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.
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.
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.
Used by people who actually appreciate players that don't disappear in 99% of big games, I'd wager.
Good response.
No one said either of those things but the people who defend Kane with their lives are hiding behind such strawmen.
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.
That's almost half
Uh huh.
Quick maffs
France record scorer: Giroud
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
