Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player

[ForeverRed1]

The more I watch him the more convinced I am that he isn’t the one for us. He is actually a large part of why Spurs struggle in attack for me. They are so one-paced, and with Kane at centre forward, there are just too many passes in too many scenarios that they cannot play. Some will say it is based on the quality of the other players around him, but I see these passes every game and they can’t be made.

Watching us today, as soon as Rashford went off, there were again passes where we had to turn back and look for a square ball instead. The speed in which we attacked in the first half could not have been achieved with Weghorst upfront, and I also think it would be difficult with Kane. Due to him having a number of qualities aside from mobility, he will pick up goals here for sure. But he will impact the speed in which we can attack. I don’t even think we necessarily need a rapid striker. But certainly one with more mobility than Kane.

He would be incredible in our squad. Such a typical united player/type signing. SAF would have been all over him as should ETH. Top quality striker.

 

[Rozay]

He would be incredible in our squad. Such a typical united player/type signing. SAF would have been all over him as should ETH. Top quality striker.

Nobody is disputing he is a ‘top quality striker’. I’m concerned as to whether he is the best fit. He is of course top quality. But I think a different profile would suit us better.

 

[Drizzle]

The more I watch him the more convinced I am that he isn’t the one for us. He is actually a large part of why Spurs struggle in attack for me. They are so one-paced, and with Kane at centre forward, there are just too many passes in too many scenarios that they cannot play. Some will say it is based on the quality of the other players around him, but I see these passes every game and they can’t be made.

Watching us today, as soon as Rashford went off, there were again passes where we had to turn back and look for a square ball instead. The speed in which we attacked in the first half could not have been achieved with Weghorst upfront, and I also think it would be difficult with Kane. Due to him having a number of qualities aside from mobility, he will pick up goals here for sure. But he will impact the speed in which we can attack. I don’t even think we necessarily need a rapid striker. But certainly one with more mobility than Kane.

I've been a strong advocate of Kane up until this last week or two... But I can't deny I'm getting the same vibes. He lacks intensity and never threatens a high line. That said there's a good chance we put that game to bed in the first half with Kane.

Every game I watch now I play through the same thought experiment - how would it look different with Kane/Osimhen? And it depends on the game. Today with Everton's high line, Osimhen could have feasted. Against Brentford I suspect Kane's guile and quality in tight spaces would have been more useful.

 

[ti vu]

I've been a strong advocate of Kane up until this last week or two... But I can't deny I'm getting the same vibes. He lacks intensity and never threatens a high line. That said there's a good chance we put that game to bed in the first half with Kane.

Every game I watch now I play through the same thought experiment - how would it look different with Kane/Osimhen? And it depends on the game. Today with Everton's high line, Osimhen could have feasted. Against Brentford I suspect Kane's guile and quality in tight spaces would have been more useful.

The thing with Kane is, the manager can tweak his role depends on different type of game unless you're Southgate. Kane could have played the Sabitzer role in this Everton, and let Rashford stay up for fast transition. Then rotate to poach inside the box, with Sancho moving central, and Rashford slightly moving wide inside the box.

Already explain the problem with Spurs back five, which restrict their quick transition. I believe England facing similar issue with Southgate and his (pseudo) back 5.

 

[edcunited1878]

Casemiro and Eriksen behind Bruno with Kane ahead of Bruno, flanked by Marcus/Garnacho and Antony/Sancho....yeah....the impending all time goal scorer in the PL is going to struggle. Wtf.

 

[edcunited1878]

The thing with Kane is, the manager can tweak his role depends on different type of game unless you're Southgate. Kane could have played the Sabitzer role in this Everton, and let Rashford stay up for fast transition. Then rotate to poach inside the box, with Sancho moving central, and Rashford slightly moving wide inside the box.

Already explain the problem with Spurs back five, which restrict their quick transition. I believe England facing similar issue with Southgate and his (pseudo) back 5.

If Wazza can do it in that United team, then Kane can do it for a future United team with service from Bruno, Eriksen, Casemiro, Sancho, Marcus, Antony, Garnacho.

 

[croadyman]

The more I watch him the more convinced I am that he isn’t the one for us. He is actually a large part of why Spurs struggle in attack for me. They are so one-paced, and with Kane at centre forward, there are just too many passes in too many scenarios that they cannot play. Some will say it is based on the quality of the other players around him, but I see these passes every game and they can’t be made.

Watching us today, as soon as Rashford went off, there were again passes where we had to turn back and look for a square ball instead. The speed in which we attacked in the first half could not have been achieved with Weghorst upfront, and I also think it would be difficult with Kane. Due to him having a number of qualities aside from mobility, he will pick up goals here for sure. But he will impact the speed in which we can attack. I don’t even think we necessarily need a rapid striker. But certainly one with more mobility than Kane.

Who do you want Erik to sign then out of the players on our shortlist,maybe you have someone completely different in mind

 

[Pexbo]

Not sure we can afford too many expensive short term options with little or no resale value, due to FFP

I can’t think of many times we have benefitted from “resale value”.

 

[Siorac]

I can’t think of many times we have benefitted from “resale value”.

Lukaku, Di Maria, Blind, Schneiderlin - all were sold at decent fees, relative to their original transfer.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

I can’t think of many times we have benefitted from “resale value”.

We made a 50% profit on Dan James recently!

 

[DWelbz19]

I am pretty sure his name were Enrico Cane or Enrique Perro, he would be considered like Benzema.

He’d actually have to show up in some big games for that comparison to work.

Kane’s a very good striker, but there’s a reason he’s a tier below the elite. And that includes country too before anyone blames his club teammates.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

With Kane, we win that game yesterday 6-0.

 

[Siorac]

With Kane, we win that game yesterday 6-0.

Half the chances we created came from quick first time passes behind a high line, a scenario in which Kane is useless. Well, he might ping those balls forward, sure, but he wouldn't have been on the end of those chances.

 

[Mickeza]

Lukaku, Di Maria, Blind, Schneiderlin - all were sold at decent fees, relative to their original transfer.

Because they had to be sold due to not working out. If Kane is the right player and is good enough to lead the line for a Manchester United side that can challenge for titles then why would we care about resale value?

 

[Siorac]

Because they had to be sold due to not working out. If Kane is the right player and is good enough to lead the line for a Manchester United side that can challenge for titles then why would we care about resale value?

Because he might not be working out for us? It's right there in your post.

Paying around 100m for a 30-year-old is a huge risk because if it doesn't work out, you're stuck with someone unsellable on massive wages. See Eden Hazard at Real Madrid.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

Half the chances we created came from quick first time passes behind a high line, a scenario in which Kane is useless. Well, he might ping those balls forward, sure, but he wouldn't have been on the end of those chances.

31 shots the first half and we made Pickford look world class. Kane bangs 2 in.

 

[Fortitude]

Despite the amount of flops they’ve been in that bracket, £100m should still be seen as an outrageous sum of money at which point a player has to deliver over a concerted period of time. We could take the ‘risk’ with Van Persie at such a relatively low transfer cost, but Kane’s price is a totally different kettle of fish and therefore gamble.

I’m neutral on the player as a whole. He’s good, but whether he’s transformative remains to be seen. I think the pros and cons are there for all to see. Wondering if you go for that given the makeup and faults in our team, at the cost and age profile without oil money - we won’t get a Pep-style throwaway do-over if it ends in tears - should be the crux of the discussion.

If we want a perfect forward that tides us over for a year or two whilst the forward market matures, why not try and entice Benzema on a free with a high wage and no £100m additional hanging over our heads? Might be pie in the sky, but it’s an example of being more prudent, or not involved in such incredible risk as taking on an ageing Kane who will need the whole team built around him.

Funny thing with him is the two extreme-end schools of thought carry as much validity as each other: he may come here and comfortably justify the outlay and be a latter career star and stalwart… equally, he could bomb, and then we’re stuck with him and no big money forward for a few years on top as penance. Our predicament is knife edge: silly money (oil/state purchase), it doesn’t really matter how Kane does, or doesn’t; our current business model: it’s an unmitigated disaster if he ‘Van Persia’s’ so it’s a difficult one to assess.

He’s a no-brainer for some, but have they given any thought to contingency just in case he isn’t?

 

[Mickeza]

Because he might not be working out for us? It's right there in your post.

Paying around 100m for a 30-year-old is a huge risk because if it doesn't work out, you're stuck with someone unsellable on massive wages. See Eden Hazard at Real Madrid.

Right. But he might work out for us? That’s the question. It’s the only question. Who out of Osimhen or Kane or whoever is the better player for Manchester United. If the answer is “Kane is better because of x and has more chance of being a success but we should sign Osimhen instead because hey - at least we can sell him in 2 years” then I don’t really get what we’re doing.

 

[kaku06]

Strikers that could be available this summer -

Kane
Osimhen
Vlahović
Kolo Muani
Evan Ferguson
Rasmus Højlund


After experiencing dearth of options for strikers for so long. We might have all these options on the table this summer. If we can afford then we have to buy two strikers out of this list. One experienced and one young preferably.

 

[dinostar77]

Strikers that could be available this summer -

Kane
Osimhen
Vlahović
Kolo Muani
Evan Ferguson
Rasmus Højlund


After experiencing dearth of options for strikers for so long. We might have all these options on the table this summer. If we can afford then we have to buy two strikers out of this list. One experienced and one young preferably.

We wont be buying 2 strikers this summer. We still have to adhere to FFP and still need a CM, RB and a backup to De Gea. Also the lad who cant be discussed might be back, to take one of the striker slots.

Plus we actually need somone to buy Martial. Easier said than done on his inflated wages.

 

[Drizzle]

Strikers that could be available this summer -

Kane
Osimhen
Vlahović
Kolo Muani
Evan Ferguson
Rasmus Højlund


After experiencing dearth of options for strikers for so long. We might have all these options on the table this summer. If we can afford then we have to buy two strikers out of this list. One experienced and one young preferably.

For the millionth time - due to ffp and the fact we need to buy players in other positions, we cannot buy two players on this list in one summer. It doesn't matter if Qatar own us either, it's not happening. Pick one.

 

[Pickle85]

Despite the amount of flops they’ve been in that bracket, £100m should still be seen as an outrageous sum of money at which point a player has to deliver over a concerted period of time. We could take the ‘risk’ with Van Persie at such a relatively low transfer cost, but Kane’s price is a totally different kettle of fish and therefore gamble.

I’m neutral on the player as a whole. He’s good, but whether he’s transformative remains to be seen. I think the pros and cons are there for all to see. Wondering if you go for that given the makeup and faults in our team, at the cost and age profile without oil money - we won’t get a Pep-style throwaway do-over if it ends in tears - should be the crux of the discussion.

If we want a perfect forward that tides us over for a year or two whilst the forward market matures, why not try and entice Benzema on a free with a high wage and no £100m additional hanging over our heads? Might be pie in the sky, but it’s an example of being more prudent, or not involved in such incredible risk as taking on an ageing Kane who will need the whole team built around him.

Funny thing with him is the two extreme-end schools of thought carry as much validity as each other: he may come here and comfortably justify the outlay and be a latter career star and stalwart… equally, he could bomb, and then we’re stuck with him and no big money forward for a few years on top as penance. Our predicament is knife edge: silly money (oil/state purchase), it doesn’t really matter how Kane does, or doesn’t; our current business model: it’s an unmitigated disaster if he ‘Van Persia’s’ so it’s a difficult one to assess.

He’s a no-brainer for some, but have they given any thought to contingency just in case he isn’t?

Don't agree. The idea of Kane, a prem proven world class CF, bombing here is not as likely as him being a massive success.

Re the benzema idea, sorry but it's flawed reasoning. Maybe we should make an offer and waste time on a bid that'll never be accepted so that we can say we've been financially prudent? Sure, let's also offer psg 30 million for mbappe and Newmar. Just in case they say yes.

 

[Fortitude]

Don't agree. The idea of Kane, a prem proven world class CF, bombing here is not as likely as him being a massive success.

Re the benzema idea, sorry but it's flawed reasoning. Maybe we should make an offer and waste time on a bid that'll never be accepted so that we can say we've been financially prudent? Sure, let's also offer psg 30 million for mbappe and Newmar. Just in case they say yes.

Why are you attempting to be so hostile?

Tottenham play for and cater to Kane’s game; we have a lot more going on and are, in some ways, a more dysfunctional team that won’t let him roam always mindful of his position or what he wants, so either he gives or we do. If he gives, is he being optimised? Should he even have to give? Unless the notion is you just drop him in and he performs regardless, of course there’s a massive element of risk to such upheaval. The assumption is always an upward trend in these discussions: he goes X, Y or Z with better players etc and there’ll be exponential growth and opportunities, but that’s not a given unless he’s eclectic or the team he goes to clicks and is seamless.

And this at £100m, is not a light consideration - it’s a huge outlay and all risk has to be duly assessed as well as the contingent planning.

Benzema is potentially a free agent this summer. Interjecting and putting an offer down to him and his management is a hell of lot less costly than the package to bring Kane here would be, with the upswing of not being bound to the player over 4-5 years should things not work out. He’s also proven in terms of delivering whether catered to or not.

 

[kaku06]

We wont be buying 2 strikers this summer. We still have to adhere to FFP and still need a CM, RB and a backup to De Gea. Also the lad who cant be discussed might be back, to take one of the striker slots.

Plus we actually need somone to buy Martial. Easier said than done on his inflated wages.

For the millionth time - due to ffp and the fact we need to buy players in other positions, we cannot buy two players on this list in one summer. It doesn't matter if Qatar own us either, it's not happening. Pick one.

Then we should forget about Osimhen because his price would be absurd. And if can afford Osimhen then for the price of Osimhen we can get Kane and one of ferguson/højlund.

 

[Pickle85]

Why are you attempting to be so hostile?

Tottenham play for and cater to Kane’s game; we have a lot more going on and are, in some ways, a more dysfunctional team that won’t let him roam always mindful of his position or what he wants, so either he gives or we do. If he gives, is he being optimised? Should he even have to give? Unless the notion is you just drop him in and he performs regardless, of course there’s a massive element of risk to such upheaval. The assumption is always an upward trend in these discussions: he goes X, Y or Z with better players etc and there’ll be exponential growth and opportunities, but that’s not a given unless he’s eclectic or the team he goes to clicks and is seamless.

And this at £100m, is not a light consideration - it’s a huge outlay and all risk has to be duly assessed as well as the contingent planning.

Benzema is potentially a free agent this summer. Interjecting and putting an offer down to him and his management is a hell of lot less costly than the package to bring Kane here would be, with the upswing of not being bound to the player over 4-5 years should things not work out. He’s also proven in terms of delivering whether catered to or not.

Not meaning to be hostile mate, I just think your reasoning is flawed. Kane is much, much more realistic than Benzema and he's proven in the prem. I don't understand why you think he's a risk. You say spurs cater to his game but I'd ask how? If anything, I'd say he caters to theirs. For us he'd be asked to do less and fed more. So how do you think spurs cater to him better than we would?

 

[ayushreddevil9]

Half the chances we created came from quick first time passes behind a high line, a scenario in which Kane is useless. Well, he might ping those balls forward, sure, but he wouldn't have been on the end of those chances.

Well same goes for osimhen then

 

[Mickeza]

Tottenham play for and cater to Kane’s game;

So I flip-flop regularly in terms of who I want this summer between Osimhen, Kane and Ramos with it being a very tough decision but I think the argument spurs - a low-block counter attacking team who attack about 4 times a game is the optimum for Kane is obsurd. He would thrive in an ETH system - and Pep wanted him for a reason. He’s an incredible footballer and goalscorer.

 

[Siorac]

Well same goes for osimhen then

Isn't he really quick?

 

[ayushreddevil9]

Isn't he really quick?

Oh okay I misread. I thought you wrote quick one two passing etc where Osimhen isn't anything special.

I have reserved judgment on osimhen. I don't think he is the striker we need.

 

[El Jefe]

His performances through the course of the games raise serious red flags for me and I've been commenting on this for a while now and think it's getting clearer.

He can be so easy to mark and spends more than half the game in non-threatening positions. His plan A and only plan is dropping deep to play passes in behind if given space or spin the defender in that position to break forward. His style of play almost dictates the way Spurs have to play and it's not pretty if the defenders can get tight and mark him out of the game.

Off the ball he plays like he's 35 and that's just not what we need right now. One Rashford injury and we'll have the most laboured attack in the league.

He's such a great finisher and final passer but his physical decline gives me serious Alexis Sanchez vibes, not that he'll flop to that level because he won't. I'm worried that when he does stop playing well it will be very sudden and we'll all be asking how did it happen when the evidence has been there all along.

 

[Siorac]

Oh okay I misread. I thought you wrote quick one two passing etc where Osimhen isn't anything special.

I have reserved judgment on osimhen. I don't think he is the striker we need.

I haven't seen enough of Osimhen to judge him. I'm wary because of what people say about his technical limitations.

But I have serious doubts about Kane. And at this point it might not even make sense for him to leave Spurs for another Premier League team.

 

[ayushreddevil9]

I haven't seen enough of Osimhen to judge him. I'm wary because of what people say about his technical limitations.

But I have serious doubts about Kane. And at this point it might not even make sense for him to leave Spurs for another Premier League team.

Yeah from what I've seen he isn't that good technically. He's about pace and power. I don't think we need that in the system.

 

[Drizzle]

He's such a great finisher and final passer but his physical decline gives me serious Alexis Sanchez vibes

To be fair, Sanchez relied on his intensity and physicality, Kane never has. And there's no sign his goalscoring is decreasing, which is impressive given the average team he's carrying.

Obviously Kane will decline, but if a team is set up right and he has more dynamic forwards alongside him, he'll be very effective for a few more seasons.

 

[Bebestation]

I hate to mention this but Kane at United is mostly about Ten Hag’s decision on G***nwood.

If he plays for us again then we basically have two Sons on either side. Antony is good but nowhere near that level yet.

We then have two inverted forwards that can score goals with a striker that also scores goals but has ability to bring either of those in to play through his hold up play & passing. A fluid but deadly front 3.

The one reason I think Kane will work is because of him arguably being a player who Pep wanted before Haaland.

He is a possesion based striker - him working for United could be a big f*ck you to Man City or a big f*ck up ourselves transfer.

We got to see what the manager wants but I think he will work.

Whilst Conte was manager Kane only scored poachers goals and headers - I thought this was more about Conte than Kane. I think he can go back to a more deadly version of Kane with a possesion on the floor football manager.

 

[Pickle85]

So I flip-flop regularly in terms of who I want this summer between Osimhen, Kane and Ramos with it being a very tough decision but I think the argument spurs - a low-block counter attacking team who attack about 4 times a game is the optimum for Kane is obsurd. He would thrive in an ETH system - and Pep wanted him for a reason. He’s an incredible footballer and goalscorer.

Absolutely. Kane is spurs best player for sure but that doesn't mean that their system is built to serve him. He's brilliant despite it, imo. Not because of it.

 

[RuudTom83]

With Kane, we win that game yesterday 6-0.

I would disagree, if you are referring to the chances missed by Rashford and Antony.

Kane would more likely of been the one making the pass! rather on the end of the pass!

 

[Fortitude]

Not meaning to be hostile mate, I just think your reasoning is flawed. Kane is much, much more realistic than Benzema and he's proven in the prem. I don't understand why you think he's a risk. You say spurs cater to his game but I'd ask how? If anything, I'd say he caters to theirs. For us he'd be asked to do less and fed more. So how do you think spurs cater to him better than we would?

Kane is the lord of the manner at Spurs - every action he makes is the right one there, irrespective of where he goes, whose toes he steps on or how far behind or ahead of the play he is. It makes sense because he's their best playmaker as well as scorer, but at bigger teams, very few players get such carte blanche. If Kane can play within tighter confines and do more with less, so to speak, then this is a redundancy; perhaps we can look at how he plays for England, but is that similar to us, or what we ultimately intend to be?

Another question is whether he is comfortable with rapid 1-touch, or does he need the extra time on the ball he's afforded for club and country? Are these things considerations, or irrelevant because we give him free rein to do as he pleases - note, I'm not playing down what he does for Spurs, just highlighting how or why things can differ at bigger club where you're suddenly in the presence of a lot of players who need to be catered for as opposed to just Son in his current set up.

There are loads of posts in Kane's threads that state he'll be awesome anywhere he goes, because Kane, but if you don't break his game, and the club he's mentioned withs' game down to minutiae, all the yes/no factors aren't even on the table let alone being considered. And all at a £100m stake. I don't think clubs operate like fans in this respect, unless it's oil/state money, then it doesn't matter.

 

[croadyman]

For the millionth time - due to ffp and the fact we need to buy players in other positions, we cannot buy two players on this list in one summer. It doesn't matter if Qatar own us either, it's not happening. Pick one.

Yeah totally agree we have to decide if we are going down the proven or potential route

 

[croadyman]

Why are you attempting to be so hostile?

Tottenham play for and cater to Kane’s game; we have a lot more going on and are, in some ways, a more dysfunctional team that won’t let him roam always mindful of his position or what he wants, so either he gives or we do. If he gives, is he being optimised? Should he even have to give? Unless the notion is you just drop him in and he performs regardless, of course there’s a massive element of risk to such upheaval. The assumption is always an upward trend in these discussions: he goes X, Y or Z with better players etc and there’ll be exponential growth and opportunities, but that’s not a given unless he’s eclectic or the team he goes to clicks and is seamless.

And this at £100m, is not a light consideration - it’s a huge outlay and all risk has to be duly assessed as well as the contingent planning.

Benzema is potentially a free agent this summer. Interjecting and putting an offer down to him and his management is a hell of lot less costly than the package to bring Kane here would be, with the upswing of not being bound to the player over 4-5 years should things not work out. He’s also proven in terms of delivering whether catered to or not.

Maybe agents Rapha and Casa can get on the phone to their old Madrid team mate,feels like Utd aren't exploring because don't think he will leave but could be wrong

 

[colombianmancunian]

We got a single season out of him and we’ve not had a quality striker since. Lewandowski is still one of the best strikers in the world.

Clearly the latter was the better investment. RVP still one of my favourite players though.

The difference is that Kane don’t have the injury history RVP did, and we are being coached by a genious like ETH instead of David Moyes. I bet a competent manager would have taken at least two more seasons from RVP, even under Moyes he showed promise like that hat trick on UCL against Olimpiakos and a good 2014 World Cup. I’m sure SAF or ETH would have gotten more time from him.

Off course Lewandowski would have been a more durable option, but probably with him we shouldn’t have won the PL that year. We need to win the PL and challenge for UCL right now, and for that task I trust more in Kane than in Osimhen.

Despite the amount of flops they’ve been in that bracket, £100m should still be seen as an outrageous sum of money at which point a player has to deliver over a concerted period of time. We could take the ‘risk’ with Van Persie at such a relatively low transfer cost, but Kane’s price is a totally different kettle of fish and therefore gamble.

Adjusting what we pay for RVP to inflation in football players’ cost, in a post Neymar transfer market, that 24 million pounds are like 75-80 million pounds today. Probably what the guy is gonna cost us.