You value him as not the best footballer in the world - and by your sarcastic post - you imply that it's not close.If you can show me where I said I disliked (your word) Haaland, I'd be grateful.
Great player, obviously, but also what a great bloke. Always got a smile on his face, every game properly applauds the fans after the final whistle and the last off the pitch (just mentioning as several thousand won’t see this every week)
I'll ask you again; where did I say I disliked him? And I stand by my opinion, he's not the best footballer at City. Best striker? Undoubtedly. But not the best" footballer". And my post wasn't sarcastic, by the way. You need to be careful about making false accusations.You value him as not the best footballer in the world - and by your sarcastic post - you imply that it's not close.
You said, "Behave. He's not even the best footballer at City." I've made it clear that I couldn't disagree more.
You're going round and round in circles.I'll ask you again; where did I say I disliked him? And I stand by my opinion, he's not the best footballer at City. Best striker? Undoubtedly. But not the best" footballer". And my post wasn't sarcastic, by the way. You need to be careful about making false accusations.
What do you class as a footballer? Someone who knows how to position themselves and has the ability to score lots and lots of goals or someone who is a master of the ball?You're going round and round in circles.
IMO Haaland is the best footballer in world football - bar none.
You think otherwise.
It's subjective. And you continue to argue my opinion as if it's a matter of objective fact.
Yet you insist on winning this subjective argument - whatever. Look, you value other footballing traits and have a different perspective - OK. I get it. I however disagree, absolutely.
My last post on the matter (I promise); do you honestly think that Haaland is a better footballer than De Bruyne?You're going round and round in circles.
IMO Haaland is the best footballer in world football - bar none.
You think otherwise.
It's subjective. And you continue to argue my opinion as if it's a matter of objective fact.
Yet you insist on winning this subjective argument - whatever. Look, you value other footballing traits and have a different perspective - OK. I get it. I however disagree, absolutely.
If he were simply the best striker I'd agree.What do you class as a footballer? Someone who knows how to position themselves and has the ability to score lots and lots of goals or someone who is a master of the ball?
Haaland is the best striker in the world. Not the best footballer.
I get what you're saying but by that criterion, De Bruyne is our best footballer. You could argue Courtois was the best footballer last year.If he were simply the best striker I'd agree.
But there comes a point - where said best striker scores so many goals that this singular ability swamps everything else - and Haaland is a freak goal scorer - and his scoring ability, swamps his technical short-comings, IMO.
I suppose it boils down to what you call "best" - for me, "best" means the player most likely to mean your side wins.
And for me - by that definition - Haaland is best.
If by best - you mean most technical - or best dribbler or whatever - then Haaland isn't close. He's average at best technically. But the guy scores goals at a far greater rate than anyone else in football - so much so that this swamps his technical short comings.
===
Here's my take on "best" footballer.
The best footballer most enhances his side of winning the game. Period.
This encompasses goals scored, goals assisted, team chemistry, to a much lesser extent defense and so on. It's all about winning as a team.
For me - Haaland is the best and I'd trade him for no other.
If you think - by this criterion - who most enhances a team's ability to win - then I'm interested in your opinion.