Rooney was better at a younger age but Kane will be 29 at the start of next season. I would definitely take a 29 year old Kane over a 29 year old Rooney.
Is Harry Kane better than Rooney?
- Thread starter The Corinthian
- Start date
Rooney was a throwback player to before the Messi / Ronaldo era whereby his prime was absolutely sensational but it didn't have that 15+ seasons of truly elite level. His life style, how early he burst onto the scene and the fact that he was bent over and shafted for the benefit of the team throughout much of his career played a huge role in this.
It's telling that during his prime a lot of United fans would have had him in the team before anyone else, even Ronaldo (Prior to Ronaldo's sensational 08 year) and he was always the first name on the team sheet as he could play any attacking position to a world class level whilst also contributing in any position on the pitch. It wasn't an unfamiliar site to see him make a crunching tackle in our RB / LB position and then progress the play into the final third, he really did have everything - except his first touch could at times escape him and also maybe being a world class finisher but even this is debatable as when Ronaldo left and he became the main man he absolutely carried that burden of goal scoring.
Rooney was unlucky that his decline coincided with United's decline, whereby he still absolutely had something to offer but those around him were not the calibre of players we has been accustomed to and he got scapegoated (I myself did this a lot during his midfield days). Rooney will always remain one of my favourite players.
Kane is also a great player and is improving his overall play, particularly his playmaking and passing ability to he's nowhere near prime Rooney, I think you could find a place for Rooney in any team in an era, Kane not so much.
It's telling that during his prime a lot of United fans would have had him in the team before anyone else, even Ronaldo (Prior to Ronaldo's sensational 08 year) and he was always the first name on the team sheet as he could play any attacking position to a world class level whilst also contributing in any position on the pitch. It wasn't an unfamiliar site to see him make a crunching tackle in our RB / LB position and then progress the play into the final third, he really did have everything - except his first touch could at times escape him and also maybe being a world class finisher but even this is debatable as when Ronaldo left and he became the main man he absolutely carried that burden of goal scoring.
Rooney was unlucky that his decline coincided with United's decline, whereby he still absolutely had something to offer but those around him were not the calibre of players we has been accustomed to and he got scapegoated (I myself did this a lot during his midfield days). Rooney will always remain one of my favourite players.
Kane is also a great player and is improving his overall play, particularly his playmaking and passing ability to he's nowhere near prime Rooney, I think you could find a place for Rooney in any team in an era, Kane not so much.
I’ll be surprised that anyone apart from Spurs fans will say Kane is better. Rooney is far better and also unlike Kane, he always turn up when you need him in big games to save the day even when the team is playing poor. Rooney is just better player than Kane.
Im not a Spurs fan, Kane is the better striker stats wise, and it is not really close, a closer comparison to Kane is like an Aguero or Henry. Kane has 244 goals from 377 appearances for Spurs 0.64 goals/game Rooney scored over 20 goals a season, the benchmark for a great striker, only twice in his career. He has 253 goals in 559 appearances for United, 0.45 goals per game. Rooney probably stuck around a lot longer than he needed to as well which hurts him, the last 4 years of his career was pretty much non existent.
Now if you are talking as an all round player that is totally different, but looking at Kane now, how far off is he really? He was the golden boot winner and had the most assists last season. He was pretty much the best striker in the league and Kevin De Bruyne rolled into one.
Kane will never win anything close to what Rooney has, and the game is about winning trophies at the end of the day. I feel that is the main reason people will always pick Rooney over Kane, and I tend to agree on this point and think Kane should have moved on a while ago to a team that is more his level.
Funniest thing is they both would work perfectly with each other. Imagine having Kane instead of Berbatov. Kane could play the 9 and Rooney the 10. United would have swept the league even more and maybe won another CL back then. Rooney always worked even better with a targetman partner (Heskey
)Current La Liga is much weaker than current Prem. Not talking about Prime La Liga.
Prime Rooney = 16-22 when puberty gave him a physical advantage over others in his age range. Once players like Ronaldo caught up physically eg 06/07 then Rooney got put in their shadow.
Only exception is Messi, he was the best in his age and being little made no difference.
Also I think both Kane and Rooney are overrated. Plenty of better forwards in recent history not even counting the big two. Aguero, Benzema, Lewandowski, Salah, Henry,
Kane is 28. By the time Kane hits 35, he may well go down as the better player.
Right now, I think Rooneys peak is better than Kanes, but over their careers I wouldn't be surprised if Kane is seen as better.
Right now, I think Rooneys peak is better than Kanes, but over their careers I wouldn't be surprised if Kane is seen as better.
How does that work when he was 16 playing against grown men?
Did you ever watch Rooney play? He was playing in the premier league at 16, against 30+ year old football veterans
He was a machine in his prime. A workhorse of a player, with a fire in his belly, that could pass, tackle, shoot & he was reasonably fast. We just have this standard in our heads now from Messi/Ronaldo that these primes should last years.
I'd take prime Rooney over prime Kane any day of the week.
At 16 he was a grown man. Not saying he didn’t have ability, he clearly did. Two transfer request and never had any of the big foreign clubs interested, that pretty much says it all.
@JakeTheRed yes I watched him he wax great between 16-21, energy and momentum player, also power and drive. I believe in the work smart not work hard way of life. A player like Rooney running all over the pitch without structure would get a telling off by Pep or Klopp.
I've been dissapointed with Kane during times like the Euro Final (maybe the whole tournament) and things like the CL final aswell.
Ultimately a players mentality to reach the top is important because a player does play at the top to make that count.
That's why Ronaldo is my GOAT, he wanted it so much that he wanted to prove it for different teams and leagues.
Ultimately a players mentality to reach the top is important because a player does play at the top to make that count.
That's why Ronaldo is my GOAT, he wanted it so much that he wanted to prove it for different teams and leagues.
I think Rooney was a world away from Kane. Kane's a good player, but Rooney was in the conversation with Messi and Ronaldo for a couple of years. He was sensational, a total force on the pitch. Kane just isn't that kind of player. He'll win a match, but he's not a match winner.
He was coming back from injury (arguably way too early) in this CL final.
The last part of your post is really off topic and bound to derail a thread once again.
You said he had a physical advantage due to puberty, but any possible advantage was negated by the fact he was playing first team football from 16 years of age.
None of those Spurs players you listed (except for Kane and Son) are all great players, they're all considered good players and nothing more.Fake news
Can you name that starting 11 and honestly compare it to the Kane team which included the likes of Son and Eriksen (Plus Lloris ,Alderweireld, Vertonghen, Walker/ Trippier, Dembele etc)?
That Liverpool side came 5th in the league for a start (58 points).
They are one of the (if not the worst) sides to win the champions league.
I'd even say that the side that Gerrard won the FA cup (He showed up in that final too) with was also worse than the best Tottenham side that Kane played in.
Kane is a great player but no need to exaggerate how "bad" he had it.
And what does Liverpool coming 5th in the league (with 58 points) have to do with anything? Chelsea also finished 5th when they won the CL (in a team with Lampard and Drogba) and no one in their right mind would tell you that any Spurs team with Kane was better than that Chelsea team.
And at no point did i exaggerate Kane's exploits, but you've been doing so with Gerrard.
Rooney never "carried" United also, so what's your point?
He was a great player who also had great performances no doubt but so have Kane, but the main difference in title counts came down to who they also had around them.
Playing against City, Liverpool, United, Chelsea & Arsenal aren't big games?
If Rooney "always" turned up in big games as you're claiming, his goals tally would be more than it is.
He didn't always show up in every big game, and the same goes for Kane. But to say Kane never show up in big games is simply a lie.
Not a chance. Rooney will always be considered the better player.
He was in the conversation before they hit their peak, as soon as they did he wasn’t even the best player in the league majority of seasons apart from the one where he was an out and out striker..
People take the best they’ve seen fro Rooney from 16-23 and the best they’ve seen from him after that point and amalgamate as if it was the same type of player at these time periods, from 16-23 he was one of the most talented youngsters in the history of football but he never actually had a truly defining PFA player of the year worthy season, that didn’t come to later on the line when he was focal point and incidentally his all round game in terms of how he provided for others became worst than the Kane we currently see now? Which is why I ask what is actually Rooneys peak seasons?
Show me when did I say that?
Rooney was never a pure goal scorer, he was always more than that. More often that not, he turned up for big games (more often that not might be underplaying it, almost always is the best word), he was all fired up for these big games. It was never just goals with Rooney.
You said "Unlike Kane", Rooney showed up in big games.
Kane isn't just a poacher, he's also a playmaker.
Not only Rooney tends to pass the ball than score directly in two on one situation with goalkeeper and also being sacrificed to get the best out of Ronaldo. Rooney didn’t spend his career as the main striker like Kane. The only time when he actually played as the main striker were in 09/10 and during his late career. So of course in term of goals quantity Kane is better as he spent his careers as the main striker. Would Rooney continue to score more goals than he has done if he never told Sir Alex that he doesn’t like the main striker role after 09/10 season? I would say yes. Rooney was capable to be world class main striker and he was superior technically which enables him to play in lot of roles and position. Overall, Rooney is just far better than Kane.
So I didn’t say never right?
Tricky one this. I think peak Rooney was a significantly better player, but Kane's likelier to be a top-tier footballer for a lot longer than Rooney because he's putting in that maintenance effort that Rooney didn't do enough.
I wouldn't trade Rooney for Kane ever though. The man's spirit alone was a joy to watch, an unforgettable spark in football.
I wouldn't trade Rooney for Kane ever though. The man's spirit alone was a joy to watch, an unforgettable spark in football.
I didnt mention Kane in my post.
You know damn well you were insinuating that Kane can barely ever be counted on in big games, but it's all good though. Any way you want to put it, the fact is that it's not true though.
But this is a thread comparing both players and you were listing those qualities in favor of Rooney as qualities that Kane didn't have, despite the fact that you didn't mention him in your post (you didn't have to).
Yes
Read @UNITED ACADEMY post again, he didn’t say Kane could never be counted on in big games, he said Rooney could always be counted on in big games unlike Kane. So for example, that could easily mean Rooneys there 10 times out of 10, Kane 4 out of 10.
Now you can guess what the post means (maybe ask him, politely?) but you don’t know it for a fact. He didn’t say “never”, he politely asked you to point our where and you didn’t... you doubled down instead of just acknowledging it.
This forum is a good place for discussions but shock horror, posters are going to disagree... different opinions, different clubs supported and for some… ABUs. Maybe try another forum if you think this one is just an echo chamber.
No, I didn't mention Rooney's strengths to say Kane doesn't have that. I said goals is wrong way to judge the impact Rooney had, nothing to do with Kane or Kane vs Rooney. It's a very simple and plain point.
I didn't say they were great players , I said that they were better than the players that won the champions league with Gerrard.
I didn't say you exaggerated his exploits , I said that you were exaggerating how bad that spurs team was.
I didn't claim that that team was worse than the spurs team.
I claimed that Gerrards champions league team was worse than that Spurs team at their best. (Which you haven't disproved by the way, you are just jumping all over the place trying not to address it)
The league position of that Liverpool side was a fair representation of their squad / team quality.
Chelsea underperformed so much that season that their manager was sacked midway through.
AS you said "Nobody in their right mind" would make the comparison ( I didn't).
Tell that to Gerrard's Champions League medal and FA Cup medal (2005/2006) where he had worse individual quality around him than Kane did in that Son/Eriksen team.
The reason I'm using Gerrard is because you can discount Rooneys influence because of the quality he had around him at Manchester United.
Gerrard didn't have that but I would say he had to he same drive and determination that Harry Kane doesn't (which Rooney does).
That's why he's still at Spurs ( Rooney left Everton to win) with no silverware ( Rooney regularly performed in the biggest games and Gerrard dragged average teams to silverware with individual determination).
Yes this is what i understood from his post and it's a false claim.
And what does your last paragraph have to do with the discussion in this thread so far?
I understood what you meant. But in a comparison thread like this, we have to take the other player into consideration and see how his qualities really make him stand out in regards to the other player.
Rooney was a striker or supporting striking for most parts, you can't say goals wasn't an important factor in judging how good he was supposed to be. I also said Kane is just a poacher because just like Rooney, he participates in playmaking yet he's also a better goal scorer. Which is why to me, he's a better player than Rooney was.
Comparison thread doesn't mean every post is to compare 2 players. You can post something that has nothing to do with other player.
Are you going to tell me Lukaku was better than Bergkamp or Drogba? I mean it's easy to come up with a big list but it's pointless. Rooney scored 15 goals and still had brilliant season, that's the sort of player he was. Maybe you never watched him regularly as you are football "Neutral", so maybe you had too many teams to watch.
Why is it a false claim when clearly that’s what I said in the post, someone else could read it and understood it clearly but you don’t. I didn’t say ‘’never’’. It’s simple. Kane even scored against us (penalty though) and City recently, why would I insinuating that Kane never done it?
The highest goal scorer of United vs The highest goal scorer of Spurs (one day).
I do think the club they played for is important in how they are viewed.
Kane was a better striker but Rooney was a better player.
I do think the club they played for is important in how they are viewed.
Kane was a better striker but Rooney was a better player.
So you're saying Spurs team would have finished in the top 4 that season? I mean how can we come to that type of hypothetical conclusion? We can't judge like that.
However, that Liverpool team had Xabi Alonso, Djibril Cissé, Michael Owen, Milan Barros, and others and yet you're here trying to insist that Spurs team (especially with the players you listed earlier) was better than that Liverpool team? Hell no they weren't, but you can continue to make that claim if you want to though.
Your last paragraph is everywhere. What does Kane not having a silverware have to do with Rooney "always" performing in big games (which is actually false by the way) and Gerrard dragging a poor Liverpool side (another false claim) ?
Kane is still at Spurs because Tottenham didn't let him go to City, though before he asked for a transfer last summer, i also felt that he liked his comfort zone and playing it safe (kind of like Gerrard with Liverpool except that he won the CL with Liverpool).
As for big games, Kane performs against City, Liverpool, Chelsea, United, or even Arsenal. Unless you don't consider most of those as big teams.
Being in the conversation with Ronaldo and Messi, when they were already the best in the world (ok, maybe not at their legendary best we know now, but still the best) is pretty damn impressive, no? Kane has never even been the best player in the league. I don't see how age or longevity really matters in the discussion either - Rooney was a force, Kane just isn't. You don't need stats or figures to come to this conclusion, you just had to have watched them both week in week out. The only current player who has that Rooney-like inevitability is Haaland. I don't watch Spurs, see Kane and think "yeah, they've got this". I expect him to take his chances, but I expect that from Vardy too.
"So you're saying Spurs team would have finished in the top 4 that season?"
I've noticed this tactic with you , you create strawman arguments by claiming people said things that they didn't.
My only claim is that man for man the Spurs side were better than that Liverpool side.
you have some nerve telling others their claims are fake or false.
You don't even know that Owen wasn't in that side what a joke.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and quite frankly I think you come across as belligerent from your other exchanges on this thread.
I've noticed this tactic with you , you create strawman arguments by claiming people said things that they didn't.
My only claim is that man for man the Spurs side were better than that Liverpool side.
Ok im not arguing with you
you have some nerve telling others their claims are fake or false.You don't even know that Owen wasn't in that side
what a joke.You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and quite frankly I think you come across as belligerent from your other exchanges on this thread.
Last edited:
Peak Rooney made Manchester United's star studded attack function in a way no other player has been able to for many years now.
Kane has unreal numbers in the grand scheme of things, but he doesn't necessarily make all the players around him better, with the exception of Son. Rooney, at his physical peak made almost everyone he played with a better player.
I'm certainly of the view that Kane will be better in his 30s than Rooney was, but that's clear and obvious. The problem is, he won't achieve even half of what Rooney did in silverware, largely due to the last contract he signed.
Kane has unreal numbers in the grand scheme of things, but he doesn't necessarily make all the players around him better, with the exception of Son. Rooney, at his physical peak made almost everyone he played with a better player.
I'm certainly of the view that Kane will be better in his 30s than Rooney was, but that's clear and obvious. The problem is, he won't achieve even half of what Rooney did in silverware, largely due to the last contract he signed.
If you're going to go about assuming what people think, assuming that you're right and generally (from looking at your other posts in other threads) being this confrontational, you're going to get replies.
Mine was a polite (try it) comment suggesting you could engage in a different way. If you don't want to, your call... though again, when you repeatedly disagree with posters and claim the Caf is an echo chamber (more than once), I've got no idea why you stay anyway.
I'm not sure many of the 2005 Liverpool team get into, for instance, the 2019 Spurs side.
If I'm combining the sides, it's probably
Lloris
Trippier - Aldeweireld - Hyppia - Vertonghen
Hamann - Alonso
Gerrard - Eriksen - Son
Kane
Trippier - Aldeweireld - Hyppia - Vertonghen
Hamann - Alonso
Gerrard - Eriksen - Son
Kane
Mostly Spurs. That Liverpool side was pretty underwhelming, averaging 60 points over three seasons from 2002/03 to 2004/05. Meanwhile, for the equivalent 3-year period (2016 to 2019), Spurs averaged 79 points. They would improve later in the decade, but that was a poor vintage that relied on being stuffy and Roy-of-the-Rovers interventions from Gerrard.
Last edited: