Haaland or Kane?

El Zoido said:
Haaland easily. Can’t believe the amount of people saying Kane, he’d cost just as much, get injured three times as much, and is a lot older.
Click to expand...
I can't believe the people saying Haaland. Age means feck all when the player's more than likely off after 3 seasons. Resale? Sure, then you're faced with plugging a hole all over again. It doesn't really point to long term planning over a player who can walk in, play for majority of most seasons and stay for 6-7 years at top level.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
Haaland represents a better long term investment, in my opinion. He's younger and not injury prone like Harry Kane. Plenty of time for Haaland to work on his all round game.

The downside is Mino Raiola.
Click to expand...
Bobcat said:
Pretty much. Even if we assume Kane has 4 good seasons left in him, hes going to cost a fortune. Haaland wont drop in value for another 8 years
Click to expand...
Here we fecking go again. Have you seen Kane's appearance records? Explain how he's "injury prone".
 
Haaland if we can afford him. I don’t think Kane would be a good fit with the players we have. I prefer someone with pace, movement (at pace), and, of course, finishing, above other qualities. Possibly there are other options (I hope so as I really can’t see either of these guys being attainable).
 
Kane is the better player, and also the better fit for United.

Spurs play similarly to United, and Kane has done brilliantly to make himself the Premier League's top scorer and top assister in that setup. Imagine what he could do at United.

Meanwhile, Haaland is scoring in a freeflowing Dortmund side. He's not facing the same opposition as Kane, nor is he playing in he playing in the same kind of team. Does Haaland have it in him to be a creative force when United face a low block in 70% of our games? Maybe, but it'd be a £150m gamble.

The thing that makes Kane so good is that he can play the centreforward position in various different ways: fox-in-the-box, target man, false nine. He'd be a manager's dream.
 
Last edited:
You would imagine United and City would both prefer Kane for all the reasons listed above. He’s less of a gamble and it’s his last big move. There will surely be another top young forward breaking through as Kane winds down
 
Last edited:
All the noise in the media about Haaland today with his wages, agents fees and signing on fees is exactly why I’d choose Kane every day of the week as we’d maybe get a couple of years before Raiola turned our summer plans into the biggest circus in the game and a couple of years is a guesstimate based on if we actually won something.

I think Kane’s injury record is very overplayed as he’s only missed 4-5 weeks this season which is less than Martial and Rashford despite playing practically every available game, think he had a big injury every season for 3 years in a row but that’s about it or is someone able to shed full light on it ?

The only upside of Haaland is the fact we’ll get close to our money back in a worst case scenario but there’s no chance we’d get more than three years out of Haaland before he was on the move whereas with Kane he’d see his career out with us and much like Sheringham I think Kane has enough in him to be a 10 once he gets to about 32-33 so we’d get at least 4-5 great years out of him and pretty much nailed on for trophies.
 
Kane is the better player I feel but Haaland is much younger and I actually think is the more "effective" of the two in today's football, in the same sense that Mbappe is more effective than let's say Messi, in the CL despite not being as good of a player overall.
 
Bobcat said:
I never said he was injury prone. But Haaland is 100% the better investment considering Kane turns 28 soon and will cost an arm and a leg
Click to expand...
They will both cost an arm and a leg, and age isn't really a thing when you consider Kane still has many years of prime left and Haaland will likely push to leave after 3 years (maybe even less).
 
VP89 said:
They will both cost an arm and a leg, and age isn't really a thing when you consider Kane still has many years of prime left and Haaland will likely push to leave after 3 years (maybe even less).
Click to expand...

Why are people so convinced Haaland is a sword for hire?

And even if he is, we will recoup that investment as he will be 24-25 with plenty of years left, where as Kane will be in his twillight years.

Of course id want Kane here, but if i got to chose id chose Haaland
 
Kane - win three/four leagues in a row and a couple of CL. By the time he’s ready to slow down, Harland will be 26-27 and begging to join the best team in Europe. We will then get 5 years out of him in his prime. Simples.
 
AKDevil said:
Kane will be scoring/impacting games beyond his 30s. Ankles must be susceptible but missed about a week this season because of injury. Was back very quickly from that game when he hurt both of them.
Click to expand...

Mourinho is notorious for running his players into the ground. Won't be surprised if he's been playing on painkillers and has to pay for it later on
 
Bobcat said:
Why are people so convinced Haaland is a sword for hire?

And even if he is, we will recoup that investment as he will be 24-25 with plenty of years left, where as Kane will be in his twillight years.

Of course id want Kane here, but if i got to chose id chose Haaland
Click to expand...
Why are you convinced he isn't? And even after selling you're back to square one on needing a striker again. Makes little sense.
 
Haaland will be far too expensive and won't come to us, but he is easily who I would prefer.
Kane is too old especially for the silly money spurs will demand. Do not want.
 
VP89 said:
Here we fecking go again. Have you seen Kane's appearance records? Explain how he's "injury prone".
Click to expand...

Looking at this list, I would say Harry Kane is injury prone:

2012/13: Metatarsal Fracture (53 days);
2013/14: Back injury (49 days);
2016/17: Ankle injury (49 days);
2017/18: Ankle injury (20 days);
2018/19: Torn Ankle Ligament (40 days);
2018/19: Ligament injury (51 days);
2019/20: Thigh Muscle Rupture (67 days);

That's the worst of his injuries. It's not pretty.
 
Haaland, by some margin. I'm pretty confident he is going to end up a significantly better player than Kane in the next few years. I just wish he would swap agents.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
Looking at this list, I would say Harry Kane is injury prone:

2012/13: Metatarsal Fracture (53 days);
2013/14: Back injury (49 days);
2016/17: Ankle injury (49 days);
2017/18: Ankle injury (20 days);
2018/19: Torn Ankle Ligament (40 days);
2018/19: Ligament injury (51 days);
2019/20: Thigh Muscle Rupture (67 days);

That's the worst of his injuries. It's not pretty.
Click to expand...
That's not injury prone. Last 2 seasons were not amazing but he still 34-40 apps over a season, and this season hel comfortably hit 40ish again.
 
I’m sold. After today. Just blow it all on Kane!!! I don’t care about CB, RW, CDM. We have enough good players. Go get Kane. He’s born to play for us.
 
We simply must try to get him. He is no longer that young and after everything he has achieved I guess he would want some trophy. He will never win anything with Spurs, with us he might
 
Kane is better, Haaland has more years ahead of him. Personally im not convinced we'll get either.
 
We won't get Haaland and we shouldn't touch Kane at the price Spurs would demand. Paying 100m+ for a 28-year old is not exactly shrewd business. I'd rather we spent that money a bit more wisely.
 
The market for strikers is pretty terrible aside from these two. We're best sticking with Greenwood up top and signing someone like Sancho/Grealish if we can't get either one.
 
Quite certain you could get Mbappe for Harland money.

iI’d take Mbappe for sure.
 
Haaland would be great, but not under these circumstances or price. Kane wouldn't be cheap too and his injury record the last couple of months concerns me.
But why not Daka or DCL?
 
Haaland to choose between City and Madrid according to report on various outlets on Newsnow. So Kane it is.
 
MyOnlySolskjaer said:
The market for strikers is pretty terrible aside from these two. We're best sticking with Greenwood up top and signing someone like Sancho/Grealish if we can't get either one.
Click to expand...
Agree. Which is why striker has become such a priority.

We can't be relying on Martial, we desperately need an elite striker if we are going to actually challenge next season.

We have to get one or the other imo. To get neither would be dire.
 
For me, Håland. I don't think we'll make a great challenge to the title next year, and Rashford - Håland - Greenwood would be annoying as hell to defend against for a long time.
Kane would be the better choice if we were to try and challenge next year and to make the best out of Pogba and Brunos prime years, but I don't believe we can do that.
 
As if, we are going to sign either.

Don't do this to yourself you muppets.
 
RUCK4444 said:
Agree. Which is why striker has become such a priority.

We can't be relying on Martial, we desperately need an elite striker if we are going to actually challenge next season.

We have to get one or the other imo. To get neither would be dire.
Click to expand...

I'd say Martial will benefit immensly if we get Sancho, they have similar playing styles and would fit well together.

Dont forget Martial was our topscorer just one season ago. Like Greenwood these things ebb and flow.

I agree that if he doesnt deliver massivly next season he should be replaced.
 
theklr said:
I'd say Martial will benefit immensly if we get Sancho, they have similar playing styles and would fit well together.

Dont forget Martial was our topscorer just one season ago. Like Greenwood these things ebb and flow.

I agree that if he doesnt deliver massivly next season he should be replaced.
Click to expand...
Problem is, if Ole gambles ok Martial bothering to turn up next season and he doesn’t that could very well cost Ole his job.
I’ve always been Ole-In but if he doesn’t mount a challenge next season then the pressure will be well and truly on him.

If I were Ole there is NO chance I risk my job and the clubs league campaign on Martial as our no. 9

Aside from one good season he’s largely been disappointing through a lack of application, which isn’t form related, it’s a major floor in his game.
 
Not sure that any of the two is worth the obscene amount of money that might be necessary. Haaland has been sensational and he might probably be the best number 9 for the next decade, but you cannot be sure at this stage.
Kane has proven his class time and time again, but I have the feeling that Greenwood could become Harry Kane 2.0. They share a lot of strengths and I can see becoming Greenwood the finished article within the next 2 years.

No. 9 is not our priority. Try to keep Cavani for another season, give Martial one last season to prove his worth and give Greenwood more game time. Let's use the money to get a proper CDM and maybe a creative RW. Also a CB would not hurt, but I am not sure we will spend big for this position.
 
wolvored said:
Haaland to choose between City and Madrid according to report on various outlets on Newsnow. So Kane it is.
Click to expand...
According to one outlet: Sport1. The others are just quoting them.

I´d take Haaland. He has improved a lot this season and will only get better.
 
Neither. Do City, PSG, Liverpool for instance have a player like that? Did United in the second half of the 90s? No they play with fluid interchangeable forwards who all know how to score. United need a forward to compliment Rashford and Greenwood , who is consistent , skillfull,fast, and is a goal scorer ( consistency rules Martial out). Sancho doesn't represent enough of a goal threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.