Alexander Isak

[Fati_Future_BallonDor]

Chelsea managed to sell Havertz for over 70m which is remarkable

But should have demanded more for Eden, guy was a world star before going to Real

 

[Andresito]

Chelsea managed to sell Havertz for over 70m which is remarkable

But should have demanded more for Eden, guy was a world star before going to Real

Arteta probably desperate for him + London rival.

Hazard was on his last year of contract iirc, so either 100m or free a year later.

 

[Loki]

But should have demanded more for Eden, guy was a world star before going to Real

Hazard was in his last contract year and still they managed to steal 100-120m from Madrid. Pretty sure that was the maximum Madrid was willing to pay before they would have waited one more year to get him for free.

 

[Maradona37]

Any specific Chelsea donkeys you're thinking of?

Madueke , Dewsbury hall and all those

Liverpool Brewster Ibe quansah and so on

 

[delancey]

Another interesting fact is that Newcastle’s stadium has a capacity of 52.300. It’s the ninth largest in England. Contrast this with City, whose stadium has a capacity of 53.400.

 

[Maradona37]

Klopp, one of the best coaches ever, but a mediocre at best recruiter, went in 2022 against Liverpool's data analytics team (without Edwards there at the time) and opted for Nunez over Isaak who was the team's recommendation.

I and plenty of people felt Isak was more talented than Nunez back then. You could see it. I am amazed an intelligent man like Klopp didn't.

Maybe he just preferred Nunez because he's much more run about a lot and fit that heavy metal style for Liverpool (or so Klopp thought). But even by then, he'd started playing more controlling football.

Strange case.

 

[Loki]

I and plenty of people felt Isak was more talented than Nunez back then. You could see it. I am amazed an intelligent man like Klopp didn't.

Just compare both of them during that season:

Isak: 41 matches, 10 G 3 A, 2800 minutes played, market value 30m
Nunez: 41 matches, 34 G 4 A (6 of them in the CL, 3 in the playoffs, 2 against Liverpool so Klopp saw him live), 2800 minutes played, market value 55m

Even if you say Nunez scored them in the weaker league, he was still the hotter target without any doubt in the summer 2022 after that season. Newcastle paid more than twice his market value for Isak, because they were desperate to build a team and money was secondary. I don't know any club who values money, who would have paid 70m for Isak after his 21/22 season at Sociedad.

And he's still not on the level many people think he is. Just today's inflation in fees, as well as the rarity of worldclass strikers lead to a good striker like Isak being talked about like prime Suarez.

 

[Maradona37]

Just compare both of them during that season:

Isak: 41 matches, 10 G 3 A, 2800 minutes played, market value 30m
Nunez: 41 matches, 34 G 4 A (6 of them in the CL, 3 in the playoffs, 2 against Liverpool so Klopp saw him live), 2800 minutes played, market value 55m

Even if you say Nunez scored them in the weaker league, he was still the hotter target without any doubt in the summer 2022 after that season. Newcastle paid more than twice his market value for Isak, because they were desperate to build a team and money was secondary. I don't know any club who values money, who would have paid 70m for Isak after his 21/22 season at Sociedad.

True but I just mean general ability and technique as a footballer. Isak always looked the much more natural footballer.

But I know a lot of people place high emphasis on stats (rightly so to a degree). But surely the fact Isak has proved to be so much better is evidence of the issues of going primarily by G and A?

 

[Loki]

But surely the fact Isak has proved to be so much better is evidence of the issues of going primarily by G and A?

I don't say that G/A is the only holy grail, but it remains the biggest reason people evaluate strikers on, because in the end that's their main job, to bring results. If you make a statistic of every striker's career, I'm sure the majority who had a better career in the end will also have better scorers in the beginning.
Obviously a player's career is not a liniar graph, so everyone can develop or stagnate at some point for many reasons. But these things are nearly impossible to predict. So I wouldn't blame it on Klopps intelligence that he couldn't see that Isak will be a better striker 3 years later based on the facts he had back then.

 

[Maradona37]

I don't say that G/A is the only holy grail, but it remains the biggest reason people evaluate strikers on, because in the end that's their main job, to bring results. If you make a statistic of every striker's career, I'm sure the majority who had a better career in the end will also have better scorers in the beginning.
Obviously a player's career is not a liniar graph, so everyone can develop or stagnate at some point for many reasons. But these things are nearly to impossible to predict. So I wouldn't blame it on Klopps intelligence that he couldn't see that Isak will be a better striker 3 years later based on the facts he had back then.

Fair point. I am not blaming Klopp either, I guess there were reasons to pick Darwin, just feel with how smart and insightful he is he might have taken Isak. He took players with lower stats before.

But yeah, good point that some players can get better and worse. And stats do matter a lot (but you probably know by now I place more emphasis on qualitative on pitch data than quantitative, even if I am in the minority in that).

Just feel purely that Isak always looked a more naturally gifted footballer. Fair point on your edit above too - Isak is very good, but he's obviously made to look better by the dearth in quality of striker market currently. He wouldn't be on level of Benzema, Suarez, Lewy, Zlatan, Kun etc prime. I guess Liverpool are banking on him taking the step to that level, like Salah and Mane did and like Nunez was unsuccessful in doing.