When dealing with Levy the muppet meter can never be filled more than a quarter at best. Will all depend on whether Kane’s willing to kick up a fuss in order to force a move.
Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player
- Thread starter LawCharltonBest
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Bollox.
id Be going for both kane and MaddisonExcept no. We are the 3rd in goals conceded. We however are 9th in goals scored, Fulham and Brentford have scored more goals. We've had bottom tier CF play all season, if you don't think putting Kane in there wouldn't mean 20-30 more goals and turn some draws into wins and some losses into draw/wins then not sure what to say
Look at Kane compared to our forwards on this
Hardly. Obviously it’s impossible to put an exact number on how much more goals we would’ve scored with Kane but we’ve massively underperformed our xG this season and Bruno’s been the top big chance creator in the league, so we’d definitely have been a lot better off with a top class finisher upfront.
EDIT: I thought the poster you replied to said goals not points. My bad.
Last edited:
I don’t think he’s far off that mark either.
looking at the games we’ve drawn over the season we’ve had massive chances in all those games to put the result to bed. I reckoned around 10-12 points better off if we had a decent top quality striker.
There's a massive difference between "Kane would improve us" and "Kane would give us an extra 15-19 points".
Because the former only involves him being better than Martial, Weghorst and Ronaldo. Which, no shit. Whereas the latter involves him making us perform as well as or better than City.
It should be pretty clear to anyone who has actually watched both teams this season that even with Kane in it, our team would still be significantly worse than City's. Worse back five, worse in midfield, worse in attack. We're more than Harry Kane away from being able to perform like City did against Madrid just this week, for example. They're levels ahead.
At which point it should be pretty clear that any goals-maths and results-maths that imagines us outperforming them in the league by dint of that one addition is severely overestimating how directly the additional goals Kane would bring would transfer to points.
If it was that straightforward then adding Haaland to their already league-winning side would have seen City do more than go from 93 points last season to max 94 points this season.
I misread his post and thought he said 15-19 goals better off. My bad.
But if Bruno is missing or off form what then?Except no. We are the 3rd in goals conceded. We however are 9th in goals scored, Fulham and Brentford have scored more goals. We've had bottom tier CF play all season, if you don't think putting Kane in there wouldn't mean 20-30 more goals and turn some draws into wins and some losses into draw/wins then not sure what to say
Look at Kane compared to our forwards on this
That's the problem with saying Bruno is on par or better than KDB for chances created so a new striker will score 30.
But what about the rest of team? City also have three or four more creating chances beyond KdB and we unfortunately don't.
Our creativity in the final third is basically one player. Kane's entire supply would pretty much rely on Bruno.
Great post.
Ronaldo scored at a better rate than Kane in his last year at Juve.
For all the fawning over Kane's record this season he has 1 goal in 8 CL games this season and was a complete no show in both Milan games in the last 16. The raw goals numbers might look similar but the impact of his physical decline on his performances are very clear when you watch full games just as they were with CR7 towards the end at Juve. Thus will only become more pronounced as you mentioned.
No, this can't happen.Like Kane and... Greenwood
Thanks for the edit. I stand by my initial comment.
When you look at this stats, you have to wonder whether we should play Rashford as striker but sign Maddison instead to play on the left as alternative of Kane if we can't afford Kane. How can they play wide but has poor expected assist. Mahrez, Grealish, Martinelli and Saka are City and Arsenal wide players and have high expected assist, hence why City and Arsenal are above us. The goals won't come if we don't have enough players to create good quality assist/chance.Except no. We are the 3rd in goals conceded. We however are 9th in goals scored, Fulham and Brentford have scored more goals. We've had bottom tier CF play all season, if you don't think putting Kane in there wouldn't mean 20-30 more goals and turn some draws into wins and some losses into draw/wins then not sure what to say
Look at Kane compared to our forwards on this
The main reason why we are so bad in scoring goals is because we rely so much on Bruno in creating chances and our forward decision making are so poor.
Will a new striker like Kane be enough to improve our forward decision making and turn us title challenger? Martinelli has almost triple more xA than Rashford but both have equal assists. If anything it's more like that Arsenal are being a Kane away to compete with Man City than us being a Kane away to compete with City. May be someone aggressive and proactive like Osimhen who has good movement and presence in the box can improve Antony and Sancho decision making.
Will a new striker like Kane be enough to improve our forward decision making and turn us title challenger? Martinelli has almost triple more xA than Rashford but both have equal assists. If anything it's more like that Arsenal are being a Kane away to compete with Man City than us being a Kane away to compete with City. May be someone aggressive and proactive like Osimhen who has good movement and presence in the box can improve Antony and Sancho decision making.
we'd certainly have scored 20 more goals... which would have meant CL qualification guaranteed. And I think 8 more wins would not have been beyond possibility
Kane seems to score at least one goal in about 75% of games he plays in. I know it’s not as simple as this but surely he’d have gotten us 9-10 extra points this season if you look at games where 1 extra goal would have helped.
Unless he is far cheaper than is being quoted why would we even consider buying such an old player with only a year left on his contract?
Agree with that. I’d much prefer a younger and more dynamic striker
You might be right, but I really won't be surprised if he does.
What do you think will happen to him?
He will be loaned out for 6/12 months to Italy because they will pay his wages and probably a loan fee with the hope he can get some form so the club can sell him for £50-60m, they might even sign up on an extended +1 contract they have an option to protect their investment, highly unlikely he plays in England Again unless he takes Juventus, Milan or Napoli to CL success next season.
I can see us selling him to a club abroad, I just don’t think any team in England would want the negative press associated with signing him.
There's no way he's ever going for 50-60m surely?
He'll be lucky to play at a top level club again. He's already sat about 18months out. Critical development time. You don't just step back into it.
If he goes it will likely be a loan first, he has not played for 18 months
What does that have to do with Kane? Let’s not get into the ball game of pretending that United has a long term history of poor big money signings. There’s two decades worth of big investment that counters the past decade. Even recently, Casemiro has arrived at a cost this season and has been worth his weight in gold.
You name the transfer strategy, the club has tried it post-Ferguson. It hasn’t worked due to a range of factors. That shouldn’t stop us moving for a guarantee like Kane.
Kane is the best striker on the market and he’s got good years left in him. Sod recent history. We need the best players available and have more than enough younger talent elsewhere in attacking areas to compensate for the years Kane already has under his belt.
Sort of agree with you at the top level.
But there's plenty of scurrillous little clubs who have let all sorts of offenders back in sub premier league level.
I have a feeling Kane is going to stay at Spurs
I agree, he doesn't seem to have much more ambition than become a Spurs legend, which he already is.
He will probably sign a new deal and stay at Spurs rest of his career.
To be fair, Ronaldo was 36, Kane is 29. That's a very big difference. I do think he has declined a little, but his goalscoring hasn't. He's mobile and gets around the pitch fine.
Even factoring in a gentle decline, he's going to be getting us 20+ goals for at least 3 seasons and a shitload of assists too for our more dynamic wide forwards.
His goal against Brentford made him the first player in a 38 game EPL season to score in 25 different matches.
Yeah good point, I can definitely see an Italian team taking a punt on him.
Or run down his contract and have his pick of clubs next summer.
If he wants to stay in England, there's really very little reason to kick up a fuss this summer. If he were desperate to move to Bayern or PSG and pick up a league title at last then sure, he could try to force Levy's hand. But for a Premier League club... why?
He doesn’t need to kick up a fuss. I’m sure he’s already made it fairly clear to Spurs that he doesn’t intend to sign a new contract. The ball is now in their court to make sure that they don’t lose him for free. They’ll be doing all they can to maximise profit from him, which means a sale this summer.
We've got all of that on the wings. You need an old hand in there somewhere (see: Benzema at RM) and Kane would probably be perfect for us. I don't see the point in having 3 of the same players along that front line.
Ah so Ferdinand being a success back in the day is more relevant than all the bad transfers in like the last 5 years? Come on man, you can't be serious. Even if I wouldn't consider that premise to be faulty, the people who successfully brought expensive players in are gone. The people who are bringing in players right now don't deserve anything close to trust. Not saying they will never earn it but right now, there is absolutely no reason to be confident.
He has been really good. But the level he entered was so low that probably even McGinn would have looked like Busquets to us. And I am pretty sure, Real is just as happy with the deal as n us getting 60 million for a guy who has been replaced already by two promising young players in his position.
Nobody is a guarantee. This is crazy talk, seriously man. Just look at the list of biggest premier league flops and you'll see United take most of the top 10. Nobody is a guarantee. The other poster quoted actual Tottenham fans talking about Kanes shortcomings - do you watch him week in and week out? Do you think you know better than them what he brings and what not?
(add on: based on transfermarkt.de, 7(!!!) out of the Top 20 Premier League transfers (based on fee) are Uniteds, Chelsea 6, City is on 4, Liverpool 2, Arsenal 1. The players of United are
4. Pogba
5. Antony
6. Maguire
7. Sancho
8. Lukaku
16. Di Maria
18. Casemiro
You could argue that Casemiro does look like a good transfer, but it is early days. Antony and Sancho is early days as well but Sancho looks like flop and for Antony it is clear we grossly overpayed. Di Maria - flop, Lukaku - flop, Maguire - Flop, Pogba - flop. So much money gone, so many considered a guarantee. And what have we ended up with?
"We have to pay up to bring in the best" my a**.
This mindset is the headline above all the bad decisions in terms of recruitment in the last 10 years. And again - I am not saying that Kane isn't a good player or that he couldn't be of use to us. But he will cost a leg and the money spent on him we won't be able to spend elsewhere on the team. It is the opposite of forward thinking (pun intended). The player made the decision to give his best years to Spurs and some of our fans are rooting for us to provide him with the last big paycheck in his carreer. My mind is boggled.
Last edited:
Not sure we're going to be in a position to afford him in all honesty. Unless the ownership issue is sorted pronto, I can see us looking at creative solutions to fill the number 9 position whilst bolstering in other areas of the squad.
His pick of clubs?
Do you think City, Liverpool will need a ST next summer? How often do those clubs sign a 31 year old ST? Cause that is the age he will be next summer.
United need a ST and Kane would fit in well, United will sign one this summer so really, his options will be limited to Newcastle.
This is why I hate people saying no one can compete with City's spending, we and Chelsea have been.
I'm not sure Kane's quite old enough for us to buy him yet. We need him to be getting injured a bit more regularly before we're ready to pull the trigger. Maybe give it one more season so we can be sure to have the 'if only we'd had this guy in his prime' experience we all crave so much.
We haven’t been.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 15,206
- Supports
-
@NZT-One Casemiro has been unquestionably a very good signing.
Let’s not try to downplay things here.
Kane is also as close to a guarantee of success as a striker next season as you’re going to get in the PL he has about a decade of top performances to suggest this.
That’s not to say you can’t argue against him for stylistic reasons but again let’s not downplay what is clearly a very good striker.
Let’s not try to downplay things here.
Kane is also as close to a guarantee of success as a striker next season as you’re going to get in the PL he has about a decade of top performances to suggest this.
That’s not to say you can’t argue against him for stylistic reasons but again let’s not downplay what is clearly a very good striker.
Our spending has been very close to City's.