Hypothetically speaking, who would be the better fit for United: Mbappe or Kane?

Irrational.

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
33,455
Location
LVG's notebook
Both in the final year of their contracts with owners preferring to sell rather than letting them run their contracts down.

Both will cost £100 million + and obscene wages.

Who would be the better fit for us? 3-4 years ago I’d have said Mbappe due to my inner muppet. Now it has to be Kane.
 
Kane would have an effect like Van Persie in 2012. While I wouldn’t say he’d decide the title next season, it’s the best signing to close the gap on City.
 
Only one answer for me.

Kane.

I’d go as far to say that I don’t want Mbappe anywhere near the club. The guy is clearly a massive bell-end, which admittedly isn’t helpful by being at a club trying to be the new Disneyland
 
Kane. Mbappe's a great player but I don't really see how him and Rashford work in the same team, there'd be no pressing from the front.
 
Out of the two, Kanes a proven PL goalscorer and Mbappe doesnt cut it in the CL. We have beaten them with inferior teams. The French league is so poor so no indication what Mbappe does there would be the same here and his wages would be insane. In fact we could probably get Kane and Hojlund for the e160 mill PSG are asking for. Kane would be ideal.
 
Absolutely Kane. A much better fit in terms of style and attitude.
 
We’ve got rashford cutting in off the left already, what we really need is a number 9. I’d sign Kane and tell him to forget about dropping deep - just stay in the box and tell Mount and Bruno their job is to find him whenever they can.
 
Kane fits our style of play but Mbappe is a much better player, to the point where he would have a bigger impact on our team.
 
Mbappe.

Feel he's incredibly under-rated on this forum. He scored a hattrick for France in the world cup final ffs.
 
Irrational. said:
Both in the final year of their contracts with owners preferring to sell rather than letting them run their contracts down.

Both will cost £100 million + and obscene wages.

Who would be the better fit for us? 3-4 years ago I’d have said Mbappe due to my inner muppet. Now it has to be Kane.
Click to expand...
Kane. Strictly because Mbappe hates playing upfront against two cbs and I have zero trust for Rashford as cf on a long term basis. But if you could play them on opposite wingers and Sancho/Garnacho as a false 9. Give me Mbappe all day long
 
Kane would probably be the better fit but you’d build a team around Mbappe. The age gap isn’t an issue really because Mbappe would probably head to Madrid in 3/4 years anyway.
 
Kane, obviously - in the sense that he is the exact type of striker we're looking for. But with someone like Mbappe it's not really a question of fit, he's so good that you build around him, not the other way around. He's clearly the best player you could get in that position, but you'd be getting his ego too, though.
 
If we take in account football skills only, Mbappe by far. If we take into account his personality too and the idea that he wants to join Madrid by all costs, then Kane.
 
wolvored said:
Out of the two, Kanes a proven PL goalscorer and Mbappe doesnt cut it in the CL. We have beaten them with inferior teams. The French league is so poor so no indication what Mbappe does there would be the same here and his wages would be insane. In fact we could probably get Kane and Hojlund for the e160 mill PSG are asking for. Kane would be ideal.
Click to expand...

Seriously, now, of all the non-PL footballers in the world, you think that Mbappé would have a problem adjusting to the English game? It's not like he's already got 4 goals in WC finals and 15 goals in the knock-out stages of the CL at the age of 24. I can understand not wanting (or thinking that the club wouldn't be able to handle) the circus that surrounds him and follows him wherever he goes, but, in terms of talent and pure ability... come on. He would a sensation in the PL.
 
The 24 year old who hasnt even reached his peak yet
 
Kane is tactically a better fit. But you still have to take Mbappe. Just like nobody is ever taking Drogba over peak Messi regardless of the squad you have.
 
Signing Mbappe would be like a mediocre Madrid signing Cristiano Ronaldo from United. We would be absolutely transformed for however long he stays. And then we'd make a pretty penny on selling him onto Madrid in 3 or 4 seasons .

Kane would guarantee us a Top 4 finish and keep us competitive in a title race. Big impact maybe like Lewa at Bayern.

Both transfers really would need the team to improve around them some more as well but regards either would be incredible
 
Honestly, neither of them are ideal because they are both lazy when the opposition have the ball. Teams can often carry one player like that if they are good enough (although obviously in a perfect world you don't), but having one of them AND Rashford would be an issue.

Obviously both are brilliant players who would improve the team, but I actually think the team as a whole would be better with a player who isn't quite as good but is a harder worker. Of course, finding someone who is nearly as good as them while also being a hard worker is a lot easier said than done.
 
Kane would slot into the team without any issue while Mbappe would require some adjustments to the playingstyle, to Rashford his playing time or to Rashford his position. Mbappe a better player than Kane and a potential Ballon D'or winner while Kane isnt the youngest player in the world anymore.

If i had to make a squad and my first option is to pick Mbappe or Kane, i would pick Mbappe every single time. For the current Manchester United i dont know who i would pick. Kane is the better fit and slots into a very weak CF position without any issue at all.... but Mbappe is still Mbappe.
 
wolvored said:
Out of the two, Kanes a proven PL goalscorer and Mbappe doesnt cut it in the CL. We have beaten them with inferior teams. The French league is so poor so no indication what Mbappe does there would be the same here and his wages would be insane. In fact we could probably get Kane and Hojlund for the e160 mill PSG are asking for. Kane would be ideal.
Click to expand...

Either you’ve only watched Mbappe play when PSG play United or this is about as close as you’ll get to the ludicrous “Messi hasn’t scored against an English team so he’s not world class” rhetoric that was going around in 2007/2008 before the CL final Vs United and then shifted to “but Messi wouldn’t be able to do it on cold winters night Vs Stock”

Ignoring Mbappe’s World Cup goals. Let’s look at his CL league record.
61 games: 40 goals.

He’s scored against
Real Madrid 3 goals in 5 matches
Bayern 3 goals in 7 matches
Barca 4 goals 2 matches
Juventus 4 goals 4 matches
Man City 3 goals 5 matches
Liverpool 1 goal 2 matches
Man Utd 4 matches 1 goal

Very good, elite goal stats against Europe’s best teams. But I wouldn’t want him because of his attitude but it’s possible he feels PSG holds him back.
 
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Kane would have an effect like Van Persie in 2012. While I wouldn’t say he’d decide the title next season, it’s the best signing to close the gap on City.
Click to expand...

Yeah, signing Kane means a push for the title next season. We might not end up winning it (obviously) but it wouldn't be a walk in the park for City. There aren't many things I'm certain of in football but I'm pretty certain about this.
 
who cares about fit, you sign the best player in the world and make it work every time if given the choice.
 
I'd settle for either one. To be honest it would be a bit bizarre if arguably the two best strikers in the world were for sale in the summer where we badly needed a striker and we didn't really go for either. Hopefully we hold off Højlund for a bit and try to break the bank for one of these.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.