Erling Haaland
- Thread starter behindbrowneyes
- Start date
he is very lucky to play in bundesliga
but hes average player for meremember me of young lukaku
Yannik
Senior Member
Ronaldo 101/626.
Lewandowski 61/381
Shevchenko 48/250
Drogba: 50/300
Benzema: 44/307
Raul: 56/385
Kane: 32/208
Cavani: 49/341
Klose: 58/259
Falcao: 67/277
And Ibra is obviously an aerial threat nonetheless, with all the volleys he does insted of headers.
With the amount of CL and WC/EC games being determined on set pieces nowadays such players are much more in demand than it was back then where the game was slower, less physical and there was more space to create chances out of play.
Last edited:
so falcao (under 180) is the best?
)))you just prove me that we dont need a tall striker
Yannik
Senior Member
so falcao (under 180) is the best?
Do you look at the list with Ronaldo, Lewandowski, Drogba, Raul, Shevchenko etc and come to the conclusion that Falcao was the best of them? Well that'd be quite weird. But Falcao was an aerial threat nonetheless, regardless of his size due to his excellent jumping ability and anticipation. The man was regularly towering above 1.90m defenders and was considered a classic target man.
no but from your stats he get the best ratio...
Yannik
Senior Member
Ratio isn't the point. Winning big matches is. You do that with set pieces more often than not nowadays.
Well okay: If you can name me an active striker that is 1) below 1.80, 2) good enough to start for Barca (and buyable of course), and 3) can dominate the air like Falcao did, then I'll consider it proven.
Last edited:
who said i need to dominate the air? i prefer aguero and suarez over your list any day. headers are overrated
best strikers in history are below 180 bican, pele, romario, puskas, messi, zico, muller, di stefano, maradona, cruyff
last reply
only goat tier tall strikers are cr7, van basten and r9 (not because of their air dominance l0l)
Last edited:
Yannik
Senior Member
Several of these players like Cruyff, Maradona and Messi aren't even No. 9s. And I don't even what a Bican is. This is what happens when you just google "most goals" and get lists with players from post war times that played against No-League sides. Cruyff isn't even below 1.80 even. You are taking names of an ancient football era with no relevancy to how modern football is played. Pele, Puskas, Di Stefano and your Bican still played with a leather ball until the late 60s. Of course they weren't going to head that fucker, you'd practically get concussed from that thing when it soaks water and gets more than 1kg heavy. Only Mueller did that, and that poor man has dementia now.
It really doesn't matter if you find headers or set pieces "overrated", because you kept conceding them every time you went out in CL these past years against Liverpool, Roma and Juve.
Don't act like they are "beneath you", mate. It is clearly worth looking into this wide world of scoring/defending goals from crosses if you fancy CL success, and you should of course take such factors into account when evaluating your player options. Acting like you don't need it because that czecheslovakian lad from the 1930s didn't need it is laughably narrowminded.
Last edited:
khaled_a_d
Senior Member
Height is an important factor in football. You can't totally ignore it, even Pep's team had many tall players and many of his signings here were taller guys.
It is too simplistic to either totally ignore it or judge players only based on it.
It is too simplistic to either totally ignore it or judge players only based on it.
Wouldn?t having two tall CB?s and 2 relatively tall CM?s be enough to be an aerial threat at set pieces? I agree height for a striker has some importance but not in terms of scoring goals.
Ability to hold up play and relieve pressure when one of your defenders sends it flying up is probably the major difference between a short and tall striker. Of course it depends what other skills this striker has to make sure it?s worth having that one advantage. I think a tall forward should be signed for the bench for sure. Would have helped us against Roma/Liverpool/any game the intensity was too high. Just like with Martinez though signing Haaland after one year of decent football would be a little bit insane.
Ability to hold up play and relieve pressure when one of your defenders sends it flying up is probably the major difference between a short and tall striker. Of course it depends what other skills this striker has to make sure it?s worth having that one advantage. I think a tall forward should be signed for the bench for sure. Would have helped us against Roma/Liverpool/any game the intensity was too high. Just like with Martinez though signing Haaland after one year of decent football would be a little bit insane.
What progression do you expect from Haaland?
I wouldnt be too shocked if his current self is his best self (which makes him a decent striker already). He wont improve much physically, because he got nowhere to go in that aspect. And for other talents thats probably the normal route: catching up physically. Technique, use of body and movement are much harder to improve.
BBZ8800
Senior Member
I have literally debunked this false theory a few times already.
But, no biggie.
Here we go again.
Just go to google and type: average male height over decades.
For example:
https://ourworldindata.org/human-height
This chart shows:
Avarage MALE height at BIRTH was:
Germany:
1900: 168 cm
1920: 173 cm (+5 cm growth in 20 years)
1940: 175 cm (+2 cm growth in 20 years)
1960: 179 cm (+4 cm growth in 20 years)
1980: 180,5 cm (+1,5cm growth)
Now, if you follow this trend, for guys born in 2000, you need to add again 2 or 3 cm on their average height.
That means that an average height of males in Germany who were born around 2000 is probably around 182-183 cm.
Now, let's go to those players from your post.
Pele was born in 1940.
In 1940, an average height in Germany was 175.
Pele was 173 cm.
So, Pele was 2 cm shorter than average males.
In today's world, where the average male born is 183cm tall, Pele would be around 181 cm tall.
Cruijff:
Cruijff was born in 1947 when the average height in Germany was around 176cm.
And Cruijff was 180 cm tall.
So, Cruijff was actually +4 cm taller than average males in his time.
In today's terms, when the average height is 183cm, Cruijff would actually be around 187 cm (CR7's height).
So, you see, Cruijff wasn't a short mobile midget but more like a 187cm tall pacey dribbler-wizzard.
Di Stefano?
He was born in 1926, when the average male height at birth was 174cm.
He was 176.
So, he was +2cm taller than the average male.
Today, he would be a 185cm tall player.
Also, on a list of your all time best scorers, why are you biased and subjective towards shorter players?
Why didn't you write:
Rivaldo 186 cm
Born in 1972 when the average height was 179cm.
So, he was +7 cm taller than the average.
Today, Rivaldo would be a 190cm tall wizzard-genius playmaker-forward.
Van Basten, born in 1964.
Average height was 179cm back then.
He was 188.
So, +9 cm taller than the average.
He would be around 192cm today.
So, how about:
191 Gullit
190 Trezegeut
189 Adriano
188 Van Basten
188 Van Nistelrooy
188 Henry
188 Kluivert
188 Makaay
188 Drogba
186 Rivaldo
186 Vieri
185 Batistuta
184 Weah
183 Shevchenko
Also, since majority of these guys were born in 1960, 1970s or 1980s, when the height was 4-5 cm lower than today, then you have to realize that Van Basten, Gullit, Rivaldo, Henry, Batistuta, Vieri, Kluivert, everyone on this list were between 5-10 cm taller than average players of their era.
So, today when an average height is 183, these players would be 188-193cm tall.
And then again, this is a topic about a CF who can't score goals and who has a physique like Coutinho and Denis Suarez and some of you guys are claiming that it is a no big deal, because Pep made us play this way.
Home of Barca Fans
