Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player

[cyberman]

City scored 42 more goals than us so far this season, co conceding 9 less. It is difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks Kane would get us close.

Kane would cut that in half? So we won’t be winning games 4-0 as City do but 2-0.
Add Kane to this side, this season instead of Weghorst or Ronaldo and you’d think what? We’d only gain 4/5 points extra? Would Kane struggle to score for some reason? Would we create even less with him in the side?
I was told out midfield needed a complete revamp, Casemiro showed what one man could do.
I was told we didn’t have the players to play out from the back and progress the ball, Martinez showed what one man could do.
Hell I remember being told it wasn’t Pogbas fault he wasn’t creative enough for us, the players around him didn’t allow him to be then Bruno came along.
It’s difficult to take someone seriously when they say signing a striker that has scored in more games than anyone else in a league season wouldn’t make a massive difference to playing Martial up top quite frankly.

 

[Hammondo]

Football doesn’t work like this. Ten Hag won’t be of this view either. Not while his best players are in or exiting their prime.

Let’s not buy a world class striker because we’re going to decide to be good in three years. Cracking plan.

You plan is just short termism, it's what we have done for years and it gets us nowhere. Like bringing back Ronaldo, getting Falcao, zlatan, Di Maria, Sanchez... Never helped, always that "proven goal scorer to push us to the next level", football doesn't work like that and now we are aiming to spend a huge amount of money, which means we don't invest in our future and we will still be weaker than City in attack, midfield, goalkeeper, and defence.

 

[Hammondo]

Kane would cut that in half? So we won’t be winning games 4-0 as City do but 2-0.
Add Kane to this side, this season instead of Weghorst or Ronaldo and you’d think what? We’d only gain 4/5 points extra? Would Kane struggle to score for some reason? Would we create even less with him in the side?
I was told out midfield needed a complete revamp, Casemiro showed what one man could do.
I was told we didn’t have the players to play out from the back and progress the ball, Martinez showed what one man could do.
Hell I remember being told it wasn’t Pogbas fault he wasn’t creative enough for us, the players around him didn’t allow him to be then Bruno came along.
It’s difficult to take someone seriously when they say signing a striker that has scored in more games than anyone else in a league season wouldn’t make a massive difference to playing Martial up top quite frankly.

As others have explained, you need a huge amount of goals to make a big points difference, Kane won't provide enough. Also as others have mentioned, look at City, bringing in an amazing goal scorer doesn't mean more goals.

You are only proving my point btw, we got Casemiro and it improved our midfield but our midfield is still poor and WAY behind city.

We got Martinez, we still suck at playing from defence

We got Bruno and still have poor creativity.

These players did not solve any of our problems because this is not FM.

 

[Red in STL]

There is no realistic chance of that, you are more likely to do damage thinking like that.

Players aren't machines, if they win the CL it's entirely possible they'll lose a bit of the desire that currently makes the difference, it's happened before and it'll happen again

 

[Red in STL]

As others have explained, you need a huge amount of goals to make a big points difference, Kane won't provide enough. Also as others have mentioned, look at City, bringing in an amazing goal scorer doesn't mean more goals.

You are only proving my point btw, we got Casemiro and it improved our midfield but our midfield is still poor and WAY behind city.

We got Martinez, we still suck at playing from defence

We got Bruno and still have poor creativity.

These players did not solve any of our problems because this is not FM.

Actually we don't need a huge amount of goals to make a big difference, we needed a few goals in the games we should have won but didn't, we drew 6 and we should probably have won those, that's 6 goals and 12 extra points, we also lost at least 2 we should have won and probably another 1-2, of course the same can apply to other teams but I suspect not quite as much, using Kane as an example, he's scored in 75% of PL games this season, if he'd done that for us we would be much closer to City and possibly above Arsenal

 

[sullydnl]

Kane would cut that in half? So we won’t be winning games 4-0 as City do but 2-0.
Add Kane to this side, this season instead of Weghorst or Ronaldo and you’d think what? We’d only gain 4/5 points extra? Would Kane struggle to score for some reason? Would we create even less with him in the side?
I was told out midfield needed a complete revamp, Casemiro showed what one man could do.
I was told we didn’t have the players to play out from the back and progress the ball, Martinez showed what one man could do.
Hell I remember being told it wasn’t Pogbas fault he wasn’t creative enough for us, the players around him didn’t allow him to be then Bruno came along.
It’s difficult to take someone seriously when they say signing a striker that has scored in more games than anyone else in a league season wouldn’t make a massive difference to playing Martial up top quite frankly.

Kane on his own wouldn't cut it in half.

Because even assuming he repeated his 23 non-penalty goals from this season (a big assumption given that's his best return in half a decade), some of those goals would involve cannibalising goals others would score. Whether it's by being a target at set-pieces, taking free kicks or us not focusing delivery to Rashford as our primary goal threat as we have done all season. Even our current useless centre-forwards did manage to scrape 5 goals, which they don't get if Kane is playing in those games instead.

We've seen this over the last couple of seasons with Haaland and Ronaldo, goalscorers who came into the side and scored goals without significantly adding to their teams' goal tallies. It isn't as simple as just adding Kane's goal scored to ours.

Obviously Kane would help, because he's a massive upgrade on our current dreck. But realistically it's more likely by cutting that 42 goal difference by something closer to a third rather than a half, which is still pretty massive from just one player. But it still leaves a massive margin of improvement needed elsewhere.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

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

What do you mean Bruno isn’t doing through ball? He loves making those through ball and those killer passes, every United fans should know this. Firmino type of striker was the reason why high goalscorers winger like Salah and Mane are benefit it with.

 

[Abraxas]

I think what sometimes gets lost is a team is a whole and everything is related.

You can't just slot Kane in and infer that everything about our side is exactly the same, and everything about Kane is exactly the same as the past season and then just tot up the points we would have got. Way too simplistic and neat. Kane may perform more like a different season, and our players will be impacted because when you have a focal point like that, play tends to revolve around them. Also, as bad as Spurs are, Kane is the only man they're really looking for whereas I think we're trying to use the wide areas and get more out of Rashford and Antony. Basically ETH wants a cohesive side with many threats.

One example is it might impact Rashford. He might have to play slightly differently and play a less selfish role in order that we produce more for the striker. More selfless runs to open up space for Kane and less ball to feet dribbling at everyone and shooting on sight. He might not produce goals at the same rate, but they'll be handed off to Kane. Or he might. The point is it's quite hard to tell exactly what the full scale of the impact will be, except to say we should be a better overall side with Kane, which is logical because we need a striker.

But it's not so simple as looking at results and saying "we would have won that" just because of having Kane. Basically totting up our points before we even get them and presuming we'll challenge for a title or gain 15 extra points. This isn't particular to Kane, it's a wider point about extrapolating simplistically. It applies if we sign Osimhen or whoever. If things were this simple we'd know our likely finishing place with a high degree of precision. It's like when people argue if X event didn't happen in a game then Y result certainly would have happened. In reality it isn't that way because every event has an impact on the players and their mentality.

 

[Hammondo]

Actually we don't need a huge amount of goals to make a big difference, we needed a few goals in the games we should have won but didn't, we drew 6 and we should probably have won those, that's 6 goals and 12 extra points, we also lost at least 2 we should have won and probably another 1-2, of course the same can apply to other teams but I suspect not quite as much, using Kane as an example, he's scored in 75% of PL games this season, if he'd done that for us we would be much closer to City and possibly above Arsenal

That is not reality though, that's not how extra goals work.

 

[Hammondo]

Players aren't machines, if they win the CL it's entirely possible they'll lose a bit of the desire that currently makes the difference, it's happened before and it'll happen again

We are hoping for a lot.

 

[Bebestation]

Kane on his own wouldn't cut it in half.

Because even assuming he repeated his 23 non-penalty goals from this season (a big assumption given that's his best return in half a decade), some of those goals would involve cannibalising goals others would score. Whether it's by being a target at set-pieces, taking free kicks or us not focusing delivery to Rashford as our primary goal threat as we have done all season. Even our current useless centre-forwards did manage to scrape 5 goals, which they don't get if Kane is playing in those games instead.

We've seen this over the last couple of seasons with Haaland and Ronaldo, goalscorers who came into the side and scored goals without significantly adding to their teams' goal tallies. It isn't as simple as just adding Kane's goal scored to ours.

Obviously Kane would help, because he's a massive upgrade on our current dreck. But realistically it's more likely by cutting that 42 goal difference by something closer to a third rather than a half, which is still pretty massive from just one player. But it still leaves a massive margin of improvement needed elsewhere.

Kane is arguably the best at link up play & most creative striker in the world.

That’s why Pep wanted him back arguably just last year when he was using inverted forwards like Sterling & Mahrez.

We are using Rashford, Garanacho, Sancho, Antony and possibly even Amad or the unnamed player in our collection of inverted forwards next season.


What Kane would bring cannot be underestimated.

 

[Galactic]

The next Teddy Sheringham

 

[El Jefe]

Take away Kane's PL goals from Spurs and take away Rashford's PL goals from us and Spurs have actually scored more goals than us in the PL.

I think some of you are seriously overstating the impact Kane could have on us. This team needs a complete refresh of it's attacking options. Adding Kane might just see us be a solid 3rd place team.

I'm in favour of fixing many of the other problems we have in the side first instead of spending £100m on a physical declining striker.

 

[sullydnl]

Seeing as we're arguing about the impact Kane's goals would have, I took a look at how our results would have changed if we had Kane instead of Ronaldo this season.

So I looked at the 36 games we've played, added in all the non-penalty goals Kane has scored for Spurs across all those same fixtures, removed Ronaldo's one goal from one game, then added up how that would impact our results across the season.

This is also ignoring the fact that Kane would cannibalise other players' goals beyond that, as Martial would have had fewer minutes to get his four goals (lol), Rashford wouldn't have been who everyone was creating for, other players would have been off set-pieces, etc.

So with all of Kane's goals in our team instead of Ronaldo's one goal this season we would currently be......

3rd. 11 points behind City, 3 points behind Arsenal, 9 points better off overall.

 

[Bebestation]

Seeing as we're arguing about the impact Kane's goals would have, I took a look at how our results would have changed if we had Kane instead of Ronaldo this season.

So I looked at our results, removed Ronaldo's one non-penalty goal, added the non-penalty goals Kane has scored for Spurs in those same fixtures, then added up how that would impact our results in those games.

This is also ignoring the fact that Kane would cannibalise other players' goals beyond that, as Martial would have had fewer minutes to get his four goals (lol), Rashford wouldn't have been who everyone was creating for, other players would have been off set-pieces, etc.

So with Kane's goals in our team instead of Ronaldo's goal this season we would currently be......

3rd. 11 points behind City, 3 points behind Arsenal, 9 points better off overall.

But Kane would create for Rashford as he did for Son.

So Rashford’s goals he loses out from everyone creating for him gets balanced out with Kane creating for him.

Kane is a creative poacher. He will be utelised to score goals at the right place at the right time - whilst also being creative and having the ability to link a front forward 3.

The younger option of a creative CF would probably be Kolo Muani.

 

[tenpoless]

Seeing as we're arguing about the impact Kane's goals would have, I took a look at how our results would have changed if we had Kane instead of Ronaldo this season.

So I looked at our results, removed Ronaldo's one non-penalty goal, added the non-penalty goals Kane has scored for Spurs in those same fixtures, then added up how that would impact our results in those games.

This is also ignoring the fact that Kane would cannibalise other players' goals beyond that, as Martial would have had fewer minutes to get his four goals (lol), Rashford wouldn't have been who everyone was creating for, other players would have been off set-pieces, etc.

So with Kane's goals in our team instead of Ronaldo's goal this season we would currently be......

3rd. 11 points behind City, 3 points behind Arsenal, 9 points better off overall.

And we can challenge for the league if you also replace the amount of games non scoring Weghorst played in with Kane's. Our GD is so pathetic despite of our GK winning the golden gloves.

 

[sullydnl]

And we can challenge for the league if you also replace the amount of games non scoring Weghorst played in with Kane's. Our GD is so pathetic despite of our GK winning the golden gloves.

I did. Those numbers include the goals Kane scored for Spurs in the fixtures that either Weghorst or Martial played in for us.

In other words for every single league game we've played this season, I added in Kane's non-penalty goals from those same fixtures. And I only removed Ronaldo's one goal.

 

[sullydnl]

But Kane would create for Rashford as he did for Son.

So Rashford’s goals he loses out from everyone creating for him gets balanced out with Kane creating for him.

Kane is a creative poacher. He will be utelised to score goals at the right place at the right time - whilst also being creative and having the ability to link a front forward 3.

The younger option of a creative CF would probably be Kolo Muani.

Kane has three assists in the league this season. It's not like adding KDB to the side. It's actually as much as Weghorst and Martial (whose minutes Kane would eat into) have contributed between them.

 

[Red in STL]

Seeing as we're arguing about the impact Kane's goals would have, I took a look at how our results would have changed if we had Kane instead of Ronaldo this season.

So I looked at our results, removed Ronaldo's one non-penalty goal, added the non-penalty goals Kane has scored for Spurs in those same fixtures, then added up how that would impact our results in those games.

This is also ignoring the fact that Kane would cannibalise other players' goals beyond that, as Martial would have had fewer minutes to get his four goals (lol), Rashford wouldn't have been who everyone was creating for, other players would have been off set-pieces, etc.

So with Kane's goals in our team instead of Ronaldo's goal this season we would currently be......

3rd. 11 points behind City, 3 points behind Arsenal, 9 points better off overall.

Ronaldo was here less than half this season and by your reckoning we'd be 9 points better off, this suggests over a full season we'd be a heck of a lot more than 9 points better off

 

[Bebestation]

Kane has three assists in the league this season. It's not like adding KDB to the side. It's actually as much as Weghorst and Martial (whose minutes Kane would eat into) have contributed between them.

But who has been better Rashford or Son?

Who is the better creative attacking manager? The Spurs guy or Ten Hag?

Also creating a goal doesn’t have to just come through assists - it can through pre-assists and hold up play.

Kane would make us a much more fluid team than when we played with Ronaldo & Weghorst - we see this with Martial, he may not score or directly assist - but he improves the fluidity of our front line which improves players around him.

 

[skc_18]

Take away Kane's PL goals from Spurs and take away Rashford's PL goals from us and Spurs have actually scored more goals than us in the PL.

I think some of you are seriously overstating the impact Kane could have on us. This team needs a complete refresh of it's attacking options. Adding Kane might just see us be a solid 3rd place team.

I'm in favour of fixing many of the other problems we have in the side first instead of spending £100m on a physical declining striker.

But haven't we done that last few seasons. We bought Sancho and Antony for high price and both are under-whelming so far. May be its worth a try to give them a proper centre forward to pass to before trying to replace them. Even after spending so much on Sancho and Antony, our right wing is the weakest in the squad but would like to see how it gels with proper centre forward like Kane. Problem is if we sign anyone other than Kane/Osimhen, we would still dont know if the CF is not enough or the wingers.

Excluding defense and GK , we have 6 positions to fill for. Case, Bruno , Rashford and if Kane signs we got 4 players covered. You can replace Eriksen with another player but not sure how many options are available which will improve attack.

 

[sullydnl]

Ronaldo was here less than half this season and by your reckoning we'd be 9 points better off, this suggests over a full season we'd be a heck of a lot more than 9 points better off

No, you misunderstand me.

For every single fixture we played this season, I added in the goals Kane scored for Spurs in those same fixtures.

So not just the games Ronaldo played in. I also didn't remove any of Weghorst or Martial contributions, even though in reality they're who Kane would be playing ahead of in most of those games. I only removed Ronaldo's single goal.

With all those goals across the season added in and nothing else taken away, we're 9 points better off.

I just edited my original post in case it wasn't clear what I meant.

 

[Red in STL]

No, you misunderstand me.

For every single fixture we played this season, I added in the goals Kane scored for Spurs in those same fixtures.

So not just the games Ronaldo played in. I also didn't remove any of Weghorst or Martial contributions, even though in reality they're who Kane would be playing ahead of in most of those games. I only removed Ronaldo's single goal.

With all those goals across the season added in, we're 9 points better off.

OK but that's not the way it reads to me, it might be worth adding the goals that Kane scored against all teams and removing any that were scored by our strikers against those teams and see what that result is - my guess there would be more than 9 points but that's a guess only

 

[sullydnl]

OK but that's not the way it reads to me, it might be worth adding the goals that Kane scored against all teams and removing any that were scored by our strikers against those teams and see what that result is - my guess there would be more than 9 points but that's a guess only

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well here.

For every one of the 36 games we've played this season, I've added every non-penalty goal Kane scored for Spurs in those same fixtures. And instead of removing all our strikers' goals, I've just removed Ronaldo's one goal from one game.

With all of those extra goals added in across our season, we're just 9 points better off.

 

[Red in STL]

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well here.

For every one of the 36 games we've played this season, I've added every non-penalty goal Kane scored for Spurs in those same fixtures. And instead of removing all our strikers' goals, I've just removed Ronaldo's one goal from one game.

With all of those extra goals added in across our season, we're just 9 points better off.

Ah OK - got it now

 

[tenpoless]

I did. Those numbers include the goals Kane scored for Spurs in the fixtures that either Weghorst or Martial played in for us.

In other words for every single league game we've played this season, I added in Kane's non-penalty goals from those same fixtures. And I only removed Ronaldo's one goal.

I see. Still impressive though. Not to mention the effect it's going to have for the team. It can't be calculated by goals or points but it will boost the team's morale. I think Kane is the perfect CF we can sign next season, if we're after results right away. For long term there might be better options.

 

[Kag]

There's no way we finish better than 4th or 5th unless we have Harry Kane? No matter what we do to the squad, how we strengthen other areas, how we buy an alternate striker - we are limited to 4th or 5th because we don't have Harry Kane. Are you really going with that concept?

Arsenal improved out of sight without the addition of a striker that has a noted goalscoring record...

It's about the team and the manager, it's not about one player on the market. We can't guarantee Harry Kane even if we go for him. It's not totally in our control so what are we going to do then in your mind, simply accept that we are finishing 4th or 5th?

I think you' may be a tad attached to this and overegging the pudding somewhat.

A player of his calibre or close to, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

Arsenal have better forwards than we do, so using them as an example doesn’t really hold.

 

[Kag]

Except that isn't remotely what I said, so please don't deliberately be stupid.

If you can buy a world class striker then buy a world class striker, provided you're confident they will continue being world class for several seasons. If you don't have confidence in that, but you can identify a younger striker who you're confident will become world class relatively soon, then it goes without saying that that's who you spend 80-100m on. You don't prioritise the season in front of you at the cost of everything else.

The fact that our best players are already in or exiting their prime is all the more reason to plan ahead, not less. That's literally how football works, clubs plan multiple transfer windows in advance and project when players are likely to drop off.

It’s exactly what your point infers, I’m afraid.

Again, I’m going to ask, because nobody has even bothered to attempt to answer, who is this younger striker who you’re confident is going to be world class going to be?

The market is shite, we need a world class striker, Kane might be available, so we buy him and make good for three or four years. In that time, we might actually start acting like a serious team and look towards buying in the future from a position of strength.

 

[Kag]

You plan is just short termism, it's what we have done for years and it gets us nowhere. Like bringing back Ronaldo, getting Falcao, zlatan, Di Maria, Sanchez... Never helped, always that "proven goal scorer to push us to the next level", football doesn't work like that and now we are aiming to spend a huge amount of money, which means we don't invest in our future and we will still be weaker than City in attack, midfield, goalkeeper, and defence.

Bollocks. Amad, Van de Beek, Jones, Smalling, Herrera, Shaw, Schneiderlin, Lukaku, Rojo, Pellistri, Fred, Sancho, Antony are all the kind of young up-and-comer folk wanted us to go for. There’s more, too. Martinez for that matter. Even then, half the folk here think most of them were/are shite.

Name the strategy, we’ve tried it. This idea that we can’t go out and buy top quality because a few high profile players failed under toxic and/or clueless managers doesn’t mean we stop doing it. Casemiro and Varane are evidence of it working out when under a half decent coach.

Again, we are going to continue to be a poor goalscoring team until we buy a genuinely top level striker. That’s fact. Just like our midfield was horrific when starting idiots like McTominay instead of the likes of Casemiro.

Some of you lot in charge would see us in tenth, I’m certain.

 

[King7Eric]

City scored 42 more goals than us so far this season, co conceding 9 less. It is difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks Kane would get us close.

Martial, Weghorst and Ronaldo combined have 6 league goals between them. Kane will add at least 15 to this total so that's a start.

Also our problem isn't City. We play them twice a season. Focus on outscoring the opponents in the other 36 games and worry about City later.

 

[cyberman]

Kane on his own wouldn't cut it in half.

Because even assuming he repeated his 23 non-penalty goals from this season (a big assumption given that's his best return in half a decade), some of those goals would involve cannibalising goals others would score. Whether it's by being a target at set-pieces, taking free kicks or us not focusing delivery to Rashford as our primary goal threat as we have done all season. Even our current useless centre-forwards did manage to scrape 5 goals, which they don't get if Kane is playing in those games instead.

We've seen this over the last couple of seasons with Haaland and Ronaldo, goalscorers who came into the side and scored goals without significantly adding to their teams' goal tallies. It isn't as simple as just adding Kane's goal scored to ours.

Obviously Kane would help, because he's a massive upgrade on our current dreck. But realistically it's more likely by cutting that 42 goal difference by something closer to a third rather than a half, which is still pretty massive from just one player. But it still leaves a massive margin of improvement needed elsewhere.

Our goal scoring rate is so low I can’t see this being true. We’ve had front 4 come close close to 20 goals each only a few seasons ago so unless he takes Antonys 4 goals off him then there’s nothing to cannibalise. Spurs don’t seem to have goal scoring problem after all, even this season they’ve scored a good bit more than we have.
He won’t be taking up others space in the box because others don’t get in the box. In fact there’s a better argument to be had that our forwards would thrive with someone to play off of through the middle then having literally nobody there and having to run the channels and cut in to score every goal.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

The next Teddy Sheringham

Yes but Sheringham was brought in as a squad player when we already had three other great strikers (Yorke, Cole and Solksjaer) so we could use him sparingly and keep him fresh given his advancing years

 

[justsomebloke]

Downside is cost, durability and age. Upside is he is not just exactly the kind of striker we need, he is the best striker of that kind there is.

 

[justsomebloke]

The next Teddy Sheringham

Hardly. Kane is a much, much better player than Sheringham ever was. At 29, you could expect him to still have at least 3 peak years in him (injuries permitting). At 31 Sheringham was already fast approaching the twilight phase when he arrived.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

City scored 42 more goals than us so far this season, co conceding 9 less. It is difficult to take anyone seriously who thinks Kane would get us close.

We conceded 13 goals in 2 matches, and have the most clean sheets in the league. Granted, we’ve made it a habit recently to get a few heavy drubbings every season, but you would think it would stop at some points.

It’s the Palace, Leeds, Soton, West Ham, Chelsea, Brighton matches where we either drew or lost by a solitary goal that’s any goal would’ve made a difference. I’m not sold on Kane myself, but we don’t actually need to match City’s goalscoring to compete, we just need to score about 75ish league goals to be in there, as opposed to our current 50ish.

 

[RkkMan]

If we're signing Mason Mount then Kane is a must
His ability to drop deep into midfield is imperative considering Mount isn't a natural #8 even though he can do a good job there

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

We conceded 13 goals in 2 matches, and have the most clean sheets in the league. Granted, we’ve made it a habit recently to get a few heavy drubbings every season, but you would think it would stop at some points.

It’s the Palace, Leeds, Soton, West Ham, Chelsea, Brighton matches where we either drew or lost by a solitary goal that’s any goal would’ve made a difference. I’m not sold on Kane myself, but we don’t actually need to match City’s goalscoring to compete, we just need to score about 75ish league goals to be in there, as opposed to our current 50ish.

We're not competing for league titles with just 75 league goals.

We need to hit 90+.

 

[Mainoldo]

We're not competing for league titles with just 75 league goals.

We need to hit 90+.

Explaining your thinking? As I don’t see the difference in averaging 2 goals instead of 3.

Your still more likely to win.

I’ve ran the stats. You’re right tbf.

 

[sullydnl]

We conceded 13 goals in 2 matches, and have the most clean sheets in the league. Granted, we’ve made it a habit recently to get a few heavy drubbings every season, but you would think it would stop at some points.

It’s the Palace, Leeds, Soton, West Ham, Chelsea, Brighton matches where we either drew or lost by a solitary goal that’s any goal would’ve made a difference. I’m not sold on Kane myself, but we don’t actually need to match City’s goalscoring to compete, we just need to score about 75ish league goals to be in there, as opposed to our current 50ish.

If you got to handpick when and where the goals were scored, sure. But you don't.

And goals are by definition distributed inefficiently. Meaning if you add goals to the team, they're more likely to occur in easier games. And easier games are by definition where we're more likely to have got positive results regardless. Meaning the majority of goals you add are redundant to the result.

If your attack is good enough to secure goals in all those key results, then it will also be racking up an even greater number of goals beyond that in games where they have no material impact.

The below involves us adding approx. 20 goals net to our side, in the games where Kane actually scored them, and it leaves us just 9 points better off. We need a lot more than five goals beyond that to bridge the remaining 11 points between us and City.

Seeing as we're arguing about the impact Kane's goals would have, I took a look at how our results would have changed if we had Kane instead of Ronaldo this season.

So I looked at the 36 games we've played, added in all the non-penalty goals Kane has scored for Spurs across all those same fixtures, removed Ronaldo's one goal from one game, then added up how that would impact our results across the season.

This is also ignoring the fact that Kane would cannibalise other players' goals beyond that, as Martial would have had fewer minutes to get his four goals (lol), Rashford wouldn't have been who everyone was creating for, other players would have been off set-pieces, etc.

So with all of Kane's goals in our team instead of Ronaldo's one goal this season we would currently be......

3rd. 11 points behind City, 3 points behind Arsenal, 9 points better off overall.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

We're not competing for league titles with just 75 league goals.

We need to hit 90+.

If you keep 20 clean sheets and concede 1 goal in another 9-10 games then you can absolutely compete with 75 goals, we are not far off that.

This season alone, if you take only games where we’ve drawn or lost 1-0, namely:

Newcastle home (0-0)
Chelsea away (1-1)
Palace away (1-1)
Leeds home (2-2)
Soton home (0-0)
Spurs away (2-2)
Brighton away (0-1)
West Ham away (0-1)

Only 10 goals are needed to turn those into wins, and we would be 16 (!) points better off, and that’s still leaving all the drubbings we received, or other matches where we lost by a goal but conceded 2 goals or more.

Of course you’d rather the team is free scoring and get 85+ goals a season, but we don’t necessarily need that to compete.