Why should I go and look at his record against the top 6 while playing for Spurs ? Baring in mind that he’ll be playing with vastly superior players at City you’d expect that he’ll have better chances in tighter games than he did at Spurs. Also direct comparisons with Aguero are a complete waste of time as there’s not a single striker out there who has what Kun had at his peak. Total non starter and you can’t clone footballers.
As a general point you argued vehemently that Walker was average and injury prone and Spurs were ripping us off and we needed to go and buy a different kind of full back. You have been similarly unconvinced about many of our best players. Didn’t you want Pogba over Gundo too?
Truth be told I’m delighted you think Kane isn’t worth it because makes me even more confident he’s going to be a worldy for us! But please carry on arguing your case. ;)
Also it's very likely that if we signed Kane and he stayed fit it's likely he'd hit a total of goals next season that surpasses anything Aguero ever did in a season for us. It would be for more complex reasons than just A better than B but still when so many have argued that goals are the only thing that matters for a striker you'd think they'd be delighted.
Aguero's best ever season was 33 goals in all competitions, Harry Kane has hit that total 3 times and beaten it twice.
Aguero's best season as far as goals per game was 28 goals in 34 appearances (0.82 per game). Kane's bettered that twice, with his best being 35 goals in 38 games (0.92 per game).
It doesn't matter whether Kane is better than Aguero or not, or even if he's close. There's enough evidence to suggest that he's more than capable of scoring at the same rate he did, if not better.
And another thing, even if he can't score against top 6 sides (which won't hold up long term at City), we have Foden, Mahrez, Jesus, Torres, Gundogan, Sterling, De Bruyne, and probably someone else I've missed. I'm sure they could help out too if needs be as long as Kane does everything else right.
