Harry Kane

citytill1die84 said:
Who's put them through for Kane?
Click to expand...

People are talking like Haaland would score the same amount of goals for Tottenham. He wouldn't get near to the figures he has this season playing in that side. Kane would also get close to the figures Haaland has playing for us, without any shadow of a doubt.

Nobody can change my opinion. Haaland is the better striker of the two. Kane is the better (more complete) player. Its not even open to debate really. Haaland still has some improving to do as he's just 22, of course, but I have my doubts that he'll ever be as good a pure footballer.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Haaland had other tournaments to focus on too, and got taken off a lot just as opposition defenders were flagging. Haaland could easily have gone over 40-45 in the league if that was all he had to focus on like kane. All in his debut season while he was adapting to a team not actually devoted to setting him up for goals.
Click to expand...

But he didn't. I'm judging him on his actual record in the Premier League, like I am with Kane for his club. I've not once said that Haaland doesn't deserve the respect and credit he's deservingly getting. But, in my opinion, Kane deserves as much praise.
 
iTyler said:
But he didn't. I'm judging him on his actual record in the Premier League, like I am with Kane for his club. I've not once said that Haaland doesn't deserve the respect and credit he's deservingly getting. But, in my opinion, Kane deserves as much praise.
Click to expand...
Indeed he didn't, but that's no different to your argument about what kane would've achieved at city - he didn't, Haaland did.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Indeed he didn't, but that's no different to your argument about what kane would've achieved at city - he didn't, Haaland did.
Click to expand...

But my original point was what he's done for Spurs this season though. I simply said he deserved as much credit as Haaland and a few people got touchy over it.
 
iTyler said:
But my original point was what he's done for Spurs this season though. I simply said he deserved as much credit as Haaland and a few people got touchy over it.
Click to expand...
No he doesn't because he's not as good as Haaland. Both are virtually anonymous in some games, but with Kane it seems a choice and related to attitude and personal feelings - similarly he 'turns up' when he feels like it. That alone detracts from the 'more complete footballer' bollocks and is just unprofessional.
When things are not going Haalands way and he doesn't see the ball his work rate is still there. He's better than kane for that alone, before we even count his goals/minutes per goal.
Kane deserves credit - the same ammount as le tissier deserved at Southampton.
 
iTyler said:
People are talking like Haaland would score the same amount of goals for Tottenham. He wouldn't get near to the figures he has this season playing in that side. Kane would also get close to the figures Haaland has playing for us, without any shadow of a doubt.

Nobody can change my opinion. Haaland is the better striker of the two. Kane is the better (more complete) player. Its not even open to debate really. Haaland still has some improving to do as he's just 22, of course, but I have my doubts that he'll ever be as good a pure footballer.
Click to expand...
You've not answered my question tho have you? Kane didn't score 30 solo goals did he?
 
Kane is a specialist striker. He’d be a shit midfielder. Haaland is a specialist striker. He’d be a shit midfielder. In debating who is the better Striker, both world class but Haaland so far looks better in a team adapting to playing with an out and out striker as opposed to Kane who has played as the fulcrum of a spurs side for a decade in a league he has grown up in. He has been excellent but Haaland will be better on what I have seen so far. If he played for Spurs he gets 30 goals in my mind no doubt although more would be from balls played into space he could break onto. Was not sure he would score the goals he has against tight packed defences but he has it all as a striker.Not sure why a debate about 2 world class strikers has moved onto who is the better footballer as if they were not goalscorers niether would be premier league footballers
 
Ste68 said:
Kane is a specialist striker. He’d be a shit midfielder. Haaland is a specialist striker. He’d be a shit midfielder. In debating who is the better Striker, both world class but Haaland so far looks better in a team adapting to playing with an out and out striker as opposed to Kane who has played as the fulcrum of a spurs side for a decade in a league he has grown up in. He has been excellent but Haaland will be better on what I have seen so far. If he played for Spurs he gets 30 goals in my mind no doubt although more would be from balls played into space he could break onto. Was not sure he would score the goals he has against tight packed defences but he has it all as a striker.Not sure why a debate about 2 world class strikers has moved onto who is the better footballer as if they were not goalscorers niether would be premier league footballers
Click to expand...

Agree with a lot of your post but Kane wouldn't be a shit midfielder though. He drops so deep at times that he spends half the game as a midfielder anyway, and with his passing and vision he could also be a super player in the middle of the park. Just look at his play in the middle of the park for his assist yesterday for one of the many examples you could give.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top