Haaland or Grealish?

[mwake]

For those that argue he won't fit in the system etc.. - I think that is totally wrong - he is able to work in tight spaces, gets fouled constantly because he is dangerous and can break through defensive lines on a regular basis. Not only that - he has pace, and is willing to do a lot of running and is no lazy fucker - almost a leader type for Aston Villa, plus he has a good shot on him.

One of the things that has always worried me about our team is that the number of passes/players involved - necessary to create a "strong" goal-scoring chance for our attack line is quite high IMO. Yes sometimes we can create great counter-attacking goals but more often we do not, and we need to unlock the full array of midfield, RB/LB into the mix to create those chances. Get Grealish and we can create these opportunities with less players involved in the build up - allowing many to cover for any counter-attack.

But if you've watched Villa play often enough you'll see he's always #1 in terms of chances created, shots, key passes, dribbles and probably not far off being #1
in the league in all those areas.

Excellent points Moron and Binomial. Before Grealish's recent injury you could argue he was on point for a player of the year, week in week out he was delivering for Villa, I would say since he's been injured their form has suffered. He has dragged that team (dare I say Gerrard-like) to be much better than they should be.

I think there is a Championship Manager thinking bias when we look at Haaland, yes I would love Haaland no argument. But in reality, the real issue in our team is that our midfield lack a ball running threat. there's nothing wrong with the Trent/Robbo attack vector but I think we've been sussed out a little at times and even on our winning run we had a lot of close scrape games because we struggled to offer any dynamism. Teams now know that if you stop Robo and Trent and you can safely switch off the supply line to the front three. But if we had someone from the middle who could burst forward to beat a man (or three) with a dribble it gives opposition teams something else to worry about. There's no point in signing Haaland for 100m and then having the same issue of teams blocking off the supply line to the front three. Why not spend that same money on a top-class midfield dribbler who will help to solve the one thing Klopp hasn't had in his tactical locker since we sold Coutinho.

 

[mwake]

People say they are worried about Messi going to City, but I actually think they would be doing themselves a disservice. If they got Grealish AND Haalland I actually think long-term that a far better outcome for them. Messi is going to alter the dynamic of their team and Im not 100% sure that it will be 100% positive. Messi isn't going to be pressing for them so they'll need to adapt for that. Messi is not chasing after lost causes harassing players for the ball. I actually think the ROI on getting MEssi for the premiership at his age is a risk. They aren't getting 25-year-old Messi they getting a man who has seen his best days behind him and then having to play in one of the most hardest physically demanding leagues in the world...

Whereas is if City they signed Grealish over Messi (laugh all you want...), I think he offers them the dribbling factor AND the work-rate in that midfield. Im not saying Grealish is better than Messi or getting into that argument, Im simply saying that Grealish value for money wise would be a better investment. And if City gets Messi, Grealish AND Haaland well then thats just not fair lol!

PS - I expect the inevitable - "I need my head checked" replies lol