Harry Kane | Bayern Munich player

[ti vu]

I've done the math, although with pen and paper only so my math may be in error.

Had we brought in Kane on January 1 and won every PL match since January 1 we it appears would be tied with Arsenal for first place on 72 points. Arsenal would be on 72 and not 75 as they would have dropped three points had we beaten them on the night they in fact beat us.

However, it is quite a leap of faith to believe that we would have picked up three points in every single PL match since January 1. For example, Liverpool disemboweled us 7-0...would the addition of Harry Kane turned that catastrophe into a win? Maybe, but probably not.

I am never going to argue that Wout Weghorst is as equally proficient a goal scorer as Harry Kane. As I wrote before, that would be madness. Harry is a world class striker and Wout, at the risk of being overly disrespectful, may not even be Championship quality as a striker. But I'm looking at the league table right now and I don't see how the addition of Kane alone would have erased the 16 point gap between us and Arsenal as things stand right now. We can only speculate the hypothetical and if someone wants to argue that we would have gone unbeaten and untied with Kane then I can't prove that that would have been impossible, but it does seem highly unlikely. What seems more likely, admittedly an unprovable assertion, is that we would have won the two games we drew (+ 4 point there), we may have drawn Arsenal (so add 1 point for United and drop 2 points for Arsenal) and that we would have still have been beaten by Liverpool and Newcastle.

If my math skills hold up, we'd therefore be on 64 points instead of 59 and Arsenal would be on 73 points instead of 75...as things stand as of this moment, hours before the City/Arsenal match.

In other words, we'd still be in the top four but out of the running for the PL trophy. My original statement still stands, unless of course it is somehow conceivable that United would never drop a single point again should we have brought in Kane on January 1. I do not believe, however, that it is any way realistic to believe that had United brought in United in January that we would never drop a single point again for the rest of the season. Or next season.

Are you aware Arsenal played 2 more game? Use City who had played same amount of game as benchmark instead? City is on 70 right now while we're 11 point behind at 59. Extra 8 points and we're at 67, 3 point behind City. Both with 2 games in hand over Arsenal.

Crystal Palace away, Leeds home, Southampton home? The game we had dropped point since Weghorst joined: Arsenal, Crystal Palace away, Leeds home, Southampton home, Liverpool away, Newcastle away. A couple draw in place of defeats, and turning those winnable draw into victories easily got us 8+ points.

You seemed to ignore what I wrote about how a player and goal lead can affect the team performance and end outcome. You think we would still lose to Newcastle by unchallenging them for 60 minutes, before taking Weghorst off at after went down 0-1?

Liverpool got lucky to be 1-0 up after half time, and we didn't play well having to shoehorn Weghorst, moving players around and limit our own tactic.

You seemed to be dead set on the notion that we would still lose to Arsenal, Newcastle and Liverpool regardless of how good an upgrade a top class CF would have over Weghorst. I repeat it's not just addition a few goals. It affects how the game is play, and ultimate the outcome.

We never know for certain but it's more than reasonable enough to see a top class PL player like Kane would likely change the multiple result, enough to make us a title challenge from our current position.

 

[RedorDead21]

We haven’t won a title in ten years and our best players are either exiting their prime (Casemiro) or entering it (Rashford).

We haven’t got time to piss around hoping some no mark forward gets off the ground (not that you’re saying this).

Buy Kane, go for the title, get some success, and then see about finding longer term resolutions for the likes of Casemiro and Varane.

Kane has a good four or five years left in him. Ten years become fifteen years very quickly. We need the real thing and we need it this summer.

Nailed it. The first title after SAF is all that matters. We’ve blown so much on much worse recently. Even 3 seasons scoring 25+ goals would be a great return and that should put us firmly in the race for a title.

 

[Rozay]

Sign him. He’s the best possible striker we could get.

I agree with this. There’s no doubt that of all the strikers we could possibly get, he’s the ‘best striker’. Just think there are a few other factors to consider.

 

[USREDEVIL]

I'd rather take Oishmen as it could sort out us out for years but i'll take kane. Don't think he'll be using a cane for a while so he should be good for 3 years or so.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Yep. Having read through their Kane threads, I'm now decidedly against this.

Even when praising him they speak about his lack of mobility and inability to press as fact. And I would have that as essential for any CF we sign, because I've had more than enough of us trying to work around players who can't press well enough.

And one of the main things they (rightly) praise him for is how good he is when he drops into midfield. But I absolutely do not want our CF doing that. Spurs need it, we don't.

It's nothing that hasn't been highlighted in this thread already but seeing Spurs fans speaking about it with such clarity too just sealed it in my mind. For some teams it'll absolutely be worth working around his weaknesses for his obvious qualities but not us.

Just… tell him not to do that?… that’s a task I could handle. It’s not like he wants to trash his body and cover more ground.

 

[davidmichael]

I’ve gone over this in my mind a lot of times now on whether to sign Kane or a younger striker and think now that Kane is the way to go, I get Osimhen is younger but what’s to say Osimhen would stay longer than 2-3 seasons anyway ? If Real or Barca calling a younger foreign striker could very well fancy a move.

I also get the concerns on pace and injuries but Kane has never relied on pace and isn’t anywhere near being injury prone like others have suggested, I could see Kane and Fernandes interchanging at times between 10 and 9 which would pull players out of position and create space for others too.

 

[Abraxas]

I’ve gone over this in my mind a lot of times now on whether to sign Kane or a younger striker and think now that Kane is the way to go, I get Osimhen is younger but what’s to say Osimhen would stay longer than 2-3 seasons anyway ? If Real or Barca calling a younger foreign striker could very well fancy a move.

I also get the concerns on pace and injuries but Kane has never relied on pace and isn’t anywhere near being injury prone like others have suggested, I could see Kane and Fernandes interchanging at times between 10 and 9 which would pull players out of position and create space for others too.

But if we're to follow that hypothetical sequence of events through that Osimhen is so good that he attracts the attention of Barca or Real despite us paying a huge fee, we'd also be in line for a big payday so long as we protect our investment with a long contract.

That wouldn't be the case with Harry. When he's done it's probably because he is done as a top footballer.

I'm not sure this is the biggest factor in the world, I think the primary thing is who is going to be best for the foreseeable future, but I think once you go down that line of thinking of longevity and future proofing you do have to include that detail.

 

[davidmichael]

But if we're to follow that hypothetical sequence of events through that Osimhen is so good that he attracts the attention of Barca or Real despite us paying a huge fee, we'd also be in line for a big payday so long as we protect our investment with a long contract.

That wouldn't be the case with Harry. When he's done it's probably because he is done as a top footballer.

I'm not sure this is the biggest factor in the world, I think the primary thing is who is going to be best for the foreseeable future, but I think once you go down that line of thinking of longevity and future proofing you do have to include that detail.

I get the fact we won’t make anything back on Kane whereas we would get something back on Osimhen but that’s such a small club mentality where we choose potentially making money back over success.

I think Kane would be very motivated coming to a new club that’s on an upward trajectory and won trophies the prior (this current) season with (potentially) new owners, Osimhen may also struggle to replicate his Serie A form over here as I can’t think of a successful transfer of a forward player from Serie A coming here since Zola.

I also get concerns of having to replace Varane, Casemiro and Kane all at the same time should we sign Kane but that’s what the scouting department is meant to do in constantly scouting the world for long term replacements and watching players develop so we don’t have to constantly spend upwards of £75 million on every player coming in.

 

[Isotope]

I wouldn't say it's smug. More vacant / lights on but no-one at home.
But then he can't help it, so probably a bit harsh.

Yeah. I can't help it either.

 

[sullydnl]

Just… tell him not to do that?… that’s a task I could handle. It’s not like he wants to trash his body and cover more ground.

Tell him not to do what?

If you mean tell him not to drop deep, sure. But as dropping deep is one of the things he's currently best at, immediately limiting the strengths of the player we've signed for massive money would hardly be ideal. And it wouldn't make him any faster or more mobile.

 

[Rozay]

I’ve gone over this in my mind a lot of times now on whether to sign Kane or a younger striker and think now that Kane is the way to go, I get Osimhen is younger but what’s to say Osimhen would stay longer than 2-3 seasons anyway ? If Real or Barca calling a younger foreign striker could very well fancy a move.

I also get the concerns on pace and injuries but Kane has never relied on pace and isn’t anywhere near being injury prone like others have suggested, I could see Kane and Fernandes interchanging at times between 10 and 9 which would pull players out of position and create space for others too.

I think the fact that Harry Kane doesn’t rely on pace doesn’t mean that Manchester United need to surrender the threat in behind. We have always been a TEAM that relies on pace. The last United that didn’t look to penetrate with speed was Van Gaal’s.

I get the ‘Kane will be creating for Rashford like he does for Son’ theory too, but at the end of the day, Rashford is already a 30 goal player without Kane. We have a #10 in the team, Rashford isn’t desperate for Kane to come and make goals for him.

Tbh, I don’t think we need a striker who ‘relies on pace’, but I think we could do with one a bit more sprightly than Kane. Even if we are not talking about the most rapid of strikers, I still think there’s a big difference between Kane now and even a 34 year old Edinson Cavani. Cavani is just harder to defend against, he is an aggressive runner, and over short distances, he will get away from centre halves. And his first instinct is to attack the box, not to drop into midfield.

If I could design the perfect striker I would be greedy and want a combination of Kane and Osimhen. However, if I had to choose, I think I’d go for Osimhen.

 

[croadyman]

It could be slightly easier to do a deal for Kane if Spurs are interested in some of the players we're looking to move on. They need a GK so Henderson is an option for them, Maguire would be a decent signing if they continue with a back 3, maybe Martial too if they forget to do the medical.

Yeah this could be our trump card,however suspect Levy wouldn't deal with us even if there is interest in any of those players

 

[croadyman]

Yeah Kane would have changed our play completely.

You can see our team have given up on Weghorst, he starts to make a run and no-one is looking to pass to him. Moreover, he doesn't have enough good movement to pull defences apart. Kane would attract the attention of defenders all game, giving Rashford loads more pockets to run into.

I see quite a few people concerned with Kane taking Bruno's space in the hole, but I think Bruno is clever enough to accommodate that and he likes to make forward runs all the time - I can see him and Kane rotating in the hole causing defenders all sorts of problems. Especially if we have a new RB bombing down the line providing more width and thus freeing Antony to cut in more without a man marker

Yeah getting in Bruno’s way and him seemingly going missing in many big games are my two biggest concerns

 

[ti vu]

I think the fact that Harry Kane doesn’t rely on pace doesn’t mean that Manchester United need to surrender the threat in behind. We have always been a TEAM that relies on pace. The last United that didn’t look to penetrate with speed was Van Gaal’s.

I get the ‘Kane will be creating for Rashford like he does for Son’ theory too, but at the end of the day, Rashford is already a 30 goal player without Kane. We have a #10 in the team, Rashford isn’t desperate for Kane to come and make goals for him.

Tbh, I don’t think we need a striker who ‘relies on pace’, but I think we could do with one a bit more sprightly than Kane. Even if we are not talking about the most rapid of strikers, I still think there’s a big difference between Kane now and even a 34 year old Edinson Cavani. Cavani is just harder to defend against, he is an aggressive runner, and over short distances, he will get away from centre halves. And his first instinct is to attack the box, not to drop into midfield.

If I could design the perfect striker I would be greedy and want a combination of Kane and Osimhen. However, if I had to choose, I think I’d go for Osimhen.

Rahsford this season is still 2 behind his best PL tally of 17. The 20 goal per season striker notion refers to league tally where SAF meant a scorer that help leading a team to a title challenge.

Stat padding in the cup is great and all, but those extra 5-10 goals in the league can be the difference between a secondary scorer the team and the main striker. Use Rooney as example for the 2 different forward role he had. When he's the main scorer he's expected to hit 20+ in the league. Otherwise, teen number is acceptable rate.

Son is less talented but with Kane adding another dimension to his play. Kane helped Son become a 20 goal per season striker (in the league), while Kane getting high teen at the same time. Rashford can benefit from such support. It's not just the releasing the ball for the fast striker, it's also about the presence to pull defender away to create enough opening. A no 10 like Bruno wouldn't provide such, where as most of 9 wouldn't create enough with passing.

There is different phase of play. In attacking phase where the defense put higher, full back/wing back is in position to attack, you don't see Kane drop into midfield leaving his team with no option inside the box(Martial flaw). He position in the box, attacking cross, square ball just like your traditional CF. Kane is better at losing his marker inside the box than Osinhem. Osinhem would try to challenge 50/50 (percentage ball) due to his athleticism and physical prowess. Whereas Kane is more about ghosting, timing and anticipating to get to the ball.

 

[RedRonaldo]

My only concern is that it seems our core players are mostly past or approaching 30 years of age (next season)

Varane (29-30)
Casemiro (31-32)
Eriksen (31-32)
Bruno (28-29)
Kane (29-30)

Perhaps we should focus on bringing in someone younger to avoid another major rebuild in 2-3 years time?

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

My only concern is that it seems our core players are mostly past or approaching 30 years of age (next season)

Varane (29-30)
Casemiro (31-32)
Eriksen (31-32)
Bruno (28-29)
Kane (29-30)

Perhaps we should focus on bringing in someone younger to avoid another major rebuild in 2-3 years time?

We will need to re-tool in 3-4 years regardless.

 

[Rozay]

Rahsford this season is still 2 behind his best PL tally of 17. The 20 goal per season striker notion refers to league tally where SAF meant a scorer that help leading a team to a title challenge.

Stat padding in the cup is great and all, but those extra 5-10 goals in the league can be the difference between a secondary scorer the team and the main striker. Use Rooney as example for the 2 different forward role he had. When he's the main scorer he's expected to hit 20+ in the league. Otherwise, teen number is acceptable rate.

Son is less talented but with Kane adding another dimension to his play. Kane helped Son become a 20 goal per season striker (in the league), while Kane getting high teen at the same time. Rashford can benefit from such support. It's not just the releasing the ball for the fast striker, it's also about the presence to pull defender away to create enough opening. A no 10 like Bruno wouldn't provide such, where as most of 9 wouldn't create enough with passing.

There is different phase of play. In attacking phase where the defense put higher, full back/wing back is in position to attack, you don't see Kane drop into midfield leaving his team with no option inside the box(Martial flaw). He position in the box, attacking cross, square ball just like your traditional CF. Kane is better at losing his marker inside the box than Osinhem. Osinhem would try to challenge 50/50 (percentage ball) due to his athleticism and physical prowess. Whereas Kane is more about ghosting, timing and anticipating to get to the ball.

These are fair points, but the season has not finished, and Rashford has not only not had Kane, he pretty much hasn’t had anybody. Weghorst is useless and Martial has been largely unavailable. My proposal isn’t that we don’t need a striker at all, it’s that this striker doesn’t need to be Kane. Osimhen by default stretches defences which Weghorst doesn’t, and Martial and Kane barely do. This should theoretically create space for Rashford too.

All that aside, I don’t see the need for our striker to be Operation Marcus Rashford anyway. He is doing just fine with nobody. What we need is another threat, preferably in behind and most importantly, in the box. I agree with what you said in that Kane occupies the box when the team has established attacking territory. In fact, I have no worry at all about Kane in those circumstances. However, during the transition phases, he can’t threaten the same. And this isn’t even just a back to front counter attack. Just any sort of fast attack where you want to play in a striker on the shoulder. As I said before, a Cavani would do in such circumstances, it doesn’t need to be someone as fast as Osimhen.

My worry is if we sign Kane, any lineup without Rashford becomes utterly toothless. The thing I hate with Weghorst most is how many times I see through passes on that we simply can’t make because he can’t move quickly enough. My consolation has been that it’s only temporary, but for us to deliberately remove that option from our team for the next few years. Now Kane IS brilliant - but he is also well handled by us almost everytime we play Spurs. He might score the odd goal, but I’ve seen worse players make it harder for us to defend than him.

I don’t think we need a 25 goal striker necessarily. A 19 goal striker who fits in with our high tempo attack who can hold the ball, occupy the box, stretch opponents and press from the front would be just as useful IMO. Which is the main point. It may appear that I’m saying Kane isn’t that good - he IS, but that doesn’t mean he’s the best option for this team. And that’s even without considering cost and age.

 

[Bebestation]

Either he doesn't score today and becomes someone we shouldn't buy or he scores and we lose points.

Win Win

 

[Strootman's Finger]

If we buy Kane it will be to win a league title, I would rather sign players that have us building a dynasty.

 

[MegadrivePerson]

My only concern is that it seems our core players are mostly past or approaching 30 years of age (next season)

Varane (29-30)
Casemiro (31-32)
Eriksen (31-32)
Bruno (28-29)
Kane (29-30)

Perhaps we should focus on bringing in someone younger to avoid another major rebuild in 2-3 years time?

Why can't we do both?
Kane this summer, Osimhen the following summer.

 

[El Jefe]

I mentioned it earlier in the week but people are in dreamland if they think Kane is similar to the RVP signing. RVP ensured we won the title, Kane will do no such thing.

City showed yesterday they are levels above anyone in the PL. Kane and a couple of other signings will not close that gap so why invest in a short term solution that's unlikely to yield results. Focus on the future by trying to beat City over the next 5 year period rather than the next two seasons.

Vidic said as much on Rio's podcast, he didn't believe we should sign Kane for this very reason. Get an young-ish striker with very high potential that suits our style of play on and off the ball.

 

[VP89]

I mentioned it earlier in the week but people are in dreamland if they think Kane is similar to the RVP signing. RVP ensured we won the title, Kane will do no such thing.

City showed yesterday they are levels above anyone in the PL. Kane and a couple of other signings will not close that gap so why invest in a short term solution that's unlikely to yield results. Focus on the future by trying to beat City over the next 5 year period rather than the next two seasons.

Vidic said as much on Rio's podcast, he didn't believe we should sign Kane for this very reason. Get an young-ish striker with very high potential that suits our style of play on and off the ball.

Bit of a bollocks statement to be fair. Arsenal's squad isn't much better than ours and they threw out an 8point lead before they played City.

Kane's 20+ goals in the PL this season alone would have won Arsenal the league let alone us after a summer of expansion.

 

[FerociousCorgis]

Feel like it is perfectly valid for people to not want kane because we need to get younger, faster, hungrier out there. Not sure Kane would really help our overall play tbh. I get he has good numbers but man every time i watch him i am just not impressed. Feel like he drops wayyyyy too deep too much and would be frustrating as hell to watch.

 

[El Jefe]

Bit of a bollocks statement to be fair. Arsenal's squad isn't much better than ours and they threw out an 8point lead before they played City.

Kane's 20+ goals in the PL this season alone would have won Arsenal the league let alone us after a summer of expansion.

That's not how things work. If Kane was in Arsenal's side they wouldn't have 20 more goals, more than likely Saka, Odegaard and Martinelli all would have scored less. Arsenal have 78 goals at present, so scoring goals clearly isn't their problem.

If ever there was a season to beat City it was this year where Pep had to chop and change to find a winning system. In finding this winning formula and adapting to playing with Haaland they dropped many points.

Next season they'll have no such problems because they've found their identity and a winning style of play again. We're miles away from them.

 

[VP89]

That's not how things work. If Kane was in Arsenal's side they wouldn't have 20 more goals, more than likely Saka, Odegaard and Martinelli all would have scored less. Arsenal have 78 goals at present, so scoring goals clearly isn't their problem.

If ever there was a season to beat City it was this year where Pep had to chop and change to find a winning system. In finding this winning formula and adapting to playing with Haaland they dropped many points.

Next season they'll have no such problems because they've found their identity and a winning style of play again. We're miles away from them.

This is so presumptuous. No one could have guessed Liverpool would implode this season for example, or for Liverpool to challenge City in the first place when they did. Kane at Arsenal wins them the league this season, there are many games where they just looked like they had no "out" in difficult circumstances, and Kane brings that.
City themselves relied on Haaland to bail them out with a brace in many games. And going to ourselves, we were not far off City recently, and that was without a striker all together And we had some big misses in the team. There is nothing to suggest we cant go to the next level with Kane + CM + RB + CB (or at least Kane + 2 of those positions).

 

[peridigm]

Feel like it is perfectly valid for people to not want kane because we need to get younger, faster, hungrier out there. Not sure Kane would really help our overall play tbh. I get he has good numbers but man every time i watch him i am just not impressed. Feel like he drops wayyyyy too deep too much and would be frustrating as hell to watch.

Much like Rooney in his later years. Is it happening to Kane sooner?

 

[Lecland07]

That's not how things work. If Kane was in Arsenal's side they wouldn't have 20 more goals, more than likely Saka, Odegaard and Martinelli all would have scored less. Arsenal have 78 goals at present, so scoring goals clearly isn't their problem.

If ever there was a season to beat City it was this year where Pep had to chop and change to find a winning system. In finding this winning formula and adapting to playing with Haaland they dropped many points.

Next season they'll have no such problems because they've found their identity and a winning style of play again. We're miles away from them.

Spread of those goals is incredibly important, though.

Kane consistently scores in a large number of games. He has scored in 21 games in the PL for Tottenham this season (equal to Haaland), making him an incredibly consistent goal scorer from game to game. This would have increased the likelihood that Arsenal would have scored more goals in the games they lost or drew.

The thing is that they wouldn't need 20 goals more to win the league. Jesus has scored 9 and Nketiah has scored 4, so that is 13 goals. Kane would easily be capable of that and, on top of that, able to add at least 7 more. That 7 goals, though it does not look like much, is a massive difference that determines between a good striker and a world class striker.

Put the consistency of his goal scoring with the ability to score more, Arsenal would have a much bigger chance of winning the league. I would say that they probably would win the league, in that case.

 

[El Jefe]

This is so presumptuous. No one could have guessed Liverpool would implode this season for example, or for Liverpool to challenge City in the first place when they did. Kane at Arsenal wins them the league this season, there are many games where they just looked like they had no "out" in difficult circumstances, and Kane brings that.
City themselves relied on Haaland to bail them out with a brace in many games. And going to ourselves, we were not far off City recently, and that was without a striker all together And we had some big misses in the team. There is nothing to suggest we cant go to the next level with Kane + CM + RB + CB (or at least Kane + 2 of those positions).

You keep repeating that Kane at Arsenal wins them the league yet keep ignoring that goal scoring hasn't been their main problem.

If anything loses them the league it would be the 3 draws before the City game where they scored an average of 2.33 goals per game. That ppg total is much higher than any team excluding City. Conceding 3 at home vs Southampton and 2 at West Ham is a much bigger problem.

On the bolded part, obviously we'd be a better side with Kane and other signings but its highly unlikely that will be enough to surpass City. That's why its not like the RVP signing. RVP was the best striker in the league and tipped the scale for us to be better than City. Kane will do no such thing because they have a striker who is already much better than Kane and a clearly better side.

 

[Ludens the Red]

I mentioned it earlier in the week but people are in dreamland if they think Kane is similar to the RVP signing. RVP ensured we won the title, Kane will do no such thing.

City showed yesterday they are levels above anyone in the PL. Kane and a couple of other signings will not close that gap so why invest in a short term solution that's unlikely to yield results. Focus on the future by trying to beat City over the next 5 year period rather than the next two seasons.

Vidic said as much on Rio's podcast, he didn't believe we should sign Kane for this very reason. Get an young-ish striker with very high potential that suits our style of play on and off the ball.

Agree. Seeing a lot of implied posts that we’re not far off city and one or two signings will do but honestly that is dreamland stuff.
Their standard of football and control in games is years above and ahead of ours.
I don’t think we’ve seen a significant improvement in our overall play this season to believe we can be near city next year so we have to keep working at that. Also need to be shrewd with signings and spending 100 mill on Harry Kane would not be shrewd. Have to focus on a younger and quicker striker.

 

[FerociousCorgis]

Agree. Seeing a lot of implied posts that we’re not far off city and one or two signings will do but honestly that is dreamland stuff.
Their standard of football and control in games is years above and ahead of ours.
I don’t think we’ve seen a significant improvement in our overall play this season to believe we can be near city next year so we have to keep working at that. Also need to be shrewd with signings and spending 100 mill on Harry Kane would not be shrewd. Have to focus on a younger and quicker striker.

i mean i think it would be the most lucky season ever fitness/injury/suspension that could say a couple signings would get us title contender. A top CF, CM, and GK could hypothetically do it, assuming we have no injuries or missing players ever ha. But i def agree we need to be smart. If they buy kane but also target someone who is young that we loan back out or something with the expectation they will be a starter worthy CF in a year or two that could be fine with me. Then id def want a younger CM for next to case and similar with GK.

 

[VP89]

You keep repeating that Kane at Arsenal wins them the league yet keep ignoring that goal scoring hasn't been their main problem.

If anything loses them the league it would be the 3 draws before the City game where they scored an average of 2.33 goals per game. That ppg total is much higher than any team excluding City. Conceding 3 at home vs Southampton and 2 at West Ham is a much bigger problem.

On the bolded part, obviously we'd be a better side with Kane and other signings but its highly unlikely that will be enough to surpass City. That's why its not like the RVP signing. RVP was the best striker in the league and tipped the scale for us to be better than City. Kane will do no such thing because they have a striker who is already much better than Kane and a clearly better side.

I agree Arsenal had a problem post Saliba being injured, but my point is there are games where he would have made a difference in putting teams away in tight games.
Examples include Newcastle, Everton and Brentford. City themselves relied on Haaland in various games to get a brace and put them in a comfort zone.

Also I disagree on the highly unlikely point because no one is saying "just sign Kane". Kane would come with more quality players for depth and Ten Hag will want to push for the league with that team.

 

[sullydnl]

I mentioned it earlier in the week but people are in dreamland if they think Kane is similar to the RVP signing. RVP ensured we won the title, Kane will do no such thing.

City showed yesterday they are levels above anyone in the PL. Kane and a couple of other signings will not close that gap so why invest in a short term solution that's unlikely to yield results. Focus on the future by trying to beat City over the next 5 year period rather than the next two seasons.

Vidic said as much on Rio's podcast, he didn't believe we should sign Kane for this very reason. Get an young-ish striker with very high potential that suits our style of play on and off the ball.

Aye, the underlying stats and even basic goal difference suggest we're further away from City than the current points gap alone suggests.

It certainly isn't even remotely comparable to the situation we were in when RVP arrived, having finished level on points in a two horse race the season before.

We could improve a lot next season and still "just" finish in the top four.

 

[Isotope]

Changed my mind now. Kane is proven, and his playmaking is second to none, as far as a striker can go. But watching Haaland against Arse, damn it... I long for a striker like that. Powerful, a bully, fast and dynamic, and good finisher.

 

[Abraxas]

I get the fact we won’t make anything back on Kane whereas we would get something back on Osimhen but that’s such a small club mentality where we choose potentially making money back over success.

I think Kane would be very motivated coming to a new club that’s on an upward trajectory and won trophies the prior (this current) season with (potentially) new owners, Osimhen may also struggle to replicate his Serie A form over here as I can’t think of a successful transfer of a forward player from Serie A coming here since Zola.

I also get concerns of having to replace Varane, Casemiro and Kane all at the same time should we sign Kane but that’s what the scouting department is meant to do in constantly scouting the world for long term replacements and watching players develop so we don’t have to constantly spend upwards of £75 million on every player coming in.

It's only choosing money over success if we're that sure Kane is the superior option. I'd say it's more of a "bonus" that Osimhen may potentially hold value. He wouldn't be picked for that reason alone, it would probably only make up a part of the clubs reasoning.

It's the scouting departments job to do that, but at the same time you usually don't want your entire spine aging at the same time. No matter how good your scouts are, some things are hard to determine with certainty and to have all your key players legs running out at once is a risky strategy because it can suddenly hit you in one season which I think happened to Liverpool. Liverpool have been praised for their diligence in the market but even they didn't see that coming, and you see that despite having young players they weren't all ready to perform at the top level and win things.

In general I agree that we can probably get away with Kane's age, but I do find it strange that it sometimes gets written off. Age is always a consideration, young or old. It can't be any other way in terms of planning. We have to accept with Kane it's buy now and also buy later, and possibly not too much later in terms of blooding a youngster proactively before Kane shits the bed.

 

[Lecland07]

Quality player - can cause any team issues. Would bring a lot to our team if he was there instead of Martial and Weghorst.

 

[CloneMC16]

His assist for their 2nd was really good.

 

[Abraxas]

He played very well second half. Creative, and we didn't know whether to follow him or drop off him. He asks difficult questions when he goes roaming like that as long as there are runners which in Son and Kulusevski there are.

Non entity in the first half but that was probably a team thing.

 

[rajds89]

Not entirely sure whether or not that was a man of the match winning performance, however.. he’d create so many chances for the likes of Rashford and Bruno.

 

[11101]

Important game for them, he looked hopeless until we fell apart. That's it with him I think, he waits for the game and the chances to come to him. At the very top players have to go and force themselves on the game. He can't do that.

 

[pocco]

I've been his biggest critic at times, but I saw what he's capable of in that second half in terms of dropping off and building up. He was probably the best passer on the pitch, ahead of every midfielder. That assist for son was so good, you couldn't imagine any of our players pulling it off. His other nearly assist for son too was very good.

I'm still not sold because he's not the style of player I like, but if you're a manager he'd be a dream of a player to have when he plays like that.