Harry Kane

[dave_blue12]

Because it's obviously highly correlated to Haaland. Signing Kane would mean we don't sign Haaland.

People should ask the question posed not some hypothetical question made up in their heads.

 

[kaz7]

I thought milner was mr boring uk but changed my mind now

Still no

 

[p.taker]

People should ask the question posed not some hypothetical question made up in their heads.

What is hypothetical about it? The poll asks if you would like the club to sign Kane and some will obviously say no as they have a preference for Haaland.

The poll doesn't ask if you think Kane is a good player or would you sign him if there are no other alternatives.

 

[Paulmcfc2703]

Because it's obviously highly correlated to Haaland. Signing Kane would mean we don't sign Haaland.

But thats nonsense.

Show me where Haaland has agreed to sign for us but now Kane has come on the scene we are having second thoughts.

That's the equivalent of saying you don't want Grealish because that means we wont sign Mbappe.

 

[p.taker]

But thats nonsense.

Show me where Haaland has agreed to sign for us but now Kane has come on the scene we are having second thoughts.

That's the equivalent of saying you don't want Grealish because that means we wont sign Mbappe.

The god damn polls were created at exactly the same time, hence people will view it as do you want to sign Haaland or do you want to sign Kane. It's not that difficult to figure out.

 

[Lemon7277]

I'd rather us but a striker that knows the league inside out and has bagged a hat full consistently every season than someone who if we're honest did nothing over 2 games against us..premier League v bundesliga is a different gravy

 

[Paulmcfc2703]

The god damn polls were created at exactly the same time, hence people will view it as do you want to sign Haaland or do you want to sign Kane. It's not that difficult to figure out.

Then people need to read the 'god damn poll' properly.

No wonder we always fuck up public votes

 

[Coatigan]

People should ask the question posed not some hypothetical question made up in their heads.

Maybe many did. I did. Either way, it is still a valid consideration, as is any alternative player that signing Kane would presumably prevent.

If you said, would you want Harry Kane signed, if he was the only player in the world, maybe the results would be different. A simple Yes No for me has to recognise other alternatives exist and could be preferable.

 

[David Silva]

I'd rather us but a striker that knows the league inside out and has bagged a hat full consistently every season than someone who if we're honest did nothing over 2 games against us..premier League v bundesliga is a different gravy

Silly logic. Kane has 2 goals against us in 13 games.....

 

[Deleted member 87819]

He doesn’t go missing in big games either, in most big games, Spurs are the underdogs. Did you see the recent Spurs v Utd or the league cup final, he was feeding off scraps. He scores 30-40 a season here.

You may well be correct in your final prediction, but extraordinary players make it happen for themselves. How many times have you seen Kane win a game basically by himself? I have seen Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Mbappe, Neymar and Haaland do that, just to stick to those five. Messi has been in some tactically horrendous and disjointed Barcelona teams, and still turned up. They have won two La Ligas 90% on his back. You’d expect a great player to bring more than he did to a UCL final, for instance. I just want to remember one big game in which you can say, That win was Kane. Heck, even Lucas Moura AT TOTTENHAM delivered them an epic semifinal win away.