Harry Kane MBE | Performances | Jan 2020: Torn hamstring, won't return to training until April

Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Messages
12,390
Son or Moura up front with Eriksen/Lamela taking up their spot behind the main striker.
Didnt he say he didnt see them as a number 9?
 

redshaw

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
4,141
Good news for us if we can muster up a strong second half season but Chelsea seem to be out of reach once things even out. I doubt Spurs can keep up the results like they did maybe the time before last that Kane was out?
 

Scroto Baggins

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
1,465
Supports
Newcastle Jets
Didnt he say he didnt see them as a number 9?
Neither are what Jose would consider a number 9, think Drogba, Lukaku, Kane, Ibra. Jose likes a target man that can hold up the ball and bring others into play around him.
 

InLevyITrust

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
8,658
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham
He doesn't but we don't have anyone else in the squad other than a 17 year old kid.

Highlights what a total joke our transfer dealings have been in the last 3 years.
Gonna be hard to convince a "good backup" to come, didn't we try for Morata and he basically asked why, he was needed?
 

Pexbo

Online influencer who has never watched Star Wars
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
47,263
Location
Brizzle
Those statistics reveal nothing of the sort they are claiming. What is the point of comparing a percentage of games completed between Jesus (18 starts) and Kane (47 starts)? How many of Salah's 22 substutions happened before the 75th minute and how many happened after the 90th minute?

Kane over the last 2 seasons has played 4207 minutes in the Premier League whereas Salah has played 4707.

So Kane is averaging 89.5 minutes per start whereas Salah is averaging 87.1 minutes per start yet Salah is at the bottom of that list with 59% of games completed.

Absolutely shite journalism and a perfect example of how statistics can be misunderstood.
 

Mb194dc

Full Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
1,804
Supports
Chelsea
Yup, it all goes back to paying for the stadium. Spurs couldn't afford transfers so he's been played in to the ground.

Should be a big warning for Stamford Bridge development. Could cripple our results for a decade.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
27,343
Location
xG Zombie Nation
Those statistics reveal nothing of the sort they are claiming. What is the point of comparing a percentage of games completed between Jesus (18 starts) and Kane (47 starts)? How many of Salah's 22 substutions happened before the 75th minute and how many happened after the 90th minute?

Kane over the last 2 seasons has played 4207 minutes in the Premier League whereas Salah has played 4707.

So Kane is averaging 89.5 minutes per start whereas Salah is averaging 87.1 minutes per start yet Salah is at the bottom of that list with 59% of games completed.

Absolutely shite journalism and a perfect example of how statistics can be misunderstood.
Kane was injured for 91 days last season and Salah 11 days.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
7,349
Location
Germany
Those statistics reveal nothing of the sort they are claiming. What is the point of comparing a percentage of games completed between Jesus (18 starts) and Kane (47 starts)? How many of Salah's 22 substutions happened before the 75th minute and how many happened after the 90th minute?

Kane over the last 2 seasons has played 4207 minutes in the Premier League whereas Salah has played 4707.

So Kane is averaging 89.5 minutes per start whereas Salah is averaging 87.1 minutes per start yet Salah is at the bottom of that list with 59% of games completed.

Absolutely shite journalism and a perfect example of how statistics can be misunderstood.
I was writing up the same post as yours before I actually scrolled down and saw you already did it.

feck sports journalists

Kane was injured for 91 days last season and Salah 11 days.
Then you look at something like: minutes played / (38*90-matches missed*90).
 

DAK222

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
214
Supports
Liverpool
It's hilarious that key players to the position keep getting injured just before you're due to play them, yes.
Erm, missing till end of March means he also won't play against City (if you care about the title race) and he won't play against Chelsea and Utd (if you care about the Top 4 race). He may be back for Arsenal, so they're the only ones who have any right to moan even a little bit like this.
 

Pexbo

Online influencer who has never watched Star Wars
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
47,263
Location
Brizzle
Kane was injured for 91 days last season and Salah 11 days.
And? That's the reason they have ran the article but it's completely irrelevant to the statistics they've produced. Salah started 37 out of the 38 matches last season and came on as a sub in one and yet averaged 85mins per match. The fewest minutes he played all season was 24 which was the only sub appearance for him.

So by The Telegraph's logic there, Salah should be burnt out and injured all the time because he's being completely overworked but their terrible use of statistics completely hides how much Salah was used last season and instead represents him as someone who had their game time managed perfectly and was kept fresh all season which is absolutely not the case. He was in the Top 25 minutes played last season with the list of players above him including 10 goalkeepers, and only 2 other attacking players.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
27,343
Location
xG Zombie Nation
I was writing up the same post as yours before I actually scrolled down and saw you already did it.

feck sports journalists



Then you look at something like: minutes played / (38*90-matches missed*90).
Kane appeared in 40 matches for Spurs last season. Salah appeared in 52 matches but both with roughly the same minutes, doesn't that support the assertion that Salah's minutes were better managed for his fitness?

And? That's the reason they have ran the article but it's completely irrelevant to the statistics they've produced. Salah started 37 out of the 38 matches last season and came on as a sub in one and yet averaged 85mins per match. The fewest minutes he played all season was 24 which was the only sub appearance for him.

So by The Telegraph's logic there, Salah should be burnt out and injured all the time because he's being completely overworked but their terrible use of statistics completely hides how much Salah was used last season and instead represents him as someone who had their game time managed perfectly and was kept fresh all season which is absolutely not the case. He was in the Top 25 minutes played last season with the list of players above him including 10 goalkeepers, and only 2 other attacking players.
Not really following your logic here. The idea is that not playing as many full games doesn't push the body to the limit and allows better recovery isn't it?
 

RobinLFC

Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
11,736
Location
Belgium
Kane was injured for 91 days last season and Salah 11 days.
Which proves that he's injury prone or at most that he's not build to sustain his workload. The headline seems to claim that such a workload is unsustainable in itself, while the list provided actually proves that it certainly isn't (Salah and Mane as prime examples).
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
7,349
Location
Germany
Kane appeared in 40 matches for Spurs last season. Salah appeared in 52 matches but both with roughly the same minutes, doesn't that support the assertion that Salah's minutes were better managed for his fitness?
The article specifies PL matches (which already sort of invalidates the point its trying to make).

Last season Salah played 3261 of possible 3420 minutes of PL football, or 95%.

Kane: 2427/3420=71%, excluding matches missed by injury: 2427/2520=96%


3342 minutes vs 4342 also isn't roughly the same, it's a big difference. They were both basically starting every possible PL/CL game, they both had a roughly equal percentage of possible minutes played.
Would you have guessed that looking at the Telegraph's table though?

Looking at Kane's injury history it's a fair question to ask whether he specifically has a problem to cope with his intense schedule and whether he might need more rests. But the journo tries to turn a question into an accusation with some statistical bullshitting.
 

Pexbo

Online influencer who has never watched Star Wars
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
47,263
Location
Brizzle
Not really following your logic here. The idea is that not playing as many full games doesn't push the body to the limit and allows better recovery isn't it?
A perfectly reasonable assertion that falls to pieces when you question how playing on average 85mins per game is better game management than playing on average 87mins per game. Salah was subbed just 6 times last season. This season he’s been subbed off 9 times (so no idea where the 22 comes from) of which 3 have been after the 90th minute and 2 after the 85th.

Is missing the last few minutes of a match every 2 or 3 weeks supposed to be the key to not being injured?

Kanes injuries have nothing to do with what they are suggesting, there’s loads and loads of players who play virtually every minute of every game for their clubs and don't fall to pieces because of it. Kane’s problem is his natural fitness and how naturally supple and robust his muscles and joints are.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
27,343
Location
xG Zombie Nation
The article specifies PL matches (which already sort of invalidates the point its trying to make).

Last season Salah played 3261 of possible 3420 minutes of PL football, or 95%.

Kane: 2427/3420=71%, excluding matches missed by injury: 2427/2520=96%


3342 minutes vs 4342 also isn't roughly the same, it's a big difference. They were both basically starting every possible PL/CL game, they both had a roughly equal percentage of possible minutes played.
Would you have guessed that looking at the Telegraph's table though?

Looking at Kane's injury history it's a fair question to ask whether he specifically has a problem to cope with his intense schedule and whether he might need more rests. But the journo tries to turn a question into an accusation with some statistical bullshitting.
A perfectly reasonable assertion that falls to pieces when you question how playing on average 85mins per game is better game management than playing on average 87mins per game. Salah was subbed just 6 times last season. This season he’s been subbed off 9 times (so no idea where the 22 comes from) of which 3 have been after the 90th minute and 2 after the 85th.

Is missing the last few minutes of a match every 2 or 3 weeks supposed to be the key to not being injured?

Kanes injuries have nothing to do with what they are suggesting, there’s loads and loads of players who play virtually every minute of every game for their clubs and don't fall to pieces because of it. Kane’s problem is his natural fitness and how naturally supple and robust his muscles and joints are.
Fair points but I'd agree with the premise of the article in that there are questions to be asked if his minutes are being managed properly and as @do.ob mentions, that perhaps he does need to be rested more.
 

dwd

Saturday Night Spies
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
11,433
Location
Under soil heating.
When did it happen before? Laporte was gone far earlier than when they played them. I think for us Pogba and Martial was still out too, but that was earlier. Leicester had everyone in that game too.
Which other team has lost a player just before they played them?
Martial came on as a sub against them I think but yes he was 100%. Pogba missed the game too as you mention.
Grealish got injured before they played Villa.
Ederson got injured before their game with City. We know how crap Bravo is.
Kane misses the game tomorrow.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
7,349
Location
Germany
Fair points but I'd agree with the premise of the article in that there are questions to be asked if his minutes are being managed properly and as @do.ob mentions, that perhaps he does need to be rested more.
The problem with that article is that the journalist in question sees that Kane plays a lot and gets injured a lot, so he asks himself the obvious question whether the two are connected. Which is all fair. But since he's a pos sports journalist he can't just ask that simple question (to which the answer would be: "who knows, maybe he's playing too much, maybe it's just the way a body like his reacts to the demands of pro football - only his doctors might have an answer"), he has to create a piece that makes it look like Spurs are being reckless with Kane, putting him under an unsual amount of strain that no player could possibly sustain. So he creates some misleading piece of shit statistic (look!! Kane 87%!! vs Salah 59%!!)that makes it look like Klopp and Salah are god's gift to stress management, while Spurs are litereally THE WORST, so RECKLESS. When infact both are handled basically in a similar fashion.
 
Last edited:

Rooney in Paris

Gerrard shirt..Anfield? You'll Never Live it Down
Scout
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
30,230
Location
In an elephant sanctuary
Which proves that he's injury prone or at most that he's not build to sustain his workload. The headline seems to claim that such a workload is unsustainable in itself, while the list provided actually proves that it certainly isn't (Salah and Mane as prime examples).
Yeah but Liv players are on PEDs.
 

RedCurry

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
3,919
A perfectly reasonable assertion that falls to pieces when you question how playing on average 85mins per game is better game management than playing on average 87mins per game. Salah was subbed just 6 times last season. This season he’s been subbed off 9 times (so no idea where the 22 comes from) of which 3 have been after the 90th minute and 2 after the 85th.

Is missing the last few minutes of a match every 2 or 3 weeks supposed to be the key to not being injured?

Kanes injuries have nothing to do with what they are suggesting, there’s loads and loads of players who play virtually every minute of every game for their clubs and don't fall to pieces because of it. Kane’s problem is his natural fitness and how naturally supple and robust his muscles and joints are.
Sometimes with injuries, you have to go back to previous injuries to get some context into the player's current injury. Harry Kane has been mismanaged by Spurs. He was rushed after his ankle injury every time and unsurprisingly he was injured again soon after on multiple occasions. Any half decent physio can tell you that even an ankle sprain increases probability of more ankle sprains in the future. A part of it is because the ligaments in ankles support entire body weight. Ankle rehabs should never be rushed. We did the same with Rooney in the past.

His current injury could very well be related to his ankle injuries which weren't given proper time to recover. On top of that, he's been clocking minutes without being subbed whenever he's available. Klopp finds a way to substitute Salah and Mane out for the last 10 mins of games, which is when most muscle injuries occur. Liverpool's success with injuries isn't "luck". They have coaching staff that understand injury risk and prevention.
 

Cheech Wizard

Liverpool fan
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
4,873
Location
Lé Fylde Coast
Supports
Liverpool
So who are they going to get then to replace him? if he's out until April that's a big chunk of the football calendar gone, to carry on without him would be madness. We know they were chasing Dybala in the summer to add along with Kane but did they even replace Llorente when they let him go?
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
8,443
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
So who are they going to get then to replace him? if he's out until April that's a big chunk of the football calendar gone, to carry on without him would be madness. We know they were chasing Dybala in the summer to add along with Kane but did they even replace Llorente when they let him go?
Nope we didn't. We have a 17 year old striker as backup. Our squad is a joke.
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
2,048
Supports
Chelsea
Is any one else worried Kane will play in the Euro's no matter what aslong as he's technically recovered?

Whenever Kane has been shoehorned in not fully fit he's been anonymous (most famously of all the CL final), it's proven time and time again to not be a good idea yet it still keeps happening.

If he's fully fit and firing then of course he goes in as the main man, but if he's lacking fitness then recalling Vardy, playing Tammy or even Ings are better options.
 

Pexbo

Online influencer who has never watched Star Wars
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
47,263
Location
Brizzle
Is any one else worried Kane will play in the Euro's no matter what aslong as he's technically recovered?

Whenever Kane has been shoehorned in not fully fit he's been anonymous (most famously of all the CL final), it's proven time and time again to not be a good idea yet it still keeps happening.

If he's fully fit and firing then of course he goes in as the main man, but if he's lacking fitness then recalling Vardy, playing Tammy or even Ings are better options.
Definitely. He's Southgate's Rooney. A fit Vardy or Rashford is a much better option than a 95% fit Kane. With the strength in depth England have in attacking options there is no excuse for relying on Kane.
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
2,048
Supports
Chelsea
Definitely. He's Southgate's Rooney. A fit Vardy or Rashford is a much better option than a 95% fit Kane. With the strength in depth England have in attacking options there is no excuse for relying on Kane.
In my mind Rashford is one of the options on the wing but I guess he could play up top too. Him, Sterling and Sancho would bring a lot of fluidity and unpredictablilty in attack.
 

Hulme91

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
44
I find it astonishing that this guy still has doubters, reminds me of his early days when a significant amount of people refused to see just how good he was.
Very good chance he'll crank out another 30 plus goal season next year and make those doubters look a tad foolish. Again
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
3,391
Location
Manchester
If he's not even going to start training til April what are the odds that he will be match fit & sharp for the Euros in June? He was a passenger in the CL final in May, last thing we need is that Harry Kane in the Euros.

I'm not saying drop him from the squad, but if he's not looking himself and given the abundance of English strikers banging the goals in this season, surely his starting place is in jeopardy?

Wouldn't be surprised if it's similar situation to Rooney to be honest. Plays when he isn't fit and is poor.
This is what I'm fearful of also. At least in this case we'll have better back-up in Abraham, Rashford and potentially Ings though. In that World Cup we took an injured Rooney, an injured past it Owen, Crouch and 17 year old Walcott who wasn't even a centre forward. Unbelievably dumb from Sven both at the time and in hindsight. Should have been Crouch, Defoe, Bent and Rooney as the gamble.
 

Scroto Baggins

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
1,465
Supports
Newcastle Jets
I find it astonishing that this guy still has doubters, reminds me of his early days when a significant amount of people refused to see just how good he was.
Very good chance he'll crank out another 30 plus goal season next year and make those doubters look a tad foolish. Again
I dont think there are too many doubters left. The sheer volume and rate at which he scores has silenced the unwashed masses. Hes had problems with injury recently, but then, Aguero has suffered through some lengthy injury stints during his career. And it hasnt harmed his reputation as one of the best strikers to have ever played in the league.
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
8,443
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
If he's not even going to start training til April what are the odds that he will be match fit & sharp for the Euros in June? He was a passenger in the CL final in May, last thing we need is that Harry Kane in the Euros.

I'm not saying drop him from the squad, but if he's not looking himself and given the abundance of English strikers banging the goals in this season, surely his starting place is in jeopardy?


This is what I'm fearful of also. At least in this case we'll have better back-up in Abraham, Rashford and potentially Ings though. In that World Cup we took an injured Rooney, an injured past it Owen, Crouch and 17 year old Walcott who wasn't even a centre forward. Unbelievably dumb from Sven both at the time and in hindsight. Should have been Crouch, Defoe, Bent and Rooney as the gamble.
He is by far the best striker England have, it's not even close.