Big difference from leaders to ego's, as a club we have little or no ego's, our manager has a history of not tolerating them, does he Zalatan?Disagree. You can have too many which is why you get situations like Chelsea and the rags where they implode because too many egos aren't being heard and massaged by everyone else.
We have made a habit of having players who speak very little and let their football do the talking, Vinnie was the captain and led by both example and by voice. Dias looks set to pick up that mantle.
Haaland is over imo if it ever was on.
Yeah there is a big difference.Big difference from leaders to ego's, as a club we have little or no ego's, our manager has a history of not tolerating them, does he Zalatan?
Dias, Fern, Walker, Ederson and KDB are true leaders, and players of that type in my humble opinion, you can't have enough of.
I agree about KDB but even that fires people up in his own way, ego's are dangerous.Yeah there is a big difference.
Disagree, you can have too many leaders, too many people who believe they are correct in the direction they want to do things. Walker and Ederson apparently have a big voice in the dressing room, they lead by example of their on the field performances. KDB in fact often looks too emotional with things that doesn't involve the ball at his foot.
Agreed. I don't think Kane has an ego, I think he would be pretty humbled joining City. Its a once in a lifetime chance (like Walker) to come straight in at a top team and have a real chance at trophies. He has given Spuds probably too many of his best years out of loyalty and their title challenge a few years back and CL final etc ended as false hopes.I agree about KDB but even that fires people up in his own way, ego's are dangerous.
He might have a slight issue
I am not sure he has the mentality to play in a big team, that's a worry I have.Agreed. I don't think Kane has an ego, I think he would be pretty humbled joining City. Its a once in a lifetime chance (like Walker) to come straight in at a top team and have a real chance at trophies. He has given Spuds probably too many of his best years out of loyalty and their title challenge a few years back and CL final etc ended as false hopes.
Not disputing he looked shite last night and against Croatia. He was exactly the same I. The last World Cup though. Genuinely looked like he couldn’t run.He’s not what he was and he’s not the player we need. As sure as eggs is eggs Harry’s legs are going - he’s not repeatedly picking the ball up on the half way line because he has a better chance of scoring from there. We’re buying a top class striker to give us a different option, someone who can run in behind or can hold the ball up high up the pitch - we already have 10 players in the team, 11 if you count Eddie, who can pick the ball up deep and spray it around.
The counter argument that last season’s goal and assist stats lend great validity to is that it doesn’t matter if he’s lost a yard, his game’s evolved. That just about holds water now but you can’t keep losing a yard otherwise Shearer would still be playing - at some point you’ve lost too many yards and I think Harry will reach that point way too soon to justify a £100m+ outlayNot disputing he looked shite last night and against Croatia. He was exactly the same I. The last World Cup though. Genuinely looked like he couldn’t run.
Yes and he was never quick to start with! I don’t even know what my argument is here. I basically agree with you but also think he’d be brilliant for us. Based on his England form(not goals) he looks like a modern day Fowler by the time we signed him.The counter argument that last season’s goal and assist stats lend great validity to is that it doesn’t matter if he’s lost a yard, his game’s evolved. That just about holds water now but you can’t keep losing a yard otherwise Shearer would still be playing - at some point you’ve lost too many yards and I think Harry will reach that point way too soon to justify a £100m+ outlay
I'd like him too but if his price is too high, then Son would be a good fallback option. Just don't fancy Kane at all, even before last nights display.Haarland
Everyone, we are all guilty of it.
I agree he could be brilliant for us for a season or two and if that brings us two league titles and the CL then it’s hard to argue against the logic of buying him in the short term but long term it’s not so clever.Yes and he was never quick to start with! I don’t even know what my argument is here. I basically agree with you but also think he’d be brilliant for us. Based on his England form(not goals) he looks like a modern day Fowler by the time we signed him.
Consider a world where Haaland doesn't want to sign for City or Pep/Khaldoon/Sheikh Mansours cat doesn't want him.Signing Harry precludes us from signing Haaland and so one of our big rivals gets a young hungry equally prolific striker with a huge resale value should Barca or Madrid come calling in 4 or 5 years time. Haaland to Chelsea or Utd or Lpool transforms them into genuine rivals. Haaland to City sees us win the league 3 or 4 times on the bounce.
I know what you’re saying.I'd like him too but if his price is too high, then Son would be a good fallback option. Just don't fancy Kane at all, even before last nights display.
Yeah no doubt, spending big comes with a caution. I hope whatever the club do it's well thought out because we trust them.Fair enough.
I have never spent £100m+++ on a player previously myself. But let's just say if it was my money, I'd be feeling a bit nervous about it.
Like you'e buying a car which gets rave reviews and you go for a test drive and it misfires badly and has no power, but the seller says don't worry it must just be having an off day.
When you put it like that, it's a complete no-brainer really isn't it. Haaland has to the absolute top, top, must sign at all costs, priority. If Haaland doesn't move then OK fair enough, but if another club sign him just because they are prepared to pay whereas we were not? You'd have to seriously question whether we'd done the right thing IMO.Signing Harry precludes us from signing Haaland and so one of our big rivals gets a young hungry equally prolific striker with a huge resale value should Barca or Madrid come calling in 4 or 5 years time. Haaland to Chelsea or Utd or Lpool transforms them into genuine rivals. Haaland to City sees us win the league 3 or 4 times on the bounce.
I understand what you are saying but why wouldn’t he want to sign for City. Everything is in place for him unlike other clubs with a revolving door of managers.Consider a world where Haaland doesn't want to sign for City or Pep/Khaldoon/Sheikh Mansours cat doesn't want him.