shevtheblue
Well-Known Member
Yup, but that's the whole point of having a prolific goal scorer..To be fair if Chelsea had Kane instead of Werner we'd have been 3 down at HT.
Yup, but that's the whole point of having a prolific goal scorer..To be fair if Chelsea had Kane instead of Werner we'd have been 3 down at HT.
If Levy doesn't sell him Spurs are in deep, deep shit and may go the way of DebenhamsIf Levy doesn’t want to sell him, it won’t happen.
The advantage with Kane over Håland, aside from experience, is his ability to play multiple roles. He can poach, he's very good with his back to goal, and this last season he's been incredibly effective dropping deep and acting as a playmaker too. I think that suits the fluidity of our system well.
Wild man! I like it.buy both ?
Wild man! I like it.
Then you can't have watched Haaland.I want kane over haaland. I KNOW kane will rock up and bang goals in, i cant say the same about haaland .
Well in fairness he didnt do a lot in the 2 games v us.Then you can't have watched Haaland.
I'll be happy with either BTW.
I don't. If Kane started wondering all over the pitch like he does for Spurs, Pep would go mad.The advantage with Kane over Håland, aside from experience, is his ability to play multiple roles. He can poach, he's very good with his back to goal, and this last season he's been incredibly effective dropping deep and acting as a playmaker too. I think that suits the fluidity of our system well.