Nordic Ghost Yeti (Scandi Carroll) | Haaland at City

[onetwo3oclock4oclockrock]

I chose those examples at random, but he has goals against Luxembourg, Latvia, Armenia, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. R9 wouldn't have played against teams anywhere near that shit .

R9 scored against teams like Latvia, Lithuania, China, Malaysia, Iceland, in pointless friendlys. 23 of his international goals are from friendlys.
Keep in mind that beeing supported by the greatest international team in the world, makes your job of scoring goals a lot easier than having to score for the always dreadful norwegian national team.

(as troylocker also just wrote..

 

[Fabio Rochemback]

How does that work then? A contemporary player by definition can't outperform someone who played 30 years ago? Weren't there teams like Latvia and Luxembourg in the nineties? Do you have some sort of data showing that a lot more goals are being scored per game now than used to be the case? You can't compare the national team scoring record of European players to that of South Americans, because UEFA contains a lot of shit teams? Do you have anything to substantiate there being "a lot less pointless international games in his day"? Because actually not much less than half of Ronaldo's appearances for Brazil was in friendlies (46 out of 98). Whereas only 4 of Haaland's 21 caps were non-competitive.

These assumptions of "everything was different then so can't be compared" are really just too cheap, too much of a cop-out. I'm not saying there's no point there at all, but you can't just wave away a measurable comparison because you can think of a few things that were different. There's always things that are different when you're comparing across eras. And you certainly can't go from there to making assumptions about things that are actually factual but which you haven't backed up (volume of scoring in international games then and now, more non-competitive games than before).

Seeing as you asked so nicely, I will do my best to give something substanstive.

Go on wikipedia and look at the international goals sections of both of them, there's a clear difference in quality. There certainly were teams like Latvia and Luxembourg in the 90s, but R9 didn't play against them. Haaland has 20 international goals, and by far the best team he has scored against is the Netherlands. He also has goals against Sweden and Austria, the other teams are all at least a fair bit weaker than that. Of Ronaldo's first 20 international goals, he scored against England, Uruguay, Russia, Poland, Chile, Italy and South Korea (South Korea were probably a fair bit worse than they are now, I guess). A lot were in friendlies but it's still a lot harder to score in a game like that than in "competitive" games against literal semi-pros.

@troylocker Of course, R9 played in a much better team than Haaland does. I never argued anything to the contrary . I think Haaland is phenomenal and has all the tools to go on to be considered one of the best players ever.

 

[Gehrman]

Not to quibble here, but wouldn't that distinction belong to the great generation of a decade before? Elkjær, Laudrup and that lot?

1986 was probably stronger with Elkjær and a young Michael Laudrup in his young years, but 1998 still had a strong spine in mostly the old greats giving their all in the wc. Both Laudrup brothers and big Pete. Denmark has a tendency to perform above expectations considering how tiny a country we are. But that QF match imo is one the best international matches of all time.

 

[AjaxCunian]

Haaland might not be as gifted or aesthetically pleasing for whatever that's worth, but pretty sure he'll end up as the better/greater striker compared to R9.

Sure he has nowhere near the skills, technique, but who cares. He scores at an insane rate, wherever he plays. Dortmund are dreadful, but it didnt matter for him.

 

[Gehrman]

Haaland might not be as gifted or aesthetically pleasing for whatever that's worth, but pretty sure he'll end up as the better/greater striker compared to R9.

Sure he has nowhere near the skills, technique, but who cares. He scores at an insane rate, wherever he plays. Dortmund are dreadful, but it didnt matter for him.

Barring injuries I can't see what will stop him.

 

[troylocker]

Seeing as you asked so nicely, I will do my best to give something substanstive.

Go on wikipedia and look at the international goals sections of both of them, there's a clear difference in quality. There certainly were teams like Latvia and Luxembourg in the 90s, but R9 didn't play against them. Haaland has 20 international goals, and by far the best team he has scored against is the Netherlands. He also has goals against Sweden and Austria, the other teams are all at least a fair bit weaker than that. Of Ronaldo's first 20 international goals, he scored against England, Uruguay, Russia, Poland, Chile, Italy and South Korea (South Korea were probably a fair bit worse than they are now, I guess). A lot were in friendlies but it's still a lot harder to score in a game like that than in "competitive" games against literal semi-pros.

@troylocker Of course, R9 played in a much better team than Haaland does. I never argued anything to the contrary . I think Haaland is phenomenal and has all the tools to go on to be considered one of the best players ever.

Ronaldo had played 38 matches (24 friendlies) for Brazil prior to the 1998 world cup when he was Haalands age (Brazil was ranked #1 this entire period).
They won 31, drew 5 and lost 2. (goal difference 103-28)
He scored 25 goals and assisted 7 total. (he scored 24% and contributed to 31% of their goals)
19 of those games were against top 30 nations (1996 ranking)
In those 19 games he scored 6 and assisted 4 (!)
That means, the rest of his first goals (19) were scored in the 19 matches he played against nations ranked outside top 30.....

Of the teams you mentioned that Ronaldo scored against only England, Russia, Chile and Italy were top 30 nations back then.

In Haalands first 21 games (4 friendlies) for Norway:
They won 14, drew 3 and lost 4 (goaldifference 46/16)

He scored 20 goals and assisted 3 total (he scored 43% and contributed to 50% of their goals)
Haaland against top 30 nations (Netherlands, Serbia and Sweden): 6 goals and 1 assist in 6 games, playing for a team ranked between #40 and #50 when those matches were played......

You can try to bend it all you want, but Ronaldos working conditions were if anything a lot better than Haaland's for Norway. Haalands NT-numbers are quite unique for a player his age.
I rest my case here.

 

[justsomebloke]

Seeing as you asked so nicely, I will do my best to give something substanstive.

Go on wikipedia and look at the international goals sections of both of them, there's a clear difference in quality. There certainly were teams like Latvia and Luxembourg in the 90s, but R9 didn't play against them. Haaland has 20 international goals, and by far the best team he has scored against is the Netherlands. He also has goals against Sweden and Austria, the other teams are all at least a fair bit weaker than that. Of Ronaldo's first 20 international goals, he scored against England, Uruguay, Russia, Poland, Chile, Italy and South Korea (South Korea were probably a fair bit worse than they are now, I guess). A lot were in friendlies but it's still a lot harder to score in a game like that than in "competitive" games against literal semi-pros.

@troylocker Of course, R9 played in a much better team than Haaland does. I never argued anything to the contrary . I think Haaland is phenomenal and has all the tools to go on to be considered one of the best players ever.

Okay. Netherlands, Sweden and Austria it is. In those 5 games (in one of whom he got only 15 minutes as a sub), all of them competitive games, he scored 6 goals. That leaves 14 goals in 16 games against weaker opponents. So, did R9 score more than a goal per game against that calibre of opposition? And did he average nearly a goal per game against lesser opponents? And is there a reason to think the calibre of opposition is a significant factor in Haaland's superior output, given that he scored more frequently against the best opponents than he did against the lesser ones?

So, I think the point stands here: If you're going to do something as fraught as qualifying goal scoring by relating it to the quality of the opposition, you have to do something better than vaguely generalise on the basis of flimsy assumptions.

My point is not that the goal record shows Haaland is a better player, by the way. And CR9 was a truly great player. But what Haaland's done so far is also extraordinary, and can't be dismissed so lightly.

 

[The Firestarter]

1986 was probably stronger with Elkjær and a young Michael Laudrup in his young years, but 1998 still had a strong spine in mostly the old greats giving their all in the wc. Both Laudrup brothers and big Pete. Denmark has a tendency to perform above expectations considering how tiny a country we are. But that QF match imo is one the best international matches of all time.

That match was a spectacle similar to Brasil - Holland from 94.

 

[FattyFooty]

Ronaldo had played 38 matches (24 friendlies) for Brazil prior to the 1998 world cup when he was Haalands age (Brazil was ranked #1 this entire period).
They won 31, drew 5 and lost 2. (goal difference 103-28)
He scored 25 goals and assisted 7 total. (he scored 24% and contributed to 31% of their goals)
19 of those games were against top 30 nations (1996 ranking)
In those 19 games he scored 6 and assisted 4 (!)
That means, the rest of his first goals (19) were scored in the 19 matches he played against nations ranked outside top 30.....

Of the teams you mentioned that Ronaldo scored against only England, Russia, Chile and Italy were top 30 nations back then.

In Haalands first 21 games (4 friendlies) for Norway:
They won 14, drew 3 and lost 4 (goaldifference 46/16)

He scored 20 goals and assisted 3 total (he scored 43% and contributed to 50% of their goals)
Haaland against top 30 nations (Netherlands, Serbia and Sweden): 6 goals and 1 assist in 6 games, playing for a team ranked between #40 and #50 when those matches were played......

You can try to bend it all you want, but Ronaldos working conditions were if anything a lot better than Haaland's for Norway. Haalands NT-numbers are quite unique for a player his age.
I rest my case here.

Shit.

That is a good/interesting read.

But i said it before, Haaland is underrated.

 

[Red Pumpkin]

He is selfish when it comes to passing to Messi and Neymar. He absolutely wants to be the star of the team. He scores because that is what he plays to do, kinda like Cristiano Ronaldo at Madrid where the aim was to not only be the star of the team but to try and eclipse Messi. And what better way than to outscore him? After all, goals grab headlines.
I think you should write about 20 to 22 years because Ronaldo joined Barca at age almost 20 years.

Messi's allround play at 19 to 22 was better than L.Ronaldo's and easily better than Mbappe's. He was a better dribbler (actually extraordinary) and playmaker at 19 than both. All he lacked at ages 19 and 20 years was the goal output of L.Ronaldo mainly because of his position as a winger/playmaker as compared to Ronaldo's no 9 position and recurrent lengthy injuries (when match fit he would go on scoring runs). In addition that Barca team was in disarray. People tend to forget Messi’s injury problems early in his career.

By age 21 his goal output was as good as Ronaldo's despite his position on the pitch because he had an injury free season and the team around him was better.

By age 22 he was already on a different level to anyone else.

But yea, Haaland is essentially a pure goalscorer whose allround play is far Inferior to that of L. Ronaldo. That is unquestionable.

Of course Mbappe wants to be the star. It's his time (and Haalands) because Neymar due to injuries and some indiscipline failed to take the undisputed #1 spot post Ronaldo and Messi. I don't know how 26 assists from Mbappe could be called selfish though. That's an obscene amount of assists for a center forward.

Mbappe is way better than Messi and have been better for years now, probably since the WC 2018. I acknowledge Messi as the best I've ever seen together with Ronaldo (albeit very different players) but he has been on a downward slope for a long time no matter what the corrupt Ballon d'or jury claim. Those Ballon d'ors in 2019 and 2021 are just to elevate his status so he could equal Pelés 7 retroactive golden balls. Messi wasn't the same the last years in Barcelona although he put up very good numbers.

 

[OrcaFat]

He has 9 goals in his first 5 matches, which is the most anyone has scored in their first 5 matches in the Premier League. Given that he's almost at double digits after 5 matches, he must be a real threat to shatter the all time Premier League record for most goals in a season (34, by Shearer and Cole/ 32 by Salah in the the 38 match format).

Here are the strikers with the top 10 goals per game averages in the Premier League era:

1. Thierry Henry – 0.68 goals-per-game
2. Sergio Aguero – 0.67 goals-per-game
3. Harry Kane – 0.65 goals-per-game
4. Mohamed Salah – 0.64 goals-per-game
5. Ruud van Nistelrooy – 0.63 goals-per-game
6. Luis Suarez – 0.63 goals-per-game
7. Diego Costa – 0.58 goals-per-game
8. Pierre Emerick-Aubameyang – 0.53 goals-per-game
9. Robin van Persie – 0.51 goals-per-game

The likes of Ronaldo and Demba Ba are at 0.44 goals/game, for comparison. I don't think 0.7 goals/game is unattainable for someone this good. He has a good chance to break the all time Premier League mark for most goals, and to set the record for the highest goals per game average in the Premier League era.

Ronaldo and Demba Ba went on to greater things though. Between them they got 5 champions league wins and 5 ballon d’ors.

 

[Sayros]

Players are rated for different things. R9's prime was cut short before he barely got started. Even after that he won a world cup and is one of the WC topscorers. I agree that his overall european pedigree is lackluster, but anyone who watched him at his very best understand why he's rated so highly. He's a bit of another case of what could have been. In terms of natural talent he was imo right up there with Pelé, Messi and Maradonna. It's just that he got hit hard before he even hit a strikers prime. Doesn't mean he was faultless.

It's purely a 'you had to see him to understand it', and also understanding that football was in a different era then. So comparing CL records, and even goals/assists are kind of pointless, because the game was very different to how it is played now, and there was far more of a balance of power compared to the huge disparity we see more and more of. The thing about R9 when he was in his prime is that he didn't need service, if the team couldn't get him the ball, he'd just make his own way to the goal and score. Messi showed some of that as well.

Haaland's a freak of nature in his own right, and he's about as perfect as you can get for your target man. It's not as sexy of a style, and it gets stereotyped as if you're lacking in skills, but he's shown to have a good vision, he can play one-twos, he can put a man through, and he brings so much attention that even without touching the ball, he is constantly opening up space for a team that's been drilled to perfection to operate into space without even having a #9 like him before. To stop him, you basically have to stop City having the ball (good luck!), and even if you manage to neutralize him, he's going to be making so many runs, constantly be looking for loose ball, and open up a ton of space for others to kill off the game. It's beautiful to watch this team right now, and they're nowhere near close to having figured out all the ways they can hurt other teams with Haaland yet.

 

[General_Elegancia]

I don't think it's a suitable time to compare Haaland and Ronaldo R9. Since I think Haaland could develop in a lot of departments on his games like heading abilities ( both controlling and scoring). From what I noticed, I've seen him improve in aerial scoring day by day. His link-up play isn't mediocre due to his frame and physicality that can outmuscle opponents with his brute force or strength but he can improve a lot in terms of pure-technique, ball control, and probably passing skills in both short and long passing ( he can develop in this department). Under Guardiola's approach, I suspect that he will fully develop short-passing skills, linking-up play, or even creativity and decision-making. He can also develop his calmness in front of goal, which he shows me, he gets better and better every day compared to his days in Dortmund or Salzburg, in which he seemed sometimes too hurried and missed some easy chances. I feel like in the future, his techniques will be developed a lot by his coaching staff. Maybe in his close control ability too, his ball carrying ability is more effective in open space and I'm confident he will be more effective in tight space for sure, since it's one of the most important parts of Guardiola's system, despite Guardiola changes something about his tactics for suit him best.


He has the potential to be one of the best strikers of all time and it's up to him what he will add or improve his game to be better and better. He will be one of the brightest stars of the 2020s if he doesn't have any hard injuries. His work ethic and attitude are also extraordinary and that can make him better and better.

 

[General_Elegancia]

Great video. I recommend everyone to watch this clip.

 

[mshnsh]

But Muller does consistently show up on these lists… just because Ronaldo9, Zidane, Messi and Ronaldo may have pushed out of the top 10 for some doesn’t change that he’s always around the discussion to the degree.

It’s exceptionally circumstantial that he played at the same time as Germany other regular ‘best ever’ player.

It's like you are his lawyer. You must be either Norwegian or support City.

Anyway, players like Haaland will always divide opinion. Their output interms of goals is huge yet their approach play is really limited. In a way he is similar to Cristiano at Real Madrid although the later had better allround play than Haaland does.

The goals will get him headlines and even ballond'ors but there will also be a good number who will criticise the rest of his game and how those he scores his goals.

Who is better, prime Thierry Henry or prime Shearer?

Of course Mbappe wants to be the star. It's his time (and Haalands) because Neymar due to injuries and some indiscipline failed to take the undisputed #1 spot post Ronaldo and Messi. I don't know how 26 assists from Mbappe could be called selfish though. That's an obscene amount of assists for a center forward.

Mbappe is way better than Messi and have been better for years now, probably since the WC 2018. I acknowledge Messi as the best I've ever seen together with Ronaldo (albeit very different players) but he has been on a downward slope for a long time no matter what the corrupt Ballon d'or jury claim. Those Ballon d'ors in 2019 and 2021 are just to elevate his status so he could equal Pelés 7 retroactive golden balls. Messi wasn't the same the last years in Barcelona although he put up very good numbers.

Messi was definitely way better in 2018/19 and the first half of 2019/20.

Mbappe was better in the second half of 2019/20.

In season 2020/21 Mbappe was better (but i wouldn't say way better, Messi’s only poor game in the 2nd half of 2020/21 was vs psg at home when Mbappe scored a hattrick otherwise since Jan 2021, his performances were ballond'or worthy).

Last season, Mbappe was way better. I agree totally.

This season, Mbappe hasn't been good at all regardless of the numbers.Messi has been very good (only Neymar has been better at PSG).

When I talk selfishness from Mbappe, it is selective selfishness this season. I watched the game vs Monaco and he was simply refusing to pass the ball to Messi for a number of clear scoring opportunities; instead opting to shoot or do step overs.

And with regards to the ballond'or, 2019 was well deserved. He was the bpitw that year You can debate about 2021 but truth is there was no stand out candidate and Messi won the ballon d'or based on his copa America win, although his second half of the season with Barca was very very good aside from the home game vs PSG and vs Real Madrid. People went on and on about Lewandowski deserving it but scoring shitload for Bayern in the bundesliga shouldn't give you a ballond'or as shouldn't scoring or having a great domestic season with PSG. Both Bayern and PSG are far far superior to all other teams in their respective leagues.

The ballond'or is not corrupt because it is based on votes and not on a decision by any single person or jury. And the process is quite transparent since all the votes are revealed after the ceremony. To date no one has complained that their vote was changed. So there is no way Messi won his ballond'or to equal Pele or for reasons other than the voters thinking he deserved it.

 

[Fabio Rochemback]

@justsomebloke @troylocker
To be clear, I'm not in any way trying to downplay how good Haaland is. His goal to game ratio in the handful of matches he has played against decent-to-good opposition is great, no arguments. I just think it's a point worth making, if we're discussing international goals, that R9 didn't play against many teams ranked 120 who regularly get hammered 6-0.

Just an observation, really. I'm not saying that's as important a factor as playing for a much better team, and am certainly not saying Haaland is over-hyped.

 

[Reij]

It's incredible to me who people compare Halland with.

In the words of Platini telling Zidane about Maradona..

P: "Zizou, you were better than me, but.. you weren't better than Maradona."
"Why not?" ask Zizou.
P: "What you could do with a ball, Maradona could do it with an orange peel!"
Z: "An orange?"
P: "No, no, an orange peel!"

Even if you give Halland a lifetime, he could never do with a ball what Ronaldo and Messi, Maradona could do, because talent is innate, either you have it or you don't.

That's why people never considered CR7 in the goats debate above Messi.

That's why Federer is considered goat and not Djokovic or Nadal.

Talented people are very versatile, because of their wide range of abilities and bring a sort of beauty in their craft and people are drawn very easy to them.

Ronaldo was considered the next Pele and Messi the next Maradona when they were 18-19 years old, why is that?

Why wasn't CR7 considered in the goat debate until his mid 20's when he became a goals scoring machine and even more after he won all those UCL's?

Why is Ronaldinho and Ronaldo in the goats debate based on 2-4 seasons?

Even if Halland scores a thousand goals and wins 10 Ballon d'Or he'll be "just" another lesser version of CR7(Halland has lesser abilities that CR7 had) or an upgraded version of Zlatan, but people will still look for the next Maradona, the next Ronaldo or the next Messi.

 

[FrankFoot]

It's incredible to me who people compare Halland with.

In the words of Platini telling Zidane about Maradona..

P: "Zizou, you were better than me, but.. you weren't better than Maradona."
"Why not?" ask Zizou.
P: "What you could do with a ball, Maradona could do it with an orange peel!"
Z: "An orange?"
P: "No, no, an orange peel!"

Even if you give Halland a lifetime, he could never do with a ball what Ronaldo and Messi, Maradona could do, because talent is innate, either you have it or you don't.

That's why people never considered CR7 in the goats debate above Messi.

That's why Federer is considered goat and not Djokovic or Nadal.

Talented people are very versatile, because of their wide range of abilities and bring a sort of beauty in their craft and people are drawn very easy to them.

Ronaldo was considered the next Pele and Messi the next Maradona when they were 18-19 years old, why is that?

Why wasn't CR7 considered in the goat debate until his mid 20's when he became a goals scoring machine and even more after he won all those UCL's?

Why is Ronaldinho and Ronaldo in the goats debate based on 2-4 seasons?

Even if Halland scores a thousand goals and wins 10 Ballon d'Or he'll be "just" another lesser version of CR7(Halland has lesser abilities that CR7 had) or an upgraded version of Zlatan, but people will still look for the next Maradona, the next Ronaldo or the next Messi.

That quote is fake, it was Zidane who said that Maradona was better than him, not Platini, he did a reference that Maradona could do with an orange with he does with the ball.

Also these GOAT debates are useless, only Ronaldo and Pele openly care about being called GOAT.

I don't think Haaland give 3 ducks about being considered GOAT by social media nerds, as long as he wins money and trophies...like 99% of players out there.

 

[Reij]

That quote is fake, it was Zidane who said that Maradona was better than him, not Platini, he did a reference that Maradona could do with an orange with he does with the ball.

Also these GOAT debates are useless, only Ronaldo and Pele openly care about being called GOAT.

I don't think Haaland give 3 ducks about being considered GOAT by social media nerds, as long as he wins money and trophies...like 99% of players out there.

Heard the quote from a Romanian journalist speaking in jest around 1-2 years ago and it sounded amusing so I didn't change it.

The goat debates aren't entirely useless when new players appear to contend for the position as it provides a point of reference for all football industry. What's useless are the never ending comparison between players.

As for Halland not caring about unrelated nobodies, yes, but him not caring about at all, I doubt it. Winners always want to prove themselves and be as best they can be.

 

[Zen]

It's like you are his lawyer. You must be either Norwegian or support City.

Anyway, players like Haaland will always divide opinion. Their output interms of goals is huge yet their approach play is really limited. In a way he is similar to Cristiano at Real Madrid although the later had better allround play than Haaland does.

The goals will get him headlines and even ballond'ors but there will also be a good number who will criticise the rest of his game and how those he scores his goals.

Who is better, prime Thierry Henry or prime Shearer?

Why am his lawyer? Given I’m not actually defending him, or claiming him to be superior to Ronaldo…. I’m merely stating WHY the comparison is happening. You’re the one(along with others) are creating issues that aren’t actually there while deflecting good rebuttals by ignoring them mostly…. so whos the lawyer?

Henry, but it’s exceptionally marginal…. just like I’d take Ronaldo over Haaland which is absurdly what you are trying to get at, but I’ve already stated this multiple times, has absolutely nothing to do with anything… they are being compared because, once again, their unique ultra elite scoring numbers at such a young age.

 

[The Urban Goose]

Crazy how overrated R9 is.
14 CL goals for his career? CR7 and Messi scored 14 goals in one CL campaign only a few years after R9 retired..

That's far too simplistic. Look how the game has changed over the years, particularly how the physicality of defending has been reduced. There is no way Ronaldo or Messi would be putting up those figures in 1990s Serie A or Champions Leagues.

Case in point - look at Maradona's stats. He must have been shit in retrospect.

 

[phelans shorts]

Crazy how overrated R9 is.
14 CL goals for his career? CR7 and Messi scored 14 goals in one CL campaign only a few years after R9 retired..

I don’t think I’ve added anyone to my “don’t take this person seriously” list faster in my life

 

[SilentWitness]

It doesn’t really matter who you are scoring against if you are scoring pretty much every game. If you’re scoring against weak teams and you’re not scoring pretty much every game there is a debate to be had but Haaland scores more often than he doesn’t and he does it in every league, every competition. Doesn’t matter.

 

[Bebestation]

It's incredible to me who people compare Halland with.

In the words of Platini telling Zidane about Maradona..

P: "Zizou, you were better than me, but.. you weren't better than Maradona."
"Why not?" ask Zizou.
P: "What you could do with a ball, Maradona could do it with an orange peel!"
Z: "An orange?"
P: "No, no, an orange peel!"

Even if you give Halland a lifetime, he could never do with a ball what Ronaldo and Messi, Maradona could do, because talent is innate, either you have it or you don't.

That's why people never considered CR7 in the goats debate above Messi.

That's why Federer is considered goat and not Djokovic or Nadal.

Talented people are very versatile, because of their wide range of abilities and bring a sort of beauty in their craft and people are drawn very easy to them.

Ronaldo was considered the next Pele and Messi the next Maradona when they were 18-19 years old, why is that?

Why wasn't CR7 considered in the goat debate until his mid 20's when he became a goals scoring machine and even more after he won all those UCL's?

Why is Ronaldinho and Ronaldo in the goats debate based on 2-4 seasons?

Even if Halland scores a thousand goals and wins 10 Ballon d'Or he'll be "just" another lesser version of CR7(Halland has lesser abilities that CR7 had) or an upgraded version of Zlatan, but people will still look for the next Maradona, the next Ronaldo or the next Messi.

Nah. There is just a fan base that relies on technical ability only to judge their player.

That’s why Messi is viewed the highest because to them football is just a technicality or even a physicality than a mentality.

Also there is leagues where football can be played by an orange peel - more so La Liga than the Ligue 1 for example.

 

[Reij]

Nah. There is just a fan base that relies on technical ability only to judge their player.

That’s why Messi is viewed the highest because to them football is just a technicality or even a physicality than a mentality.

??
The best players aren't considered by their technique only, but all abilities.. predominantly what can someone do with the ball and putting them to practice against adversaries, dominate and impose themselves on the game and win throphies, if not we would be talking about Quaresma, Robinho or Riquelme among the best players ever.

 

[justsomebloke]

@justsomebloke @troylocker
To be clear, I'm not in any way trying to downplay how good Haaland is. His goal to game ratio in the handful of matches he has played against decent-to-good opposition is great, no arguments. I just think it's a point worth making, if we're discussing international goals, that R9 didn't play against many teams ranked 120 who regularly get hammered 6-0.

Just an observation, really. I'm not saying that's as important a factor as playing for a much better team, and am certainly not saying Haaland is over-hyped.

Yes, I understand that, but my point is that your observation is not in fact accurate, or meaningful. But we've probably all said what we have to say on that issue. Thanks for the debate!

 

[Fabio Rochemback]

Yes, I understand that, but my point is that your observation is not in fact accurate, or meaningful. But we've probably all said what we have to say on that issue. Thanks for the debate!

You're probably right bud, thanks for being a good sport

 

[ThierryHenry14]

Even if Halland scores a thousand goals and wins 10 Ballon d'Or he'll be "just" another lesser version of CR7(Halland has lesser abilities that CR7 had) or an upgraded version of Zlatan, but people will still look for the next Maradona, the next Ronaldo or the next Messi.

I agreed with what you said, but in terms of technique Zlatan is miles ahead of Haaland, but he never has that kind of pace.
Haaland is a goal scoring machine.

 

[Zehner]

Of course Mbappe wants to be the star. It's his time (and Haalands) because Neymar due to injuries and some indiscipline failed to take the undisputed #1 spot post Ronaldo and Messi. I don't know how 26 assists from Mbappe could be called selfish though. That's an obscene amount of assists for a center forward.

Mbappe is way better than Messi and have been better for years now, probably since the WC 2018. I acknowledge Messi as the best I've ever seen together with Ronaldo (albeit very different players) but he has been on a downward slope for a long time no matter what the corrupt Ballon d'or jury claim. Those Ballon d'ors in 2019 and 2021 are just to elevate his status so he could equal Pelés 7 retroactive golden balls. Messi wasn't the same the last years in Barcelona although he put up very good numbers.

Funny enough, whenever I see PSG play this season, Mbappe still looks like the lesser player. Football is more than just a stat sheet. A decisive play that happens in midfield isn't worth less than a decisive play in the box.

I miss the times when playmakers were widely considered the best players of their teams.

 

[Red Pumpkin]

Funny enough, whenever I see PSG play this season, Mbappe still looks like the lesser player. Football is more than just a stat sheet. A decisive play that happens in midfield isn't worth less than a decisive play in the box.

I miss the times when playmakers were widely considered the best players of their teams.

As a Bayern fan my favourite players of the 2000's are hardly the stat players. Ribérys stats were good but Robben, Sane, Gnabry, Coman might match him or even top him. To me he is the best out of the bunch though (well, extremely tight race with Robben) even if others may have better stats. Agree with you on that.

But for me Mbappe is a real monster. Speed, runs, opening up his body for a curled effort.

Aesthetically though i prefer Thiago Alcantara to him. Riquelme for me was a greater player to watch than de Bruyne even if KDB's stats probably shit on JRR.

It's like Ronaldo fenomeno and Ronaldinho - everybody prefers to watch Dinho but Ronaldo was an incredible weapon.

 

[Zehner]

As a Bayern fan my favourite players of the 2000's are hardly the stat players. Ribérys stats were good but Robben, Sane, Gnabry, Coman might match him or even top him. To me he is the best out of the bunch though (well, extremely tight race with Robben) even if others may have better stats. Agree with you on that.

But for me Mbappe is a real monster. Speed, runs, opening up his body for a curled effort.

Aesthetically though i prefer Thiago Alcantara to him. Riquelme for me was a greater player to watch than de Bruyne even if KDB's stats probably shit on JRR.

It's like Ronaldo fenomeno and Ronaldinho - everybody prefers to watch Dinho but Ronaldo was an incredible weapon.

Yeah but R9 wasn't far behind Ronaldinho in terms of technique and footwork. Mbappe is miles and miles behind Messi and Neymar in that regard. He's far more reliant on pace (relatively speaking) than R9. I think Mbappe and Haaland are quite similar, actually. Mbappe is a much better dribbler and has a better touch than him, obviously, but this part of his game is still very raw. Many strange decisions, sometimes a bad touch, etc.

While I believe that especially Haaland could outmatch Messi's goal record for instance, I don't think either of them are as talented as Neymar, let alone Messi. And I believe their contribution outside of goals is far greater than that of Mbappe and Haaland.

 

[Red Stone]

To anyone who thinks we even had a sniff at signing him, he's confirmed the clubs he was considering this summer on Norwegian TV. City, Bayern, Real Madrid, Liverpool, Barca, Chelsea, in that order. We weren't even mentioned, and to be honest, that's 100% understandable. At this point the only thing thing we can offer that some of those clubs can't is money, and for a player that has the talent to be the biggest star in the game no amount of money is worth it if it means sacrificing trophies, status and individual awards. Not that he's losing out financially playing for Abu Dhabi blood money...

That's the reality of the last nine years of near constant floundering and fecking up. We're no longer an option for the very top echelon of talents, or anyone that wants to play Champions League football every season guaranteed. If the next Messi or Ronaldo came along tomorrow there's zero chance of us signing him in our current state.

 

[cyberman]

To anyone who thinks we even had a sniff at signing him, he's confirmed the clubs he was considering this summer on Norwegian TV. City, Bayern, Real Madrid, Liverpool, Barca, Chelsea, in that order. We weren't even mentioned, and to be honest, that's 100% understandable. At this point the only thing thing we can offer that some of those clubs can't is money, and for a player that has the talent to be the biggest star in the game no amount of money is worth it if it means sacrificing trophies, status and individual awards. Not that he's losing out financially playing for Abu Dhabi blood money...

That's the reality of the last nine years of near constant floundering and fecking up. We're no longer an option for the very top echelon of talents, or anyone that wants to play Champions League football every season guaranteed. If the next Messi or Ronaldo came along tomorrow there's zero chance of us signing him in our current state.

Pretty sure that’s ranked on who would be more willing to give him a buy out clause in two years

 

[NewUser777]

I think the fact that so many argue him against the best players the world has seen, show how much potential he has.

I don’t think there have ever been a goal scorer of his format at his age. Where it will end, no one knows.

He has a long way to go, and time will tell. What goes in his favour, is that he has the same mentality. Work hard, and time will tell.

 

[stefan92]

To anyone who thinks we even had a sniff at signing him, he's confirmed the clubs he was considering this summer on Norwegian TV. City, Bayern, Real Madrid, Liverpool, Barca, Chelsea, in that order. We weren't even mentioned, and to be honest, that's 100% understandable. At this point the only thing thing we can offer that some of those clubs can't is money, and for a player that has the talent to be the biggest star in the game no amount of money is worth it if it means sacrificing trophies, status and individual awards. Not that he's losing out financially playing for Abu Dhabi blood money...

That's the reality of the last nine years of near constant floundering and fecking up. We're no longer an option for the very top echelon of talents, or anyone that wants to play Champions League football every season guaranteed. If the next Messi or Ronaldo came along tomorrow there's zero chance of us signing him in our current state.

If United had been more convincing he would have moved to United instead of Dortmund. United might not get proven top talents at the moment, but might still have a good chance to sign exciting youngsters that have to prove that level first. But United needs to sort out their board for this to work.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

I think the fact that so many argue him against the best players the world has seen, show how much potential he has.

I don’t think there have ever been a goal scorer of his format at his age. Where it will end, no one knows.

He has a long way to go, and time will tell. What goes in his favour, is that he has the same mentality. Work hard, and time will tell.

I think there's something to the first point. If people's natural instinct is to adduce all time greats when attempting to argue that Haaland isn't all that, then that in itself shows his standing in football, and his potential.

I still don't like how easily everyone is protecting that he'd win balón dors and golden boots.

 

[NewUser777]

I think there's something to the first point. If people's natural instinct is to adduce all time greats when attempting to argue that Haaland isn't all that, then that in itself shows his standing in football, and his potential.

I still don't like how easily everyone is protecting that he'd win balón dors and golden boots.

Agree with that. He is a very exiting prospect to watch, and probably has more in his locker than he has showed so far. But has a long long way to go yet.

 

[Red Pumpkin]

Yeah but R9 wasn't far behind Ronaldinho in terms of technique and footwork. Mbappe is miles and miles behind Messi and Neymar in that regard. He's far more reliant on pace (relatively speaking) than R9. I think Mbappe and Haaland are quite similar, actually. Mbappe is a much better dribbler and has a better touch than him, obviously, but this part of his game is still very raw. Many strange decisions, sometimes a bad touch, etc.

While I believe that especially Haaland could outmatch Messi's goal record for instance, I don't think either of them are as talented as Neymar, let alone Messi. And I believe their contribution outside of goals is far greater than that of Mbappe and Haaland.

By talent on the ball I'd say Neymar > Messi > Mbappe > Haaland. The brazilian is unbelievable. Neymars creativity, trickery, technique, dribbling is superior to Messi in the traditional sense but Messis perfection when it comes to close touch where the ball is glued, body feints and shift of pace is unmatched and more devastating.

Anyhow it's not that Mbappe and Ronaldo can't/couldn't dribble very good but rather it makes much more sense for them to go straight for the pace option. The only reason anyone would dribble is because they can't just beat the opponent with pace. Ronaldo always had dribbling in his arsenal but in his younger years he often went straight for the "run right through" option unless the opponents sat so deep he would need to dribble. And then later when older he needed a bit more of dribbling and feinting when he lost some pace.

Mbappes dribbling is a bit raw as you say but I'd think if he lost his super power pace he would very soon become one of the absolute better dribblers on the planet. It's a bit unfair but he is just so talented. Same with Messi whose free kicks sucked but with talent and some dedication he became #1, such is Mbappes talent that if he lost pace and slowed down his dribbling a bit he could become one of the absolute best dribblers.

Regarding Haaland I do wonder if it's due to Zlatan and C. Ronaldo we haven't seen his dribbling potential. I believe he isn't creative enough for starters but most of all he has realized earlier than them two what a CF with his attributes should do - bully the opposition and score goals. It's similar to when Tyson Fury finally understood he is 270 pounds. In other words he should put less focus on technique and more on just bulldozing his opposition.

 

[Red the Bear]

By talent on the ball I'd say Neymar > Messi > Mbappe > Haaland. The brazilian is unbelievable. Neymars creativity, trickery, technique, dribbling is superior to Messi in the traditional sense but Messis perfection when it comes to close touch where the ball is glued, body feints and shift of pace is unmatched and more devastating.

Anyhow it's not that Mbappe and Ronaldo can't/couldn't dribble very good but rather it makes much more sense for them to go straight for the pace option. The only reason anyone would dribble is because they can't just beat the opponent with pace. Ronaldo always had dribbling in his arsenal but in his younger years he often went straight for the "run right through" option unless the opponents sat so deep he would need to dribble. And then later when older he needed a bit more of dribbling and feinting when he lost some pace.

Mbappes dribbling is a bit raw as you say but I'd think if he lost his super power pace he would very soon become one of the absolute better dribblers on the planet. It's a bit unfair but he is just so talented. Same with Messi whose free kicks sucked but with talent and some dedication he became #1, such is Mbappes talent that if he lost pace and slowed down his dribbling a bit he could become one of the absolute best dribblers.

Regarding Haaland I do wonder if it's due to Zlatan and C. Ronaldo we haven't seen his dribbling potential. I believe he isn't creative enough for starters but most of all he has realized earlier than them two what a CF with his attributes should do - bully the opposition and score goals. It's similar to when Tyson Fury finally understood he is 270 pounds. In other words he should put less focus on technique and more on just bulldozing his opposition.

Neymar is not above Messi, at least no way efficiency wise.

Flashier doesn't mean better.

 

[Red Pumpkin]

Neymar is not above Messi, at least no way efficiency wise.

Flashier doesn't mean better.

That's what I wrote. Messi is the epitome efficiency wise. An absolutely unique combo of low gravity, immaculate ball control, body feints and high velocity.
But overall Neymar is the much better technician because what Neymar does is all about technique and creativity.

Dunno if this makes sense. It's like Neymar being a better basketball player all around technically but Messi had perfected one aspect of technique - the 3-point shot - to never reached before or again heights.