Harry Kane - 2015/16 performances

[Frasbul]

Here's a perfect example in reply to me...

Harry Kane

And my response...

Harry Kane

Sometimes I hate that I'm always right

Women want to be with you, men want to be you.
Please oh dear Sparky R. tell me another one of your predictions, so I can take a sip out of your beautiful cup of wisdom. A beer would be alright as well though.

 

[kouroux]

Mane was a good signing for us alright.

You came back from the future ?

 

[Keenst]

You came back from the future ?

I wish. Just making the point that the guy is taking credit for calling Mane as a good signing, even though he could well be a dud if he did sign in the end.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

I didn't think someone would pay £80m for Gareth Bale. Prices have inflated even more since then, and the striker market is probably more limited at the moment than wide players back then.

I understand that of course though I think Bale's marketability is miles ahead of Kane's, and even though it's a bit sad, it's a huge factor. I might end up being wrong, but I'm convinced Kane won't leave spurs for more than 50-60M.

 

[Kostur]

If he carries on his current trajectory, they absolutely will.

It is absolutely imperative we get him. We have to.

Harry you're making it too obvious now, just stop.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Harry you're making it too obvious now, just stop.

 

[Manchester Dan]

Would love Kane at City.

Therefore would hate him at United.

 

[Samid]

Spurs have 36 points. Without Kane's 12 league goals they would've had 37 points.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Spurs have 36 points. Without Kane's 12 league goals they would've had 37 points.

Who knew goals were such a bad thing.

LvG has been right all along.

 

[ivaldo]

Reading the posts at the start of this thread, we've got some sharp eyes on the cafe, they knew he was a one season wonder all along!

 

[Adisa]

Spurs have 36 points. Without Kane's 12 league goals they would've had 37 points.

This doesn't make sense.

 

[Cassidy]

This doesn't make sense.

Basically he scored an own goal for 1
Also his goals scored must have been goals which didn't impact the final result in terms of points gained.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Basically he scored an own goal for 1
Also his goals scored must have been goals which didn't impact the final result in terms of points gained.

Scored the first goal against Southampton in a 2-0 win.

Also, first two against Norwich in a 3-0 win.

 

[Cassidy]

Scored the first goal against Southampton in a 2-0 win.

Also, first two against Norwich in a 3-0 win.

He indeed did, I was only attempting to explain the logic behind that comment. Although it actually doesn't seem to make sense as @Adisa said.

EDIT: I guess what they are saying is that they would have won those games 1-0 without his goals...

 

[Samid]

This doesn't make sense.

Spurs 4-1 City. Without Kane's 1 goal: 3-1
Swansea 2-2 Spurs. Without Kane's own goal: 1-2 (2 points lost)
Bournemouth 1-5 Spurs. Without Kane's 3 goals: 1-2
Spurs 3-1 Villa. Without Kane's 1 goal: 2-1
Arsenal 1-1 Spurs. Without Kane's 1 goal: 1-0 (1 point gained)
Spurs 4-1 West Ham. Without Kane's 2 goals: 2-1
Soton 0-2 Spurs. Without Kane's 1 goal: 0-1
Spurs 3-0 Norwich. Without Kane's 2 goals: 1-0

This isn't saying Kane hasn't scored important goals. Many of his goals were crucial goals but if you remove all his goals at full time, they would have 1 point more than what they have now.

 

[golden_blunder]

Spurs 4-1 City. Without Kane's 1 goal: 3-1
Swansea 2-2 Spurs. Without Kane's own goal: 1-2 (2 points lost)
Bournemouth 1-5 Spurs. Without Kane's 3 goals: 1-2
Spurs 3-1 Villa. Without Kane's 1 goal: 2-1
Arsenal 1-1 Spurs. Without Kane's 1 goal: 1-0 (1 point gained)
Spurs 4-1 West Ham. Without Kane's 2 goals: 2-1
Soton 0-2 Spurs. Without Kane's 1 goal: 0-1
Spurs 3-0 Norwich. Without Kane's 2 goals: 1-0

This isn't saying Kane hasn't scored important goals. Many of his goals were crucial goals but if you remove all his goals at full time, they would have 1 point more than what they have now.

its still nonsense. Whos to say for example that Southampton wouldn't have made a comeback were it not for the 2nd goal being scored?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Spurs 4-1 City. Without Kane's 1 goal: 3-1
Swansea 2-2 Spurs. Without Kane's own goal: 1-2 (2 points lost)
Bournemouth 1-5 Spurs. Without Kane's 3 goals: 1-2
Spurs 3-1 Villa. Without Kane's 1 goal: 2-1
Arsenal 1-1 Spurs. Without Kane's 1 goal: 1-0 (1 point gained)
Spurs 4-1 West Ham. Without Kane's 2 goals: 2-1
Soton 0-2 Spurs. Without Kane's 1 goal: 0-1
Spurs 3-0 Norwich. Without Kane's 2 goals: 1-0

This isn't saying Kane hasn't scored important goals. Many of his goals were crucial goals but if you remove all his goals at full time, they would have 1 point more than what they have now.

Jesus, that's madness.

 

[RobinLFC]

Spurs 4-1 City. Without Kane's 1 goal: 3-1
Swansea 2-2 Spurs. Without Kane's own goal: 1-2 (2 points lost)
Bournemouth 1-5 Spurs. Without Kane's 3 goals: 1-2
Spurs 3-1 Villa. Without Kane's 1 goal: 2-1
Arsenal 1-1 Spurs. Without Kane's 1 goal: 1-0 (1 point gained)
Spurs 4-1 West Ham. Without Kane's 2 goals: 2-1
Soton 0-2 Spurs. Without Kane's 1 goal: 0-1
Spurs 3-0 Norwich. Without Kane's 2 goals: 1-0

This isn't saying Kane hasn't scored important goals. Many of his goals were crucial goals but if you remove all his goals at full time, they would have 1 point more than what they have now.

While that might be an 'interesting' fact, it's such a flawed way to look at the reality. If Messi scores 5 goals in the first half, gets substituted at the half and they win 6-0 at the end, it's still him who earned them those three points.

 

[Pexbo]

So are we in a new era where players like him are unobtainable or are we just in an era where £50m no longer gets him, £100m does and it'll be a while until we adjust to that?

The difference now, I think, is that the money clubs are getting offers almost total security and they no longer need to sell their best players to keep the rainy day fund in tact.

It's a safer bet keeping your best players and staying in the league.

 

[finneh]

So are we in a new era where players like him are unobtainable or are we just in an era where £50m no longer gets him, £100m does and it'll be a while until we adjust to that?

The difference now, I think, is that the money clubs are getting offers almost total security and they no longer need to sell their best players to keep the rainy day fund in tact.

It's a safer bet keeping your best players and staying in the league.

The latter. This isn't a new era though, we are back to the early 2000's where to get a top level talent you'd need to spend the majority of your yearly profit. Rio Ferdinand and Veron cost the vast majority of our yearly profit the years they were signed. In 2016 we are due to make around £165m net profit.

The last decade transfer fees have been comparatively very cheap in comparison to the top clubs' profit levels (wages on the other hand...)

As an example:

2001 Operating profit was £36m. Veron cost £28m (77%). Also RVN the same year at £19m (52%)
2002 Operating profit was £40m. Ferdinand cost £30m (75%)

2014 Operating profit was £130m (Veron would have cost £100m)
2016 predicted profit is £165m (Veron would have cost £127m)

 

[Sied]

So are we in a new era where players like him are unobtainable or are we just in an era where £50m no longer gets him, £100m does and it'll be a while until we adjust to that?

The difference now, I think, is that the money clubs are getting offers almost total security and they no longer need to sell their best players to keep the rainy day fund in tact.

It's a safer bet keeping your best players and staying in the league.

I think it's more likely that players will start to want clauses in their contracts that allow them to leave if big clubs come calling. Unless the player forces it, the clubs won't sell. It's not in their interest to.

 

[RobinLFC]

It's indeed a safer bet to keep your best players, but you'd think a player like Kane will want to play for a bigger club than Tottenham at some point in his career. If he wasn't "one of their own", I'd wager he was already gone or surely would want to go elsewhere after this season. As it stands, it'll require a huge fee to lure him away, especially if they get CL football next year which seems likely at this point.

 

[Amar__]

Reading the posts at the start of this thread, we've got some sharp eyes on the cafe, they knew he was a one season wonder all along!

Sarcasm?

 

[ivaldo]

Sarcasm?

Correct!

 

[RedSky]

So Kane scored 27 PL Goals in 2015.

Rooney PL Goals:
2005 - 17 PL Goals
2006 - 14 PL Goals
2007 - 11 PL Goals
2008 - 11 PL Goals
2009 - 22 PL Goals
2010 - 13 PL Goals
2011 - 23 PL Goals
2012 - 21 PL Goals
2013 - 14 PL Goals
2014 - 16 PL Goals
2015 - 6 PL Goals

So Kanes first proper year in a Spurs shirt and he scores more PL Goals in a calendar year than Rooney ever has. He's the real deal as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Amar__]

Correct!

Good, I was worried for a second.

So Kane scored 27 PL Goals in 2015.

Rooney PL Goals:
2005 - 17 PL Goals
2006 - 14 PL Goals
2007 - 11 PL Goals
2008 - 11 PL Goals
2009 - 22 PL Goals
2010 - 13 PL Goals
2011 - 23 PL Goals
2012 - 21 PL Goals
2013 - 14 PL Goals
2014 - 16 PL Goals
2015 - 6 PL Goals

So Kanes first proper year in a Spurs shirt and he scores more PL Goals in a calendar year than Rooney ever has. He's the real deal as far as i'm concerned.

Not bad tbf.

 

[ivaldo]

Good, I was worried for a second.



Not bad tbf.

Absolutely and he's still on for a very respectable tally even after struggling for goals at the beginning of the season (despite playing well).

 

[Amar__]

Absolutely and he's still on for a very respectable tally even after struggling for goals at the beginning of the season (despite playing well).

Yep, it was funny when people decided last season that he is not good just because they thought he is another overrated PL player, and enjoyed his goal drought at the start of the season.

 

[AttackingFlair]

So Kane scored 27 PL Goals in 2015.

Rooney PL Goals:
2005 - 17 PL Goals
2006 - 14 PL Goals
2007 - 11 PL Goals
2008 - 11 PL Goals
2009 - 22 PL Goals
2010 - 13 PL Goals
2011 - 23 PL Goals
2012 - 21 PL Goals
2013 - 14 PL Goals
2014 - 16 PL Goals
2015 - 6 PL Goals

So Kanes first proper year in a Spurs shirt and he scores more PL Goals in a calendar year than Rooney ever has. He's the real deal as far as i'm concerned.

Good stats but what is people's obsession with calendar year? Surely stats for an individual season is a better stat.

 

[ivaldo]

Good stats but what is people's obsession with calendar year? Surely stats for an individual season is a better stat.

Usually I'd agree, but Kane wasn't a starter for Spurs at the start of the 14/15 so calendar year is probably the better stat on this occasion.

 

[KingMinger22]

So are we in a new era where players like him are unobtainable or are we just in an era where £50m no longer gets him, £100m does and it'll be a while until we adjust to that?

The difference now, I think, is that the money clubs are getting offers almost total security and they no longer need to sell their best players to keep the rainy day fund in tact.

It's a safer bet keeping your best players and staying in the league.

This 100%

I am so sick of hearing idiots on here say "£50m for Sterling is madness" or "£25m should get Mayhrez/Mane" or "Stones is worth £40m max".

They are absolutely deluded and living in the past. Thank feck Woody is much more realistic.

The latter. This isn't a new era though, we are back to the early 2000's where to get a top level talent you'd need to spend the majority of your yearly profit. Rio Ferdinand and Veron cost the vast majority of our yearly profit the years they were signed. In 2016 we are due to make around £165m net profit.

The last decade transfer fees have been comparatively very cheap in comparison to the top clubs' profit levels (wages on the other hand...)

As an example:

2001 Operating profit was £36m. Veron cost £28m (77%). Also RVN the same year at £19m (52%)
2002 Operating profit was £40m. Ferdinand cost £30m (75%)

2014 Operating profit was £130m (Veron would have cost £100m)
2016 predicted profit is £165m (Veron would have cost £127m)

Fantastic post explaining it perfectly. I may have to start a thread and quote you on this.

So Kane scored 27 PL Goals in 2015.

Rooney PL Goals:
2005 - 17 PL Goals
2006 - 14 PL Goals
2007 - 11 PL Goals
2008 - 11 PL Goals
2009 - 22 PL Goals
2010 - 13 PL Goals
2011 - 23 PL Goals
2012 - 21 PL Goals
2013 - 14 PL Goals
2014 - 16 PL Goals
2015 - 6 PL Goals

So Kanes first proper year in a Spurs shirt and he scores more PL Goals in a calendar year than Rooney ever has. He's the real deal as far as i'm concerned.

He is looking like an absolute superstar in the making and I don't think United can afford to miss out on him like we did Bale. We need to throw the absolute full weight.of our financial clout to get him. He will prove a great investment I am sure.

 

[Welsh Wonder]

So Kane scored 27 PL Goals in 2015.

Rooney PL Goals:
2005 - 17 PL Goals
2006 - 14 PL Goals
2007 - 11 PL Goals
2008 - 11 PL Goals
2009 - 22 PL Goals
2010 - 13 PL Goals
2011 - 23 PL Goals
2012 - 21 PL Goals
2013 - 14 PL Goals
2014 - 16 PL Goals
2015 - 6 PL Goals

So Kanes first proper year in a Spurs shirt and he scores more PL Goals in a calendar year than Rooney ever has. He's the real deal as far as i'm concerned.

Though in fairness to chubster he generally has one bad injury per year which fecks him up for a couple of months. Did Kane have any significant injuries in 2015?

 

[Pink Moon]

Kane's a good all round player but he's much more of a pure goalscorer than Rooney is. Rooney's been ruined by his unselfishness, all round game and constant football since he was 16. Kane doesn't get much rest either though so maybe he'll peak early too.

You won't see Pochettino playing Kane at left mid or in a holding role the way we've seen Rooney utilised so it's no surprise his goalscoring stats are better.

Overall though Kane will be doing well if he ever reaches a level of footballing ability that prime Wayne Rooney possessed.

 

[finneh]

Kane's a good all round player but he's much more of a pure goalscorer than Rooney is. Rooney's been ruined by his unselfishness, all round game and constant football since he was 16. Kane doesn't get much rest either though so maybe he'll peak early too.

You won't see Pochettino playing Kane at left mid or in a holding role the way we've seen Rooney utilised so it's no surprise his goalscoring stats are better.

Overall though Kane will be doing well if he ever reaches a level of footballing ability that prime Wayne Rooney possessed.

That's because there's no-one better in their squad to play centre forward; unlike Rooney who's had RVN, RVP, Ronaldo and now Martial who're better in that position to compete with. If Kane came to United and wasn't as good as any of our current or future centre forwards he'd be likewise moved around.

 

[Pink Moon]

That's because there's no-one better in their squad to play centre forward; unlike Rooney who's had RVN, RVP, Ronaldo and now Martial who're better in that position to compete with. If Kane came to United and wasn't as good as any of our current or future centre forwards he'd be likewise moved around.

Which would be stupid. Why play a striker at centre mid?

 

[finneh]

Which would be stupid. Why play a striker at centre mid?

It depends on our squad composition. If our team evolved playing 4-3-3 and was better as a whole with Kane in an advanced midfield position, with Martial ahead of him and as a random example Mane and Bale on either side, then that's what you'd play. You wouldn't drop an in form Martial if you didn't have to and you wouldn't drop Bale either if you didn't have to. If Kane had to play in a deeper role for us to be our most successful then that's what he'd have to do (naturally you wouldn't buy him to move him around, but if the likes of Bale came available and Martial developed into a much better number 9 you'd find a way to play them all, as we did with Rooney).

 

[Cassidy]

It depends on our squad composition. If our team evolved playing 4-3-3 and was better as a whole with Kane in an advanced midfield position, with Martial ahead of him and as a random example Mane and Bale on either side, then that's what you'd play. You wouldn't drop an in form Martial if you didn't have to and you wouldn't drop Bale either if you didn't have to. If Kane had to play in a deeper role for us to be our most successful then that's what he'd have to do (naturally you wouldn't buy him to move him around, but if the likes of Bale came available and Martial developed into a much better number 9 you'd find a way to play them all, as we did with Rooney).

Mane would/should just be on the bench. Kane up top Bale and Martial wide.

 

[finneh]

Mane would/should just be on the bench. Kane up top Bale and Martial wide.

In my theoretical example Martial had become one of the best number 9's in the world, undroppable in that position.

 

[Cassidy]

In my theoretical example Martial had become one of the best number 9's in the world, undroppable in that position.

Doesn't matter, you don't play a striker in midfield, but Martial can play out wide, in a 433 its also a wide forward position anyway.
Just look at Suarez/Messi at Barca

EDIT: Either that or Kane sits on the bench

 

[criticalanalysis]

You won't see Pochettino playing Kane at left mid or in a holding role the way we've seen Rooney utilised so it's no surprise his goalscoring stats are better.

I've not seen a lot of games but I do think Kane's natural movement and tendancies/unselfishness sees him in the channels quite a lot actually.

Of course I'm not saying he will do a job there but sometimes I think 'roles' and 'positions' are sort of irrevelant if you have intelligent and well coached players in a rigid-come-fluid system.

Tl;dr, Rooney has lost any intelligent movement/has been coached out of it.