[Rossa]

Oh God.

No. My argument is not based on stats. In fact, I hadn't even looked at either his season stats or yesterdays match report until we were quite far into this discussion. My argument is based on watching every United PL game attentively.

Yes, Højlund was vital to our win yesterday and performed very well indeed. Including his hold-up play. As I've already written several times, for all the good that seems to do.

Well, then you should also know that he hardly gets any service, and that he has made numerous runs but to no avail as we have wingers who don't fancy passing to their striker much. He also stretches the team. He is strong in the hold up play. His short passing is very simple, but still accurate enough.

How do you watch every match and not see that he works his socks off and often torments defenders and the goalie (could have had a couple of goals from goalie mistakes alone if a little more lucky); he is very strong with his back to defenders, and consider his young age and coming from a different league that is more impressive still. He is very fast. He is very strong and properly challenges inside and outside the box. He is technically sound, albeit not flashy or groundbreaking in any way. He is often available for a pass. He contributes a lot even if he is not that involved directly. Sometimes strikers need not be.

 

[SAFMUTD]

To be fair, Martial is very good at it also. We have to give that to him at least.

Can't do it since he's always injured apparently

 

[sugar_kane]

This kid has the lot - ability, aggression, personality, stamina, and he's only 20. Hopefully he can stay fit.

Keep seeing stuff about him proving the critics wrong etc, but to be honest no-one with a brain was criticising him - even the ABU pundits - because it was clear as day he was a quality player and just struggling/unlucky.

Shearer was gushing about him on MOTD last night which, whatever you think of the guy, is high praise from the greatest goalscorer the PL has ever seen. You could tell in the Sky Sports interview the pundits thought a lot of him too.

 

[justsomebloke]

Well, then you should also know that he hardly gets any service, and that he has made numerous runs but to no avail as we have wingers who don't fancy passing to their striker much. He also stretches the team. He is strong in the hold up play. His short passing is very simple, but still accurate enough.

How do you watch every match and not see that he works his socks off and often torments defenders and the goalie (could have had a couple of goals from goalie mistakes alone if a little more lucky); he is very strong with his back to defenders, and consider his young age and coming from a different league that is more impressive still. He is very fast. He is very strong and properly challenges inside and outside the box. He is technically sound, albeit not flashy or groundbreaking in any way. He is often available for a pass. He contributes a lot even if he is not that involved directly. Sometimes strikers need not be.

Yeah, all of those would be great points if I'd argued that he's a deficient or not very good player. Only I haven't.

 

[justsomebloke]

Very unusual take. If anything, I would argue Hojlund adds more value to the team than any other striker in the league if we ignore goal scoring. His goals are actually a nice bonus right now.

Hojlund’s hold up play is fantastic. Especially when under severe pressure from defenders climbing all over him. Not only is he able to hold them off, he is able to turn and then drive forward with the ball. His first time lay offs and flicks often lead to dangerous breaks for us. Not only can he lay it off, he has the pace and power to then join the attack and arrive in a dangerous area.

He also has excellent close control dribbling for a big striker. His ability to travel with the ball is as good as wingers. I’d even argue he can dribble better than some of our own wingers.

To add to that, the weight of his passing and through balls is nearly always on point. It’s not often you get a striker who is so comfortable making defensive line breaking passes consistently.

I honestly can’t see how there can be any suggestion that Hojlund offers nothing besides his goals.

There’s a reason why so many of us were positive about his value even when he failed to score in 19 games in a row. It was evident he was bringing so much to the team. Even more evident when he was missing away to Nottingham Forest and we had to resort to playing Rashford through the middle. We got outplayed by Forest and couldn’t string any sort of attacks together as the ball wasn’t sticking up front with Rashford.

I think you need to fact-check a good few of those assumptions mate.

And welcome to the switch-and-bait club (you know, the common human mechanism where when faced with a complex question that requires precision and serious thinking to answer we just replace it with a different one that can more easily be answered intuitively). Because I've never remotely argued that Højlund offers nothing besides goals. I've just argued that he doesn't offer so much besides goals that it'd justify calling him a success even if he didn't score.

 

[justsomebloke]

No, this is not a relevant answer. Relevant answer would be comparing him to other CFs. You can't compare a CF stats with CM, CB, FB, Winger for obvious reasons, especially the ones like progressive passes, passes into penalty areas and all that.

Only 3 Arsenal players have worse Progressive passes than G Jesus and around 6-7 ManUtd players with worse progressive passes than G.Jesus.

He is 12th for passes into penalty area

Almost Last in passes completed, even worse than Raya. Only Ramsdale and Eddie has worse passes completed than G Jesus

4th last for passes completed %

4th last for passes in final third

3rd last for touches per 90 mins

3rd last for carries per 90 mins

Around 5th or 6th last for carrying distance per 90 mins

3rd last for progressive distance

and in mid for most other stats.


That's why it's not relevant to compare your CFs to other positions. They usually have least touches and what they do is lot of off the ball stuff.

Okay. So how does it look if you compare G Jesus to R Højlund in those categories?

 

[roonster09]

Okay. So how does it look if you compare G Jesus to R Højlund in those categories?

That's for you and the other poster to do/compare . My point is, using these stats and comparing CF to other players is not relevant answer.

Without checking I will be very surprised if G.Jesus doesn't rank better than Hojlund is almost all stats.

 

[lex talionis]

Sometimes the ball just bounces your way, such the misplaced pass for his first goal and then the Garnacho shot for the second goal, but he made the most of the chances gifted to him, which we didn’t see earlier in the season. And his holdup play is excellent. There’s more to come, but we’re already seeing a little bit Ruud in Rasmus. How fantastic it would be if we could see a bit of Wayne in him as well.

 

[Real Name]

Wanted to read praise in here, yet there's a poster trying to prove Hojlund doesnt contribute to our hold up play.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Can't be bothered to look at the stats, but am enjoying his contributions. He's clearly not shit when watching him, his hold-up play is really good. Now he's scoring consistently, we've got a potentially fantastic player on our hands (finally).

Still early days, but I'm really glad he's a striker for Manchester United.

It's simple but this it feels fairly apparent wtih a lot of our signings that you can tell they're a bit shit after watching them for about 5/10 games.

Like you I thought it was fairly apparent he wasn't shit even when he wasn't scoring, so yeah, always had a feeling he'd come good.

 

[Rozay]

A contribution against Fulham to make sure and that’s surely the PL POTM sewn up.

 

[justsomebloke]

That's for you and the other poster to do/compare . My point is, using these stats and comparing CF to other players is not relevant answer.

Without checking I will be very surprised if G.Jesus doesn't rank better than Hojlund is almost all stats.

It is if the question is "which areas of the game are Højlund not making a big contribution"? I could have added goalie stats and that would still have been a relevant answer. That's because it's a really pointless question, exactly because much of what goes into answering it says nothing meaningful about Højlund. And I was dealing with the question as asked, not as what you think it ought to have been about.

I agree of course that if you're asking the entirely different question "how good a CF is Rasmus Højlund across the whole range of skills?", then the thing to do is to compare CFs.

 

[Todd]

It was a long time coming but the kid has finally come alive. Now he even has an outside chance of hitting 20 goals in all competitions, which would really be a fantastic first season.

Also, he seems like a good boy.

 

[roonster09]

It is if the question is "which areas of the game are Højlund not making a big contribution"? I could have added goalie stats and that would still have been a relevant answer. That's because it's a really pointless question, exactly because much of what goes into answering it says nothing meaningful about Højlund. And I was dealing with the question as asked, not as what you think it ought to have been about.

I agree of course that if you're asking the entirely different question "how good a CF is Rasmus Højlund across the whole range of skills?", then the thing to do is to compare CFs.

I thought the question was very obvious and it was from CF point of view, not Hojlund as CM, FB, CB.

Going by your "logical" answer, G.Jesus contributes feck all and I think same goes for any CF as they all have worse stats than their teammates because of position they play.

 

[justsomebloke]

His physical presence and holding the ball as he did in our first game where he should’ve had a penalty, his neat little lay offs (a couple with his heel) under massive pressure, his turning on defenders including when he left Van der Veen in the dust, his through passes for Rashford and especially Garnacho that should’ve given him a few more assists. Is that enough?

Nope. Physical presence is a quality, not an actual tangible contribution. Should've had a penalty against Arsenal maybe, but that's one single situation. He doesn't turn defenders that often, nor does he actually have a lot of through passes. Neat layoffs, sure, but again, how much does that happen? The volume of these things don't add up to the sort of player who makes a big contribution even if he doesn't score.

Actually I find this whole debate slightly absurd. It is AFAICS completely obvious that Højlund is the sort of striker who builds his game around goal-scoring. He's not like Gabriel Jesus, he's like Haaland, considered as a type. As such, you'd think it wouldn't be too surprising or controversial to argue that to be a success, he needs to score goals. But that's not enough for some around here, who seem to either need to think that's not being positive enough, or to read that as an underhand claim that he's not really a good player.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

What even are half these stats?

I refuse to take anyone seriously that thinks there’s value in citing tackles per 90 for a striker as a stat to show he doesn’t bring much.

And many of those stats are going to be poor if a player doesn’t see much of the ball. It’s not surprising he’s low for many of them as you aren’t going to accumulate much with only 20 touches a game in the type of role he has.

 

[justsomebloke]

I thought the question was very obvious and it was from CF point of view, not Hojlund as CM, FB, CB.

Going by your "logical" answer, G.Jesus contributes feck all and I think same goes for any CF as they all have worse stats than their teammates because of position they play.

As said. Stupid question. Let me know if you need me to clarify that stance further.

 

[justsomebloke]

I refuse to take anyone seriously that thinks there’s value in citing tackles per 90 for a striker as a stat to show he doesn’t bring much.

And many of those stats are going to be poor if a player doesn’t see much of the ball. It’s not surprising he’s low for many of them as you aren’t going to accumulate much with only 20 touches a game in the type of role he has.

Exactly. So if he's not doing that, what does he need to do instead, in order to add tangible value to his team's performance?

And if you bothered to read before posting, you'd know that's not what I'm doing.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Sack Højlund, he is only 19th in the team in clearances.

 

[justsomebloke]

Sack Højlund, he is only 19th in the team in clearances.

Don't be a fecking moron.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Wanted to read praise in here, yet there's a poster trying to prove Hojlund doesnt contribute to our hold up play.

So strange, it’s like he just wants to argue for the sake of it. Boredom I suppose.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Don't be a fecking moron.

Oh come on, it's just banter mate innit.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Oh come on, it's just banter mate innit.

Football, serious business

 

[roonster09]

As said. Stupid question. Let me know if you need me to clarify that stance further.

Don't need to, I think only one who struggled with that question is you, looks like others all have understood it as intended.

 

[justsomebloke]

Wanted to read praise in here, yet there's a poster trying to prove Hojlund doesnt contribute to our hold up play.

I've argued no such thing. On the contrary I've written the exact opposite several times. The only thing I'm trying to argue is that with the type of striker he is, he needs to score goals. Because he is not contributing a huge amount of other things. No matter how good his hold-up play is. And he is. So I'm really, really happy with him.

 

[Solius]

Feck it.. he's on a good run, just a reminder of some of the shit posts from earlier on in the season.

State of some of those Not that I'm surprised.

 

[justsomebloke]

Don't need to, I think only one who struggled with that question is you, looks like others all have understood it as intended.

Well, I guess that serves me right for actually answering your idiot question as it was put. Because obviously you have no responsibility for actually mentioning CFs if that was what you intended.

In any case, it all circles back to the same point, which you'd think would be obvious: If Højlund has not a big impact in other metrics than scoring, then he needs to score to have an impact. Which was the whole fecking point, wasn't it.

 

[justsomebloke]

Oh come on, it's just banter mate innit.

Sorry, got a wee bit carried away there.

 

[roonster09]

Well, I guess that serves me right for actually answering your idiot question as it was put. Because obviously you have no responsibility for actually mentioning CFs if that was what you intended.

In any case, it all circles back to the same point, which you'd think would be obvious: If Højlund has not a big impact in other metrics than scoring, then he needs to score to have an impact. Which was the whole fecking point, wasn't it.

It was not my question. Maybe reading it properly would have helped you to answer the question better.

 

[SATA]

He’s going to end up as Denmark’s greatest ever striker when he’s done with his career at United, just like we used to have Denmark’s greatest ever goalkeeper keeping goal for us

 

[Mike Smalling]

He’s going to end up as Denmark’s greatest ever striker when he’s done with his career at United, just like we used to have Denmark’s greatest ever goalkeeper keeping goal for us

That list includes a Balon d’Or winner and another one that finished top three in the Balon d’Or in consecutive years. Hope he reaches that level.

Highest ever goal scorer for Denmark seems very likely, given the amount of games that are played now and the early start he has gotten.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Sorry, got a wee bit carried away there.

To be fair, I was actually being a moron.

 

[Tony247]

He started scoring after Antony was benched. Not a coincidence.

 

[Oranges038]

This is a much more valid perspective than the original question, and one that advances the discussion.

It brings us back however to the centrality of scoring. If he doesn't contribute scoring to a great degree, a striker would need to offer quite a lot in other areas to justify a starting spot on a good team - much more than is normal for a player in his position, and much more than a top striker who does score many goals.

Of the 3 players you're using, his style and statistical profile is most similar to Haaland's. I don't think anyone would argue that Haaland's value isn't heavily tied to his scoring output - if he was the sort of player who put up 7 goals a season, we'd be comparing him to Dominic Solanke (of old). And he would not be starting games for City.

With Nunez, his comparative ineffectiveness in scoring is exactly what makes him a controversial player. That said, his output in many other offensive categories is quite significantly better than Højlund's. Eye-test wise, I think there's also some merit to the view that his constant aggressive runs in behind the back 4 is a strong contribution. Højlund has that element in his game too, but not to the same degree - more usually, it's Garnacho or Rashford doing that for us.

Kane is the one player among these where you'd expect he'd to a large extent justify his reputation even without considering his goal output. But that perception is based on watching him in the PL. The most striking element of your comparison was his unexpectedly weak stats in this regard. I wonder though if that reflects a changed role with Bayern? I tried putting in his last season at Spurs instead, and they do seem to be quite a bit better in many areas.

In any case though, Kane is of course also a player whose goal output is the better part of his reputation. If we want a measure of what it would take for a top team striker to be considered good without being a very good goalscorer, then we need to look at someone like Gabriel Jesus:

Player Comparison: Rasmus Højlund vs. Erling Haaland vs. Harry Kane vs. Darwin Núñez vs. Gabriel Jesus | FBref.com

In short, I don't see a clear case here that this is a player who'd justify his place without scoring much, through other things he brings. Rather the contrary.

However, he IS now scoring. And already before he did, he was doing a lot of good things that justified a belief that he would be scoring. So everyone's happy here, it's not that.

Which, luckily, he now does. And I'm coming around to the view that maybe we (myself included) made too much of the fact he wasn't before he started doing that. Not because he added such a lot of other things anyway (he really doesn't),

I asked you what he doesn't offer. Because you posted that he doesn't add a lot of other things. When it's quite obvious that he does.

Your answer was to compare him stats wise to every other member of the squad, even name checking Martial a few times, (you must be a season ticket holder for Martial FC). Just to say well he's not doing well all these metrics. Stats that no centre forward in the league or football would rank highly on in any team really. Then you spend the rest of the day saying that it was the question that was the problem.

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

Nope. Physical presence is a quality, not an actual tangible contribution. Should've had a penalty against Arsenal maybe, but that's one single situation. He doesn't turn defenders that often, nor does he actually have a lot of through passes. Neat layoffs, sure, but again, how much does that happen? The volume of these things don't add up to the sort of player who makes a big contribution even if he doesn't score.

Actually I find this whole debate slightly absurd. It is AFAICS completely obvious that Højlund is the sort of striker who builds his game around goal-scoring. He's not like Gabriel Jesus, he's like Haaland, considered as a type. As such, you'd think it wouldn't be too surprising or controversial to argue that to be a success, he needs to score goals. But that's not enough for some around here, who seem to either need to think that's not being positive enough, or to read that as an underhand claim that he's not really a good player.

It’s getting ridiculous now, really.

You asked for things he does that contributes aside from goals, I gave them.

Then you say that he doesn’t do things that often, which isn’t true - when he gets played he is usually under pressure and manages to lay off the ball or turn most of the time.

Then you conclude that you’re right in claiming that he doesn’t contribute much aside from goals - but he has a very clearly defined role as target man in the build up and contributes both with his hold up play and his presence and runs in the box. McT wouldn’t have scored half the goals he has if not RH had drawn the attention of both center backs.

That said, you’re right that there are things he doesn’t do often enough, which until recently was scoring goals - that’s because the wingers and Bruno don’t pass to him.

 

[Bobade]

I think he is excellent. I rated him on the eye test when he first came and was confident the goals would come. Now I just expect him to score.

Good finisher, and I think he is great at holding the ball up. Plenty of power and puts in a shift. Seems to have a lot of passion for the shirt as well. This guy could be massive for us over the next few years.

 

[RepardReece]

Well, I guess that serves me right for actually answering your idiot question as it was put. Because obviously you have no responsibility for actually mentioning CFs if that was what you intended.

In any case, it all circles back to the same point, which you'd think would be obvious: If Højlund has not a big impact in other metrics than scoring, then he needs to score to have an impact. Which was the whole fecking point, wasn't it.

Come on, pack it in.
Anyone with eyes can see Hojlunds worth, even without the goals.
One thing all your statistics and initial comment haven't taken into account is how we don't dominate games, Luton had 58% possession yesterday. It's pretty standard for a CFs statistics in those areas to be less in a team that's not dominating the game.
I've not read all your comments, but by no means can we compare to teams like City, Arsenal, Liverpool where they dominate games. It's a completely different style of game to what we're playing currently.

There was just a chart on here recently showing the passes he's received from teammates, and its piss poor.
He's absolutely had probably as much of an impact as he could excluding the goals.

To be honest I expect the recent form to slow down, watching all 7 there's only 1 where a teammate has actually looked for him (Shaw vs Wolves). Maguire just gets his big head on it, Casemiro intercepts, Garnacho shoots, and the other 3 are assisted by the opposition. Living on scraps.

Happy he's now finding his form, I'm glad most here could still see his value before he started banging goals in

 

[Davìd Moyéz]

What encourages me even more than any of the physical or technical side of his game is the maturity. Seems very level. I feel pretty confident that when he inevitably goes through some more scoreless phases he will keep working hard and not lose his confidence.

 

[BoulderDevil]

Was it any of these?

This is what happens when 15 year olds give player analysis a try

 

[Ali Dia]

Stupid sexy Rasmus