Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player

[Eddy_JukeZ]

We conceded 13 goals in 2 matches, and have the most clean sheets in the league. Granted, we’ve made it a habit recently to get a few heavy drubbings every season, but you would think it would stop at some points.

It’s the Palace, Leeds, Soton, West Ham, Chelsea, Brighton matches where we either drew or lost by a solitary goal that’s any goal would’ve made a difference. I’m not sold on Kane myself, but we don’t actually need to match City’s goalscoring to compete, we just need to score about 75ish league goals to be in there, as opposed to our current 50ish.

We're not competing for league titles with just 75 league goals.

We need to hit 90+.

 

[Mainoldo]

We're not competing for league titles with just 75 league goals.

We need to hit 90+.

Explaining your thinking? As I don’t see the difference in averaging 2 goals instead of 3.

Your still more likely to win.

I’ve ran the stats. You’re right tbf.

 

[sullydnl]

We conceded 13 goals in 2 matches, and have the most clean sheets in the league. Granted, we’ve made it a habit recently to get a few heavy drubbings every season, but you would think it would stop at some points.

It’s the Palace, Leeds, Soton, West Ham, Chelsea, Brighton matches where we either drew or lost by a solitary goal that’s any goal would’ve made a difference. I’m not sold on Kane myself, but we don’t actually need to match City’s goalscoring to compete, we just need to score about 75ish league goals to be in there, as opposed to our current 50ish.

If you got to handpick when and where the goals were scored, sure. But you don't.

And goals are by definition distributed inefficiently. Meaning if you add goals to the team, they're more likely to occur in easier games. And easier games are by definition where we're more likely to have got positive results regardless. Meaning the majority of goals you add are redundant to the result.

If your attack is good enough to secure goals in all those key results, then it will also be racking up an even greater number of goals beyond that in games where they have no material impact.

The below involves us adding approx. 20 goals net to our side, in the games where Kane actually scored them, and it leaves us just 9 points better off. We need a lot more than five goals beyond that to bridge the remaining 11 points between us and City.

Seeing as we're arguing about the impact Kane's goals would have, I took a look at how our results would have changed if we had Kane instead of Ronaldo this season.

So I looked at the 36 games we've played, added in all the non-penalty goals Kane has scored for Spurs across all those same fixtures, removed Ronaldo's one goal from one game, then added up how that would impact our results across the season.

This is also ignoring the fact that Kane would cannibalise other players' goals beyond that, as Martial would have had fewer minutes to get his four goals (lol), Rashford wouldn't have been who everyone was creating for, other players would have been off set-pieces, etc.

So with all of Kane's goals in our team instead of Ronaldo's one goal this season we would currently be......

3rd. 11 points behind City, 3 points behind Arsenal, 9 points better off overall.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

We're not competing for league titles with just 75 league goals.

We need to hit 90+.

If you keep 20 clean sheets and concede 1 goal in another 9-10 games then you can absolutely compete with 75 goals, we are not far off that.

This season alone, if you take only games where we’ve drawn or lost 1-0, namely:

Newcastle home (0-0)
Chelsea away (1-1)
Palace away (1-1)
Leeds home (2-2)
Soton home (0-0)
Spurs away (2-2)
Brighton away (0-1)
West Ham away (0-1)

Only 10 goals are needed to turn those into wins, and we would be 16 (!) points better off, and that’s still leaving all the drubbings we received, or other matches where we lost by a goal but conceded 2 goals or more.

Of course you’d rather the team is free scoring and get 85+ goals a season, but we don’t necessarily need that to compete.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

If you got to handpick when and where the goals were scored, sure. But you don't.

And goals are by definition distributed inefficiently. Meaning if you add goals to the team, they're more likely to occur in easier games. And easier games are by definition where we're more likely to have got positive results regardless. Meaning the majority of goals you add are redundant to the result.

If your attack is good enough to secure goals in all those key results, then it will also be racking up an even greater number of goals beyond that in games where they have no material impact.

The below involves us adding approx. 20 goals net to our side, in the games where Kane actually scored them, and it leaves us just 9 points better off. We need a lot more than five goals beyond that to bridge the remaining 11 points between us and City.

Chelsea got 95 pts in 04-05 and 91 pts in 05-06 scoring 72 goals.

It’s not an outlandish idea. We are actually very good defensively despite the collapses away. Get a reliable source of goal who more often than not break the deadlock or get the 2nd goal and you can accumulate a lot of pts very quickly. Even this season, with our dreadful league scoring record since game week 26, had we not been dead on our feet for a large chunk of them then we could’ve reached 80 pts easily.

 

[Siorac]

If you got to handpick when and where the goals were scored, sure. But you don't.

And goals are by definition distributed inefficiently. Meaning if you add goals to the team, they're more likely to occur in easier games. And easier games are by definition where we're more likely to have got positive results regardless.

The below involves us adding approx. 20 goals net to our side, in the games where Kane actually scored them, and it leaves us just 9 points better off. We need a lot more than five goals beyond that to bridge the remaining 11 points between us and City.

And it's worth mentioning that every time people do these "how many points would XY add to the team" calculations, they always focus on the tight games we DIDN'T win. It's always taken for granted that the games in which we had the rub of the green would go our way next season, too. Games like Fulham away, Leeds away, Bournemouth away, West Ham home, Brentford home - all close, hard-fought games where we held on for the win but a lucky bounce could have meant dropping points.

The moral of the story is that we simply aren't playing well enough and creating enough to confidently assume that with the addition of a single striker, we'll win all the games we won without him AND all the tight games we didn't win.

 

[Hammondo]

Bollocks. Amad, Van de Beek, Jones, Smalling, Herrera, Shaw, Schneiderlin, Lukaku, Rojo, Pellistri, Fred, Sancho, Antony are all the kind of young up-and-comer folk wanted us to go for. There’s more, too. Martinez for that matter. Even then, half the folk here think most of them were/are shite.

Name the strategy, we’ve tried it. This idea that we can’t go out and buy top quality because a few high profile players failed under toxic and/or clueless managers doesn’t mean we stop doing it. Casemiro and Varane are evidence of it working out when under a half decent coach.

Again, we are going to continue to be a poor goalscoring team until we buy a genuinely top level striker. That’s fact. Just like our midfield was horrific when starting idiots like McTominay instead of the likes of Casemiro.

Some of you lot in charge would see us in tenth, I’m certain.

Lukaku was a "proven top class forward", not an up and coming player, he was going to fix our attacking problems. You are only helping me with my point.

If you want to go huge on a top striker fine, but get one younger. We are not in a position to challenge for anything with Kane, you can spend that money to have a bigger effect that will last longer.

 

[sullydnl]

And it's worth mentioning that every time people do these "how many points would XY add to the team" calculations, they always focus on the tight games we DIDN'T win. It's always taken for granted that the games in which we had the rub of the green would go our way next season, too. Games like Fulham away, Leeds away, Bournemouth away, West Ham home, Brentford home - all close, hard-fought games where we held on for the win but a lucky bounce could have meant dropping points.

The moral of the story is that we simply aren't playing well enough and creating enough to confidently assume that with the addition of a single striker, we'll win all the games we won without him AND all the tight games we didn't win.

Indeed.

People are taking this year's points as some sort of stable baseline. When in reality in other seasons we could come away with fewer points from the same level of performances. And if you trust stats like xPTS, that drop-off is more likely to occur than us gaining more points if we stayed the same.

And it ignores that other teams will be strengthening too and looking to get their own share of points they wouldn't have got this season. The rest of the league doesn't just stand still while we get to turn select games in our favour.

 

[MadDogg]

Yeah. Gabriel Jesus scored 8 league goals last season. Haaland scored 36 - you'd think, based on the "Harry Kane turns us into City" logic, that they're scoring five goals a game now, as opposed to... performing roughly the same in attack as last season.

I wouldn't say it's really the same thing. City were designed to get goals from everywhere and they were already close to the upper limit that a team can realistically expect, and Haaland coming in to act as the focus point took goals from those other positions. That was always going to happen to some extent, although you would perhaps think that the total would get a little higher (perhaps it will next season now they've had a year to acclimatise to the change). Whereas we're not really getting goals from those other positions other than Rashford, so the goals a striker provides will be largely be on top of what we have got this season.

Obviously it's not a perfect addition as Rashford might score a little less (although if it's Kane we bring in he might actually score more), but the goals we get from a striker should certainly increase our total significantly.

 

[Lecland07]

Seeing as we're arguing about the impact Kane's goals would have, I took a look at how our results would have changed if we had Kane instead of Ronaldo this season.

So I looked at the 36 games we've played, added in all the non-penalty goals Kane has scored for Spurs across all those same fixtures, removed Ronaldo's one goal from one game, then added up how that would impact our results across the season.

This is also ignoring the fact that Kane would cannibalise other players' goals beyond that, as Martial would have had fewer minutes to get his four goals (lol), Rashford wouldn't have been who everyone was creating for, other players would have been off set-pieces, etc.

So with all of Kane's goals in our team instead of Ronaldo's one goal this season we would currently be......

3rd. 11 points behind City, 3 points behind Arsenal, 9 points better off overall.

This is a simplistic view, also, as it ignores a lot of the other benefits that Kane brings to the team that our strikers do not. Positioning, heading, dribbling (underrated), hold-up play, passing are all far superior to anything our strikers provide, which will result in the team being better as a whole, leading to more creativity and possession.

I think the improvement will be a bit bigger than 9 points (performances for one would be better, making it more sustainable), but let us assume that we got 9 points from signing Kane as it isn't ridiculous. That is actually a massive improvement when you put things into perspective. If you added that 9 points today, it is very realistic that we would end this season in excess of 80 points, maxing out at a possible 84 points in the next two games. In other words, we would be level with Arsenal on points if we won our last two; Arsenal have a cap of 84 points also. (We have a game in hand).

Assuming City win their last game, we could have finished this season only 8 points away. This would be seen as an incredibly promising league season, and we wouldn't be a huge way from City, to be honest. There is a decent chance that we may have even topped the table for periods during this season (who knows, that could have spurred on the team to greater heights?). It may not sound exciting, but that is a huge difference to what we are currently.

There would need to be work as, no, signing Kane won't be enough, but 9 points would be massive. We could then look at a midfielder and whatever else is needed.

 

[cyberman]

And it's worth mentioning that every time people do these "how many points would XY add to the team" calculations, they always focus on the tight games we DIDN'T win. It's always taken for granted that the games in which we had the rub of the green would go our way next season, too. Games like Fulham away, Leeds away, Bournemouth away, West Ham home, Brentford home - all close, hard-fought games where we held on for the win but a lucky bounce could have meant dropping points.

The moral of the story is that we simply aren't playing well enough and creating enough to confidently assume that with the addition of a single striker, we'll win all the games we won without him AND all the tight games we didn't win.

Games are meant to be hard to win. That’s why the big players cost what they do. If anything our inability to put games to bed put those games at risk. When a team doesn’t score enough goals then the opposition are always in it. That means chances that the opposition create are amplified because it’s a chance to equalise when they should already be a couple of goals down.

 

[Baneofthegame]

And it's worth mentioning that every time people do these "how many points would XY add to the team" calculations, they always focus on the tight games we DIDN'T win. It's always taken for granted that the games in which we had the rub of the green would go our way next season, too. Games like Fulham away, Leeds away, Bournemouth away, West Ham home, Brentford home - all close, hard-fought games where we held on for the win but a lucky bounce could have meant dropping points.

The moral of the story is that we simply aren't playing well enough and creating enough to confidently assume that with the addition of a single striker, we'll win all the games we won without him AND all the tight games we didn't win.

Except you could also argue Kane would influence not only the short example of games we could have won instead of losing, but also the tight games we won anyway. If he's scoring 20-30 goals, we can actually be on the front foot of these games .

 

[sullydnl]

This is a simplistic view, also, as it ignores a lot of the other benefits that Kane brings to the team that our strikers do not. Positioning, heading, dribbling (underrated), hold-up play, passing are all far superior to anything the other players provide, which will result in the team being better as a whole, leading to more creativity and possession.

I think the improvement will be a bit bigger than 9 points (performances for one would be better, making it more sustainable), but let us assume that we got 9 points from signing Kane as it isn't ridiculous. That is actually a massive improvement when you put things into perspective. If you added that 9 points today, it is very realistic that we would end this season in excess of 80 points, maxing out at a possible 84 points in the next two games. In other words, we would be level with Arsenal on points if we won our last two; Arsenal have a cap of 84 points also. (We have a game in hand).

Assuming City win their last game, we could have finished this season only 8 points away. This would be seen as an incredibly promising league season, and we wouldn't be a huge way from City, to be honest. There is a decent chance that we may have even topped the table for periods during this season. It may not sound exciting, but that is a huge difference to what we are currently.

There would need to be work as, no, signing Kane won't be enough, but 9 points would be massive. We could then look at a midfielder and whatever else is needed.

Obviously it's simplistic, I can't model for everything a player adds. But we're talking in simplistic terms about what his goals alone would do, so it's worth making the point that they don't tranlsate that efficiently to points.

But I agree entirely, 9 points from any one signing is massive. As a short-hand you could see it as the difference between been us struggling to finish top four and having had it comfortably wrapped up weeks ago. Or, next season if teams around us improve, the difference between finishing in top four again at all and missing out. If you told ETH one signing alone would secure top four for us next season he would be thrilled.

It's important to note the distinction between what adding Kane to our team this season versus next season would do though. Imagining him added this season, everything else stays the same and we close X amount of ground. But in real terms next season the teams around us will also be making improvements, so that advantage against some teams is ameliorated. We don't just have to improve, we have to improve more than they do.

It also depends on him repeating what was his best goalscoring season in half a decade. If he reduces to his more typical level of recent years, the gain lessens too. Just last season he had scored 10 fewer non-penalty goals, for example. You can't rule out him having a season like that here either, or more likely something in between.

 

[Abraxas]

A player of his calibre or close to, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

Arsenal have better forwards than we do, so using them as an example doesn’t really hold.

You seem to have already indicated that Kane is the only one at a good enough level available. I mean, in reality, he probably is the only one that is considered proven elite talent available, I've no problem seeing that. So I guess that really does mean Kane or bust.

So what about if Levy decides to play hard ball, doesn't want to sell, or wants to run it down to the last week or days of the window to make our life difficult? There are any number of ways he can ruin Kag's window, either by total reluctance to sell to us in particular, or just delaying tactics because he knows we have gone all in on this. If you were Murtough, he completely has you by the nuts on this.

If he doesn't sell do we then just concede that we're finishing 4th or 5th in your mind? I feel very nervous that our forward momentum is relying on Daniel Levy to this extent.

.

 

[cyberman]

Is it? Gabriel Jesus doesn't score at the level of world class goalscorers. I'm not dismissing his technique, hold up play, creativity and everything else he brings - but he's not comparable to Harry Kane for goalscoring. He's more of a 1 in 3 fella that brings plenty of other stuff to his teams than that type of player.

Yet he still helped kick Arsenal on a level when he was available, so I think it supports that there are many ways to improve a team.

No, I’m saying Arteta himself thought he needed to add a top striker to this side, Jesus simply got injured. Their no 9 position supplied them with almost 20 league goals this season anyway.
Sir Alex lost the league in goal difference and signed the best striker in the league so that didn’t happen again. No nonsense about cannibalising others goals, he just replaced Welbeck with a better striker.

 

[Abraxas]

No, I’m saying Arteta himself thought he needed to add a top striker to this side, Jesus simply got injured. Their no 9 position supplied them with almost 20 league goals this season anyway.
Sir Alex lost the league in goal difference and signed the best striker in the league so that didn’t happen again. No nonsense about cannibalising others goals, he just replaced Welbeck with a better striker.

And that's fine, I don't really see what the point is you're driving at. The fact is Jesus is not an elite goalscorer. Never has been and it's there on paper, black and white at club or international level. Me saying he's not a noted goalscorer was too extreme, it's more that he's not an elite goalscorer, but the point is in comparison to Harry Kane and finishers like him - he's not in that bracket. The only point I was supporting with that is that signing Harry Kane's type is not the only way to improve, and it's there right in front of us this season. It's not a matter of disputing Jesus's quality.

There is no issue with replacing Wout Weghorst and Anthony Martial with a better striker. That's going to happen irrespective of Kane or who is cannibalising what. They're our Danny Welbecks at the moment so there's a huge margin for improvement.

 

[cyberman]

And that's fine, I don't really see what the point is you're driving at. The fact is Jesus is not an elite goalscorer. Never has been and it's there on paper, black and white at club or international level. Me saying he's not a noted goalscorer was too extreme, it's more that he's not an elite goalscorer, but the point is in comparison to Harry Kane and finishers like him - he's not in that bracket. The only point I was supporting with that is that signing Harry Kane's type is not the only way to improve, and it's there right in front of us this season. It's not a matter of disputing Jesus's quality.

There is no issue with replacing Wout Weghorst and Anthony Martial with a better striker. That's going to happen irrespective of Kane or who is cannibalising what. They're our Danny Welbecks at the moment so there's a huge margin for improvement.

Jesus is an elite striker who is stupidly creative and scored lots of goals. I don’t know why you’re playing down Jesus to push through this point.
The man regularly scores 15 odd goals with the same amount of assists as a 9 while he’s being rotated in and out of the Peps side.
Thats fantastic output from him.
Maybe it’s easier to just frame elite strikers as goal scorers and that’s it but Kane falls in that same bracket as well. They must make teams better. You get the goals but you also get the creative penetration through the middle that brings teams up another level still.
I honestly can’t believe we’re sitting here and arguing that it wouldn’t make an Astronomical difference to a side going to Kane from Ronaldo, Martial and Weghorst. City added Haaland to their side and are favourites for the treble and he’s nothing but a goalscorer.

 

[Abraxas]

Jesus is an elite striker who is stupidly creative and scored lots of goals. I don’t know why you’re playing down Jesus to push through this point.
The man regularly scores 15 odd goals with the same amount of assists as a 9 while he’s being rotated in and out of the Peps side.
Thats fantastic output from him.
Maybe it’s easier to just frame elite strikers as goal scorers and that’s it but Kane falls in that same bracket as well. They must make teams better. You get the goals but you also get the creative penetration through the middle that brings teams up another level still.
I honestly can’t believe we’re sitting here and arguing that it wouldn’t make an Astronomical difference to a side going to Kane from Ronaldo, Martial and Weghorst. City added Haaland to their side and are favourites for the treble and he’s nothing but a goalscorer.

We're not sat here arguing that. You're throwing up straw men and debating them with yourself.

All I said was that Jesus is not a noted goalscorer with the point behind that being that there are many ways to improve, it's not just about goals scored by a striker. Which I've admitted is over the top as a description, he's a goalscorer but not elite at doing that in particular. All the rest is agreed. In fact my point strengthens what you're saying, I rate Jesus overall play and I'm crediting that for improving Arsenal even though he's very different to Kane.

The Kane point is also agreed. Yes he'd make a big difference. Just not in the simplistic manner of totting up the points we would have got based on games this season, or adding his goals onto our team directly. It's better simply to say he makes a difference. That's likely to be accurate whereas transferring goals between teams, different styles, different seasons is not.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Doracle]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I feel it’s safe to say that our transfer budget is not £100m…

Kane is an essential purchase. Rice would be good but I do wonder if the money we would need to spend couldn’t be better spent elsewhere. Mount should be avoided unless he can be picked up for c £20m as a squad option.

 

[Doracle]

Indeed.

Literally only one of this season's top four teams had a striker scoring at a world class level this season. The idea that anyone we sign needs to immediately hit that level next season is insane.

Newcastle’s strikers have alternated and can’t stay fit but they have 28 goals between them which in minutes played equates to 29 goals over 38 games, which is elite. Arsenal don’t have a number 9 as prolific but they do have a top class CF who can contribute with 15-20 goals over a full season and who works well with their wingers.

It’s only us of the top 4 who basically have no striker - the three we have used this season have 6 goals between them. Kane gives us a combination of what all three of the other top 4 clubs have from their number 9, which is great all-round ability plus a high goal output. We’d go from having no CF to having the best possible option. Not hard to see why that would be expected to make a big difference.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Would be some window that... and Mason Mount too.

 

[The Firestarter]

Brexit fc

 

[RedRonaldo]

I feel it’s safe to say that our transfer budget is not £100m…

Kane is an essential purchase. Rice would be good but I do wonder if the money we would need to spend couldn’t be better spent elsewhere. Mount should be avoided unless he can be picked up for c £20m as a squad option.

I can see us signing Kane for 80m, Rice for 100m and Mount for 35m this summer.

 

[stepic]

back to the british united strategy or what

 

[Powderfinger]

From an FFP perspective:

Kane about £40m per year, if you figure £90m fee amortized on a four year contract and about £350k per week in wages (£17m per year).

Mount about £23m per year, £60m fee amortized over a five year contract and £220 per week wages (£11m per year).

Rice about £31m per year, £90m fee amortized over a five year contract and £250 per week wages (£13m per year).

Doesn't feel possible given various stories in the past about United's FFP situation unless those leaks were all just bullshit (which could be the case).

 

[DJ_21]

Looks like he’s our number 1 St target. Hope we don’t spend all summer trying though. If we can’t get we need back up targets.

 

[sullydnl]

Newcastle’s strikers have alternated and can’t stay fit but they have 28 goals between them which in minutes played equates to 29 goals over 38 games, which is elite. Arsenal don’t have a number 9 as prolific but they do have a top class CF who can contribute with 15-20 goals over a full season and who works well with their wingers.

It’s only us of the top 4 who basically have no striker - the three we have used this season have 6 goals between them. Kane gives us a combination of what all three of the other top 4 clubs have from their number 9, which is great all-round ability plus a high goal output. We’d go from having no CF to having the best possible option. Not hard to see why that would be expected to make a big difference.

The post I was referring to was arguing that we needed a player of Kane's world class calibre next season.

The fact that Wilson, Isak and Jesus (none of whom are near as good as Harry Kane) all had the key positive impacts you note just underlines my point that we don't. It's absolutely possible for us to achieve all the realistic aims we have for next season with a CF quite a bit below the standard Kane hit this season. Because as you note, there is still huge margin to improve on our current options.

This isn't aimed at you but there's a weird defensiveness around Kane in this thread. It's one thing to argue that Kane is the best buy this summer. I disagree, but whatever. But sometimes the tone of the discussion makes it sound like signing anyone other than this one "proven" player or opting to prioritise longer term upside means we can't get a lot of goals from CF next season, can't perform brilliantly next season and will waste the primes of all our current players in the near future. Like younger "unproven" players don't regularly come into the league and do just as well as supposedly proven ones. Or like every team that does well needs a 28 goal season player.

Even if people really want Kane, missing out on him or declining to pay a silly fee for him won't be the end of the world. Ditto Osimhen or anyone else. There are plenty of fine footballers in the world.

 

[Doracle]

The post I was referring to was arguing that we needed a player of Kane's world class calibre next season.

The fact that Wilson, Isak and Jesus (none of whom are near as good as Harry Kane) all had the key positive impacts you note just underlines my point that we don't. It's absolutely possible for us to achieve all the realistic aims we have for next season with a CF quite a bit below the standard Kane hit this season. Because as you note, there is still huge margin to improve on our current options.

This isn't aimed at you but there's a weird defensiveness around Kane in this thread. It's one thing to argue that Kane is the best buy this summer. I disagree, but whatever. But sometimes the tone of the discussion makes it sound like signing anyone other than this one "proven" player or opting to prioritise longer term upside means we can't get a lot of goals from CF next season, can't perform brilliantly next season and will waste the primes of all our current players in the near future. Like younger "unproven" players don't regularly come into the league and do just as well as supposedly proven ones. Or like every team that does well needs a 28 goal season player.

Even if people really want Kane, missing out on him or declining to pay a silly fee for him won't be the end of the world. Ditto Osimhen or anyone else. There are plenty of fine footballers in the world.

I think the problem is that there are a whole bunch of strawmen being thrown up as to why we don’t need a world class striker and the goalposts keep switching.

For example, you say that only one of the top 4 has a striker scoring goals at world class level. I point out that’s wrong and we are really the only top 4 team without that input and your argument switches to saying that Newcastle’s strikers aren’t as good as Kane, so we therefore don’t need him and should just get someone worse.

An argument that we should settle for worse players is simply bizarre. We are one of the best teams in the world and should be buying players at that level. It’s particularly bizarre when you seem to be fine with us paying £55m for Mason Mount on that thread, who wouldn’t even get into our first 11.

The reality is that most of the “anti Kane” sentiment on here really breaks down to people not liking Kane as a player for whatever reason. That’s ok. Just come out and say that rather than coming up with theories as to why signing a top class CF isn’t the way forwards.

 

[Ludens the Red]

Been Rewatching that Spurs documentary and interesting comments from levy in one of the episodes regarding Eriksen.
He basically says Spurs will never let a player run down his contract as he believes it shows they aren’t a big club. And he’d take the most nominal of fees so it didn’t happen. That obviously happened with Eriksen. Will be interesting to see if he does it with Kane when he possibly asks to leave as early as next week with just one year left.

 

[sullydnl]

I think the problem is that there are a whole bunch of strawmen being thrown up as to why we don’t need a world class striker and the goalposts keep switching.

For example, you say that only one of the top 4 has a striker scoring goals at world class level. I point out that’s wrong and we are really the only top 4 team without that input and your argument switches to saying that Newcastle’s strikers aren’t as good as Kane, so we therefore don’t need him and should just get someone worse.

An argument that we should settle for worse players is simply bizarre. We are one of the best teams in the world and should be buying players at that level. It’s particularly bizarre when you seem to be fine with us paying £55m for Mason Mount on that thread, who wouldn’t even get into our first 11.

The reality is that most of the “anti Kane” sentiment on here really breaks down to people not liking Kane as a player for whatever reason. That’s ok. Just come out and say that rather than coming up with theories as to why signing a top class CF isn’t the way forwards.

My argument hasn't switched. None of the strikers at those top four clubs are as good as Kane and none of them have been scoring goals at that world class level.

In Jesus' case because his rate of returns simply aren't world class, along with him having been out injured for a massive chunk of the season. And in Isak and Wilson's cases because their numbers are skewed by irregular minutes. Their goalscoring isn't the same as the full season of week in week out returns Kane has put in which amounts to a much greater individual/total contribution and actually returning goals at a world class level.

Because clearly when the poster I was referring to said we needed a striker scoring a world class level, he wasn't suggesting we buy someone like Calumn Wilson just because he returned at an even better per minute rate than Kane. We know Wilson's goalscoring "achievements" this season aren't actually representative of world class goalscoring in the same way Kane or Haaland's are. That argument is sophistry.

Also, speaking of strawmen, when did I say I was fine with spending £55m on Mason Mount? I never once referenced his fee and I repeatedly said he's not the profile of midfielder I want us to sign. Saying he's better than people think doesn't mean I want us to buy him.

And suggesting that the people who don't want us to spend 80-100m on a 30 year old CF who has already clearly declined from his physical peak must dislike Kane is exactly the sort of defensiveness I was referring too. It's one thing to think Kane is the best option, it's another to think your opinion is so infallibly correct that the obvious common sense objections to it are some symptom of bias. Or that it's impossible for any other striker to be as good or better a signing.

 

[Kag]

Lukaku was a "proven top class forward", not an up and coming player, he was going to fix our attacking problems. You are only helping me with my point.

If you want to go huge on a top striker fine, but get one younger. We are not in a position to challenge for anything with Kane, you can spend that money to have a bigger effect that will last longer.

Lukaku is exactly the kind of forward you are describing we go for now. Young, ambitious and entering his prime. It’s only now you sit here and piss all over it. You’re proving my point rather than the other way around.

As for the bolded, I’ll ask for the dozenth time. Who is this player and how does that better serve us than Harry Kane?

 

[Kag]

You seem to have already indicated that Kane is the only one at a good enough level available. I mean, in reality, he probably is the only one that is considered proven elite talent available, I've no problem seeing that. So I guess that really does mean Kane or bust.

So what about if Levy decides to play hard ball, doesn't want to sell, or wants to run it down to the last week or days of the window to make our life difficult? There are any number of ways he can ruin Kag's window, either by total reluctance to sell to us in particular, or just delaying tactics because he knows we have gone all in on this. If you were Murtough, he completely has you by the nuts on this.

If he doesn't sell do we then just concede that we're finishing 4th or 5th in your mind? I feel very nervous that our forward momentum is relying on Daniel Levy to this extent.

And here we are at last.

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying.

Look, if Kane can’t or won’t come then we need to go elsewhere, that’s obvious. But I’m not going to sit here and listen to people chat shite about actively seeking to bring in somebody significantly poorer and less proven all because they happen to be 22 years old instead of 29. I’m not having it.

If Kane is available then you go for it. It’s as simple as that. If he isn’t then the club needs to find another solution, but let’s not pretend it’s going to be as good. It isn’t.

 

[RickRudesDong]

If Ten Hag really does want Mount, Rice and particularly Kane then he'd lose all credibility when it comes to future transfers. That's a shit list, sorry. So unimaginative and boring.

 

[Hammondo]

Lukaku is exactly the kind of forward you are describing we go for now. Young, ambitious and entering his prime. It’s only now you sit here and piss all over it. You’re proving my point rather than the other way around.

As for the bolded, I’ll ask for the dozenth time. Who is this player and how does that better serve us than Harry Kane?

Lukaku is the opposite kind of player I want, hes not very good, no future potential, all physical and no ability on the ball. He is another "proven goal scorer" without looking at his overall play and how its going to work in a few years.

 

[L1nk]

Judging from todays reports from Laurie Whitwell in the Athletic I think or Striker search this summer will go a little something like this

Harry Kane offer
- Accepted (Done, we maybe get a younger backup striker if funds allow later in the window)
- Declined (We move on)

Goncalo Ramos
- Accepted (Done, we maybe get an older backup striker if funds allow later in the window)
- Declined (We move on)

Take your pick between the likes of Rasmus Hojlund, Jonathan David etc. I don't see us in for Osimhen at all at the price quoted so it'll be between Kane and Ramos, or we step down a tier.

 

[croadyman]

Judging from todays reports from Laurie Whitwell in the Athletic I think or Striker search this summer will go a little something like this

Harry Kane offer
- Accepted (Done, we maybe get a younger backup striker if funds allow later in the window)
- Declined (We move on)

Goncalo Ramos
- Accepted (Done, we maybe get an older backup striker if funds allow later in the window)
- Declined (We move on)

Take your pick between the likes of Rasmus Hojlund, Jonathan David etc. I don't see us in for Osimhen at all at the price quoted so it'll be between Kane and Ramos, or we step down a tier.

Would prefer the top one

 

[Kag]

Lukaku is the opposite kind of player I want, hes not very good, no future potential, all physical and no ability on the ball. He is another "proven goal scorer" without looking at his overall play and how its going to work in a few years.

Captain Hindsight here.

You can’t sit there and tear into our recent recruitment for looking into high profile players on the decline (Kane?), then pedal the idea that we should have been going for younger players who can develop into world class forwards all along, and then also tear into the very sort of thinking that lead us into buying a Premier League-proven 24 year old coming off the back of scoring 25 league goals for Everton.

What Lukaku was, or rather what he looked like he could have turned into, is essentially exactly what you’re asking for right now. That he never managed to kick on and had the world’s largest chip on his shoulder is only truly apparent now he had his chances at the top and then blew it.

And this is the risk. Oshimen, Ramos, your man at Atalanta who has scored eight (eight!) fecking goals. It’s why Harry Kane makes even more sense. He’d come in and score, which is what we need.

 

[2cents]

Yes but Sheringham was brought in as a squad player when we already had three other great strikers (Yorke, Cole and Solksjaer) so we could use him sparingly and keep him fresh given his advancing years

Sheringham was brought in as Cantona's replacement, a year before we signed Yorke when Solskjaer was still a bit of a rookie and Cole had yet to really get going. He was very much signed to be the main man up front in 1997. Kane is obviously a far superior forward in any case.

 

[Hammondo]

Captain Hindsight here.

You can’t sit there and tear into our recent recruitment for looking into high profile players on the decline (Kane?), then pedal the idea that we should have been going for younger players who can develop into world class forwards all along, and then also tear into the very sort of thinking that lead us into buying a Premier League-proven 24 year old coming off the back of scoring 25 league goals for Everton.

What Lukaku was, or rather what he looked like he could have turned into, is essentially exactly what you’re asking for right now. That he never managed to kick on and had the world’s largest chip on his shoulder is only truly apparent now he had his chances at the top and then blew it.

And this is the risk. Oshimen, Ramos, your man at Atalanta who has scored eight (eight!) fecking goals. It’s why Harry Kane makes even more sense. He’d come in and score, which is what we need.

Because as many people here mentioned, you can see Lukaku is a massively overrated poor footballer from a fecking mile, its so obvoius. Nothing to do with hindsight, many said it here before he was bought.

At no point did he look like anything that I have said, aside from young.