Yep. I want to know why everyone thinks Spurs winning silverware is the equivalent of Burnley winning silverware. It is not.What is this? You want an explanation for that?
Harry Kane MBE | Performances
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Why not? You just mentioned the league cup is a major trophy in your previous post. I’m sorry but your reasoning is all over the place.
It's very simple. If Kane comes to Manchester United and he helps the team to win one League Cup and that's it, do you think the fans would consider his signing a success?
It's about the expectations of the team. For Spurs at the moment, any main trophy is a success but that doesn't mean that they should not be expected to win any, given their resources and history. They are a big club. They are not Burnley.
You are having a total mare in this thread you really are.
Shearer did win the league. Kane seems placid in big knockout matches. Comes across as a bit of a flat track bully.
Just say you disagree and move on. Stop being hyperbolic.
3 goals in 13 semi finals / finals is not a statistic to overlook. I've often found him to be completely average or even below that in the biggest matches that matter. Though his record vs City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Pool is quite good I believe.
The amount of times Smalling, Jones and the likes completely shutted him down however..
He's one of the best strikers but for me never close to the likes of Rooney, Suarez, Aguero, Van Persie at their peaks. His longevity migbt however be greater than all or most of them.
It's not impossible, but it'll most likely be at the current sort of rate, 1 every 20 years
I didn't say PL fans, Newcastle fans. If I'm not wrong he didn't win any trophy with them and he is probably their biggest legend.
He’d be a decent back up option if we fail to sign Osimhen.
Walker was there for 8 seasons (6 as a first teamer); Bale was there for 6 seasons; Modric - 4 seasons. The only one I will accept the 'not there long enough argument' is for Carrick, who was there for 2 seasons (but it is still enough to win a trophy). The rest had plenty of time to bag more/any trophies, but didn't.
After all, Berbatov was at Tottenham for two seasons and won the league cup. If that is enough time for him, why is it not enough time for Walker, Modric and Carrick? Bale's record is also pathetic at Tottenham in comparison to Berbatov.
So, why weren't they dragging their team across the line? The fact of the matter is that Tottenham have won one trophy in the Premier League era: a single League Cup. They have had some incredible players, but pretty much none of them have been able to drag them across the line for a trophy. Why? Football isn't a one-person game; it is a team game. It is just that simple.
There are copious amounts of Tottenham players that have gone on to have success at other clubs, despite experiencing none at Tottenham. Another example of this is Sheriingham: played at Tottenham for 7 seasons and won zilch; played at Manutd for 4 seasons and won 3 PL titles, 1 FA Cup and 1 CL. It is almost like having a better team makes a difference.
Bale and Modric though have both had key individual moments of brilliance within finals that have led to their side winning the game or at least played a huge part in it. Bale has scored two of the most iconic final goals ever in the respective competitions he played in for example. Kane has been involved in 4 finals for club and country and can it honestly be said he's had a good game in any of them?
I think Kane is world class but four finals and four meh performances isn't a good record.
Last edited:
I'm only talking about Tottenham here - the fact of the matter is that no player carries Tottenham to titles/cups.
Bale won a trophy at Tottenham, but it turns out that he didn't even contribute to the League Cup win. He only played one game in that tournament. The fact of the matter is that he wasn't a winner until he went to Real Madrid, who, coincidentally, are a much better team than Tottenham.
Modric wasn't a winner at Tottenham. Eriksen wasn't a winner at Tottenham. Walker wasn't a winner at Tottenham. Carrick wasn't a winner at Tottenham. Bale wasn't a winner at Tottenham. Sheringham wasn't a winner at Tottenham. The list goes on, but I will stop here as it will end up the length of a dissertation. In the end, all of those only became winners when they joined winning clubs.
The finals isn't so much a stick as people make out:
The Champion's League final - Kane should not have played as he hadn't been available for three months (including the month gap between the end of the PL season and the CL final). Not surprising he didn't play well, to be honest. He wasn't the only unfit player on the pitch that day, though, but was in the worst state; it was an extremely poor quality game from both sides.
One of the finals in the League Cup, they fielded a first team consisting of Mason, Bentaleb, Chadli and Townsend. Hardly quality material there. They only reached the final that season because of an easy run; it wasn't because the team was great. They lost to a much better side in Chelsea, who were also PL winners that season. Tottenham ended 6 points from top four. Unless you expect a combo of Kane, Chadli and Townsend to outmatch Costa, Hazard and Willian?
The 20/21 final was not exactly the best conditions, also. They just sacked Mourinho, which was a stupid decision before a cup final, and had Mason in charge (zero managerial experience). Kane wasn't even bad, but they were utterly outplayed by City in the midfield. Not surprising when they had Gundogan, Fernandinho and De Bruyne against Hjobjerg, Winks and Lo Celso.
I think one thing that has happened is that people have overrated the strength of the Tottenham sides that Kane has been in. The above clearly shows their actual level is pretty average in most areas of the field.
Well said.
You’re starting to argue about the team again in your points rather than looking at his individual performances.
I’ve pointed out with Modric and Bale that they’ve had individual moments in finals that Kane hasn’t. It’s a fact. It doesn’t matter what team they were playing for. They’ve done individual things in big games, Kane hasn’t. He may well do at some stage in his career but he hasn’t so far.
Nobody expects Tottenham to do anything because they’re not a world class team or club, but people expect Kane to do something because he is a world class player and so far he hasn’t stepped up to that expectation in a final for his club or his country.
The years under Poch which culminated in a UCL final, they were absolutely good enough as a squad to win an FA cup or League cup. No amount of words is going to change that.
Team and individual performances are not something that can be separated; they are intrinsically tied together by the fact that football is a team game. You can only be as good as the sum of its parts.
Those big moments you talk about didn't happen for Tottenham; there is a massive difference between playing for Madrid and Tottenham. Try to name me a great individual performance in a final at Tottenham for those other players? You can't because they didn't play in any, which means they weren't enough to even drag Tottenham to a final. Is that not a failure, also?
Look at it this way, is it easier to defend against a forward line of Chadli, Kane and Townsend or Hazard, Willian and Costa? It is obviously the first one because Chadli and Townsend don't pose much threat, which means you can focus more on marking Kane out of the match, making his job far harder. Team quality and individual performance are inseparable, especially when playing teams of higher quality.
Even having Messi in place of Kane would only marginally increase Tottenham's likelihood of winning those games. After the quality of Barcelona dropped, Messi was marked out of CL games on multiple occasions and made to be ineffectual. The job is far harder to do when you have a smaller chance of other players carrying the load. You didn't have to worry about Iniesta, Neymar, Suarez etc. quality players and could focus more on stopping Messi.
I gotta say it is refreshing to see somebody take a balanced view on this - it is very rare!
I mean, that’s not true at all. There are hundreds and thousands of examples in football of players that have had a great game while their team has had a poor one and vice versa.
It will be easier for some players to have better games against certain players but the best players more often than not step up. Unfortunately for Kane he has never stepped up in a final.
For me Kane has only had 1 manager build a team system to his strengths in Pochettino. Jose & Conte didnt play to his strengths
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How many goals did Rooney score for England in major finals? Using Joey Barton of all people as a valid opinion on anything is not a great idea
I never said I agreed with him, did I?
Then why post it??
Still Wayne Rooney > Harry Kane
To show us another example of Joey Barton being a cock
Wasn't everyone drooling over how good of a player he was under Jose? Maybe I am not remembering correctly, but that is the feeling I got
Wonder how people see this debate. I post a lot of tweets on here, doesn’t mean I agree with the content.
Oh and this:
People still were under conte, just because he performed under every manager (a consistent 20 per season cf) doesnt mean the tactics were right/best for him under those managers. 2 very low block defensive managers imo
I don't think there's any significant gulf in class between any top player in PL history, every top PL player is a lot closer in ability to one another than every fanbase would care to admit. Are there players better than others? Sure, Ronaldo was better than Salah, but I reckon we'd have won basically the same trophies if we hypothetically had Salah instead of Ronaldo. I might think Rooney is marginally the better player than Kane but we'd have still won all those title under Sir Alex we did if we'd replaced Rooney with Kane, conversely I expect Rooney's trohy cabinet would be identical to Kane's had the roles been reversed and Rooney had spent his career at Tottenham.
So the reason Kane has 3 goals in 13 finals/semi finals for Spurs AND England (zero goals in multiple league Cup finals, zero goals in the CL final, zero goals in the World Cup semi, zero goals in the Nations League semi, zero goals in the Euros final) is all due to his average teammates and nothing to do with him. Despite the fact that he otherwise seems to have no problem scoring goals with those average teammates in all other circumstances. Right, got it.
Are you really trying to equate Kyle Walker's standing with Kane. He's a right back, its pretty rare to be a game changer from there. Bale left Spurs at 23, Modric left at 26 and as @SilentWitness said they both have track records of standing up when it's time to be counted for club and country. I recall Modric having a stormer in the Carling Cup Final when we played them in 2009. Yes they lost but you couldn't have asked for more from Modric. Harry Kane is 30, there just isn't any comparison here.
It's not just about dragging teams across the line but more about what you do when you get there. Kane has done nothing in these big moments when the time called for something more. I'm not even sure how this is still up for debate, I mean in addition to memorable big game chokes he added a missed penalty in a world cup semi final. He has a track record of no shows for club and country so I don't get why you only limit this to Spurs.
The only person you can use in comparison to Kane is Eriksen but even then he's a top player but never in the best in the world conversations like Kane is. It seems like Kane's supporters love the status he gets with his play but avoid and downplay the expectation that players of that calibre receive. Its excuse after excuse it seems.
Indeed several people have referred to Kane as the best striker in the world
TBF Maybe because Kane can't create everything himself., and whilst he's good, isn't a Messi/Maradona/Mbappe style type to habitually round five players and smash it past the keeper, so still relies on his b-list team-mates to create most opportunities. Which, being generally b list/insert term (more so in the case of Tottenham), they find harder to do against the very best opposition compared to worse teams...
He's still performed better, in terms of goals and overall level of contribution, over the last three international tournaments than Rooney ever did post 2004. That first Euro Championships was the only time Rooney looked genuinely elite as a tournament player in an England shirt, even as he played alongside the rest of the 'golden generation' in 2006/2010
You say Bale left when he was 23, but he had the best season of his career (performance and productivity-wise) at Tottenham and they still did not win a trophy. Is that because of him or is that possibly because football is about more than just one player? Bale managed to do it at Real Madrid, but being part of a much better team couldn't have possibly made that possible, could it?
Perhaps Kyle Walker should have stopped the opposition from scoring? Game changing does not come from just scoring goals - he could have created chances (which he did at City) or made sure the team didn't concede (which he did at City). After all, you need to concede to lose a game, so how is that not game changing?
It probably seems unfair to you that I am putting the defensive responsibility entirely on Walker, but that is what you are doing with Kane up the other end. The team determines whether the club wins a tournament, not one player.
The finals that Tottenham lost, 9 times out of 10 you would predict them to lose (City and Chelsea were better teams by a country mile). That is the truth of the matter. Tottenham just aren't all that good across the team. Even their strongest team in recent years has become overrated; it actually had serious deficiencies, particularly in central midfield and the right wing (in that they didn't have one).
Regarding England, they lost the final against Italy, predominantly due to their negative mindset after the goal. They dropped so deep that even the midfield was pretty on the edge of our box. There is so much that isn't being taken into account by people, which is far too important to ignore. Tactics, manager ability, and teammates levels form the fulcrum of all successful clubs, not one player.
Well, football is a team game, so having average teammates does impact the result. If that wasn't the case, why doesn't every club just buy one world class player and fill the other positions with average ones (it will be a hell of a lot cheaper)? It sounds like a ridiculous suggestion and that is because football is a team game - the quality of the team directly impacts results.
The best team (teamwork-wise, managerial, strategically, player-ability wise) are the ones that dominate the trophies. If even one of those facets is off, the likelihood is that team will not get any success. One player will not be enough to change that.
@Lecland07 you can lose finals but still score, assist or have a good game though as an individual. I’d find it hard to argue Kane having a good game in any of the finals he has been involved in.
For a world class player, which I believe Kane is, I think we would all be lying to ourselves if we said that 3 goals and 1 assist in 13 semi-final and final appearances is good enough for a world class striker.
For a world class player, which I believe Kane is, I think we would all be lying to ourselves if we said that 3 goals and 1 assist in 13 semi-final and final appearances is good enough for a world class striker.
We've left aside the team trophies. I think you're wrong about the quality of Spurs's team and you continue to ignore England (average teams don't make the Champions League final or the Euros final) but let's park that and talk about his individual performances in the games I've repeatedly referenced. Why does he never, ever score? Even in a losing effort?
the maths is brilliant, as if non of his 18 penalties were in these 32 goals
What a surprise, who would have thought that Barton is unable to do basic maths
Think he meant that outside of pens and goals against shit (in his opinion) teams he's scored four. Shit why am I here rationalizing Barton's tweets. Guess the lesson to learn is to never post his comments on here again. Everybody wins.
The maths is fine. He scored 32 goals against poor opposition, 18 penalties and just 4 goals (in open play) against teams not on that list.
What’s missing is a comparison. All strikers score relatively few goals against top opposition. Their teams scores fewer goals in those fixtures and they play top teams relatively infrequently.
So his rant is completely meaningless without doing the same analysis for Rooney (and/or any other top striker)