It's a team sport, barring some exceptions, it's always the big clubs with best squad and manager that wins trophies.
I sort of knew there was lot of Americanization view of sport when I read your post, thanks for confirming with all the "clutch" thing which is more suited to NBA but somehow randomly used in football.
Disagree a fair bit again with your post but we can go back and forth all day long so there’s no point. I want to know what striker you want us to sign this summer given every signing is a risk according to your post because make no mistake we have to sign one. And to be honest Kane is as much an assured signing you can make. So if not him then who do you suggest?
Why does it matter if some are penalties though? Do they not count? What is your point?
Winning matters in every sport, not just American sport.
My point is you playing down the other two (Charlton and Rooney) to champion Kane whilst omitting key factors in why what's come about has come about. And penalties are a factor, especially when compared to the other two, who combined have taken just over half of Kane's tally.
Modern international score statistics are gonna be inflated by the amount of games that are played nowadays compared to 40 years ago, especially against bad opponents.Uh huh.Kane has beaten the English record by playing less games than the next top scorer Rooney - and it's a lot less games (120 vs 81). Even Bobby Charlton played 106 times and scored 49 goals. If Kane plays for another 40 games to match what Rooney played in his career it's likely he will have obliterated Rooney's record. Anybody trying to suggest this is not impressive is either an idiot or has such an agenda against Kane that it's embarrassing.
I still don't take your point? Rooney scored 7 penalties for England - so what? This is such a weak, weak argument to take as if a penalty is any less important than any other type of goal is utterly ridiculous. Is this honestly the best you have got to try and dismiss Kane's achievements? Lets see how many goals he scores for England by the time he retires - I guarantee that even if you disregard his penalties he will be far ahead of any other English striker in history.
My point shows that he has scored more goals than any other English striker and in MUCH LESS GAMES. So trying to argue that he only beats the record because of an 'inflated number of games' is so daft. He also has more goals in international tournament final stages than any other English player - can you explain that away as well somehow?
You've honed in only on penalties - they are a factor, which is why what Charlton did is more impressive than what Rooney did, and so on. There was a second part to the post, which again makes what Charlton did more impressive than what Rooney did, and so on.
Winning matters and winning doesn't depend on single individual.
Yes but a single individual can have a great impact on winning. That much is obvious.
Lebron and MJ had one title available to them each year. Not the case for Kane, who has 3 goals in 13 semi finals and finals and zero goals in the Euros final, the World Cup semi-final, the Nations League semi final, multiple League Cup finals and the Champions League final. Argue as much as you want, that is simply not impressive to me.
If you understand the rubric of team sports, individuals play different roles. It is always a tactic of someone defending a star player who never shows up in big moments to point to a run of the mill role player who happened to be on a winning team and say "Oh I guess HE is a winner and (big game flop player X) is not?!??'
I love how you throw in 'with a few exceptions here and there'. OK, how about scoring in a loss in some of those big games that I mentioned above. Why does that never happen?
Using the word 'awesome' and spelling 'defence' with an 's'. Ironic for someone pejoratively accusing other people of using Americanisms.
Used by people who actually appreciate players that don't disappear in 99% of big games, I'd wager.
Yeah, you don't need 11 players. If players has balls of steel, is clutch and whatever nonsense that spilled out from Messi vs Ronaldo bs thread, then he should win the trophies by himself.
I understand your point your making but Scott Brown isn't a good example. He was a winner.
You think he would have won those league titles playing for Spurs?
But not half as much fun.
Good response.
No one said either of those things but the people who defend Kane with their lives are hiding behind such strawmen.
This is quite literally the argument in my eyes. Is he good value for money. That depends on the transfer fee. I have no doubts he would be great for us for 3-4 years. I don't think that is worth it for £100m + wages. £60m? Yeah.
Probably. Rooney was clearly a better football than him though.
That is debatable - on a Utd forum clearly the consensus would be Rooney but outside of that I'm not sure - Kane is an incredible all-round footballer as well but a better goal scorer.
Such questions are often asked on platforms like Reddit and the consensus is always Rooney.
Kane is not just a #9 though, he can play like a #10 as well in a similar way that Rooney could so in some ways they are quite similar - Kane has a better range of passes than Rooney (or at least as good) and is a better finisher but he doesnt have the physical attributes that Rooney had when he was younger with his strength (though Kane is strong) and explosiveness.
I'll have to disagree with you there. Kane is great at dropping deep into that position but it is very different from actually playing in that position. There's also a defensive component to it at which Rooney was far better. Plus at his peak Rooney's ball carrying ability at pace was far superior to Kane.
There isn’t loads and loads of truely world class strikers out there right now. If we get 4/5 years out of them while the next big things come through (evan Ferguson, sesko etc) then so be it. No reason he can’t play till he’s 34/35
That's almost half
Don't feel butt hurt, Rooney's record isn't that impressive either. My point is the same about both of them when it comes to recent format of competitions.Uh huh.
Quick maffs
France record scorer: Giroud
The argument you are making about trophies is nonsensical, though. Tottenham are probably the worst example of trying to rate a player on trophies, also.
Its not nonsensical though. The players you mentioned other than Eriksen barely played long enough for Spurs so that's a weak argument.
no it isn’tWow. So much sense in this post. Explained it much better than I could
