Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player

[sullydnl]

Are spurs a high-pressing team though? They’ve had Conte for years who wants to sit back and defend his box then break. I reckon Kane would/could press if it was the teams direction

Reading through a Spurs forum during the week, they certainly don't seem to think so. It seems to be accepted as fact that he isn't the same player he used to be when Spurs were a hard pressing team under Poch, with his pace/mobility having declined but his playmaking ability increased.

If we sign Kane, this is the version of him we likely get. And we just have to work around that lack of pace and pressing, while trying to get the most out if his strong qualities. How that would work when we don't need him dropping deep the way Spurs do, I don't know. But if ETH ends up signing him then I guess he does.

 

[RedPed]

How many good years would we get out of him, if he was to join us next season? No way should we be paying ridiculous sums for him. Spurs ain't getting CL football, he's in his final year, this is his last big move and a chance for silverware. I don't want know what bargaining power Levy will think he has with Kane.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

How many good years would we get out of him, if he was to join us next season? No way should we be paying ridiculous sums for him. Spurs ain't getting CL football, he's in his final year, this is his last big move and a chance for silverware. I don't want know what bargaining power Levy will think he has with Kane.

Real kinda fecked us over in this inadvertently when they paid £90m rising to £150m for Hazard with 1 year left on his contract, add the Utd tax and top 4 rival tax and it would be £100m to start negotiation.

Frankly, I see him running down his contract as the likeliest scenario. Levy won’t sell him to Chelsea or Assna directly, we are only marginally more palatable, Kane wants Shearer record so won’t go abroad and City/Liverpool are set for striker. If Levy prices him out of a move, in a year he might change his mind and get a renewal.

 

[United Hobbit]

What worries me about him is isn't he fairly injury prone?

I know Tony is at the extreme end of the scale, but it makes me nervous for signing HK and he frequently be injured, it'll feel like Martial mk2

 

[Wilt]

What worries me about him is isn't he fairly injury prone?

I know Tony is at the extreme end of the scale, but it makes me nervous for signing HK and he frequently be injured, it'll feel like Martial mk2

Kane‘s been almost injury free for the last couple of seasons. He has his own personal physio guru.

 

[ti vu]

What worries me about him is isn't he fairly injury prone?

I know Tony is at the extreme end of the scale, but it makes me nervous for signing HK and he frequently be injured, it'll feel like Martial mk2

He hasn't missed a game these last couple seasons through injuries. If I am not mistaken, his injuries occurred during games. Not the injury prone players who missed games picking up injuries (unlucky or not) during training.

Spurs didn't have proper back up for him all these years. He was picked to play against fodders in League Cup, FA Cup, EL, ELC in previous seasons, on top of Southgate deadest on playing him in friendlies. For the amount of games he had played, his injury record is very good.

 

[Wayne's World]

What worries me about him is isn't he fairly injury prone?

I know Tony is at the extreme end of the scale, but it makes me nervous for signing HK and he frequently be injured, it'll feel like Martial mk2

3-4 years ago I had this feeling but he's been pretty much fit every week for years

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

He hasn't missed a game these last couple seasons through injuries. If I am not mistaken, his injuries occurred during games. Not the injury prone players who missed games picking up injuries (unlucky or not) during training.

His ankle issue has most likely affected his mobility and workrate. While he’s managed it well the last three seasons, you’d have to imagine it might flare up at some points as he gets older. The likes of Ibra, Benzema and Lewandowski were safer in that regard at the same age. RvP were injury prone for years, then got 2.5 years largely free of them at Arsenal and United, before Moyes fecked it by rushing him and he fell off a cliff.

 

[Malone_Post]

I think there’s a lot of red flags with Kane. He’s painfully slow (we already have a pedestrian attack), he doesn’t (can’t?) press, he occupies the exact same positions as Bruno, he’s going to cost huge money for a player who’s going to have limited years left at the top (he’s already showing physical regression from a few years ago) & he doesn’t have a winners mentality. On the other hand he’s probably as guaranteed a goalscorer as you can get right now. I just think this has all the makings of being another expensive £100 million + flop. And looking at history, most signings in that range do flop.

Add to that the team already has an ageing core of De Gea 32, Varane 30, Eriksen 31 & Casimero 31. Adding another 30 year old could leave us in the situation that Liverpool are in with all their key players falling off a cliff at the same time. It’s just not particularly great squad building and the PL is unforgiving to players that lose a step or two. It’s the worst league to play in past your physical peak.

 

[reddev3]

What worries me about him is isn't he fairly injury prone?

I know Tony is at the extreme end of the scale, but it makes me nervous for signing HK and he frequently be injured, it'll feel like Martial mk2

He's basically bullet proof nowadays. His last three seasons in the premiere league, this season he has played 3046 minutes which is all 34 full games they have played, last year it was 3231 minutes which was 36 full games and the season before that was 3083 which was just over 34 games and he has played all the cup and National games in between.

He had three seasons before that where he had his ankle injuries and averaged around the 2500 min mark for those three seasons but that's still around 28 full 90 min league games (Martial is struggling to give us the 8) and he's never played less than that since he became the main man in 2014/15.

For context Martial has only played 638 minutes this year and has only ever managed over 2000 minutes for us twice. These were his debut season in 2015/16 at 2632 minutes and the 2019/20 season at 2625 minutes.

 

[ti vu]

His ankle issue has most likely affected his mobility and workrate. While he’s managed it well the last three seasons, you’d have to imagine it might flare up at some points as he gets older. The likes of Ibra, Benzema and Lewandowski were safer in that regard at the same age. RvP were injury prone for years, then got 2.5 years largely free of them at Arsenal and United, before Moyes fecked it by rushing him and he fell off a cliff.

I keep seeing people talking about Kane lack of mobility. I feel people have the misunderstanding about the term. Someone like Kane move around all sort of area in midfield and final third is not a player lacking mobility. Perhaps, you mean lack of explosiveness? It can be said about many players. Salah is far less explosive than 4 years ago. He's not just that he's losing some pace, but work rate too. That's understandable with age. Very rare for player to keep up with intensity play. Doesn't mean players become static (opposite of mobile), or unsuitable for expansive football.

Kane injuries were no where as severe as RvP. RvP had multiple injury ridden seasons, where he failed to get to 20 PL starts. Kane in his most injury ridden season still had upper 20 starts. Lewandowski had the luxury to get rested and he started less league games (Bundesliga) for Bayern in the same period in comparison to Kane! Lewandowski used to have niggling injuries in his first seasons at Bayern. He missed quite few high profile CL games like against Luis Enrique Barcelona, or against PSG couple seasons ago. You have someone young like Haaland whose fitness record is not that pretty.

PL fan got more exposure to PL players, so a high profile players like Kane missed game, and you hear it all the time. In reality, Kane does not belong to injury prone group. He's played a lot, and at time unluckily got injuries because Spurs had no back up for him. Spurs longing for his return, made it sound like he was out injured for most season, but that's not the case.

 

[telstar96]

His ankle issue has most likely affected his mobility and workrate

This for me would be the biggest worry in signing Kane.

 

[Mr Smith]

What worries me about him is isn't he fairly injury prone?

I know Tony is at the extreme end of the scale, but it makes me nervous for signing HK and he frequently be injured, it'll feel like Martial mk2

I feel this is slightly overstated. He's less injury prone than Oshimen, for instance, who would cost more.

Personally, Toney would be my first choice as I think he offers a lot of the same things Kane does (while obviously not being the same caliber of goalscorer), and I'm really gutted that we'll probably overlook him during the betting ban. But I don't think Kane's injury record is bad enough that we should consider not signing him if the option is available. When you look at his record over the last 8 years, he pretty much guarantees 20 goals every season.

 

[surf]

I read posts saying Osimhen is a better bet because he is 5 years younger (24 to Kane's 29). What we don't know yet is how Kane and Osimhen will play in their 30's. Benzema is 35 and current holder of the Ballon D'Or. Rooney and many other strikers were well over the hill by 30. So it is entirely possible we would get as many good years out of Kane as out of Osimhen, depending on how they age. Injuries can also be a factor in how they perform. This season, Osimhen missed a substantial number of games and Kane has played every league game. And then there are the goals and assists. I'd understand if ETH prefers Kane, currently a better and more reliable player with a presumably cheaper transfer fee.

 

[croadyman]

I really want him

What a player

I can’t really see him pushing for it though, because he never has before

Yeah you really wonder what it could possibly take for him to push for move away

 

[croadyman]

This for me would be the biggest worry in signing Kane.

Yeah that's why we need to sign a backup number 9 too but they don't need to cost mega money and can provide things he can't

 

[TsuWave]

please steer clear from this guy

 

[NZT-One]

I read posts saying Osimhen is a better bet because he is 5 years younger (24 to Kane's 29). What we don't know yet is how Kane and Osimhen will play in their 30's. Benzema is 35 and current holder of the Ballon D'Or. Rooney and many other strikers were well over the hill by 30. So it is entirely possible we would get as many good years out of Kane as out of Osimhen, depending on how they age. Injuries can also be a factor in how they perform. This season, Osimhen missed a substantial number of games and Kane has played every league game. And then there are the goals and assists. I'd understand if ETH prefers Kane, currently a better and more reliable player with a presumably cheaper transfer fee.

We shouldn't necessarily push ourselves in a corner here by narrowing the choice down to those two. Lets face it, striker wise, we probably are on the lower end of premier league average. So it isn't just the best of the best that would improve us. Especially if the so-called best options would likely eat up the proposed summer transfer budget which is already bitten at by bringing in Antony (also a player people questioned but "if ETH wants him he will know how to get the best out of him"...). If you aren't able to get the best value for your money then look elsewhere. Not like this team is perfect in all the other positions.



I am strongly against Kane. It would be such an Ole-era or Woodward era transfer... 'uuuuuuh alright, we need a striker I hear, ok, I know this Kane guy is talked about a lot, lets bring him in. Expensive you say? No worry, we are Manchester United, british boys are worth the money, only the very best are improvements on the people we have..."

This is not anything against Kane. His skillset probably fits our attack pretty well (off the ball maybe not so much but who knows, not that there is a clear plan visible these days). But the overall package is simply bad. As many have pointed out, he won't add intensity to his game anymore, explosiveness can be maintained in the best case scenario for maybe 2-3 years and in 2 years we will be looking to replace him. Lets just skip this step. Its just a bad deal. Finally start being smart about squad building... please. How did the last 10 years happen and seemingly the lessons still hasn't been learned?

I'd be happy to go for Kane if we would be a team on the verge of something big. Close to the final push for the summit. Only missing that magical striker who can convert ALL THOSE chances, the team produces. A team that IS ABLE to control games and opponents, be it by possession, by pressing the living shit out of them or, for what its worth, by being ultra compact in defense. Does this sound like United to anybody? For sure doesn't to me...

We certainly need one or two strikers but we also need reinforcements in other places, so we have to be smart with the budget. And throwing out the biggest part of an already reduced summer budget for just ONE player is a lot of things - but certainly not smart.

 

[croadyman]

please steer clear from this guy

Who do you want then as see us priced out for Osimhen this summer,by the time he is available we won't want a striker

 

[surf]

We shouldn't necessarily push ourselves in a corner here by narrowing the choice down to those two. Lets face it, striker wise, we probably are on the lower end of premier league average. So it isn't just the best of the best that would improve us. Especially if the so-called best options would likely eat up the proposed summer transfer budget which is already bitten at by bringing in Antony (also a player people questioned but "if ETH wants him he will know how to get the best out of him"...). If you aren't able to get the best value for your money then look elsewhere. Not like this team is perfect in all the other positions.



I am strongly against Kane. It would be such an Ole-era or Woodward era transfer... 'uuuuuuh alright, we need a striker I hear, ok, I know this Kane guy is talked about a lot, lets bring him in. Expensive you say? No worry, we are Manchester United, british boys are worth the money, only the very best are improvements on the people we have..."

This is not anything against Kane. His skillset probably fits our attack pretty well (off the ball maybe not so much but who knows, not that there is a clear plan visible these days). But the overall package is simply bad. As many have pointed out, he won't add intensity to his game anymore, explosiveness can be maintained in the best case scenario for maybe 2-3 years and in 2 years we will be looking to replace him. Lets just skip this step. Its just a bad deal. Finally start being smart about squad building... please. How did the last 10 years happen and seemingly the lessons still hasn't been learned?

I'd be happy to go for Kane if we would be a team on the verge of something big. Close to the final push for the summit. Only missing that magical striker who can convert ALL THOSE chances, the team produces. A team that IS ABLE to control games and opponents, be it by possession, by pressing the living shit out of them or, for what its worth, by being ultra compact in defense. Does this sound like United to anybody? For sure doesn't to me...

We certainly need one or two strikers but we also need reinforcements in other places, so we have to be smart with the budget. And throwing out the biggest part of an already reduced summer budget for just ONE player is a lot of things - but certainly not smart.

Agree that signing Kane is not going to win us the league, unless City decline substantially next season. And even then we are in competition with Arsenal, Newcastle and probably a revitalised Liverpool. Getting Kane, or another top striker, is about staying competitive with the other top teams because the standard is going up every year.

 

[Malone_Post]

Who do you want then as see us priced out for Osimhen this summer,by the time he is available we won't want a striker

You’d like to think (hope) that our scouts will be able to come up with more names then just Kane or Osimhen

 

[TsuWave]

Who do you want then as see us priced out for Osimhen this summer,by the time he is available we won't want a striker

Kane is not the right age, and not particularly fast as is - and he'll be declining physically relatively soon. He's still among the best goalscorers but he has also adjusted his game recently to be more of a playmaker and spend less time duking it out with CB's. I don't think that's what United needs or that it will even fit the pieces we already have. And again, I expect his mileage to catch up to him sooner than most people think.

Strikers I like or see potential in? Kolo Muani, Toney, Hojlund - and less enthusiastic shouts are Jonathan David, G. Ramos

 

[croadyman]

Kane is not the right age, and not particularly fast as is - and he'll be declining physically relatively soon. He's still among the best goalscorers but he has also adjusted his game recently to be more of a playmaker and spend less time duking it out with CB's. I don't think that's what United needs or that it will even fit the pieces we already have. And again, I expect his mileage to catch up to him sooner than most people think.

Strikers I like or see potential in? Kolo Muani, Toney, Hojlund - and less enthusiastic shouts are Jonathan David, G. Ramos

So you wouldn't take Osimhen then IF he became available,agree with Kolo-Muani/Hojlund but Toney won't get linked with anyone while ban hangs over him.

 

[NZT-One]

Agree that signing Kane is not going to win us the league, unless City decline substantially next season. And even then we are in competition with Arsenal, Newcastle and probably a revitalised Liverpool. Getting Kane, or another top striker, is about staying competitive with the other top teams because the standard is going up every year.

We have remained competitive this season as well by playing more or less without any mentionworthy striker. I understand your point but if the goal isn't to push for the title, you simply don't go out and splash the most part of your budget on one player. Don't get me wrong, personally I'd be against all acquisitions above 60 millions because I think it would be great to bring in 4 or 5 players of various shelf heights but I can get behind splashing it out on one player if it seems to be a good package. For someone who is young and promising it might be worth shelling out so much because even if it doesn't work out, you could sell without taking a huge hit. But with Kane it will be 100 millions gone while accepting you'll be at the striker shopping table in 2 years time. Doesn't make sense to me. Bring in somebody with big potential or bring in a moderate one if there is no good value out there. We need investments in so many areas, if we only bring in one 100 million player every summer we will never get anywhere.

 

[Doracle]

So you wouldn't take Osimhen then IF he became available,agree with Kolo-Muani/Hojlund but Toney won't get linked with anyone while ban hangs over him.

Kolo Muani is an average Bundesliga striker and Højlund is the type of profile we’d bring in as a backup to Kane, who may well be ready to replace him in 5 years. Neither should be leading the line for a club serious about winning things.

It has to be Kane this summer. Striker is the most important position for us to sort out and I’m tired of us signing second rate or past-it players. Get one of the current best in the world, who sorts out that position for the next 5 years.

 

[Lash]

Kolo Muani is an average Bundesliga striker and Højlund is the type of profile we’d bring in as a backup to Kane, who may well be ready to replace him in 5 years. Neither should be leading the line for a club serious about winning things.

It has to be Kane this summer. Striker is the most important position for us to sort out and I’m tired of us signing second rate or past-it players. Get one of the current best in the world, who sorts out that position for the next 5 years.

Muani is objectively not an average bundesliga striker. There's nothing wrong with preferring Kane, but you can't just say nonsense to try and back your point up.

 

[Marwood]

He doesn’t improve us as much is being made out IMO. I have little interest in the fact he created two chances yesterday. He was effective from very far back when we went to crap, but in the first half he was a large part as to why Spurs were dominated. He can’t press from the front, and when his team is penned back, he can’t stretch in transition.

You look at Kane and look at a striker like Alexander Isak and I cannot believe how people think it’s a player like Harry we’re best off with. In a hypothetical ‘pick who you want’ scenario, I’d take Isak over Kane any day, even if Isak was late 20s. He looks like a United forward. If anyone watches us play, we play like Isak. That is our football. We have just had inconsistent or injured versions of these players, but players like Rashford, Martial, Antony, Greenwood when he was about, Garnacho - this is how we attack. Kane does not fit our team, except as a creator in chief, however we already have one of those who creates loads and loads of chances from the withdrawn position. We are a high energy, high intensity attack. Kane is a throwback number 9 and I struggle to see how he keeps up with a lot of our play. Again, if we played a double 8 - I’d have a very different view. I’d appreciate Kane as a false 9. But with what we have at present, I’d prefer a striker who can match the intensity of those around him.

Yeah that's how we currently play but clearly we need something a bit different. The way we play hasn't generated enough goals for a while now.

We badly need someone with a brain whose technique is consistent.

But I still don't think Kane will come. He'll want a team that's already winning or challenging for leagues.

 

[Silas]

Yeah that's how we currently play but clearly we need something a bit different. The way we play hasn't generated enough goals for a while now.

We badly need someone with a brain whose technique is consistent.

But I still don't think Kane will come. He'll want a team that's already winning or challenging for leagues.

Save for Martial’s fleeting appearances, we basically haven’t had a striker recently.

 

[Lecland07]

We have remained competitive this season as well by playing more or less without any mentionworthy striker. I understand your point but if the goal isn't to push for the title, you simply don't go out and splash the most part of your budget on one player. Don't get me wrong, personally I'd be against all acquisitions above 60 millions because I think it would be great to bring in 4 or 5 players of various shelf heights but I can get behind splashing it out on one player if it seems to be a good package. For someone who is young and promising it might be worth shelling out so much because even if it doesn't work out, you could sell without taking a huge hit. But with Kane it will be 100 millions gone while accepting you'll be at the striker shopping table in 2 years time. Doesn't make sense to me. Bring in somebody with big potential or bring in a moderate one if there is no good value out there. We need investments in so many areas, if we only bring in one 100 million player every summer we will never get anywhere.

This isn't true, though. We have multiple examples of young players that we have bought and cannot sell. With the wages we pay, we would take enormous losses on any transfer that isn't a success because those players won't want to leave. The benefit of selling price only comes into play if they are actually a success, but, if they are a success, why would we want to sell them?

You are still taking an enormous risk with a younger player because many of them fail to live up to expectations, especially with the massive prices they all seem to go for nowadays.

 

[Siorac]

With the wages we pay, we would take enormous losses on any transfer that isn't a success because those players won't want to leave. The benefit of selling price only comes into play if they are actually a success

Lukaku, Schneiderlin, Depay, Di Maria - these players all left for reasonable fees after failing at United. We even sold Blind for a similar fee that we had paid for him.

 

[PeteManic]

He’ll stay at Spurs. He is too loyal. He should have left years ago.

 

[RedPed]

Real kinda fecked us over in this inadvertently when they paid £90m rising to £150m for Hazard with 1 year left on his contract, add the Utd tax and top 4 rival tax and it would be £100m to start negotiation.

Frankly, I see him running down his contract as the likeliest scenario. Levy won’t sell him to Chelsea or Assna directly, we are only marginally more palatable, Kane wants Shearer record so won’t go abroad and City/Liverpool are set for striker. If Levy prices him out of a move, in a year he might change his mind and get a renewal.

Which is fair enough but he's going to be another year older and have less options (in the UK) as United can't wait around for 12 months and Liverpool, City, Arsenal and Chelsea will also be sorted. Newcastle would be his only feasible outside bet. He did almost go on strike a few years back, although he won't admit it. He'll need to agitate for a move next season really.

 

[Lecland07]

Lukaku, Schneiderlin, Depay, Di Maria - these players all left for reasonable fees after failing at United. We even sold Blind for a similar fee that we had paid for him.

Di Maria wasn't really young and promising, though; he was an established player at Real Madrid. It isn't much of surprise we got quite a lot of money for him, but we still made a considerable loss considering it was only after one season.


Depay - I would say this was a significant loss; we made a loss of €18m, which represents a 53% loss. His fee was low relative to today, so anything greater would likely lead to an even bigger loss margin.

Schneiderlin - Fortunately, Everton were stupid enough to pay for him, but you cannot hope for that to happen with every failure. We still made a €12m loss, which is 34% loss.

The problem with these is the loss occurred after 1 season for Di Maria, and 1.5 seasons for both Schneiderlin and Depay.



Lukaku - to be fair, it was a good fee, but I don't think he was on the level of failure as those above. He was still a good goal scorer, so would alway draw attention. He still had good games e.g. PSG.

That is all without taking into account the wages we paid, which would be part of any waste. In particular, Schneiderlin and Depay didn't provide anything for their wages.

 

[Abraxas]

I read posts saying Osimhen is a better bet because he is 5 years younger (24 to Kane's 29). What we don't know yet is how Kane and Osimhen will play in their 30's. Benzema is 35 and current holder of the Ballon D'Or. Rooney and many other strikers were well over the hill by 30. So it is entirely possible we would get as many good years out of Kane as out of Osimhen, depending on how they age. Injuries can also be a factor in how they perform. This season, Osimhen missed a substantial number of games and Kane has played every league game. And then there are the goals and assists. I'd understand if ETH prefers Kane, currently a better and more reliable player with a presumably cheaper transfer fee.

There's a bit of a difference between possible and probable though.

It would be a brave analysis by our recruitment team to believe that Osimhen is washed up before Kane.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Which is fair enough but he's going to be another year older and have less options (in the UK) as United can't wait around for 12 months and Liverpool, City, Arsenal and Chelsea will also be sorted. Newcastle would be his only feasible outside bet. He did almost go on strike a few years back, although he won't admit it. He'll need to agitate for a move next season really.

If he’s on a free then both London teams can probably afford a 300k/week contract + a sizeable sign on fee. If he performs next season, there’s no reason to believe the ball won’t be in his court when his current contract runs out.

 

[RedPed]

If he’s on a free then both London teams can probably afford a 300k/week contract + a sizeable sign on fee. If he performs next season, there’s no reason to believe the ball won’t be in his court when his current contract runs out.

I was thinking more about who would be stepping aside to accommodate him as would clearly be moving to be the #1. I don't argue that most cubs could afford him but who would they ditch?

 

[Houdini]

I would rather take Son than Kane.

 

[DJ_21]

If we sign Kane and he helps us win the league/CL within the next 3 years then it would be money well spent. He wouldn’t be my first choice. But he knows the league, a proven goalscorer and he’ll probably shine with Rashford.

 

[DJ_21]

I would rather take Son than Kane.

Ye but we need a ST not another winger/wide player.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

I would, of course, take Kane - he’d be a massive upgrade on our current striker options.

However, my concern would be that we would essentially still have to replace the whole spine of our team over the next few years, with De Gea, Varane, Casemiro, Eriksen and Kane all getting on in years. This makes me wonder if we can afford to bring in another short term option.