Aman-PatelB
Cech and David Luiz moved after their primes. They’d already had success at Chelsea and weren’t good after they left. Arsenal thought they could do better than Giroud and were happy when he left. But he obviously was an important player for us and aged well.
Whereas Ashley Cole came from Arsenal’s academy, I’m pretty sure supported them as a kid and was one of the best players in his his position in the world. And was slap bang in the middle of his prime. From Arsenal fan’s perspective he left for money although it was probably more the principle and feeling valued by the club.
Chelsea fans feel exactly the same way about Mason Mount. Him going to a rival isn’t what made fans angry. It’s the fact he’d been at the club since he was a kid, had already had success with the club and was meant to be a key player for them moving forwards. And the fans feel he chose money over loyalty (again probably more to do with feeling valued).
I don’t think Chelsea or Arsenal fans would care unless a player is basically leaving for money or because they think they can win trophies at the other club. So Van Persie going to United is probably more insulting to Arsenal fans than any of the Chelsea ones you listed. Or Fabregas going to Chelsea after Barca. He was already an Arsenal legend and had left in a bad way. Then returned to London to play for Chelsea (although Wenger didn’t want him).
The rivalry means nothing if the player isn’t good enough. Havertz isn’t even in his prime yet but he wasn’t living up to Chelsea fan’s expectations and you could tell he needed a change to reignite his career.
And yeah they hate Spurs a lot more than each other. But the lack of transfers between them and Spurs comes from the Spurs end and Daniel Levy.
The only team I could see doing it is Bayern tbh.
Lol. There’s always a Liverpool fan out there crying about something. Playing good football, high up the table and you’re making posts that basically give the vibe “I told you so.” So pathetic and I feel sorry for the Liveprool fans out there who have to live with the reputation that fans like you give them.
Completely agree Kane’s been better this season and is a more complete striker thsn Haaland generally. But the revisionism around last season is also laughable. How about we start by looking at their stats in all competitions rather than the Prem?
Both Haaland and Kane were incredibly prolific in the Prem. Haaland maintained that goalscoring rate in all competitions (all games really) he played in. Kane didn’t. Haaland scored 36 in the Prem and Kane scored 30 in the Prem. 6 goal difference and 4 non penalty goal difference which is what you, all other Spurs fans and a lot of other people are referring to generally when revising last season. But why exactly would you ignore the 18 non Premier League games Haaland played in last season and the 11 non Premier League games Kane played in last season?
Haaland scored 16 in those 18 games. Kane scored 2 in those 11 games. That’s a massive reason why City were able to compete on all fronts last season and won an actual treble. It feels disgusting that I have to say anything against Kane because I love him as a player and I’m proud we have an English player of his bracket right now. But the amount of disrespect Haaland’s been getting from this same Kane comparison that only accounts for their Premier League goals is insane. It’s 52 goals and 9 assists all comps in 53 games vs 32 goals and 5 assists all comps in 49 games not just 36 goals vs 30 goals. And I’m all for giving a disclaimer with those stats to say Haaland played in a much much better side than Kane last season. But don’t be disingenuous by making out their numbers were basically the same last season, because they weren’t.
This doesn’t even just go for last season. This season Kane’s been the more prolific goalscorer. But Haaland’s scored a goal a game for basically his entire career (including at Salzburg, Dortmund and Norway so not just City) and he’s only 23. If you were to plot player’s careers as a curve on a graph, Haaland’s would be a lot steeper than Kane’s at the same age. He’s a lot further along at his age than Kane was at 23. And that’s all you can do to compare - look at their trajectories. If Haaland plateus and never becomes as complete as Kane is now in terms of holdup play and playmaking then you can say that. But up until this season Haaland has been a better goalscorer than Kane and it’s only November so there’s a good chance Haaland returns to his more clinical self and ends up being more prolific this season too.
I don’t lean either way Haaland or Kane in terms of who I like more. But I don’t like it when players get disrespected and fans start to twist the truth to big up their own player. From a neutral: Kane is the better/more complete striker right now, up until this season Haaland was the better goalscorer, we are currently only 15 games into the season so Haaland could still be the better goalscorer by the time the season ends, Haaland is a better player now than Kane was at the same age. All of these things are backed up by the stats as long as you don’t twist them to fit whatever narrative you’re trying to push.
Credit to Son for always being so clinical but you have to remember Haaland gets so many big chances because of his own movement and athleticism. Even outside City his nominal numbers are always high because he’s in positions to gets shots off on goal, whether that’s clever movement, the desire to challenge for a header, the pace ability to stretch for a ball that smaller players can’t reach etc.
Son’s always been so clinical but he’s also always thrived in games where there’s space to exploit vs low blocks. I get the comment was probably tongue in cheek rather than serious but there’s probably loads of people pit there who genuinely believe lots of clinical players would score as many for City as Haaland does. They had Aguero for years in arguably some more stacked City teams so you can directly compare what would happen if you replaced Haaland with a different top striker/forward.