Harry Kane is probably the most high profile player in relation to the thread title - although it could be argued Pogba is doing the same - but the overarching question here is how do you ultimately regard players who are considered stars of their generation who don't go on to play for the top (or most succesful during their time) clubs, or at least have a measure of success, trophy-wise, should they decide to stay at the club that they essentially made their name with?
It's all said to be noble and sign of character to not move on, but when all's said and done, is there no question of what could have been?
Shearer is always mentioned in light of what he could have made of himself had he joined Manchester United, but at least with him, there was a period of time where it genuinely looked like Newcastle could go on to have their own time in the sun, that too with him already having won a league title. Someone like Kane doesn't even have these factors to console himself with and he really doesn't have much time left to make a significant mark on the game as a whole - I think it's safe to say he could go down as perhaps a player to even rival Greaves, as far as Spurs are concerned, but, for a player of his ability, is that enough?
Fans tend to be hypcritical when it comes to the push-pull machinations of players looking to better themselves, or making the best of themselves - as long as it doesn't concern their own team, it tends to be fine and dandy, otherwise, the player is perhaps a sell-out and a merc' who has no interest in helping out during the hard times; basically, if he's good, he should sacrifice his best years, if he's not, he good riddance etc. etc.
With regards to someone like Kane, do you see it as noble that he stays where he is, or a waste? If he were at your club, and your club wasn't delivering, would he have your blessing to move on? In extension, Spurs fans: if Kane wanted to move on, would he have your blessing and empathy as to why, or should he retire with you?
It's all said to be noble and sign of character to not move on, but when all's said and done, is there no question of what could have been?
Shearer is always mentioned in light of what he could have made of himself had he joined Manchester United, but at least with him, there was a period of time where it genuinely looked like Newcastle could go on to have their own time in the sun, that too with him already having won a league title. Someone like Kane doesn't even have these factors to console himself with and he really doesn't have much time left to make a significant mark on the game as a whole - I think it's safe to say he could go down as perhaps a player to even rival Greaves, as far as Spurs are concerned, but, for a player of his ability, is that enough?
Fans tend to be hypcritical when it comes to the push-pull machinations of players looking to better themselves, or making the best of themselves - as long as it doesn't concern their own team, it tends to be fine and dandy, otherwise, the player is perhaps a sell-out and a merc' who has no interest in helping out during the hard times; basically, if he's good, he should sacrifice his best years, if he's not, he good riddance etc. etc.
With regards to someone like Kane, do you see it as noble that he stays where he is, or a waste? If he were at your club, and your club wasn't delivering, would he have your blessing to move on? In extension, Spurs fans: if Kane wanted to move on, would he have your blessing and empathy as to why, or should he retire with you?