Erling Haaland
- Thread starter behindbrowneyes
- Start date
Saladin
Active member
I would take Lautaro over Håland in a heartbeat; the kid does have a lot of potential, though.
Doubt it. It is like Olmo chosing to go to a not top european club. Or Dembélé before. They want playing time to prove themselves before moving to a big club as a starter.
DonAK
President of FC Barcelona
No, he wouldn't. He chose Borussia Dortmund over even Juventus because he'll play every single game for them.
Jenks
Senior Member
I could see it. He was actually born here too.
DonAK
President of FC Barcelona
I can see him at Man City post-Pep Guardiola
Don't see Solskjær lasting that long to have any impact in him possibly choosing Man Utd.
BBZ8800
Senior Member
I remember seeing news lately that we aren't interested in Haaland because we want Lautaro.
I mean, why would we want a striker who can bang goals for fun when we can have a striker who moves nicely off the ball and can't score too much?
Our sporting directors have picked a nice ditection for the future:
Midfielders who can't do anything in the attacking third.
And attackers who can't score (Griezz, Lautaro).
At least the board is consistent in their failures, we have to admit.
But hey, at least we will move off the ball for 90 minutes, lol.
Its really not that binary. Generally I would pick the likes of Arthur, Frenkie etc (the "midfielders who cant do anything in the attacking third") over less talented but more productive ones (Like who by the way? Bruno Fernandes or van de Beek? Thank god we didnt).
Thats of course a bit more complicated regarding strikers, but there are still some very good arguments for Martinez instead of Haaland, though I would not have minded the latter.
BBZ8800
Senior Member
About Frenkie and Arthur, it is about a bigger pucture.
If this was 2009 when we had the best team, Messi and Alves and 80% possession, then they would have been awesome.
Even today, when he have Messi, possession without scoring (bar Messi) is fine.
On the other hand, in 2 years, imagine a team:
Fati, Lautaro, Griezz, Puig, Arthur, Frenkie and braindead Semedo on the right.
Can you see my point?
Every one od them can move, pass and link up, not too many can score.
Something like a Spanish NT from the last few years.
Tons of possession and movement.
Zero goals.
Losing against everyone, more or less.
What? In your midfield you already FdJ and Arthur, what's wrong with Bruno considering he's a lot more direct and creative? Shouldn't midfielders offer different things for the sake of dynamism? Do they all need to be the same?
You cant compare that to Spain, they had no good forward talent. A frontline of Griezmann, Lautaro and Fati (if he gets there, he looks like a goalscoring winger at least) all have 20+ goals in them. Thats hardly zero goals. The question really is who fits the team better, how many goals we lose by getting Martinez instead of Haaöad etc. And thats not easy to answer: I mean Ibrahimovic looked like shit for us, there are downsides to tall strikers. Its not just all rainbows and stuff.
Nope, but we need to buy talent first and foremost. Bruno doesnt look special, but he would be a nice squad/system player. In a hypothetical scenario I would always pick Arthur etc over him. And thats precisely what we did recently, and what BBZ calls systematic failure. I just disagree and think our midfield signings have been spot on recently (bar Coutinho if you want to call him that).
Last edited:
100 true
BBZ8800
Senior Member
Ibrahimovic looked bad under Pep.
Pep likes Lautaro, Jesus and Aguero.
But since Pep was just one era and Pep is not 100 years of Barca, so there are other options except Pep's type of forwards.
Not to mention that Pep and his type of forwards are an ultimate trash in a Champions league when they don't have Messi to save their asses.
About Fati, I won't comment since he is miles and miles from a finished product.
Lautaro needs a no9 around him.
Griezz needs a no9.
A classical problem.
Home of Barca Fans
