Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player

[ROFLUTION]

May be without European comp, they might need money which forcing them to sell Kane.

I'm a bit surprised that West Ham made around 38m by being in the Conference League.

What a conundrum for Kane. Lose the game, and Spurs will be more incited to sell him. Score some goals, and you might beat or equal your own record (30 goals).

 

[davidmichael]

Can we get him for that sort of price though

I honestly don’t know but like I said reality is Lewis and Levy are businessmen so I just don’t see them willingly accepting to lose an asset they can get £70-£75 million for this summer on a free in 2024 as the chances of Spurs getting a top four spot next season without serious investment is minimal as there’s us, City, Newcastle, Arsenal and Liverpool then Villa and Brighton also ahead of them so that extra £70-£75 million on top of say £100 million set aside would be massive for Spurs.

I really like that plan as well,who would people in this thread go for this summer if they are prepared to try and get Kane on free

I don’t think it makes sense to wait for Kane on a free, we’re desperate for a quality centre forward and one NEEDS to be in place for next season so if it’s not Kane it’ll be someone else (Osimhen, Ramos and Vlahovic will all be available this summer for a price).

Kane will be 31 in the summer of 2024 and with us apparently already having an eye on Ferguson for 2024 we wouldn’t have a need for Kane despite having no doubt he’d be a great pick up on a free as I expect to continue performing well in the PL until he’s at least 33 based on his style of play, it’s this summer or never as far as Kane at United is concerned.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

I'm a bit surprised that West Ham made around 38m by being in the Conference League.

What a conundrum for Kane. Lose the game, and Spurs will be more incited to sell him. Score some goals, and you might beat or equal your own record (30 goals).

Is that a lot in comparison to EL and UCL?

Son, Perisic, and Kane combined salary is about 30m. So that alone can cover their 3 expensive players salaries.

 

[tenpoless]

I'm not saying they aren't allow or try to score, my concern is can they deliver the quality of crossing and passing when their main asset is their shooting?

For example Rashford, if we ask him to do more crossing and passing to striker, his number of goals can be significantly impacted (lowered) while his number of assists might not increased significantly due to his crossing and passing quality aren't as good as the likes of Mahrez or Giggs (for instance). The reason is because we ask him to do something that is not his main asset. It's like asking Kane to play on the wing to dribble past players but doesn't mean it will work because Kane's quality or main asset isn't his dribbling and pace.

Ultimately what players do in a match is not so rigid as you potrayed. When Ronaldo played on the right wing, Fergie gave him a freedom to go middle and get the end of crosses and still wreck havoc with his dribbling when his position allowed him to and it was quite effective. Later when Rooney was moved to the side and Ronaldo played centrally, Rooney still scored plenty of goals. And our front three interchanged a lot, we conquered Europe with that frontline. And yes, it's true, had Rooney played more centrally and focused on shooting only, then his number should have been higher. But I believe for managers the most important thing is the team then the individual records, not vice versa. And I believe Rashford isn't as bad when it comes into passing, not that I see Ten Hag asking him to put 100 crosses ala David Moyes anyway. If we bring in a top CF that is to take pressure off Rashford and so they can form a much better team than focusing on one person only which makes us harder to defend against. The last thing we need is relying on Rashford to the point where he gets injured or burnt out again. Because you can say goodbye to any target we have if that happens and we still have the same CFs next season.

Can Kane play on the wing? not effectively. Can he sometimes occupies where Rashford normally is (by the way he can be a wide forward than a pure winger) to draw fullback in so Rashford can go to the center? yes, he absolutely can and he's not bad at link up plays either. If your focus is to make sure Rashford get to be as productive as he can be in the terms of goals, you can do that. But that is a detriment to the team when you can also bring in a top CF. I wouldn't be as pessimistic as thinking our forwards can't pass/cross properly when we have nobody up front to get on the end of those and score goals. Football is also a positional game, sometimes it doesn't take a Paul Scholes to create chances if the team structure is solid enough up front. Right now we have essentially a statue that chases people around and when we don't, the replacement always loses form due to injury/not 100% to play. We have seen it firsthand how Bruno & Garnacho refused to pass to Weghorst when they could have. That's not good and it has to change. How can we score lots of goals, which has been our problem this season when we're missing 1 person up front?

But yeah I guess if we add Kane into the team, Rashford will naturally do more through passes and crosses without the manager asking him specifically for it. Since that means he will see more opportunities to do so.

tldr; it's not as rigid as you think it is. And in modern football, the more options you have the better for the manager.

 

[GoldanoGraham]

This is a deal that will not be economical to achieve with Daniel Levy, for any team.

He will not let Kane leave for anything other than a ridiculous fee and see if he can somehow get him to sign a new contract next season some time.

Nobody is going to pay £100m for him at this age when he is available free next year.

Long summer ahead for Harry I'm afraid….

 

[Pickle85]

He either wants to join us or he doesn't. Why wouldn't Chelsea bid 100m for him if that's acceptable? Then we're in the same position of convincing him to join us - except we haven't given spurs a fat wedge.

Well that's not quite true, is it? He may want to join us if we're the only offer on the table but do you really think that will remain the case when he becomes available for free? I imagine there are LOADS of clubs that would ball at paying 80 million plus but take him in a heartbeat for free. Some of whom may be more desirable destinations than us. Just because we may be unopposed for him this year on no way means that'll remain the case and he's shown no signs, to my knowledge, of any particular affinity towards united.

 

[Lash]

Well that's not quite true, is it? He may want to join us if we're the only offer on the table but do you really think that will remain the case when he becomes available for free? I imagine there are LOADS of clubs that would ball at paying 80 million plus but take him in a heartbeat for free. Some of whom may be more desirable destinations than us. Just because we may be unopposed for him this year on no way means that'll remain the case and he's shown no signs, to my knowledge, of any particular affinity towards united.

Well if our logic for signing him now, is to overpay because he'd only be interested in us because we're the only offer on the table, that doesn't bode well if anyone decides to match our bid. We should really believe we can convince him to join us and I do believe we're probably the best option in the Prem for him, bar Newcastle. I think he will want to stay in the prem to chase Shearer's record, we're a better prospect than Chelsea, he won't go Arsenal so it's between us and Newcastle.

If we can't convince him to move to us over Chelsea, he's not really interested in winning much in my opinion and I wouldn't want him. Poch factor or not.

 

[Pickle85]

Well if our logic for signing him now, is to overpay because he'd only be interested in us because we're the only offer on the table, that doesn't bode well if anyone decides to match our bid. We should really believe we can convince him to join us and I do believe we're probably the best option in the Prem for him, bar Newcastle. I think he will want to stay in the prem to chase Shearer's record, we're a better prospect than Chelsea, he won't go Arsenal so it's between us and Newcastle.

If we can't convince him to move to us over Chelsea, he's not really interested in winning much in my opinion and I wouldn't want him. Poch factor or not.

Fair enough. I disagree, tbh. The days of the very best of the best queuing up to join us are behind us, I'm afraid. If we need to move on this earlier in order to make sure of it then I think we should. I also think the poch factor could be big for him; it's also not as though Chelsea have demonstrated a lack of ambition on their spending (though they've spent very badly) and you'd expect them to be MUCH improved next season. I'd have them as a more likely destination than Newcastle. They also need him more than Newcastle do.

 

[scottser]

It would be foolish to pay 100m for Kane. It would also be foolish to get into a protracted haggle with Levy over him. If we threw in a bid of 65m for him, I'd say it would be the only one on the table. Leave it valid for two weeks only and if they don't take it then move on. Personally, I don't think he's going anywhere. I reckon he'll stay and finish out his contract.

 

[Doracle]

To do so we need to instruct Rashford and Antony to do more crossings and passing. Especially for someone like Rashford who is more goalscorer than creator, do you think it's best way to do?

Have you ever seen Son play?

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Have you ever seen Son play?

Yes. Why are you asking that?

 

[Lash]

Fair enough. I disagree, tbh. The days of the very best of the best queuing up to join us are behind us, I'm afraid. If we need to move on this earlier in order to make sure of it then I think we should. I also think the poch factor could be big for him; it's also not as though Chelsea have demonstrated a lack of ambition on their spending (though they've spent very badly) and you'd expect them to be MUCH improved next season. I'd have them as a more likely destination than Newcastle. They also need him more than Newcastle do.

Oh yeah, I don't think we're the best in general, but all things considered, I think we come out top of the pile in this case.

I think if the Poch factor sways him, then I don't think he's the kind of player we want anyway. Poch is coming into a side that's mid table, much improved doesn't really cut the mustard if you actually want to win anything - at least Newcastle got to a final and are in Europe.

 

[Doracle]

Yes. Why are you asking that?

Because that’s how I expect Rashford and Kane to work together. Son doesn’t spam crosses for Kane, yet they’ve combined for the most GA in premier league history. I’d expect, generally, Kane to be providing for Rashford more than the other way around. From that side, it will be Shaw putting in most of the crosses for Kane to put away.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Because that’s how I expect Rashford and Kane to work together. Son doesn’t spam crosses for Kane, yet they’ve combined for the most GA in premier league history. I’d expect, generally, Kane to be providing for Rashford more than the other way around. From that side, it will be Shaw putting in most of the crosses for Kane to put away.

That's because how deep Kane drops, he doesn't need Son's crosses, Son needs Kane's through passes but we have Bruno to do the job.

Which again, strengthening my argument that we need to get striker like Firmino or Alvarez who also offer good work rate off the ball.

 

[sullydnl]

Spurs average less possession than we do and are even more reliant on transitions than we are, which is where much of that Kane feeding Son dynamic comes into play.

Why anyone would think we should look to set up in attack like Spurs of all teams, I have no idea. I thought we wanted to become less of a counter-attacking team?

 

[Abraxas]

Well that's not quite true, is it? He may want to join us if we're the only offer on the table but do you really think that will remain the case when he becomes available for free? I imagine there are LOADS of clubs that would ball at paying 80 million plus but take him in a heartbeat for free. Some of whom may be more desirable destinations than us. Just because we may be unopposed for him this year on no way means that'll remain the case and he's shown no signs, to my knowledge, of any particular affinity towards united.

There aren't LOADS of clubs. There are a handful of teams that can afford Harry Kane on a free transfer and offer him an attractive destination.

Free isn't totally free as we know, he'll package some of that fee into a great deal for him and his agent and he would have been on a mammoth deal even if he wasn't a free agent. It will be a gigantic package, it's not just one that will be thrown out there by loads of random clubs, he'll be on 4-5 years on an eye watering deal.

There's probably 3 or 4 other teams likely to be sniffing around him. Even if they were all equal shots which realistically they won't be due to wages, Kane's preferences etc, that's not exactly the lottery, the odds are pretty good.

 

[Doracle]

There aren't LOADS of clubs. There are a handful of teams that can afford Harry Kane on a free transfer and offer him an attractive destination.

Free isn't totally free as we know, he'll package some of that fee into a great deal for him and his agent and he would have been on a mammoth deal even if he wasn't a free agent. It will be a gigantic package, it's not just one that will be thrown out there by loads of random clubs, he'll be on 4-5 years on an eye watering deal.

There's probably 3 or 4 other teams likely to be sniffing around him. Even if they were all equal shots which realistically they won't be due to wages, Kane's preferences etc, that's not exactly the lottery, the odds are pretty good.

Who do we buy this summer to play upfront if we are going to wait a year for Kane? Going into next season with our current striking options could easily cost ETH his job.

 

[cheekybackheel]

People believing we should wait another year before going after Kane?

Are you fekin nuts????

He'll be 31 going on 32 and he's virtually past his peak now. Why the hell would we dump £100m on an aging striker in over a years time?? Absolutely crazy.

If we're going to do it then we do it now, but even then I would say we're only going to get 2, possibly 3 seasons at best from him. He's a waste of time for the money Levy would want even now. If we wait another year, that's just more pressure on aging muscles, ligaments and tendons. No thanks.

We should be going after a 24/25 Yr old and getting the best years out of them.

I'm sick to death of United being an OAP retirement home for players that didn't want to come here in their prime. It needs to stop, we're not a fekin 'End Of Career' charity.

 

[sullydnl]

People believing we should wait another year before going after Kane?

Are you fekin nuts????

He'll be 31 going on 32 and he's virtually past his peak now. Why the hell would we dump £100m on an aging striker in over a years time?? Absolutely crazy.

If we're going to do it then we do it now, but even then I would say we're only going to get 2, possibly 3 seasons at best from him. He's a waste of time for the money Levy would want even now. If we wait another year, that's just more pressure on aging muscles, ligaments and tendons. No thanks.

We should be going after a 24/25 Yr old and getting the best years out of them.

I'm sick to death of United being an OAP retirement home for players that didn't want to come here in their prime. It needs to stop, we're not a fekin 'End Of Career' charity.

Their point is that next summer he'll be on a free transfer, so you wouldn' be paying any transfer fee for him.

 

[Abraxas]

Who do we buy this summer to play upfront if we are going to wait a year for Kane? Going into next season with our current striking options could easily cost ETH his job.

Any of the options we are linked to are possible. I'm not going to proclaim I am an authority on them, they all have their attractions and they're all younger which is good. There could be ones we are not aware of.

That's for the scouts and ETH to make a decision on, no point having them if we don't use their analysis. Even if we are going for Harry Kane we can't afford to be in a mindset of Kane or bust. It gives Levy far too much play so we should have all the possibilities in mind anyway.

United managers jobs are always vulnerable to poor results. That's the way it should be. And yes we need a striker. Nothing to panic or become dramatic about. It's not just about Kane or one position.

 

[Ayoba]

People believing we should wait another year before going after Kane?

Are you fekin nuts????

He'll be 31 going on 32 and he's virtually past his peak now. Why the hell would we dump £100m on an aging striker in over a years time?? Absolutely crazy.

If we're going to do it then we do it now, but even then I would say we're only going to get 2, possibly 3 seasons at best from him. He's a waste of time for the money Levy would want even now. If we wait another year, that's just more pressure on aging muscles, ligaments and tendons. No thanks.

We should be going after a 24/25 Yr old and getting the best years out of them.

I'm sick to death of United being an OAP retirement home for players that didn't want to come here in their prime. It needs to stop, we're not a fekin 'End Of Career' charity.

Out of contract next year so he'll be free, no one is dumping 100m

 

[cheekybackheel]

Out of contract next year so he'll be free, no one is dumping 100m

And another year older! It's more more about the fact he's past his peak now.

Feck waiting a year for him to finally decide he wants to come to us. If he did want to come to us he'd have done it years ago.

My point still stands, we're not an OAP footballers retirement home.

And does anyone actually believe Levy will let Kane go on a free next year?

 

[Pickle85]

Out of contract next year so he'll be free, no one is dumping 100m

But they seem to be trying to have it both ways, arguing that 100 mill is crazy money for him this year even if it gives us a free run at him but then saying that we won't have much competition next year as he'll still be asking for money and signing on fees that other clubs can't afford.

 

[Abraxas]

But they seem to be trying to have it both ways, arguing that 100 mill is crazy money for him this year even if it gives us a free run at him but then saying that we won't have much competition next year as he'll still be asking for money and signing on fees that other clubs can't afford.

There is no inconsistency at all within this and I am perplexed as to why you think there is.

 

[Doracle]

Any of the options we are linked to are possible. I'm not going to proclaim I am an authority on them, they all have their attractions and they're all younger which is good. There could be ones we are not aware of.

That's for the scouts and ETH to make a decision on, no point having them if we don't use their analysis. Even if we are going for Harry Kane we can't afford to be in a mindset of Kane or bust. It gives Levy far too much play so we should have all the possibilities in mind anyway.

United managers jobs are always vulnerable to poor results. That's the way it should be. And yes we need a striker. Nothing to panic or become dramatic about. It's not just about Kane or one position.

Ok, so the reality is that you don’t want Kane as we aren’t purchasing a starting striker this summer AND then getting Kane free next year (unless that starting striker proves not up to the job, in which case we made an error). You accept that we can’t wait that extra season, so there’s no point wondering whether we’d be his prime destination next year.

Saying it’s up to ETH and the scouts to find a player in this scenario is a bit of a cop out. If they find a £5m player who is ready to start upfront for us then I’ll take my words back but the likelihood is that they are looking in a fairly small pool of players, all of whom are likely to be known to football fans and £50m+. Based on the known options and suggested prices currently, I’d take Kane at £100m every single time.

 

[Siorac]

Spurs average less possession than we do and are even more reliant on transitions than we are, which is where much of that Kane feeding Son dynamic comes into play.

Why anyone would think we should look to set up in attack like Spurs of all teams, I have no idea. I thought we wanted to become less of a counter-attacking team?

To add some numbers to that: in Kane's most productive season (20/21, 23 goals and 14 assists in the Premier League) they averaged 51.5% possession, 8th in the league.

This season he only provided 3 assists so far, by the way. Some of that might be down to Son's decline (though he scored 10 PL goals this season compared to 17 in 20/21 so it doesn't fully explain the difference by any means) but still interesting.

 

[Abraxas]

Ok, so the reality is that you don’t want Kane as we aren’t purchasing a starting striker this summer AND then getting Kane free next year (unless that starting striker proves not up to the job, in which case we made an error). You accept that we can’t wait that extra season, so there’s no point wondering whether we’d be his prime destination next year.

Saying it’s up to ETH and the scouts to find a player in this scenario is a bit of a cop out. If they find a £5m player who is ready to start upfront for us then I’ll take my words back but the likelihood is that they are looking in a fairly small pool of players, all of whom are likely to be known to football fans and £50m+. Based on the known options and suggested prices currently, I’d take Kane at £100m every single time.

I am not fussed about Kane. Fully happy to sign myself up to that sentiment. Or more accurately I'd say I don't view him as an appealing option due to the likelihood of protracted negotiation that hurts our window, and the fees not representing Kane's age and situation. Putting down a lesser bid that expires and then we move on I could get behind.

I think whether the Kane option comes back around would depend on what happens this summer for us and Kane. Once we don't buy Kane it is obviously going to be situational. It depends on the profile of striker we buy. I wouldn't rule it out, I'd still be keeping track of Kane's situation because that's good practice. You don't rule yourself out of that kind of thing.

It's not a cop out to say the club should have scouted targets. It's reality. We're a 5 billion institution, apparently. This is just poster ego where everyone wants to believe they know the best target and can't accept uncertainty. The more data you have the more certainty you can have and the club has a heck of a lot compared to us.

I don't even watch fecking Atalanta or Napoli or Benfica so how can I say a definitive choice with a straight face? It depends how much posters want to pretend they're an oracle. Maybe some watch every game but probably not many. I'm not interested in pretending, my view is that Kane isn't the only option that improves us because that's logical and that's what my view is based on. The myopia of some fans is a pattern. One particular signing becomes the must have, our big step towards glory and it occurs every year. Hasn't happened, it's a big wide world of players out there and it's about a team.

 

[Pickle85]

There is no inconsistency at all within this and I am perplexed as to why you think there is.

I'm perplexed that you're unable to see any inconsistency here.

 

[Rusholme Ruffian]

Fair enough. I disagree, tbh. The days of the very best of the best queuing up to join us are behind us, I'm afraid. If we need to move on this earlier in order to make sure of it then I think we should. I also think the poch factor could be big for him; it's also not as though Chelsea have demonstrated a lack of ambition on their spending (though they've spent very badly) and you'd expect them to be MUCH improved next season. I'd have them as a more likely destination than Newcastle. They also need him more than Newcastle do.

Absolutely no chance Kane goes to Chelsea - it would be like a United legend going to City or Liverpool.

And does anyone actually believe Levy will let Kane go on a free next year?

Levy won't have any choice in the matter next year - that's the whole point! I don't think hanging around for a year is an option for us though.

 

[Siorac]

Absolutely no chance Kane goes to Chelsea - it would be like a United legend going to City

Which happened multiple times: from Denis Law to Peter Schmeichel and Andy Cole. Different circumstances, admittedly, but still.

 

[Abraxas]

I'm perplexed that you're unable to see any inconsistency here.

100 million - crazy money, an opinion based on his situation. Not really anything to do with the logic of the free transfer market, they're seperated precisely because most clubs would find the economics of that fee bonkers.

Not many clubs being able to afford a package for Kane on a free transfer - an opinion based on logic. 1 club in France, 1 in Germany, 2 in Spain, then probably 6 in England. That's 10 football clubs that are theoretically possible, but in practice will have different levels of interest which immediately rules them out, or different levels of financial muscle to offer Kane that subsequently rule them out.

No inconsistency at all, it's how football works for the top players. There's a food chain, not dozens of clubs in the mix.

 

[Rusholme Ruffian]

Which happened multiple times: from Denis Law to Peter Schmeichel and Andy Cole. Different circumstances, admittedly, but still.

Entirely different circumstances. Things were very different in Denis Law's time and Schmeichel and Cole only ended up there at the tale end of their careers with multiple clubs inbetween. This would be (almost) like Scholes signing directly for City whilst still at the peak of his powers.

 

[sullydnl]

To add some numbers to that: in Kane's most productive season (20/21, 23 goals and 14 assists in the Premier League) they averaged 51.5% possession, 8th in the league.

This season he only provided 3 assists so far, by the way. Some of that might be down to Son's decline (though he scored 10 PL goals this season compared to 17 in 20/21 so it doesn't fully explain the difference by any means) but still interesting.

Kane 20/21 - 14 assists, 3.6 xA
Kane 21/22 - 9 assist, 5.5 xA
Kane 22/23 - 3 assists, 4.0 xA

Son 20/21: +7.1 xG overperformance
Son 21/22: +7.1 xG overperformance
Son 22/23: +0.0 xG overperformance.

The point being that Kane's two most productive years for assists didn't come from him creating a huge amount for Son, but rather Son (a statistically excellent finisher anyway) having the best finishing seasons of his career. This season Son's finishing regressed and so too did Kane's assist output, but only to slightly below its expected value.

Which should concern people who are depending on the idea of him feeding Rashford to a huge degree. Because it suggests that those 14 & 9 assist seasons were outliers, not something you'd expect to see him repeat here. It would still overwhelming be a case of other players needing to feed Kane.

 

[Red in STL]

That's because how deep Kane drops, he doesn't need Son's crosses, Son needs Kane's through passes but we have Bruno to do the job.

Which again, strengthening my argument that we need to get striker like Firmino or Alvarez who also offer good work rate off the ball.

But Bruno isn't doing that now is he? Suggesting we need a striker like Firmino isn't doing you any favours though

 

[Doracle]

Kane 20/21 - 14 assists, 3.6 xA
Kane 21/22 - 9 assist, 5.5 xA
Kane 22/23 - 3 assists, 4.0 xA

Son 20/21: +7.1 xG overperformance
Son 21/22: +7.1 xG overperformance
Son 22/23: +0.0 xG overperformance.

The point being that Kane's two most productive years for assists didn't come from him creating a huge amount for Son, but rather Son (a statistically excellent finisher anyway) having the best finishing seasons of his career. This season Son's finishing regressed and so too did Kane's assist output, but only to slightly below its expected value.

Which should concern people who are depending on the idea of him feeding Rashford to a huge degree. Because it suggests that those 14 & 9 assist seasons were outliers, not something you'd expect to see him repeat here. It would still overwhelming be a case of other players needing to feed Kane.

Where are those Kane xA stats from? The site I’m looking at has him at 9.82, 7.58 and 7.47 which looks far more sensible. An xA improvement would be expected by a CF playing in a much more dominant team as well.

Son, by comparison, is 9.51, 7.85 and 5.89, suggesting that (as I indicated) it’s slightly more that Kane produces for him than the other way around.

 

[Pickle85]

100 million - crazy money, an opinion based on his situation. Not really anything to do with the logic of the free transfer market, they're seperated precisely because most clubs would find the economics of that fee bonkers.

Not many clubs being able to afford a package for Kane on a free transfer - an opinion based on logic. 1 club in France, 1 in Germany, 2 in Spain, then probably 6 in England. That's 10 football clubs that are theoretically possible, but in practice will have different levels of interest which immediately rules them out, or different levels of financial muscle to offer Kane that subsequently rule them out.

No inconsistency at all, it's how football works for the top players. There's a food chain, not dozens of clubs in the mix.

You're right. I confused myself! I still think that we won't present the most attractive option next year and so, personally, would have a go at 80 million this year if it secures a signature. He's a worldbeater and would transform us.

 

[sullydnl]

Where are those Kane xA stats from? The site I’m looking at has him at 9.82, 7.58 and 7.47 which looks far more sensible. An xA improvement would be expected by a CF playing in a much more dominant team as well.

Son, by comparison, is 9.51, 7.85 and 5.89, suggesting that (as I indicated) it’s slightly more that Kane produces for him than the other way around.

Fbref.

Though they do also have an xAG stat (as distinct from xA) which is slightly closer to your numbers (7.1, 9.1, 6.9). And in fairness, as I look at the definitions that stat does look more relevant when comparing to assists.

Even with that though, I think the key takeaway is that Kane's 14 assist season was an outlier. You're more realistically looking at an average of approx. 7 or 8 assists from him a season, assuming he maintains the level of the last few seasons.

There's also a question as to how the change in team dynamic would impact that sort of relationship. By which I mean we're simply not going to funnel our attacks through Kane/Rashford to the same degree that Spurs did Kane/Son, as we have other creative outlets like Bruno and Eriksen in the mix that Spurs didn't.

And as I mentioned above, that Kane/Son dynamic was heavily transition dependent, in a side that averaged less possession that we do. We're trying to move away from relying on that sort of counter attacking football, so that Kane/Son attack isn't one to emulate. We don't want to attack like Spurs.

 

[Doracle]

Fbref.

Though they do also have an xAG stat (as distinct from xA) which is slightly closer to your numbers (7.1, 9.1, 6.9). And in fairness, as I look at the definitions that stat does look more relevant when comparing to assists.

Even with that though, I think the key takeaway is that Kane's 14 assist season was an outlier. You're more realistically looking at an average of approx. 7 or 8 assists from him a season, assuming he maintains the level of the last few seasons.

There's also a question as to how the change in team dynamic would impact that sort of relationship. By which I mean we're simply not going to funnel our attacks through Kane/Rashford to the same degree that Spurs did Kane/Son, as we have other creative outlets like Bruno and Eriksen in the mix that Spurs didn't.

And as I mentioned above, that Kane/Son dynamic was heavily transition dependent, in a side that averaged less possession that we do. We're trying to move away from relying on that sort of counter attacking football, so that Kane/Son attack isn't one to emulate.

My point about Kane and Son was primarily aimed at the poster who was suggesting that Rashford would have to change his game and start whipping crosses in for Kane. I’m certainly not suggesting that we would play exactly like Spurs. That said, if you have Rashford in your team then you are always going to be a counter-attack threat and I see no reason why it’s a bad thing to have a CF with the vision to find him when we are on the break.

In fact, one of the key reasons why I have a preference for Kane over some of the other options is that he best suits a possession based team. His hold up play and passing ability should enable us to have far more possession that is the case with the current blank space that is our CF position.

 

[croadyman]

You're right. I confused myself! I still think that we won't present the most attractive option next year and so, personally, would have a go at 80 million this year if it secures a signature. He's a worldbeater and would transform us.

Yeah my thoughts too

 

[Red in STL]

There seems to be a very firm opinion that Kane will cost 100 million this summer, where did that figure come from?

I doubt Spurs have ever said gives those smackaroo's and you can have him!