Harry Kane

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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.