The mancityfans.net football forum

erling haaland!
he got 72% of the vote in the football writers' association's poll - the highest ever
https://footballwriters.co.uk/editorial ... s-winners/

Should be Jack, but okay

BBC hating it. Heading -

Erling Haaland and Sam Kerr win Football Writers' Association awards

With a picture of some bird in a Chelsea kit on the story.

82% apparently! Mind you, there’s probably a clause that the award will be rescinded if we don’t do the treble!

belleebee wrote:82% apparently! Mind you, there’s probably a clause that the award will be rescinded if we don’t do the treble!

The other 18% should be named and shamed.

Mase wrote:

belleebee wrote:82% apparently! Mind you, there’s probably a clause that the award will be rescinded if we don’t do the treble!

The other 18% should be named and shamed.

……and then dismissed. How can you write about football and not recognise a generational talent?

Mase wrote:

belleebee wrote:82% apparently! Mind you, there’s probably a clause that the award will be rescinded if we don’t do the treble!

The other 18% should be named and shamed.

My first thought. Virtually one in five didn't think breaking all kind of records in his first season in the PL as a young lad as well, didn't warrant voting for.

Love to see a list of who everyone voted for. I bet Sir Gashford and Nunez managed a few nods

Mase wrote:

belleebee wrote:82% apparently! Mind you, there’s probably a clause that the award will be rescinded if we don’t do the treble!

The other 18% should be named and shamed.

Hang on VAR are going to look at this

I like his response to getting the award , thanking everyone at the club -I know it’s the thing to do -
But he seems like a genuinely nice guy ,
Well done well deserved here’s to more to come

Mental. 82% is a high figure, yet it's baffling that 18% of the writers, almost 1 in 5, thought somebody else had a better season.

Who else at City could it have been?

Ake has had a really good season, Stones has been class, Grealish also. Kev would have to be in the mix as always. But do any of them deserve it more than Haaland? I don't think so.

Who from anywhere else would get close?

Kane has scored a shitload in a really bad team, Saka has been Arsenal's best player but still scored "only" 12 with 10 assists. Anyone else? Names aren't exactly tripping off my tongue.

What a weird result.

Scatman wrote:Mental. 82% is a high figure, yet it's baffling that 18% of the writers, almost 1 in 5, thought somebody else had a better season.

Who else at City could it have been?

Ake has had a really good season, Stones has been class, Grealish also. Kev would have to be in the mix as always. But do any of them deserve it more than Haaland? I don't think so.

Who from anywhere else would get close?

Kane has scored a shitload in a really bad team, Saka has been Arsenal's best player but still scored "only" 12 with 10 assists. Anyone else? Names aren't exactly tripping off my tongue.

What a weird result.

Rashford has won 3 of the 8 player of the month awards handed out so far this season...

Scatman wrote:Mental. 82% is a high figure, yet it's baffling that 18% of the writers, almost 1 in 5, thought somebody else had a better season.

Who else at City could it have been?

Ake has had a really good season, Stones has been class, Grealish also. Kev would have to be in the mix as always. But do any of them deserve it more than Haaland? I don't think so.

Who from anywhere else would get close?

Kane has scored a shitload in a really bad team, Saka has been Arsenal's best player but still scored "only" 12 with 10 assists. Anyone else? Names aren't exactly tripping off my tongue.

What a weird result.

It says in the article who the others were. Saka 2nd, Odegaard 3rd , Kev 4th and Gashford 5th.
To be fair if Haaland got 82% of the vote then 2nd place was probably about 8% I'd imagine if that. If I'd have been a journalist when the rags were winning everything and we were shit there's no way I'd have voted for 1 of their players and I'd imagine there's a few City hating journos who'd vote for anyone else especially the ones confidently spouting at the start of the season that if he scored 15 it'd be a lot.

What? No Hendo, No Robo, No Bobby, NO MO?

PeterParker wrote:What? No Hendo, No Robo, No Bobby, NO MO?

What about “Trent”. Don’t know his last name because it’s never mentioned.

PeterParker wrote:What? No Hendo, No Robo, No Bobby, NO MO?

They made up the other 18 per cent so VAR is having a look and changing it and awarding it to them as 4 x 18 is 72 per cent collecting.

ruralblue wrote:

PeterParker wrote:What? No Hendo, No Robo, No Bobby, NO MO?

They made up the other 18 per cent so VAR is having a look and changing it and awarding it to them as 4 x 18 is 72 per cent collecting.

A couple of the red shills like Holt voted for Odeberg , but fuck them best man won.

PeterParker wrote:What? No Hendo, No Robo, No Bobby, NO MO?

Evem more surprising, no Nunez.

Was the Kloc nominated?

BBC is an encyclopedia of shitpostings

Scatman wrote:Mental. 82% is a high figure, yet it's baffling that 18% of the writers, almost 1 in 5, thought somebody else had a better season.

Who else at City could it have been?

Ake has had a really good season, Stones has been class, Grealish also. Kev would have to be in the mix as always. But do any of them deserve it more than Haaland? I don't think so.

Who from anywhere else would get close?

Kane has scored a shitload in a really bad team, Saka has been Arsenal's best player but still scored "only" 12 with 10 assists. Anyone else? Names aren't exactly tripping off my tongue.

What a weird result.

Sake came second and Odegaard third.