Haaland is all rounded in a completely different way to some players who play football like they effortlessly drag a big ball of tissue with their feet all across the pitch.

Im not trying to right it off - but sometimes you go to the gym & you don’t get wowed by the lean guy even if he looks more sexy - you get more wowed by the big bulky body builder who just looks like a monster.

Has to win the Balon D’or for me if the trophies come his way.

 

[FrankFoot]

He was a huge talent, though? He's been scoring for fun at all ages, made his debut in senior football at 15, a mainstay in all junior national teams ++++, even before his physical attributes developed into what they are now.

What does "pure talent" mean anyway? And why do you think/how do you know that Modric, Baggio etc were more talented?

Talent for me means control on the ball, i do agree Haaland is very talented, but the talent the likes or Baggio,Zidane, Henry, R9, Ronaldinho, etc seemed more natural to me.

Anyways Haaland will win a couple of balloon D'Or, and it's on his way to become the greatest goalscorer of all time

 

[Andrade]

Thank you.

To me he is the best footballer in the world. Kinda clear of it to.

He continues to dominate every week.

City got a football monster in there squad.

Mbappe is a better player IMO right now.

 

[Righteous Steps]

I’ve never been wowed as much as fans of players like a Messi or Maradona who run through half of the team and slot the ball in to the back of the net. It’s like they believe that’s the only type of technical ability that exists.

I always got more wowed by the strength-y-ness of traditional number 9’s who were deadly and scored things like bycicle kicks or fast powerful shots - like Zlatan Ibrahimovic’s goals vs England. I remember back in the Italian times I used to love the AC Milan strikers.

Haaland is all rounded in a completely different way to some players who play football like they effortlessly drag a big ball of tissue with their feet all across the pitch.

Im not trying to right it off - but sometimes you go to the gym & you don’t get wowed by the lean guy even if he looks more sexy - you get more wowed by the big bulky body builder who just looks like a monster.

Has to win the Balon D’or for me if the trophies come his way.

I get your point and somewhat agree but Ibra is very different to Haaland although they share the same trait of unusual strength, Haaland is more comparable to RVN, did he wow you more than Cantona or RVP?

 

[That_Bloke]

Yeah he's good.

But it all seems very hollow. He could score 100 goals a season and I could care less.

That's because he doesn't play for you.

You are now experiencing what most other clubs in the league have experienced for decades with the likes of Utd, Chelsea, etc. spending way beyond what other clubs could spend year on year.

Yeah, nobody likes to be on the receiving end, although there's an extra bit of bitterness due to the fact he's playing for the other city's club. The "hollow", "meaningless", etc comments sound so petty and small time.

It's a team that left its mark on the PL and football in general and will be remembered for a very, very long time. Just as Haaland will.

 

[Skåre Willoch]

A journalist found the first official scouting reports on Haaland from back when he was 15 and with the national team for the first time.

First meeting:
«Smart player. Good speed. Very good finishing technique. Good in the link up play. Has struggled some with growing troubles.»

Second meeting, two months later:
«This gathering - incredibly good. Smart runs, works hard, sets himself up in good positions, sets up other players in good positions. Can play behind the line and as a meeting forward. Deadly around the box."»

In both NT gatherings in 2015 he was graded 1, with 1 being the best and 5 being the worst. 1 means you're an "automatic starter" in the first XI of the NT in your age group.


Talent is about way more than "ball control". Instincts, physical conditioning, movements, professionalism, smartness. These can all be trained, but are highly reliant on talent as well.
The best football jugglers probably has great talent technically, but lack the majority of the other talents required to make it as a professional footballer. The guy who won the "Juggling World Cup" a few years ago said himself he "sucks at football".

Talent is about a lot more than what you can do with the football at your feet. Becoming a professional footballer requires talent across a wide range of qualities, and Haaland is obviously as talented as anyone, but at different things than players like Neymar or Messi or whoever.

 

[Andrade]

Exactly. Based on that, plus his insane goalscoring numbers, I think he should be regarded as best player in the world right now.

Acceleration+pace+strength = by far the best in the world
Goalscoring = by far best in the world

Maybe some people just prefer footballers with sublime technical ability, dribbling and control regardless. I just find this weird.

Why would you find weird the criteria that jas been used to judge footballers since time immemorial?

"I find it weird that people like George Best's genius level ability so much. What's with that?!"

 

[Scandi Red]

Wait, does scoring goals not require talent?

This seems like an over-correction. Once upon a time scoring goals was considered everything. And now it's not even indicative of talent?

 

[RedRonaldo]

As I said, there were 3.82 goals per game on average in that season. That's less than a goal more than the 2.84 ave gpg in this current PL season. The whole point about football is that it has always been a game with infrequent scoring (compared to other team ball sports), that's why we like it. Ergo, if a guy scores 60 goals in a season in a league with an average of 3.82 goals per game, that is impressive. It's just basic maths. Especially since no one else has done it in the 90 years since then. But we've been through this with Pele, you have no understanding whatsoever of the concept that the past presented different challenges than players face today.

Well first of all, football in the 20s is completely different game to football in the 60s. I never doubt Pele as player, but I highly doubt he could get anywhere near 1000+ goals (including friendlies) if he was playing in Europe top leagues in modern time.

But let’s just go back to the 20s, the pre war time when football wasn’t as huge as it was today.

I am not saying Dean’s record isn’t impressive back in his days too, He must be the top goalscorer back then for sure. But you can’t just take that at its face value to compare with the best goalscorer in modern era.

In fact there are number of factors you also need to consider:

- level of football in general
- defensive play in general
- intensity/physical side of the game
- level of English league vs other league at that time

If you go through the league table back in 20s, you
might find something very interesting - those teams sitting on the bottom of the league managed to score 80+ goals in league season regularly.

For example:
1924-25
21th place - City - scored 89 conceded 100

1927-28
22th place - Middlesbrough - scored 81 conceded 88

Basically thats totally different game back then. Its almost like teams are playing with no defense. Their tactics are probably just keep attacking and try to outscore the opponents, and doesn’t need any defenders. Worst team in the league back then could match the goal numbers of the best attacking team in todays game.

I also did some checking on the Hungarian league during the 20-30s one time (Puskas era). There are about more than dozen of players in Hungarian league during those period with similar or better scoring ratio as Messi/Ronaldo in modern time. It’s almost like every decent strikers are scoring at all time great elite level back then. Almost like everyone has GOAT avg stats.

So you see, I just don’t trust the stats back then as much as you do.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Wait, does scoring goals not require talent?

This seems like an over-correction. Once upon a time scoring goals was considered everything. And now it's not even indicative of talent?

Its never been considered 'Everything' thats why you have the likes of Best and Charlton more highly rated than Denis Law for example, even though they both could score goals too and Law was a well rounded footballer himself. Jimmy Greaves isn't regarded as the greatest English player, RVN isn't regarded as the greatest player in the league of his time, that was Henry. Rush isn't more highly rated than Daglish and most Chelsea fans would probably take Zola over Hasselbank in the list of greatest Chelsea players of all time.

Goals has always been part of it probably the biggest part, but traditionally the highest rated players were those who combined goalscoring with playmaking dribbling and flair. Think Messi, Maradona, Cruyff, Pele, Di Stefano and so on.

 

[giorno]

As I said, there were 3.82 goals per game on average in that season. That's less than a goal more than the 2.84 ave gpg in this current PL season.

almost a full goal per game less is a huge difference actually, because...

The whole point about football is that it has always been a game with infrequent scoring (compared to other team ball sports)

Though I do agree 60 goals is ridiculous, no matter the era

For more perspective: at the current rate, 1079 goals will be scored in the PL this season. At the 3.82 gpg average of 27/28, that number would go up to 1451 goals. That 372 goals more over the season. That's roughly 19 extra goals per team on average

And for perspective on Dean's 60 goal season, the second top scorer that season scored 35. The top scorers in the 2 seasons immediately before and after scored 43, 37, 43 and 42

 

[jm99]

Its never been considered 'Everything' thats why you have the likes of Best and Charlton more highly rated than Denis Law for example, even though they both could score goals too and Law was a well rounded footballer himself. Jimmy Greaves isn't regarded as the greatest English player, RVN isn't regarded as the greatest player in the league of his time, that was Henry. Rush isn't more highly rated than Daglish and most Chelsea fans would probably take Zola over Hasselbank in the list of greatest Chelsea players of all time.

Goals has always been part of it probably the biggest part, but traditionally the highest rated players were those who combined goalscoring with playmaking dribbling and flair. Think Messi, Maradona, Cruyff, Pele, Di Stefano and so on.

But like in the 5 seasons RVN was here, he scored 95 league goals and Henry scored 130 over those 5 seasons. I think RVN outscored Henry once by one goal, haaland is being subbed off early in enough games that had he played a full 90 in his games and kept the same ratio he'd be at about 40 league goals just now.

You're not comparing him against other players who he's slightly outworking and they're massively better than him in other areas, he's way clear of everyone else.

And he keeps this rate up in the champions league,even playing for weaker clubs than City. I'm not saying goalscoring is all that matters, but to be as far ahead of everyone else as haaland is means you'd really have to be absolutely miles ahead in every other metric to be better.

 

[Oranges038]

That's because he doesn't play for you.


Yeah, nobody likes to be on the receiving end, although there's an extra bit of bitterness due to the fact he's playing for the other city's club. The "hollow", "meaningless", etc comments sound so petty and small time.

It's a team that left its mark on the PL and football in general and will be remembered for a very, very long time. Just as Haaland will.

Not really. It he were playing for someone else I'd appreciate him more, like I did when he was Dortmund.

I could care less what players City have or what they do or win.

 

[Andrade]

Well first of all, football in the 20s is completely different game to football in the 60s. I never doubt Pele as player, but I highly doubt he could get anywhere near 1000+ goals (including friendlies) if he was playing in Europe top leagues in modern time.

But let’s just go back to the 20s, the pre war time when football wasn’t as huge as it was today.

I am not saying Dean’s record isn’t impressive back in his days too, He must be the top goalscorer back then for sure. But you can’t just take that at its face value to compare with the best goalscorer in modern era.

In fact there are number of factors you also need to consider:

- level of football in general
- defensive play in general
- intensity/physical side of the game
- level of English league vs other league at that time

If you go through the league table back in 20s, you
might find something very interesting - those teams sitting on the bottom of the league managed to score 80+ goals in league season regularly.

For example:
1924-25
21th place - City - scored 89 conceded 100

1927-28
22th place - Middlesbrough - scored 81 conceded 88

Basically thats totally different game back then. Its almost like teams are playing with no defense. Their tactics are probably just keep attacking and try to outscore the opponents, and doesn’t need any defenders. Worst team in the league back then could match the goal numbers of the best attacking team in todays game.

I also did some checking on the Hungarian league during the 20-30s one time (Puskas era). There are about more than dozen of players in Hungarian league during those period with similar or better scoring ratio as Messi/Ronaldo in modern time. It’s almost like every decent strikers are scoring at all time great elite level back then. Almost like everyone has GOAT avg stats.

So you see, I just don’t trust the stats back then as much as you do.

So many wrong points it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, how do you know what Pele would and wouldn't be able to do in today's game? Pele with the kind of training and health methods they have today? He'd probably get 2000 goals FFS.

Secondly, the point about playing with no defence is just dumb, I'm sorry. The league then had 22 teams not 20, and the top scorers then typically got between 35 and 45 goals. Add in the fact that there was on average a goal a game more in those days and the difference between 25-35 being the typical top scorer total now and 35-45 being the figure back then becomes explainable. Then you have one guy who got 60 one year. A feat that hasn't been repeated in almost 100 years. That's more difficult to explain and deserves immense respect, as does the the scoring exploits of any great player., Pele, Puskas, whoever. As I've said a million times before, players today have to deal with a more professional game but they don't have to deal with quagmire pitches, cinder-block boots, no substitutes, no medical care and balls that literally give you brain damage when you head them. It's swings and roundabouts and it's dumb to say that what people did in the past was easy or irrelevant in any way.

 

[RedRonaldo]

So many wrong points it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, how do you know what Pele would and wouldn't be able to do in today's game? Pele with the kind of training and health methods they have today? He'd probably get 2000 goals FFS.

Secondly, the point about playing with no defence is just dumb, I'm sorry. The league then had 22 teams not 20, and the top scorers then typically got between 35 and 45 goals. Add in the fact that there was on average a goal a game more in those days and the difference between 25-35 being the typical top scorer total now and 35-45 being the figure back then becomes explainable. Then you have one guy who got 60 one year. A feat that hasn't been repeated in almost 100 years. That's more difficult to explain and deserves immense respect, as does the the scoring exploits of any great player., Pele, Puskas, whoever. As I've said a million times before, players today have to deal with a more professional game but they don't have to deal with quagmire pitches, cinder-block boots, no substitutes, no medical care and balls that literally give you brain damage when you head them. It's swings and roundabouts and it's dumb to say that what people did in the past was easy or irrelevant in any way.

Ok that is getting ridiculous. Do you realise 2000 goals equals scoring 133 goals every season in 15 years, in the modern era? That's almost like doubling the tally of Messi best ever season, every season. Like really?

Besides, I am talking about football in 1920s period, not sure why you feel the strong need to keep going back to football in 60s instead.

Let's just stop it here before going too far. You must be drunk.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

Yeah but he banged in something like 19 on a row.

No even close. You're thinking of Messi, who scored in 21 consecutive matches. Ruud's streak was 10. Vardy broke it against United in 2016, if I recall correctly.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

No even close. You're thinking of Messi, who scored in 21 consecutive matches. Ruud's streak was 10. Vardy broke it against United in 2016, if I recall correctly.

19 penalties mate. Penalties in a row.

 

[troylocker]

It was a 42 game season but surely Andy Cole has the record for the third record as he got 34 goals in a season and didn't take penalties. I think the only penalty he scored was in a different season too.

Edit: those stats must be for 38 game seasons only as I also saw that Andy Cole had 13 assists in 93/94 which is a total of 47! The crazy thing is Cole didn't make team of the year, oddly enough (Shearer, Cantona and Beardsley were the forwards selected). The only individual awards he won that season were the golden boot and young player of the season.

That 93/94 season was crazy, even though it was a 42 game season.
Cole played 40 games - 3597 minutes
34 goals (0 penalties) and 13 assists (he scored 20+ league goals only once (21 goals in 95/96) after that season and never assisted more than 7....)
106 minutes per non penalty goal
77 minutes per non penalty goal involvement

Crazy season, but.....

Haaland so far this season in the PL:
31 games - 2502 minutes
35 goals (7 penalties) and 7 assists
89 minutes per non penalty goal
71 minutes per non penalty goal involvement.

He has 5 games left of the season. Is still in the CL (scored 12 in 577 minutes and is topscorer) and is ready for the FA cup final. That is crazy stuff.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

19 penalties mate. Penalties in a row.

Oh. He was an incredible penalty taker, for sure! And he seemed to pick the same spot all the time. To the goalkeeper's right.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

That 93/94 season was crazy, even though it was a 42 game season.
Cole played 40 games - 3597 minutes
34 goals (0 penalties) and 13 assists (he scored 20+ league goals only once (21 goals in 95/96) after that season and never assisted more than 7....)
106 minutes per non penalty goal
77 minutes per non penalty goal involvement

Crazy season, but.....

Haaland so far this season in the PL:
31 games - 2502 minutes
35 goals (7 penalties) and 7 assists
89 minutes per non penalty goal
71 minutes per non penalty goal involvement.

He has 5 games left of the season. Is still in the CL (scored 12 in 577 minutes and is topscorer) and is ready for the FA cup final. That is crazy stuff.

As impressive as Haaland is, getting 47 non-penalty goal contributions in the mid-90s is just insane. I remember the slightly frustrating Cole that played with us in the late 90s, but he was nowhere near as prolific at that point.

 

[Righteous Steps]

But like in the 5 seasons RVN was here, he scored 95 league goals and Henry scored 130 over those 5 seasons. I think RVN outscored Henry once by one goal, haaland is being subbed off early in enough games that had he played a full 90 in his games and kept the same ratio he'd be at about 40 league goals just now.

You're not comparing him against other players who he's slightly outworking and they're massively better than him in other areas, he's way clear of everyone else.

And he keeps this rate up in the champions league,even playing for weaker clubs than City. I'm not saying goalscoring is all that matters, but to be as far ahead of everyone else as haaland is means you'd really have to be absolutely miles ahead in every other metric to be better.

You're right but the other examples still apply, RVN and Henry may be not, but the Daglish Rush or Zola, Hasselbaink examples still hold true, two of these players were outscoring their counterparts at almost the same level(Rush Hasselbaink) but the other two are held in higher regard for being more well rounded fooballers.

I thin Haaland is probably the 2nd best footballer around, but i wold still have Mbappe higher than him , may be not this season but overall.

 

[Righteous Steps]

As impressive as Haaland is, getting 47 non-penalty goal contributions in the mid-90s is just insane. I remember the slightly frustrating Cole that played with us in the late 90s, but he was nowhere near as prolific at that point.

Cole is underrated.

 

[jm99]

You're right but the other examples still apply, RVN and Henry may be not, but the Daglish Rush or Zola, Hasselbaink examples still hold true, two of these players were outscoring their counterparts at almost the same level(Rush Hasselbaink) but the other two are held in higher regard for being more well rounded fooballers.

I thin Haaland is probably the 2nd best footballer around, but i wold still have Mbappe higher than him , may be not this season but overall.

I get what you're saying, that goalscoring isn't everything. But when you're scoring at the rate haaland is, for another attacker to be better and only scoring at half that rate, they'd have to be miles ahead in every other category. While mbappe is better than haaland in other areas, I don't think it's by enough to make him a better player when the scoring gap is as wide as it has been this season

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

I get your point and somewhat agree but Ibra is very different to Haaland although they share the same trait of unusual strength, Haaland is more comparable to RVN, did he wow you more than Cantona or RVP?

Like but not quite the same, Haaland is like RVN with Henry pace. That pace gives him a sense of devastation to go with the finishing that RVN never had. RVN never scored the sort of goal where Haaland bullied the defender earlier this season, outpacing an entire defence or the sort of high acrobatic kicks Haaland has scored, or had the same shot power. Haaland is easily more explosive and explosive is more exciting.

 

[groovyalbert]

As impressive as Haaland is, getting 47 non-penalty goal contributions in the mid-90s is just insane. I remember the slightly frustrating Cole that played with us in the late 90s, but he was nowhere near as prolific at that point.

Not to undermine the achievement, but I think it would be way harder to achieve those numbers today than in the mid-90s (with or without penalties - never understood why a non-penalty goal should be any less meaningful than another type of goal).

 

[jm99]

Like but not quite the same, Haaland is like RVN with Henry pace. That pace gives him a sense of devastation to go with the finishing that RVN never had. RVN never scored the sort of goal where Haaland bullied the defender earlier this season, outpacing an entire defence or the sort of high acrobatic kicks Haaland has scored, or had the same shot power. Haaland is easily more explosive and explosive is more exciting.

Yeah I see rvn as more in the poacher role, haalands pace has him more as just a number 9, his pace allows him to get on the end of through balls in a way that he doesn't have to be just a goal hanger

 

[troylocker]

I get your point and somewhat agree but Ibra is very different to Haaland although they share the same trait of unusual strength, Haaland is more comparable to RVN, did he wow you more than Cantona or RVP?

Ruud was a goalscoring machine, but he's not like Ruud though, because his endproduct is on a totally different level:

RVN's best season in a top 5 league team - 02/03:
44 goals (11 penalties) and 7 assist in 52 games (4345 minutes)
99 minutes per goal
132 minutes per non penalty goal
85 minutes per goal involvement.

Haaland so far this season :
51 goals (8 penalties) and 8 assists in 45 games (3497 minutes)
68 minutes per goal
81 minutes per non penalty goal
59 minutes per goal involvement

Totally different beast!

As impressive as Haaland is, getting 47 non-penalty goal contributions in the mid-90s is just insane. I remember the slightly frustrating Cole that played with us in the late 90s, but he was nowhere near as prolific at that point.

It was extremely good and stands as the record 29 years later, but yet there were 2 guys on 32+ goals that season and another 2 on 25+ and none of them played for us who won the league. It was a crazy season for the goalscorers of the league. The season after, Shearer scored 34 and the next he scored 31.....
Haaland has so far this season played 1095 minutes less in the PL than Cole did that season. So these 42 games season totals isn't really comparable to 38 games seasons that's not even finished yet. I don't think Haaland will make it to 47 non penalty goal contributions this season though (He'll also end up on more than 600 minutes less played)

 

[Righteous Steps]

Like but not quite the same, Haaland is like RVN with Henry pace. That pace gives him a sense of devastation to go with the finishing that RVN never had. RVN never scored the sort of goal where Haaland bullied the defender earlier this season, outpacing an entire defence or the sort of high acrobatic kicks Haaland has scored, or had the same shot power. Haaland is easily more explosive and explosive is more exciting.

I agree.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Ruud was a goalscoring machine, but he's not like Ruud though, because his endproduct is on a totally different level:

RVN's best season in a top 5 league team - 02/03:
44 goals (11 penalties) and 7 assist in 52 games (4345 minutes)
99 minutes per goal
132 minutes per non penalty goal
85 minutes per goal involvement.

Haaland so far this season :
51 goals (8 penalties) and 8 assists in 45 games (3497 minutes)
68 minutes per goal
81 minutes per non penalty goal
59 minutes per goal involvement

Totally different beast!


It was extremely good and stands as the record 29 years later, but yet there were 2 guys on 32+ goals that season and another 2 on 25+ and none of them played for us who won the league. It was a crazy season for the goalscorers of the league. The season after, Shearer scored 34 and the next he scored 31.....
Haaland has so far this season played 1095 minutes less in the PL than Cole did that season. So these 42 games season totals isn't really comparable to 38 games seasons that's not even finished yet. I don't think Haaland will make it to 47 non penalty goal contributions this season though (He'll also end up on more than 600 minutes less played)

I was replying to the poster in terms of styles, the poster used Ibra as an example, i said he isn't like Ibra who's technical ability and flair was comparable with a handful of players in the world at the time, hence he is more comparable to RVN stylistically with extraordinary physical attributes.

 

[Righteous Steps]

Yeah I see rvn as more in the poacher role, haalands pace has him more as just a number 9, his pace allows him to get on the end of through balls in a way that he doesn't have to be just a goal hanger

Pace was traditionally what made a great poacher though, Linekar, Greaves, Rush who are looked as the archetypal poachers were some of the fastest forwards around at the time, even Inzaghi was no slouch.

 

[Righteous Steps]

I get what you're saying, that goalscoring isn't everything. But when you're scoring at the rate haaland is, for another attacker to be better and only scoring at half that rate, they'd have to be miles ahead in every other category. While mbappe is better than haaland in other areas, I don't think it's by enough to make him a better player when the scoring gap is as wide as it has been this season

Mbappe scored 28 goals while making 17 assists in 35 games in the league last season, even production wise, the gap is not that big. Mbappe is much better at everything else.

 

[jm99]

Pace was traditionally what made a great poacher though, Linekar, Greaves, Rush who are looked as the archetypal poachers were some of the fastest forwards around at the time, even Inzaghi was no slouch.

I feel that's changed in a bit in modern times, and poacher changed to mean a goalhanger, someone who got goals through good positioning and often good in the air

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Oh. He was an incredible penalty taker, for sure! And he seemed to pick the same spot all the time. To the goalkeeper's right.

Was how I practiced my penalties, because of him.

 

[Righteous Steps]

I feel that's changed in a bit in modern times, and poacher changed to mean a goalhanger, someone who got goals through good positioning and often good in the air

There is hardly any poachers in the modern game because most teams play with a 4-3-3, having a poacher is related to the times when 4-4-2 was in vogue.

Haaland is very much the definition of what the word used to mean, if you compare him to the names i said, as opposed to the more complete forwards like Van Basten, Weah, Henry, Cantona Ibrahimovic etc. He will just go down as the greatest goalscorer and poacher of all time.

 

[Stack]

Pace and strength are not his greatest attributes. His greatest attribute is his complete awareness of whats going on around him and his awareness at full pace which is an astonishing thing to be able to do. How does he do it? Watch him closely when he plays, he is constantly looking around, he does this more than every other player around him and he does it whilst going full speed. Also how he makes use of that constant looking around is brilliant.
I think some people are downplaying his technical abilities too, he is a big man and to do what he does at that pace takes some really great ball control.
Amazing player.

 

[balaks]

There is hardly any poachers in the modern game because most teams play with a 4-3-3, having a poacher is related to the times when 4-4-2 was in vogue.

Haaland is very much the definition of what the word used to mean, if you compare him to the names i said, as opposed to the more complete forwards like Van Basten, Weah, Henry, Cantona Ibrahimovic etc. He will just go down as the greatest goalscorer and poacher of all time.

He will if he stays fit.