Rooney has actually scored and won United trophies in finals though. Plus, yes he was part of a United team that won titles and trophies but it’s arguable that he had a major impact on those wins. In the record books it won’t say Kane - Got England to a Euros final. I’m not saying that’s how football should be remembered but I think you’d be biased to Kane if you don’t think that’s how it is. People remember if you’ve won trophies or not, it may be fickle at times but it’s true.
Is Harry Kane better than Rooney?
- Thread starter The Corinthian
- Start date
Yeah I do agree - to be honest the fact this thread is being debated pretty fairly shows the respect Kane is getting as a player - I wouldn't expect many people on a Utd forum to say anything other than Rooney is better than Kane. I honestly believe that Kane is going to be an all-time great whether he wins lots or not - obviously I would much rather he did finally get some silverware as he really deserves it and I really hope that is with Spurs.
Better in what context?
As a goal scorer and a #9, Harry Kane is superior and he is also superior aerially. He is a much better and consistent goal scorer than Wayne Rooney has ever been in his career. Then again, you could argue that Harry Kane never had to adapt to another main striker and you could argue that teams are much better at constructing attacks in this era than when Wayne Rooney played due to the vastly superior coaching. Rooney was unfortunately (well fortunately for Manchester United) the water boy for Cristiano Ronaldo when Rooney was in his physical prime.
In terms of work rate, They are about the same.
In terms of ball control, Wayne Rooney was better when he was younger and he was a superior ball carrier. Harry Kane's ball control, especially his ability to resist pressure has improved vastly though.
In terms of passing, I would give it to Harry Kane.
Versatility, Wayne Rooney wins as he could play multiple positions on the forward line and he was faster.
It would depend on the team you are building. If you want a more versatile front line like Manchester United had from 2007 to 2009, then I would pick Wayne Rooney.
If you wanted a main goal scorer, I would pick Harry Kane.
As a goal scorer and a #9, Harry Kane is superior and he is also superior aerially. He is a much better and consistent goal scorer than Wayne Rooney has ever been in his career. Then again, you could argue that Harry Kane never had to adapt to another main striker and you could argue that teams are much better at constructing attacks in this era than when Wayne Rooney played due to the vastly superior coaching. Rooney was unfortunately (well fortunately for Manchester United) the water boy for Cristiano Ronaldo when Rooney was in his physical prime.
In terms of work rate, They are about the same.
In terms of ball control, Wayne Rooney was better when he was younger and he was a superior ball carrier. Harry Kane's ball control, especially his ability to resist pressure has improved vastly though.
In terms of passing, I would give it to Harry Kane.
Versatility, Wayne Rooney wins as he could play multiple positions on the forward line and he was faster.
It would depend on the team you are building. If you want a more versatile front line like Manchester United had from 2007 to 2009, then I would pick Wayne Rooney.
If you wanted a main goal scorer, I would pick Harry Kane.
Last edited:
Kane is just fantastically clinical and the perfect out and out striker. Great hold up play. Great passing and vision and he knows just where to be and when. I do wonder how much of this is due to his almost telepathic understanding with Son (who doesn't get anywhere near enough praise. Son is world class)
Rooney was just raw talent and desire and fight.
Very different players and I would give Rooney the nod over Kane but Kane is the best pure forward we have had in a long time in England.
Its very hard for me to rationalise Rooneys career as he spent 3+ too many years at United and that has tarnished my memory of him. He was part of and got dragged into our post Fergie malaise.
Rooney was just raw talent and desire and fight.
Very different players and I would give Rooney the nod over Kane but Kane is the best pure forward we have had in a long time in England.
Its very hard for me to rationalise Rooneys career as he spent 3+ too many years at United and that has tarnished my memory of him. He was part of and got dragged into our post Fergie malaise.
I think Kane is world class personally. I think the gap between him and Rooney is marginal. If Rooney never had the form, fitness, and other issues that followed him for most of his career, (ie showing the model professionalism and consistency you get with Kane) the gap would be wider.
Agree with this assessment. They have different strengths so better is only relative to the team you are building around Kane/Rooney.
Jesus, not even close.
This post is real confirmation of recency bias in the media and the effect it has on the masses. Not long ago we were saying Kane was shite, having an awful season and past it
.
Good player. Typically, massively overrated.
This post is real confirmation of recency bias in the media and the effect it has on the masses. Not long ago we were saying Kane was shite, having an awful season and past it
. Good player. Typically, massively overrated.
No where near.Rooney was the raw, unstoppable force that made historic titles for United happen... 2011 vs City or that assist to RvP are just examples among other things he did to keep his team challenging non stop. Scorer of all kinds of goals, assist provider from every distance, I can go on, but most of all, he was one persistent c*nt who didn't want to let Fergie down, even when he had dips in form and his own issues, which he clearly had.
Kane's sometimes looks indeed a better, modern version of Le Tissier (Berba's words). Visibly better than Rooney but strictly in just few aspects, still plenty of time to grow further into greatness. His decisions off the pitch could be key in reaching something similar.
Other than that, they're just different attackers, hard to compare. Kane would probably excel much more together with Rooney in one team, as Wayne was successful previously with pletora different type of strikers in the past.
Kane's sometimes looks indeed a better, modern version of Le Tissier (Berba's words). Visibly better than Rooney but strictly in just few aspects, still plenty of time to grow further into greatness. His decisions off the pitch could be key in reaching something similar.
Other than that, they're just different attackers, hard to compare. Kane would probably excel much more together with Rooney in one team, as Wayne was successful previously with pletora different type of strikers in the past.
Rooney was a better all around player but Kane a better #9. They would have made an amazing partnership had they played together in their prime...
Tough one really. Part of me says Kane, part says Rooney. Different types of player but overall, probably around equal.
At their peak I take Rooney. As a long term thing I take Kane.
He will probably break the PL record. Rooney should have smashed it out of sight but lack of professionalism stopped him really.
He will probably break the PL record. Rooney should have smashed it out of sight but lack of professionalism stopped him really.
The idea of comparing players with different qualities and roles doesn't make sense to me, they're both top top players with little between them, if they were from the same time they'll dove tail brilliantly for England with neither outshining the other.
You've said this a couple of times, but it's absolutely not true. The media portrayed the England team in Rooney's era as "the golden generation" and it had some great players but it had massive issues, mostly coaches that were incapable of getting any semblance of unity out of the squad, and trying to implement styles that just didn't work in international tournaments. The work Southgate has done over the past few years at tempering expectations and working with the media to create a more peaceful rapport with the squad is massive, and the team has really good talent running through it.
And again, Kane has lucked quite ordinary in his finals. Not as bad as Rooney post 2004 (though there are explanations for pretty much every one of those tournaments), but absolutely nothing special that elevates his status in any way.
Rooney > Kane. I'll go as far as to Rooney is the best English player since colour TV became the norm. I think Rooney could play eight positions at an elite level.
You are making my point for me mate - I highlighted this because this is a counter argument that could be made to what that poster said, I didn't say it because that is what I actually think. I think using a team performance or result to have much relevance when discussing an individual player is a weak way to look at it when trying to compare players.
Well said, although I would give work rate to Rooney.
There are some chapters yet to be written with Kane but I woudn't be completely confident that his peak will be longer than Rooney's. Its often remarked that Rooney's poor off-field habits led to his early decline, which is probably true somewhat, but his peak started very early, so he still had a nine year run as a truly top player (from 2005-6 to 2013-14), which is impressive. Kane is currently in his 8th year as a top player. He might end up with 2-3 more excellent seasons after this one but it wouldn't be all that surprising if his decline started sooner. Forwards in the PL simply don't age that well after 30.
Honestly I think Kane is only going to get better over the next few years. He relies on his strength and intelligence rather than pace and those are two traits that will keep him at the top for many more years to come.
Kane is not your average striker but the number of elite-level seasons for PL forwards past the age of 31 can probably be counted on a single hand.
I think longevity is hard to predict based on qualities. The best striker aged 32+ in the PL over the last 10-15 years is clearly Jamie Vardy, a guy who relies heavily on pace. Meanwhile, strikers who relied more on some combination of strength, intelligence, and/or technique like Van Persie, Berbatov, and Drogba had their last elite seasons somewhere between 29-31.
Kane may not rely on blistering pace but every striker needs to at least be above a certain threshold of pace/quickness to stay at elite level and if Kane falls below that physical threshold it will be a problem. His playmaking and passing ability should give him a pathway to a longer career but it might not be as a truly elite player anymore. I can see him having another 1-3 truly elite level seasons and then being pretty good for an additional 2-3 years beyond that.
Rooney is a generational player. Kane is a good striker
No. ............
Nope.
Who cares?
Nobody can put Kane before Rooney. Rooney was a something else. Something special. For me, easy top10 of the best players England produced through history wich can't be said about Kane.
I totally agree.
Who was better at 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,22, 23, 24, 25, 26. Does long term mean end term?
Since when has anyone's opinion been facts
I'd have kane rated as the second best 9 in PL history. I personally think he's better than aguero for example.
I just think Rooney is a different level.
Last edited:
Who’s below Kane for you? You think Rooney is on another level to Aguero for example? I can’t agree.
Autocorrect kicked in there.
I think kane is better than aguero yea.
I think Rooney is better player than kane but as a 9 I'd have kane just behind Shearer.
I'd have Rooney behind Henry left fwd and Ronaldo right fwd in my PL team I think. I rate Rooney that highly
I think Kane Rooney Aguero are on similar levels maybe even Drogba too, I’d have Ronaldo Suarez Henry above all of them, all three had individual seasons to the quality neither Rooney Kane or Aguero had.
No, obviously.
What next? Is Mane as good as Figo?
What next? Is Mane as good as Figo?
See this is my problem comparing kane and Rooney. I don't have them pegged as the same position. I wouldn't compare them at all.
Nor would i compare Henry/Ronaldo/salah with kane.
I'd be looking at Shearer kane aguero suarez Drogba rvn rvp.
I wouldn't compare Rooney to any of them tbh. I've already said it, but I'm not sure there is anyone I'd compare Rooney to in world football. There isn't any names jumping out at me. That's not me saying he's the best player in history, just that I can't think of someone that played like him of the top of my head.
They all played different positions and roles.
So we’ve gone from. It’s a football forum let people debate to me being too emotional. Sounds a lot like PotY, no stats arguments to me, a tad ridiculous.
I’m not pushing a narrative, as @arnie_ni said. . .
So let’s go back to. . .
I’d have Kane as a better goalscorer too, though one has played their career as a focal point 9 whilst the other didn’t. Rooney is difficult to categorise as he wasn’t one thing for all/most seasons. I can name multiple EPL strikers who were better finishers than Rooney, doesn’t make them a better player though.
As for playmaker? Kane’s hold up play as a 9 is impeccable, a better playmaker though I just don’t see it. Rooney & Kane aren’t really contemporaries so they didn’t things differently, Rooney wasn’t a number 9 holding up the ball to slip another forward in he was far more industrious & involved in earlier parts of the build up, often playmaking in a different way.
I like Kane a lot, he’s a great striker but Rooney was just different for me, you wanted him to play 9 & he’d do so in the big games & look class. Same with putting him on the wing or behind the striker.
No it’ll be, is Harvey Elliot as good as Scholes. God forbid a United forum, with United fans, that watch United games actually believe players who played for one of the most dominant football sides of this generation be better than ‘Player X’.
No but Rooney also wasn't at his peak at 16. If Kane ends up with more appearances and more goals (which he will). It can't really be argued that he hasn't been longer term.
? Football isn’t just goals.
Very true...... I've already said that I think Rooney at his peak was the better player. Just Kane looks after himself better and will have a longer career at a very high level.
Not sure you can compare, other then scoring goals they are similar but different players. I would of loved to see Rooney and Kane play in the same side at their peaks to be honest, i think they would of been dynamic. Both able to drop off and create at will, both capable of scoring many different types of goals from all over the pitch.
As a spurs fan, naturally i will err towards Kane but Rooney was a beast, able to brush players off at will such strength and power mixed with natural talent that it is unlikely you will see that again. I would of loved to see how Kane would of done in those early Utd sides, with the likes of Beckham and Scholes feeding him chances, think he would of reached Shearer's goal tally by now if he had that instead of relying on the likes of Sissoko or Winks to create chances for him. Either way, both amazing, great players who are/were a joy to watch.
As a spurs fan, naturally i will err towards Kane but Rooney was a beast, able to brush players off at will such strength and power mixed with natural talent that it is unlikely you will see that again. I would of loved to see how Kane would of done in those early Utd sides, with the likes of Beckham and Scholes feeding him chances, think he would of reached Shearer's goal tally by now if he had that instead of relying on the likes of Sissoko or Winks to create chances for him. Either way, both amazing, great players who are/were a joy to watch.
Not a lot of people know that Talksport have a very detailed, two stage interview process before they take you on. You need to be able to answer yes to two questions;
- Have you played football?
- Have you had a lobotomy?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If we compare them at their peaks, Rooney was way better than Kane, this can't even be debatable.