11 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Wrong - he would have missed the target in all of them. 

4 hours ago, Malcolm9 said:

Cant we just let Jackson develop. DD came to us in his late 20's and wasn't pulling up trees straight away.

I'd rather have Jackson upfront right now over Haaland. Currently he is scoring goals and helping us win games.

Um, you must mean Alf Inge. If not then i suspect that you need to increase the dosage of your medication

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Seen this stat doing the rounds on social media and it's wrong lol.

The original post qualified the stat by referring only to "number 9s", which isn't even true any more as Chris Wood (lol) has scored 23 and Alexander Isak has scored 25. I don't think we need to celebrate Jackson being the 5th best of the 6 "proper" center-forwards in the league. If we expand it to all players, then the obvious omissions are Cole Palmer (30) and Mohammed Salah (29), pushing Jackson down to 7th.

On goalscoring alone though,  if you look at players who have had 20+ goals since the start of 2023/24, Jackson sits firmly in company with the likes of Saka, Isak, Son, Solanke, Bowen, Mateta i.e reliable EPL goalscorers. It's clear there are two classes of goalscorers, and it's clear that Jackson belongs in the category of very-good-but-just-below the very top.

Does Nkunku improve us beyond that? I'm with the minority that says yes, but Maresca has a pretty valid reason to disagree.

It's not.

Excluding penalties, Jackson sits with the best centre forwards in the league since he's been here. 

Haaland - 31

Watkins - 25

Jackson - 22

Wood - 21

Solanke - 21

Isak - 20

 

4 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Sorry - but this is absolutely stupid. It is statements like this that make me question if a democracy is a good thing.

You would rather have Jackson up front than Haaland???!!! f**k me!

That's why I stated 'right now'.

Haaland plays more like Andy Carrol on current form.

1 hour ago, WhiteWall said:

Um, you must mean Alf Inge. If not then i suspect that you need to increase the dosage of your medication

Can you read?

1 minute ago, Malcolm9 said:

That's why I stated 'right now'.

Haaland plays more like Andy Carrol on current form.

Haaland, like Kane, doesn't improve the team. 

It's a controversial view, but one i cling to

City did not improve after signing the best goalscorer in the world. Bayern did not improve after signing the second best. 

That's because you need to model your entire play around a goalscorer for them to add value. 

11 people play on a pitch. Id rather Jackson than Haaland in our team. 

1 minute ago, bisright1 said:

Haaland, like Kane, doesn't improve the team. 

It's a controversial view, but one i cling to

City did not improve after signing the best goalscorer in the world. Bayern did not improve after signing the second best. 

That's because you need to model your entire play around a goalscorer for them to add value. 

11 people play on a pitch. Id rather Jackson than Haaland in our team. 

Although we would take a prime Drogba back, as he was not only a top striker but a top team player as well.

16 minutes ago, Malcolm9 said:

That's why I stated 'right now'.

Haaland plays more like Andy Carrol on current form.

Form is temporary, class is permanent. 

Haaland playing in a team that are in a bad run of form, without their balon d'or winning CM (meaning everyone trying to adapt). This has clearly had an impact on Haaland, and as the chances dry up, he is no longer scoring hatricks week in week out. 

But to say that you would choose Jackson, over the best striker in world football (Sorry Lewa and Mbappe) - is madness.  Jackson ont he best run of form still loses out, every single time, to Haaland - even if Haaland is in the worst run of form. 

15 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Haaland, like Kane, doesn't improve the team. 

It's a controversial view, but one i cling to

City did not improve after signing the best goalscorer in the world. Bayern did not improve after signing the second best. 

That's because you need to model your entire play around a goalscorer for them to add value. 

11 people play on a pitch. Id rather Jackson than Haaland in our team. 

Absolute lunacy.  Is it any wonder the world is a mess, when some people are allowed to vote. 

 

19 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Haaland, like Kane, doesn't improve the team. 

 

Absolutely insane opinion.

1 hour ago, Malcolm9 said:

That's why I stated 'right now'.

Haaland plays more like Andy Carrol on current form.

So presumably using the same measure you would also rather Sanchez in goal than Ederson, right now?

1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

Haaland, like Kane, doesn't improve the team. 

It's a controversial view, but one i cling to

City did not improve after signing the best goalscorer in the world. Bayern did not improve after signing the second best. 

That's because you need to model your entire play around a goalscorer for them to add value. 

11 people play on a pitch. Id rather Jackson than Haaland in our team. 

I agree. I still maintain England would have won at least one of the Euro finals in the last 6 years had Kane not been starting.

2 hours ago, dkw said:

Absolutely insane opinion.

Did he improve the team?

7 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Did he improve the team?

Yes, of course he did.

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Yes, of course he did.

Not for me and he's part of the reason why they are struggling now. They have a singular way of playing. 

Neither Bayern or City scored more goals when their goalscoring machines signed, they just funneled them all through those players. And when those players aren't on form the team finds it a lot harder to score. 

I know most people don't go along with this opinion. It's easy to see a player score loads of goals and think he is improving the team overall. I've just never seen the data to prove that. 

8 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I know most people don't go along with this opinion. It's easy to see a player score loads of goals and think he is improving the team overall. I've just never seen the data to prove that. 

Probably because it lacks evidence. What data actually supports this idea that Bayern, let alone City, are somehow worse by having an all-time great goalscorer?

Everyone criticised Guardiola's City for "having only one way of playing" when they couldn't buy a Champions League. Haaland shows up, delivers them an unprecedented treble, and that doesn't improve them?

I can't buy this argument at all. Real Madrid and Barcelona were not "worse" because Ronaldo and Messi scored all their goals.

Edited December 3, 20241 yr by SydneyChelsea

10 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Did he improve the team?

Haaland improved Man City. He improved their ability to score chances, he improved their ability to be more direct, and the team flourished - winning every trophy going, including the ucl (don't think they ever won that pre haaland).

I don't have the stats/data - and frankly, don't care enough to look - but the idea that you would genuinely care refer Jackson to Haaland at the moment is baffling.

8 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Not for me and he's part of the reason why they are struggling now. They have a singular way of playing. 

 

City? 

City is struggling because they don't have KDB, Doku, Rodri and they don't have adequate replacement ($$ is drying up). It is that simple. 

You are making this too complicated. Having a Haaland is good because he is fast, big and lethal. So it will be difficult for opp to press you because you always have a long option and he will command attention in the box which free up space for other. 

 

26 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Haaland improved Man City. He improved their ability to score chances, he improved their ability to be more direct, and the team flourished - winning every trophy going, including the ucl (don't think they ever won that pre haaland).

They rarely got close pre-Haaland, and the one time they did they shat the bed inside 30 minutes. Haaland has allowed Guardiola's City to be more direct and more simplistic, they are a far cry from the team we dominated in 2021.

Quote

I don't have the stats/data - and frankly, don't care enough to look - but the idea that you would genuinely care refer Jackson to Haaland at the moment is baffling.

Even if we look at the data, I'm not sure why anyone would prefer the striker with 39 goals and 5 assists to his name (Haaland) vs the striker with 22 goals and 8 assists (Jackson) - and I actually rate Nicolas Jackson. Saying a striker is bad because they actually score too many goals is a bit of leap of logic.

2 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

They rarely got close pre-Haaland, and the one time they did they shat the bed inside 30 minutes. Haaland has allowed Guardiola's City to be more direct and more simplistic, they are a far cry from the team we dominated in 2021.

Even if we look at the data, I'm not sure why anyone would prefer the striker with 39 goals and 5 assists to his name (Haaland) vs the striker with 22 goals and 8 assists (Jackson) - and I actually rate Nicolas Jackson. Saying a striker is bad because they actually score too many goals is a bit of leap of logic.

They fluked their treble. Inter were better and United were better in the two cup finals. Haaland did nothing in any of their big games. 

I don't think Haaland is bad. I just would rather a player like Jackson than a player like Haaland or Kane at Chelsea. This is probably because of LukakuPTSD. 

9 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

They fluked their treble. Inter were better and United were better in the two cup finals. Haaland did nothing in any of their big games. 

I don't think Haaland is bad. I just would rather a player like Jackson than a player like Haaland or Kane at Chelsea. This is probably because of LukakuPTSD. 

Come on dude - the idea of any team fluking a treble - which includes the league and champions league, both of which take place over a season long campaign is simply ridiculous.

My obvious bias and dislike of Jackson aside - it really is mental that you would prefer Jackson over the best striker in the world. 

Frankly - I don’t believe you. The statement lacks credibility and smacks of taking a contrarian position for the sake of it….

 

5 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Probably because it lacks evidence. What data actually supports this idea that Bayern, let alone City, are somehow worse by having an all-time great goalscorer?

Everyone criticised Guardiola's City for "having only one way of playing" when they couldn't buy a Champions League. Haaland shows up, delivers them an unprecedented treble, and that doesn't improve them?

I can't buy this argument at all. Real Madrid and Barcelona were not "worse" because Ronaldo and Messi scored all their goals.

Its an amazing claim isnt it, even just looking at the basic premise of Citys team it was always obvious they lacked an out and out goalscorer, then they got one, then they won the treble. It really is that simple.

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Its an amazing claim isnt it, even just looking at the basic premise of Citys team it was always obvious they lacked an out and out goalscorer, then they got one, then they won the treble. It really is that simple.

While I don't agree that Haaland has made them worse, the truth is that Man City has been scoring in the PL similar number of goals with and without Haaland. So, it could be argued that they didn't really need an out and out goal scorer to improve.

4 minutes ago, RMH said:

While I don't agree that Haaland has made them worse, the truth is that Man City has been scoring in the PL similar number of goals with and without Haaland. So, it could be argued that they didn't really need an out and out goal scorer to improve.

I think they were harder to contain without Haaland. They used to be dangerous everywhere and now you'll have a great chance against them if you manage to take Haaland out so I get the point.

18 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

I think they were harder to contain without Haaland. They used to be dangerous everywhere and now you'll have a great chance against them if you manage to take Haaland out so I get the point.

I agree, I think that Man City was more ruthless before Haaland but that could also be because they are on a downward trajectory now. What could have happened if Haalland had been at City when they were at their peak it's something we will never know.