Rival Watch / Other Teams

He's improved undoubtedly and he's surpassed my expectations of him (though they were admittedly rock bottom when we signed him). He does have some value.

The issue is, we've put him on a huge contract with large financial outlay and when his terms are (likely) up for renewal next Summer, he's probably going to want an increase in pay (as every person in their line of work normally would).

Can you honestly sit there and tell me it's worth giving him £300k a week and a 4/5 year extension? Because I think it would be a big mistake if we did.

 

I don't know what type of crack the negotiating team were smoking when they signed Havertz, crazy transfer fee and even crazier wages ! Considering at the time we were buying essentially a dud from Chelsea. He has proved his worth at Arsenal, I guess we will have to play it by ear when it comes to renewal time, how is he performing, what other options are there out there, etc.

 

With Saka, he's probably been our best player (excluding defenders).
We've really missed him during he repeated injury spell.
The injuries worry me as they now seem recurring, so probably on his last chance to prove he can stay fit.

It's similar to Jesus - one of the top players in the Emirates era in terms of minutes per goal contribution.. better than the likes of Aubameyang - but with him he's gone too far on the injury side.

 

A dud?.. he won the UCL under Tuchel.

Havertz was at Chelsea for three years, during that time he had three managers: Lampard, Tuchel and Potter all with different ideas - I don't think a single forward player in that squad excelled during this time.

Chelsea paid £72million for him - we paid £65. I think that's about reasonable fee.

 

£65 would have definitely been a reasonable fee .

 

In all seriousness though Bear, I don't get how or why you think that level of financial outlay on Havertz is reasonable.

He had 3 years at Chelsea where he was relatively uninspiring and yes, he had 3 different managers, but he also didn't show any consistency at all to justify the amount of money we paid for him.

He won the Champions League sure, but that in itself isn't enough to justify £65m spend and a £285k p/w contract.

I am still of the belief that the money we forked out on him would have been better distributed elsewhere. Even though he has proven to be better than I thought, what he's shown hasn't been enough to make me change my mind on this.

 

How much do you think a versatile 20 goal EPL forward should cost?.. because that's what Havertz is now. 14 goal 5 assists last Season missed 3+ months.

Tottenham signed Richarlison for £60m & Solanke for £65m.
Ekitikewent to Liverpool for £80m
Waltemade went to Newcastle for £69m
United signed Sancho for £73m and Sesko for £70m.
Chelsea signed Joao Pedro for £63m, Pedro Neto for £60m, Mudryk for £70-90m

He's WAAAY better than you are giving me credit for being. Havertz is a class.

 

He has been a great signing to date and honestly, £65m seems cheap.
This was one of the most highly rated young players ever from Germany, which is why Chelsea forked out as much as they did for him. When you consider players like Wirtz being bought for 100m plus, £65m is very reasonable.
In the false 9 position, Havertz was contributing to more goals per game than any player in England over a sustained stretch prior to his injury.

Some crazy Arsenal fans hated the guy from the moment we signed him, something I can't understand.

At Chelsea - his form went up and down.. .buy when he hit form he was their best player.
His challenge now coming back from injury is maintain form for longer stretches , something he has already done for us prior to the injury. He needs to keep that going.

 

I am a bit surprised at how highly you guys rate him.

As I say. He's been good, and has proven to be a valuable asset, but do I think he's been value for money? No. Would I give him a pay rise and a contract extension? No. I wouldn't mind keeping him as a squad player if he was willing to take a cut in wages, but that's never going to happen.

Woltemade and Ekitike have been very impressive so far for me, they've impressed me more than what I've seen from Havertz as a CF.

Look, if he can guide us to a PL and/or CL, then I will gladly change my mind and will shut my mouth.

But so far, I just don't think he's been worth it.

His only really impressive streak of form was second half of the 2023/24 season. He was OK last season, but I didn't think he was anything special.

And this season, he's been injured for basically the entire season, so can only judge when he's back.

I'm yet to be fully convinced he warrants a contract extension.

 

It is confusing to me how you can be impressed with the likes of Ekitike and Woltemade having seen them for 11 games, when for us Havertz was the TOP forward in the country for a longer period of time.
He went through nearly half a season contributing more than a goal a game as soon as he moved to the 9 position.

 

According to transfermarkt:

Woltemade 6g/a in 14 games so far this season (identical to Gyokeres).

Havertz 20g/a in 36 games last season.

Similar prices. Not sure how one can impress but not the other.

But stats aren’t everything. Gyokeres keeps defenders busier than Havertz which means I’d rather Gyok starts for us than Havertz as our other attackers get more when Gyok plays.

 

Not really true.
Three elements of 'keeping defenders busy'. Firstly the forward press , which Havertz has been one of the best around at the forward press for a long time and secondly, presence in the box, score that for Gyokeres, and drawing defenders with movement... score that for Havertz.

As for numbers - which are what they are... useful to an extent but not definitive.. Havertz had 20 G+A last year in 2809 minutes of football last year
Thats one every 140 mins.
Gyokeres is 6 in 1060 minutes - one every 176 minutes.

Still early days, though... Given the sample size, it only takes a good run of goals for that to change.

We look better going forward with Havertz, though - at least with the sample size we have to start this year on Gyokeres.

 

The thing with Havertz is he drops deep, he's good in the air, carries the ball very well, he links up play - his weakness as a 9 was always finishing and sharpness in the box (which is normally the issue with false 9's) but his finishing has been getting better. He's also bulked up and gotten more and more physical with his playing style.

Gyokeres plays off the last defender as a true 9 - on one hand it probably means we have the ball less, on the other it opens up spaces for Saka and the LWF as he drags the CB's around with his running.

 

Because the aforementioned players have shown more promise as natural CFs than Havertz. Ekitike for example would have been an excellent addition to us based on his overall qualities as a forward. He is a very Arsenal type of striker.

Havertz's only period of top form was January - May 2024. Outside of that, I think he's been hit and miss. He missed some huge, huge chances for us last season in games, too. He really did put in some real stinkers.

Overall, I just haven't been overly enamoured by him at all. And I don't view his qualities as a player the way you or Bear do.

 

Havertz has missed less gilt edged chances than Haaland.
When you are down on a player it's easy to look for every instance of a missed chance - but the truth is every striker misses big chances. The conversion rate for a big chance is no more than 50/50. Often lower.

Havertz has also scored big chances and half chances - vital game changing goals at that.

In terms of the period when he moved to the 9, position, he was arguably the best forward in the country over that time in the 23/24 season.
He also started last season pretty well - let's not forget he scored 15 and assisted 5 across competitions before his injury half way through the season. He was on a run rate of 35-40 G+A over the season.
He's basically been very productive and excellent in his team play ever since he moved to the 9.
IMO, he has gone well past the point of proving his doubters wrong.

I haven't heard any reasonable explanation for the OTT attacks on him when he signed and then continuing.
I know you are not going OTT - I am talking more about the ridiculous nature of what I was reading on social media mainly (and a few twats in football forums).

 

Haaland misses more because he also gets more chances. There is a reason why his numbers are so good. His speed, power, timing and movement for a centre forward are insane, he's practically unstoppable. There's no comparison to be made between Haaland and Havertz.

I agree he was good when he moved to CF in the 23/24 season, but that's the only period where he's looked like a top player for us.

Overall, I'm just not seeing what you guys see. His finishing is wayward, he's not always the best in the air, he has an erratic first touch, his technique is hit-and-miss, he gets caught offside too much and he's not explosive/powerful enough when he dribbles.

His off the ball work is good, he's a great presser, he can be good aerially sometimes (though like I said, he's not always consistent enough) and his link-up play can be decent. Outside of that, I'm not sold on him.

 

The comparison is that Haaland misses as many big chances as Havertz - and in line with with the ratio of big chances he gets. It's the nature of the game.. most big chances will be missed.

Haaland's finishing is very hit and miss by the way - the reason he scores a shed load of goals is twofold.. one, he plays for a big team that has a system designed for him and two, he is one of the best I have seen at finding the spaces to receive the ball and create chances with movement. He's pretty limited as a football in many respects, but absolutely excels in his ability to be in the right areas. He is the perfect tool for this City team in the way they have chosen to play.
However, you might be surprised to know that City scored more goals before he joined - AND also since he joined when he is not playing.

Havertz has more to his game and better fits the way we play.

 

That CL goal was the only thing he did at Chelsea, he was terrible for them.

 

Na - name me an attacker at Chelsea that excelled during that period. He did some good things.
3-4 mangers over a 4 years spell.

 

We bought Havertz off the strength of being **** at Chelsea for 23 seasons! Now admittedly everyone was **** at Chelsea at that time but thats besides the point, the purchase didn't warrant almost paying what Chelsea paid for an in-form Havertz from Germany and then gifting him with the highest wages at the club.

£40m tops and I still would've been pissed cos I didn't want him at Arsenal at all.