He sure is. Actually missed a guilt edged chance today though so you never know what he’ll become if he joins yips United!
Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player
- Thread starter LawCharltonBest
- Start date
Exactly my thoughts
Kinda sad no one took notice of this.We are acting like we are one striker away to be title challenger when in reality we have too many holes and nowhere near City and Arsenal or even Liverpool if they are back in-form. 100m isn't smart business imo. Look at our xG is very low, and you think our lack of goals alone is down to not having striker? We should learn or improve how to play from the back, retain possession, and create quality chances for striker first.
I think talk of xG etc… bores the moobs off a lot of people to be fair
Maybe because it’s not worth noticing.
We need a top class striker regardless or other positions needing improvement.
Or maybe we should get a filler like Weghorst so we can get players to help us play out the back better.
Exactly
There are few who hold this position in the debate though. And to be fair, the numbers are a bit difficult to compare as not all teams have played the exact same number of games.
Correct. But when we smash 100 million into one player, be that Kane or Osimhen or Bellingham or whatever, there is no way we can adress other parts of the team. Thats what many peoples issues are with such an outlay.
I worry that I'd get frustrated watching him like I do watching England. He drops too deep, England attack with speed, and there's no central attacker for them to hit because he started the move.
He till gets the goals though!
He till gets the goals though!
That’s why it’s a long term building project rather than fix everything in one summer project.
Billion spent since SAF and still rebuilding
It will be a forever project when we think that only 100 million players are worthy of being considered as potential improvements. Don't get me wrong, I don't know your position in that debate, so I am not even sure, if we are on "the same side" or not. I just think, that we are in no position to spend so much money on one single player this summer. Maybe (depending on a few variables) this won't even change in next years summer as well... 100 million can buy you more than one good player. I like Kane, I like Osimhen, I am sure they would improve us, but they wouldn't do anything against our lack of a decent GK, a good RB, an Upgrade or at least a backup for Eriksen - not even talking about Casemiro and Varane. We shouldn't aim to mount a challenge next year as if we are only a Kane away of being the best team in England. We should aim for mounting a challenge in maybe 2-3 years time.(*)
edit: At least we shouldn't make decisions that will make this more difficult just for the sake of short term success.
Last edited:
Could score about 30 in the league, and yet nobody cares.
Will this be the most forgettable high-scoring season from a forward in modern times?
Will this be the most forgettable high-scoring season from a forward in modern times?
Yeah, but the fact he’s basically outlasted the hype because he never moved could be an advantage for whoever buys him, as he’s still scoring as well as ever. I think the price tag could be reasonable.
If he doesn’t try and force his way out of Spurs then he deserves to end his career trophy less.
Also that the creation and other facets falls into place easier when you have a player like Kane up top and not Weghorst.
You get what you pay for. What’s the alternative to spending £100m on Kane. £70m on Ramos? Rather just spend the £100m mate.
Ever think that the reason we don’t create chances is because there is no quality striker to play off?
To be honest, my stance on that matter is probably a hot take these days. For me, there are enough places in the squad that could do with some serious investments. One thing is safe: I certainly wouldn't let me push into making a bad decision to buy just because there is no single good option.
As you said, this years forward was Weghorst. So lets not pretend only Kane or Osimhen would be able to improve us. Fecking Callum Wilson would improve us. A Che Adams might as well. Alvarez cost City 25 Million last year, you think there is absolutely no striker in Europes top leagues who could be bought without spending the major part of the budget?
You think, we would play differently just because Kane would play up top? That we would press better from the front, creating more high turnovers? Be better with set pieces and crosses because there would be somebody to aim for? A good striker will obviously improve chance creation to a degree. He might even create chances for himself.
Certainly makes sense to go for a striker, question is does it have to be one who will need more or less the whole summer budget...
2 minds actually. While I get the point of getting a RVP level striker we would get only 2-3 seasons. For that money I would really need more especially if taken over by INEOS.
They can. But they’re not going to push us to challenging for the title now are they. Which is why the short list is what it is.
Makes no difference mate. We brought Martial for 50m£ and for all those years. I guarantee you two years of Harry Kane tops it.
Players are always rotating. Not many last the time for 8 years.. and if they do I guarantee we will be looking for upgrades along the way. How many years was Cole here before we tried to upgrade/replace?
Well we don't have creative players outside of Bruno.
I'm not sure Kane is getting us anywhere near a title either unless there are significant resources beyond his signing to upgrade multiple needs in our squad. If there aren't those funds and we have to "make do" what we'll probably find is we will be miles off the pace, and by the time we address that Kane will be aging rather than having bought a striker yet to enter his peak who will improve with the team. It's something that definitely merits consideration of how we use our resources to get the most from the squad. Just spunking 100 million on Kane without serious ideas about squad planning would be very risky.
Also why not play the Kane on a free card? Paying absurd sums is ridiculous when we can buy a young striker that can backup Kane when he gets here and play his part next season too. Or maybe we get a steady striker until then that's miles better than Weghorst. 100 million doesn't add up in any way shape or form.
Also why not play the Kane on a free card? Paying absurd sums is ridiculous when we can buy a young striker that can backup Kane when he gets here and play his part next season too. Or maybe we get a steady striker until then that's miles better than Weghorst. 100 million doesn't add up in any way shape or form.
Even if United had a striker in the rung below Kane, United would be solidly in 3rd place and closer to 2nd than 3rd, if not 2nd.
Chance creation and conversion (together as one offering) has to come more from individual players rather than one person only scores (Marcus), one person only creative clear chances (Bruno), and the others struggle with doing either most weeks (Sancho, Antony). And being creative doesn't always mean the spectacular, rather passing to the right space or player at the right time for the team.
You see City doing it before Haaland, relying in KDB, Mahrez, Foden, Gabriel, Bernardo Silva. You see it this year with Martinelli, Saka, and Odegaard. Pool had it with Salah, Mane, now w Jota, and the two young left forwards (not Gakpo). Spurs always had it w Kane and Son.
Having a legitimate CF will help a lot, but not to the point of having a 2 goal per match average. The entire team must increase their output in goals scored and chances created.
Chance creation and conversion (together as one offering) has to come more from individual players rather than one person only scores (Marcus), one person only creative clear chances (Bruno), and the others struggle with doing either most weeks (Sancho, Antony). And being creative doesn't always mean the spectacular, rather passing to the right space or player at the right time for the team.
You see City doing it before Haaland, relying in KDB, Mahrez, Foden, Gabriel, Bernardo Silva. You see it this year with Martinelli, Saka, and Odegaard. Pool had it with Salah, Mane, now w Jota, and the two young left forwards (not Gakpo). Spurs always had it w Kane and Son.
Having a legitimate CF will help a lot, but not to the point of having a 2 goal per match average. The entire team must increase their output in goals scored and chances created.
It would exactly be perfectly in line with the proud tradition of the glorious Manchester United transfer efforts. Sounding like Liverpool along the way "next year will be our year". Don't know how some fans can watch our games and watch a few other games here and there and then come to the conclusion that the only thing that keeps us away from glory is a 30 year old striker for 100 million. Who we will have to replace in 2 years time.
Neither will Kane. If we played like City last year, I'd still think it would be stupid to pay so much for a player of that age but we are far far away from playing like that. A striker won't change anything about us not being able to hold on to the ball.
If United can only do one deal this summer due to takeover bollocks, he should be the one IMO
Everywhere else outfield can tide over but getting a prolific striker is crucial
Everywhere else outfield can tide over but getting a prolific striker is crucial
Just your wrong opinion to be honest.
You’re basically saying whatever we do we won’t get better than this season which is funny
Precisely
I just watched highlights on MOTD where we created plenty of chances to score
Eriksen is a creative player + he played in the same team as Kane for s while
Wouldn’t XG be lower without a striker anyway? What can that prove?
Only explanation is that you intentionally try to misunderstand me. The point is, spending too much on one player is an issue for United because the team has more than one issue. This applies regardless of who the player is, a rather old player like Kane would be even worse in my mind. I have nothing against Kane, I even think, his style might suit us pretty well but the money we pay for him will be gone and will not get used to close other gaps. We spend 85 million last year on Antony - wouldn't you rather have two players for this amount of money?Just your wrong opinion to be honest.
You’re basically saying whatever we do we won’t get better than this season which is funny
How many transfer blows do we need until the coin drops with some fans? We are notoriously bad when it comes to big transfers. The team won't play better out of thin air - even if ETH can do some magic in the summer. He can't train Eriksen to last all games and all 90 minutes. He isn't going to get Casemiro any younger. Varane less injuries. DDG a better keeper who miraculously improves his passing? Not it won't. Add that the whole midfield turns old and we have not a single like for like backup to anybody there. Add the actual need to bring a good keeper.
Getting Kane now for 100 million means we have to go big for another striker in 2-3 years. Isn't it smarter to just skip the step in between? Some of you laughed about bringing in Maguire for sooo much cash but are ready to follow the same train of thought: "if the only good guys are expensive, you have to pay up". No ffs. You fecking change the plan.
Talk about Kane, Talk about Rice... Are we sure, that Ole is really gone?
Why would that be? The number shown in the initial post is the sum of all our games total xG-values. Which is lower than our rivals and has been since years. Reason is something, that is visible for the naked eye: we don't create many clear cut chances. Having a striker who creates his own chances (interestingly Aubameyang was pretty good at that) would obviously increase the team total. But the number of forwards isn't an indicator for high xG or low xG. You can have Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe and Neymar in your frontline, if the midfield isn't capable of providing them the ball, they won't create much chances. This year WW is a factor of course. But just as much as Sancho, Antony or Martial. Even Rashford as he mostly tries to get on the end of things. Only one to be excluded here is Bruno.
Quality of the forward also is a factor because their movement plays a big part
Yes of course it plays a part. But only one of many.
For example, City is (based on understat.com) on 78.9 xG after 34 games right now, last season they were at 93.4 after 38. On a per games basis this means
2021/22 - 38 played - 93.4xG - 2.46 per game
2022/23 - 34 played - 78.9xG - 2.32 per game
So the teams xG seemingly took a little dip even after adding one of the best available strikers while this particular striker is on a record season.
So yes - quality of forwards plays a role but not the most important role.
100%. XG is shot quality, of which we have very little.
As of last week we were 4th in the league in chance creation. 15th in shot conversion. Reads to me that we need a better striker.
He was way more forward though, now hes deep hes not very creative at all.
Yes they added a brilliant striker but their attacking movement was much less predictable without him. Growing pains really as they have changed the way the approached attacking, it will get alot better especially when they improve the other forwards (probably the RW)
Not exactly great chances.