? Considering they've been trying all these years to win the treble and the CL despite having better teams including the centurions I'd argue they did need his goals to win those trophies - that is literally the point isn't it? City brought him in to get over the line and he made more than a worthy contribution.
Perfect storm of City getting stronger and every other top team in Europe declining.
His goals contributed but I wouldn't say they dragged City over any meaningful line.
Interestingly, if the World Cup was a deciding factor, Alvarez probably had a better shout.
That means if Haaland goes up against Mbappe every year from now until they retire and have similar seasons or if Mbappe doesn't win anything domestically and wins another WC for France whilst Haaland does another treble then Mbappe should always win it because technically he's a better 'player'?
I think along with being a great player, I think influence and how they perform in their biggest games should be factored into it also.
It's why Messi and Ronaldo won so many. Their goals were secondary. It was their influence for the most part (along with, as we've agreed, it being a popularity contest).
It's also the exact reason Benzema won it the year he did. Those clutch moments, those big moments. The level he went to.
Don't even think Haaland has even matched that.
- All these years Ronaldo went up against Messi he didn't deserve them now on the basis of him not being a better player than Messi? Seems awfully subjective and unfair.
Whenever Ronaldo won the awards, he deserved it. His importance in those Real Madrid CL wins and his big game aura was frightening.
Again, no disrespect to Haaland, but he's never had it. Even this season, he's so far behind Bellingham.