You have the arguably best player of the EPL first and the arguably best player of the EPL second and in your last squad there were 12 additional players from top 5 leagues, many of them starters. That's a very good level for a national side.
Nordic Ghost Yeti | Haaland at City
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Are Norway better than Poland? Is it a Lewandowski situation or should they have greater expectations because they also have Odegaard (and also because Haaland is more prolific than Lewa)? RL has managed to help Poland get to major tournaments but that's about it.
You’ve had a bunch of Norwegians make their case for why optimism is unwise.
Ødegaard and Haaland are a cut above what we’ve had before, sure. But our overall team was stronger in the early and mid 2000s.
Also, did you see our game against Georgia? I’m gonna guess no? Ødegaard blasted the ball over from point blank range. List superficial shit that should be encouraging all you want, some of us have decades following our piece of shit team and we know we’ll fumble it at some point.
I'd say it's a pretty similar situation. Poland probably has better supporting cast to an extent but Norway has a better co-star
I'm sorry made but if your answer is "all our players will magically turn to shit when they play for Norway" then there's not really a discussion to be held, is it?
Such things aren't carved in stone. There are enough examples of historically shit teams turning it around. I get you were shit but you never had a team even remotely comparable to this one, IMO.
We used to have:
Bjørnebye, Heggem, Berg, Johnsen, Leonhardsen, Iversen, Solskjær, Flo, Rekdal, etc. Those guys not only played regularly in teams in big leagues, they had way stronger mentality.
Have you watched much of Norway, past and present? Or are you just going by the feels you get from looking at our roster?
Those names aren't close to the team you have right now and that's although Ödegaard and Haaland haven't even entered their prime.
We used to have:
Bjørnebye, Heggem, Berg, Johnsen, Leonhardsen, Iversen, Solskjær, Flo, Rekdal, etc. Those guys not only played regularly in teams in big leagues, they had way stronger mentality.
Have you watched much of Norway, past and present? Or are you just going by the feels you get from looking at our roster?
And no, I haven't seen much of Norway but I have seen quite a bit of Norwegian players lately.
You have no clue if you think, outside Haaland and Ødegaard, we have a stronger team than the late 90s. I’m sorry but I’m sure any Norwegian who witnessed that period would agree.
I guss we'll find out eventually
Bratseth, Johnsen, Berg vs. Ajer, Østigård, Strandberg.
Different class, nevermind the rest of the players.
Right? Winds me up that people who’ve barely seen Norway games thinks that we’ve got a super strong squad right now. The goal Georgia scored would NEVER happen with those you mentioned.
Okay, so by this logic Maldini, Puyol, Nesta etc can't be named as some of the greatest players of all time. Got it.
Eh...
Its getting a bit absurd...
Norway in the 90s was on another level. You cant just base football on a piece of paper.
I understand Haaland is the best Norwegian ever. But this national team is nowhere close.
Last edited:
I think he meant stuff like top 10 goat.
You obviously have no idea about what you’re talking about.
90s Norway was way better, there is no comparison.
Current Norway apart from Odegaard and Haaland, it's an average team, they aren't better than the likes of Serbia, Bosnia, Switzerland,Ukraine, etc
I'd rather have 8/11 good players than 2 great players and 9 average players.
...well...I am considering taking a sabbatical, actually.You volunteering?
Maybe - just maybe. No promises.
(I do like the idea of doing something in the area of "important goals", I must say: because that is doable, or at least somewhat doable.)
I’m not comparing Haaland to Di Stefano. Someone just asked if someone could be considered a GOAT without internationals.
He proved yes they can if they are talented enough and dominate club football year in year out.
His point is that you can't say 'Norway will continue to be bad for the rest of Haaland's career and there's no point even hoping they'll improve' which is ludicrous. You might be a few years from a couple of great defenders coming through or a new manager being appointed who works miracles. To say that it's wrong to even hope, just seems pessimistic for the sake of pessimism.
I never said that. I said Norway was better as a team in the 90s.
That's not the argument that's being had. All the poster is saying is that Norway could improve at some point in the next dozen or so years.
In the post im answering its said that Norway never had a team comperebal to this one.
That i say is wrong.
Im not answering the first part of the post. Im answering where it is said Norway never had a team comperbal to this one?
DiStefano won the Copa America (South American championship) with Argentina as their top scorer so it's not accurate to say that he had nothing at international level. Odd circumstances and bad luck conspired to prevent him from further success in that arena.
More importantly, you say that you are not comparing EH and DiStefano but you cannot then use DiStefano as an example for a possible mark for EH to reach unless you acknowledge that it was ADS's all round performances as a player that made him arguably the GOAT, not just the fact that he scored lots of goals or won lots of trophies.
Erling Haaland plays for Norway who, let's be real, aren't winning anything. I don't see how this should impact Haaland's overall legacy.
Denmark didnt even qualify for the 1992 euro's they won and their best player in Michael Laudrup didnt even join the squad because of a beef with the coach and he didnt think Denmark stood a chance.
It won't and I don't know why people are spending so long discussing it. Norway is a country of 5 million people with little in the way of elite football history or heritage. If they manage to seriously compete in (or miraculously even win) a tournament during his career then it will be a massive bonus but it is not expected or required of him or them.
That's the issue. Di Stefanos talent level up until that point was arguable greatest in history. Erling Haalands talent level is arguably not even top 5 at his current club. The 2 are absolutely miles apart in natural talent. And when I mean talent, I mean basic footballing ability. Not to say his goalscoring talent isn't the best in the world mind.
Maybe Haaland will be better than the guy regardless. We don’t know yet.
If he’s a goalscorer who breaks record after record like Ronaldo did, perhaps even surpassing Ronaldo’s goals then the conversation might be that one day.
Can he win lots of European titles at City? Yes. Haaland’s main problems are keeping fit long term and playing well into his late 30’s banging in the goals. He does that he’s in the mix,
Why am I even replying to these when I argued the same about Muller pages back. You are literally bringing my own original point against me.
Haaland is a great player and goalscorer for his age let’s leave it at that
So that’s settled then. Since you have followed and watched Di Stefano so closely, can you give us a thorough and more in detail description of his skillset from what you have seen with your own eyes and tell us why the best strikers in todays football ain’t fit to lace his shoes, talent wise?
These bold statements about footballers none of us had seen live outside maybe a couple of bad footage highlight reels on YouTube really grinds my balls….
Last edited:
Well if Di Stefano had been born after Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo that wouldn't be the case now, would it? That's not Haaland's fault.
Yeah, Haaland could score 1000 goals and I still wouldn’t put him above any of the greats because of his all round technique and skill.
Same reason Messi was always better than Ronaldo for me.
Still would love to have him in our side!
Same reason Messi was always better than Ronaldo for me.
Still would love to have him in our side!
That’s just completely wrong.
Haaland will never be better than DiStefano. I mean people might consider him such because by the time Haaland's career finishes it will be nearly 100 years since DiStefano's peak so people mostly won't have a clue how to even begin a comparison like that. But as things stand now, when there are still people alive from DiStefano's generation, there is a gulf between them as footballers. Ronaldo is different because he at least demonstrated the abilities of a varied attacker before becoming more of a penalty box player. Haaland has not demonstrated that and never will. He is built to do one thing and he does it exceptionally well. But he (IMO) can never be comparable to players like Pele, DiStefano etc. who have demonstrated the ability to do many things. No matter how many goals he scores or what he wins.Maybe Haaland will be better than the guy regardless. We don’t know yet.
If he’s a goalscorer who breaks record after record like Ronaldo did, perhaps even surpassing Ronaldo’s goals then the conversation might be that one day.
Can he win lots of European titles at City? Yes. Haaland’s main problems are keeping fit long term and playing well into his late 30’s banging in the goals. He does that he’s in the mix,
Why am I even replying to these when I argued the same about Muller pages back. You are literally bringing my own original point against me.
Haaland is a great player and goalscorer for his age let’s leave it at that
I don't think it is out of the question for Haaland to score 1000 goals at all, it's certainly possible. But if people think that makes him the greatest player ever then the fandom of this sport is in serious trouble.
Immense in that first half. What a player.
Despite all the goals scored this seems like his best game for city.
Some of those players create goals for themselves and lay chances on the plate for other
He now holds the Premier League goal record for a 38-game season with 33 goals.
We still have seven games remaining too...
We still have seven games remaining too...
Oh.