I don’t understand what we are arguing about (or we are not arguing haha) - the fact that Real Madrid, even without a top striker, was able to win the double is an indisputable fact, but I think that few people will argue with the fact that this is not an ideal concept, but a forced one. You can remember that in the first third of the season Real had problems such as Vinny’s injury and Real managed without him, but it is undeniable that Real is much stronger with him.
No need arguing, imagine just Madrid without a top striker and the level at which they perform now compare to addition of Mbappe who is a world class finisher, not a lazy one like Haaland but a player who can aswell manage the ball, dribble and still strike perfectly. Madrid is coming at the start of the season unstoppable
I would not call Haaland lazy, from the very beginning of his career he has the ampoule of a central striker - he does not need to control the ball, dribble or anything else, his job is to score goals and he does it better than anyone in the world now. Probably his only weakness is his heading; given his size, he should be good in this aspect, but he is not. Mbappe is something between a striker and an attacking midfielder, he is more versatile but this does not mean that Haaland is bad.
People were perplexed with the main function of a pure striker and then labeled that pure striker as a lazy player since a pure striker was not roaming like a non-pure striker. Mbappe is a better fit for Ancelotti's strategy, which hardly included a real striker standing alone at the top; moreover, he can play in several positions.
Mbappe can cover every offensive position. He is thus free to stray and support their teams in thwarting counterattacks.
People often refer to pure strikers who stand alone at the top as lazy players, as they tend to have a deeper understanding of non-pure strikers than pure ones. Finally, I hope they understand that a pure striker is not the same as a non-pure striker, who can wander the mid- or defensive line.