Haaland or Kane?

keithsingleton

Full Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
951
Location
Salford
Haaland or Kane.

Which one do you prefer? Being honest I'd still take either as massive improvement on squad no matter who. Kane obviously the finished article. He deserves to win trophies, unfortunately for Spurs they just always seem to miss out so can see why Kane wants to go. Problem is can anyone afford Levys price tag and how much do you think he will cost?

I honest don't think he will go abroad (( least I hope not )) and hopefully wants to break Shearers record.

Haaland bags of potential as we all know. However, with a Cnut of a agent I just can't see it happening for us.
 

charlenefan

Far less insightful than the other Charley
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
26,670
Kane

Would have a RVP like impact imo

I know Haaland has age on his side and Kane has little resale value and past injuries are a concern but I'd still choose him
 

AKDevil

Full Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
2,991
Location
London, England
Kane will be scoring/impacting games beyond his 30s. Ankles must be susceptible but missed about a week this season because of injury. Was back very quickly from that game when he hurt both of them.
 

IrishMcD

Full Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2017
Messages
641
Location
Ireland
My one, huge, concern with Kane is his muscular injury record. Tends to pick up injuries often which will on,y get worse the older he gets. Imagine blowing your entire budget on him and then he is out for three months.
There is no doubt he would be unbelievable if he stayed fit.
In terms of Haaland, I think he has potential to be even better than Kane, but I think with his agent you aren't going to have him for more than two years max before the nonsense starts. At least he'd have a big price if we were to sell him again.
Realistically though, with the owners we have, we aren't signing either. Kane to City if he leaves, Haaland to Chelsea or Madrid.
 

lex talionis

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
3,242
Haaland, of course.

The more relevant question is Haaland at 150m or Kane at 100m? In that case, Kane.
 

charlenefan

Far less insightful than the other Charley
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
26,670
Now here's a question would people take Kane if it meant City got Haaland?
 

pablo__p

Full Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
1,448
Location
Wrocław
If we take Raiola out of the equation then Halland. Higher ceiling and younger.

If Halland costs 160 and Kane 100 then Kane.
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
26,601
Location
Where fans' expectations are too high
Kane. Better player. Fantastic all round game which would suit/complement Rashford well.

Haaland has the age factor and the fact that he will most likely leave in a few years and we’d get a hefty price back for him adds a ton of weight to the debate. Whereas there’d be no resale value with Kane, but I guess as one of the biggest/richest clubs in the world, resale value, albeit a factor, shouldn’t be the primary driver of our transfer strategy.
 

Nytram Shakes

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
4,250
Location
Normally dark rooms
Would be insane to pay the fee needed to get Kane this summer.
The guy will be 28 has a dodgy injury record and spurs are going to want well in excess of 100 million (more likely closer to 150)
You just should never pay that kind of money towards a guy coming up to 30!
 

Pass and Move

Full Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
610
Easily Haaland. It’s not even close. Already putting up numbers to rival Kane, has youth, hunger, pace all on his side. No injury concerns, greater resale potential. Even with a 50% premium he’s the better buy
 

Peter van der Gea

Full Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2018
Messages
327
Haaland has Raiola, Kane has Levy, both tough, but you're stuck with Riola long term.

Haaland knows Ole, Kane knows the Prem.

Haaland has less experience, Kane has had a few injury issues.

Haaland has loads of potential, Kane is the finished article.

Currently, I'm saying Kane, but I could be easily convinced otherwise.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,221
If Halaand and Kane are both on the market then there's no way in hell City don't secure one of them. Which puts us in a bad position if we don't secure the other given a) overtaking City is the next goal for us, b) we need a striker and c) they're by far the two ourstanding striker options available in Europe.

If they bring in one if those two and we don't then we'd have to do very well elsewhere in the transfer market to keep the gap between the two teams where it is, let alone close it.

All things being equal you'd probably opt for Haaland as he's younger. However there's no guarantee he'd be here for more than a few years before his agent starts pushing for a move elsewhere, nor is there no benefit in opting for someone who is more experienced and settled in the league/country.

Either would be a ridiculously huge upgrade on what we have really.
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
12,387
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
It really is quite difficult.

Kane is the better player now. The problem is he does tend to pick up a decent injury every season, and that combined with being 28 before the next season starts does raise the possibility that he may decline in the not too distant future.

Haaland is a great goal scorer but that's pretty much all he is at the moment. His all-round game certainly isn't at the same level as Kane's is, and he relies more on getting service from others to be effective. However at his age he will only improve and he is obviously extremely driven to succeed.
 

Walters_19_MuFc

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
23,620
Location
Birmingham
Tough one. Obviously, both top strikers but you'd have to think which one would complement our style better.

Haaland is very much a player who doesn't always get involved in the build-up, but he will be constantly on the move trying to stretch teams. Kane, on the other hand, is the complete opposite. He's a striker that likes to drop into pockets and link play.

Now, whilst we score a lot of goals, it's no secret that we tend to struggle with low blocks. We lack someone with a calm head to stitch our play in the final third. Rashford and Bruno are obviously fantastic but they can be rash (no pun intended) at times.

We talk about lack of creativity, well, Harry Kane is a striker that would give us exactly that. With 13 assists, Kane tops the charts in the EPL and I'm pretty sure he doesn't take set pieces.

Stylistically, I'm not sure how it would work with Kane dropping into the areas that Bruno likes to operate in but I know players like Rashford would absolutely love Kane - as we see from the relationship between him and Son.

All in all, it depends on what we want.


If we were to get Haaland, then we wouldn't see much difference, especially when playing against defensive sides. However, if we were to get Kane, I personally believe he would really improve our game in the final third.
 

manunited1919

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
3,531
Son, I can’t see Kane having a greater impact than Cavani with the little service he gets. Our problem is still we are not creating enough, we need to overhaul our right side, we also need a CDM, possibly a keeper as well.
 

BoltonWanderer

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
10
Supports
Bolton Wanderers
Kane is a better player than Haaland now, and a more well rounded player than Haaland will ever be. Haaland is a great striker but he will have plenty of quiet games in a team that can't supply chances whereas even when Spurs have been poor, Kane is always a threat. In the same line of thinking, RVN was a better player than Tevez but I think Tevez would be better for this current United team.

This is why I think Lautaro Martinez is an option too. Haaland is better than him but Martinez would be a factor in every game, so it's not like he's a bad option because he's not quite the superb talent Haaland is.

The downside with Kane is his age and injuries, plus he'll likely cost more than Haaland. I think Kane will be around £120m and Haaland would be around £100m, and with Haaland's age, you could make a hefty profit on him.

So yeah, I don't think there's a bad option here. Both have their upsides, both help the team so whichever United go with, they'll be a massively improved team when they have a proper striker. Haaland gets more goals, Kane would be brilliant for Greenwood and Rashford, not to mention he'd still get loads of goals too.
 

Trex

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
295
Location
Nigeria
I'll take take Kane, he is currently the better player, no Raiola to deal with, the kind of player that suit united, plus we have Greenwood to take over when he's past his peak
 

Trex

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
295
Location
Nigeria
Son, I can’t see Kane having a greater impact than Cavani with the little service he gets. Our problem is still we are not creating enough, we need to overhaul our right side, we also need a CDM, possibly a keeper as well.
Nope Kane is the kind of centre forward that suit us because aside the goals he has other technical qualities that elevate our play unlike the likes of Cavani, Haaland or Lukaku
 
Last edited:

SirMarcusRashford

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Messages
154
Either. Kane is more guaranteed (already shown he can do it in the Premier League), but Haaland is younger.

Sign Kane and there's a good chance you'd have a world class elite striker for 4 to 5 years (Kane 5 years younger than Lewandowski and he's still doing the business), truth is sign either one and if we see the Kane Spurs see or see at United or the Haaland Dortmund see at United, then Manchester United would be contenders for the Premier League next season.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
40,896
Location
Canada
Kane would be perfect with his hold up play and goalscoring and creativity. Never going to happen though. His contract expires in 2024, it'll take upwards of 150m to get him at any point before 2023, by which point he'll be too old. Signing a 6 year contract in 2018 killed his chances of moving ever so this is all irrelevant.
 

Chairman Woodie

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2017
Messages
1,064
Location
Ireland
Haaland represents a better long term investment, in my opinion. He's younger and not injury prone like Harry Kane. Plenty of time for Haaland to work on his all round game.

The downside is Mino Raiola.
 

keithsingleton

Full Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2012
Messages
951
Location
Salford
Kane would be perfect with his hold up play and goalscoring and creativity. Never going to happen though. His contract expires in 2024, it'll take upwards of 150m to get him at any point before 2023, by which point he'll be too old. Signing a 6 year contract in 2018 killed his chances of moving ever so this is all irrelevant.
Contracts me nothing these days. The fact that Kane wants out if Spurs don't get CL football now means it's a completely different ball game and very much relevant.
 

davidmichael

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2015
Messages
2,130
I think whichever one you go with you get the same amount of time roughly with that player banging goals in, if you go with Haaland you get maybe 4 but most likely 3 seasons before Raiola kicks off and Haaland moves or you get 4 maybe 5 years of Kane at the highest level before he starts to regress with no sell on value.

I think based on that factor alone I’d go with Kane because he’s probably the most complete centre forward around and only behind Lewandowski for me as the best centre forward around, he’s shown he’ll easily evolve into a 10 or a false 9 once he gets to 33-34 and will still score goals then as his finishing is as good as anyone in the league and he positions himself brilliantly.

The argument is that Haaland is younger and we’ll get our money back on him BUT we know what Raiola is like and do we want Raiola piping up heading into our biggest games like he’s done with Pogba countless times, having Raiola’s two biggest clients on our books would mean he basically had the club over a barrel.

Also there’s no guarantee that Haaland would score goals at the ratio he is in Germany although you can look at his CL record this year as a counter to that, with Kane you know you’re getting a true professional with zero baggage who’s captain of England and guarantees you at least 25 goals a season as well as being an on pitch leader.

I don’t know Spurs financial situation but I do recall seeing reports of them having no money due to the stadium and that was pre COVID so after a year of no fans on top, paying Bale a percentage of his wages and Jose doing what modern day Jose does you don’t see them even getting Europa next season so you question if Spurs would turn down their last real shot at getting £100 million for Kane.

We could definitely afford to get Kane as well as getting a centre back, defensive midfielder and Sancho IF Ole, Murtough and Fletcher went to the board and explained the importance of signing Kane if he’s available as well as the allocated funds already set aside as Kane is an exceptional circumstance that wouldn’t have been foreseen.

Personally I’d take 5 years of prime Kane banging goals in without any drama and definitely propelling us to trophies whilst teaching Greenwood and allowing him to develop over Haaland and us having a summer of chaos every year due to Raiola trying to move Haaland on so he gets a massive pay day, we’d see a natural progression from Kane to Greenwood and I’m 99% certain we’d be genuine challengers to every domestic trophy.