Where will Harry Kane be in 2021/2022?..

SlickRic

PSG.

Poch.

Neymar ---- Kane ---- Mbappe

Bring it.

y0ssar1an22

from to games missed
20/21 Ankle Injury Apr 16, 2021 Apr 22, 2021 2
20/21 Ankle Injury Jan 29, 2021 Feb 5, 2021 2
20/21 Unknown Injury Nov 30, 2020 Dec 5, 2020 1
19/20 Fitness Mar 9, 2020 Apr 1, 2020 1
19/20 Thigh muscle rupture Jan 2, 2020 Mar 9, 2020 14
19/20 Ill Nov 1, 2019 Nov 4, 2019 1
18/19 Ligament Injury Apr 10, 2019 May 31, 2019 9
18/19 Torn Ankle Ligament Jan 14, 2019 Feb 23, 2019 8
18/19 Back Injury Jul 4, 2018 Jul 6, 2018 0
17/18 Ankle Injury Mar 12, 2018 Apr 1, 2018 2
17/18 Knee Injury Nov 6, 2017 Nov 14, 2017 0
17/18 Hamstring Injury Oct 23, 2017 Oct 30, 2017 2
16/17 Ankle Injury Mar 13, 2017 Apr 6, 2017 3
16/17 Ankle Injury Sep 19, 2016 Nov 7, 2016 11


in the last 4.5 seasons he has missed 56 games for spurs. assuming 50 games per season that is 25% of matches missed thru injury.

re his transfer. he has made the same mistake as grealish. signed a very long contract and has priced himself out of a move.

levy will want at least 120m, and I cannot see any club paying that for him.

ctrl-alt-delete

SlickRic wrote: »

PSG.

Poch.

Neymar ---- Kane ---- Mbappe

Bring it.

Any chance of Poch not being there?

tom1ie

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Any chance of Poch not being there?

Back at spurs and levy gone? Sounds decent.

tastyt

I think utd or city will take the gamble and Kane will jump at it

On a side note he is going to be 28 but 28 isn’t what it used to be . Sports science and hyper professionalism ( which I think Kane has ) is definitely lengthening players careers .

If you look around Europe a lot of the top scorers in the top leagues are well in their 30”s

Ronaldo
Messi
Benzama
Suarez
Ibra
Cavani
Vardy
Lewandowski

All 33 + and still banging them in so whoever gets Kane will probably get 5 good years from him as he has never relied on pace anyway

~Rebel~

tastyt wrote: »

I think utd or city will take the gamble and Kane will jump at it

On a side note he is going to be 28 but 28 isn’t what it used to be . Sports science and hyper professionalism ( which I think Kane has ) is definitely lengthening players careers .

If you look around Europe a lot of the top scorers in the top leagues are well in their 30”s

Ronaldo
Messi
Benzama
Suarez
Ibra
Cavani
Vardy
Lewandowski

All 33 + and still banging them in so whoever gets Kane will probably get 5 good years from him as he has never relied on pace anyway

Very true - but one thing you notice with all of these players is how resilient they are, and especially were throughout all their 20’s. That sort of in-built physical consistency would seem to go a long way towards having a long career. Kane by contrast is far more injury prone than any of them. That’s not to say he definitely can’t have a long career himself, but it’s a fairly important distinction in comparing them.

billyhead

tastyt wrote: »

I think utd or city will take the gamble and Kane will jump at it

On a side note he is going to be 28 but 28 isn’t what it used to be . Sports science and hyper professionalism ( which I think Kane has ) is definitely lengthening players careers .

If you look around Europe a lot of the top scorers in the top leagues are well in their 30”s

Ronaldo
Messi
Benzama
Suarez
Ibra
Cavani
Vardy
Lewandowski

All 33 + and still banging them in so whoever gets Kane will probably get 5 good years from him as he has never relied on pace anyway

Doubt he's coming to United this Summer after Cavani signed an extension.

TitianGerm

billyhead wrote: »

Doubt he's coming to United this Summer after Cavani signed an extension.

You'd be mad to not sign Kane because Cavani signed an extension.

Kane with Cavani as backup is a hell of a lot better than Cavani with Martial as backup.

TheCitizen

Josey Wales wrote: »

He will stay at Spurs because no other club can afford such a price for a 28 year old, injury prone striker.

This. A great striker but completely over priced. Man United have renewed Cavani’s contract, why would they spend 120m on Kane when they have Cavani? The premium that has become attached to English players has ironically had a counter productive effect for Kane. Why spend 120m on him when you could get a similar caliber striker for half that.

Grealish could be too expensive as well. He’s seems a good number 10 type player but what’s his price tag now? Probably get a better or comparable number 10 for half the price elsewhere.

How many years has Kane left on his contract, the only way he’ll get away from Spurs is when he’s getting down to around 2 years left and Spurs have to do a deal on selling him.

TheCitizen

TitianGerm wrote: »

You'd be mad to not sign Kane because Cavani signed an extension.

Kane with Cavani as backup is a hell of a lot better than Cavani with Martial as backup.

They also have Rashtord and Greenwood as forwards.They won’t be spending 120m on Kane, no one will, he’s not worth that kind of money.

tom1ie

TheCitizen wrote: »

This. A great striker but completely over priced. Man United have renewed Cavani’s contract, why would they spend 120m on Kane when they have Cavani? The premium that has become attached to English players has ironically had a counter productive effect for Kane. Why spend 120m on him when you could get a similar caliber striker for half that.

Grealish could be too expensive as well. He’s seems a good number 10 type player but what’s his price tag now? Probably get a better or comparable number 10 for half the price elsewhere.

How many years has Kane left on his contract, the only way he’ll get away from Spurs is when he’s getting down to around 2 years left and Spurs have to do a deal on selling him.

Who is the similar calibre striker?

TheCitizen

tom1ie wrote: »

Who is the similar calibre striker?

Lukaku, Lewandowski. Different age profile with Lewandowski. Kane might be a better striker than Lukaku but he’s not twice the player he is, he would cost twice as much though that’s the point.

Haaland you can understand why he’d cost 100m plus. He’s better and much younger than Kane. If you’re going to spend 100m plus on a striker you’d be daft to spend it on Kane if you could get Haaland for a similar fee. Kane is ridiculously overpriced. It’s why he’s still stuck at Spurs winning nothing.

Mitch Connor

TheCitizen wrote: »

This. A great striker but completely over priced. Man United have renewed Cavani’s contract, why would they spend 120m on Kane when they have Cavani? The premium that has become attached to English players has ironically had a counter productive effect for Kane. Why spend 120m on him when you could get a similar caliber striker for half that.

Grealish could be too expensive as well. He’s seems a good number 10 type player but what’s his price tag now? Probably get a better or comparable number 10 for half the price elsewhere.

How many years has Kane left on his contract, the only way he’ll get away from Spurs is when he’s getting down to around 2 years left and Spurs have to do a deal on selling him.

Kane is arguably the best forward in football. add his link play and intelligence to his finishing, and there are few up there with him.

Him, Lewandowski and Haaland.

You absolutely are not getting a similar caliber striker for half the price.

If United had Kane up front this season, good chance (imo) we would have won the league.

As for why they would want Kane when Cavanni has just signed on for another year..... because:

- Cavanni is 34.
- Cavanni hasn't been able start consecutive games at this point.
- Martial has proven himself untrustworthy as a striker.
- The difference in the United attack when Cavanni is starting and when he is not shows United need an actual striker.

Whether we sign a striker or not, no idea. Might sign a winger (Sancho?) and stick with what we have - Cavanni, Martial, Greenwood, Rashford, Sancho as potential forward options

Mitch Connor

TheCitizen wrote: »

Lukaku, Lewandowski. Different age profile with Lewandowski. Kane might be a better striker than Lukaku but he’s not twice the player he is, he would cost twice as much though that’s the point.

Haaland you can understand why he’d cost 100m plus. He’s better and much younger than Kane. If you’re going to spend 100m plus on a striker you’d be daft to spend it on Kane if you could get Haaland for a similar fee. Kane is ridiculously overpriced. It’s why he’s still stuck at Spurs winning nothing.

so you think Inter are going to sell Lukaku at a loss after two seasons?

PsychoPete

TheCitizen wrote: »

Lukaku, Lewandowski. Different age profile with Lewandowski. Kane might be a better striker than Lukaku but he’s not twice the player he is, he would cost twice as much though that’s the point.

Haaland you can understand why he’d cost 100m plus. He’s better and much younger than Kane. If you’re going to spend 100m plus on a striker you’d be daft to spend it on Kane if you could get Haaland for a similar fee. Kane is ridiculously overpriced. It’s why he’s still stuck at Spurs winning nothing.

Haaland wants a big wage bill and he's a player you'll probably get 3 years out of before Raiola wants to move him on for another big pay day

TheCitizen

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Kane is arguably the best forward in football. add his link play and intelligence to his finishing, and there are few up there with him.

Him, Lewandowski and Haaland.

You absolutely are not getting a similar caliber striker for half the price.

If United had Kane up front this season, good chance (imo) we would have won the league.

As for why they would want Kane when Cavanni has just signed on for another year..... because:

- Cavanni is 34.
- Cavanni hasn't been able start consecutive games at this point.
- Martial has proven himself untrustworthy as a striker.
- The difference in the United attack when Cavanni is starting and when he is not shows United need an actual striker.

Whether we sign a striker or not, no idea. Might sign a winger (Sancho?) and stick with what we have - Cavanni, Martial, Greenwood, Rashford, Sancho as potential forward options

If you’re going to spend over 100m on a striker surely it’d be Haaland, not Kane. Haaland would be far better value for money and he’s also going to be a better striker than Kane ever was.

Mitch Connor

TheCitizen wrote: »

If you’re going to spend over 100m on a striker surely it’d be Haaland, not Kane. Haaland would be far better value for money and he’s also going to be a better striker than Kane ever was.

the talk on haaland is 150, not 100.

and the point was not whether Haaland is better or not, you said why sign Kane when you can sign a similar caliber of player for half the price.

TitianGerm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the talk on haaland is 150, not 100.

and the point was not whether Haaland is better or not, you said why sign Kane when you can sign a similar caliber of player for half the price.

Haland also wants 1m net per week and will most likely want a release clause so he can move again in three years.

TheCitizen

Mitch Connor wrote: »

the talk on haaland is 150, not 100.

and the point was not whether Haaland is better or not, you said why sign Kane when you can sign a similar caliber of player for half the price.

The talk on Kane is 120m. He’s way over priced. Lukaku went to Man United didn’t work out for whatever reason. He went on to Inter for around 60m and has proved his worth winning the Serie A with Inter for the first time in over a decade. Kane judging by the talk would cost twice as much as him, but he’s not twice as good as him. Kane is way overpriced.

PsychoPete

Kane scoring 164 goals in the league so far isn't bad for a substandard striker

TheCitizen

PsychoPete wrote: »

Kane scoring 164 goals in the league so far isn't bad for a substandard striker

Who other than you described him as substandard?

Mitch Connor

TheCitizen wrote: »

The talk on Kane is 120m. He’s way over priced. Lukaku went to Man United didn’t work out for whatever reason. He went on to Inter for around 60m and has proved his worth winning the Serie A with Inter for the first time in over a decade. Kane judging by the talk would cost twice as much as him, but he’s not twice as good as him. Kane is way overpriced.

Kane is a far better striker than Lukaku imo.

Kane is one of the best finishers in football and also one of the best link players around as well.

Inter signed him for 73million. Why do you think Inter are going to sell him at a loss? or not a significant increase on what they paid?

tom1ie

TheCitizen wrote: »

Lukaku, Lewandowski. Different age profile with Lewandowski. Kane might be a better striker than Lukaku but he’s not twice the player he is, he would cost twice as much though that’s the point.

Haaland you can understand why he’d cost 100m plus. He’s better and much younger than Kane. If you’re going to spend 100m plus on a striker you’d be daft to spend it on Kane if you could get Haaland for a similar fee. Kane is ridiculously overpriced. It’s why he’s still stuck at Spurs winning nothing.

Why is he a better striker? Does he score more and assist more season after season?

tom1ie

TheCitizen wrote: »

The talk on Kane is 120m. He’s way over priced. Lukaku went to Man United didn’t work out for whatever reason. He went on to Inter for around 60m and has proved his worth winning the Serie A with Inter for the first time in over a decade. Kane judging by the talk would cost twice as much as him, but he’s not twice as good as him. Kane is way overpriced.

Lol!
You come across as having something against Kane.......

tom1ie

TheCitizen wrote: »

Who other than you described him as substandard?

You've pretty much alluded to that.

TheCitizen

tom1ie wrote: »

You've pretty much alluded to that.

No I didn’t

TheCitizen

tom1ie wrote: »

Lol!
You come across as having something against Kane.......

LOL is right. I know how touchy EPL fans get on here at times.

Kane is a quality striker. He should have moved a few years ago though. I’d say about 70m would be what he’s worth. There’s an English player tax perhaps on top of that so you’d end up overpaying a bit and it’d be 90m. 120m? You’re getting fleeced.

machiavellianme

TitianGerm wrote: »

Haland also wants 1m net per week and will most likely want a release clause so he can move again in three years.

This. Haaland is all about himself and what he can get. He is a poacher on and off the pitch. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it means loyalty is a low priority for him and he'll be angling for his next move as soon as he arrives. Either he or his "super" agent.

JPA

TheCitizen wrote: »

LOL is right. I know how touchy EPL fans get on here at times.

Kane is a quality striker. He should have moved a few years ago though. I’d say about 70m would be what he’s worth. There’s an English player tax perhaps on top of that so you’d end up overpaying a bit and it’d be 90m. 120m? You’re getting fleeced.

How are you getting fleeced? Best English striker since Shearer. The only question mark is his injuries.

TheCitizen

JPA wrote: »

How are you getting fleeced? Best English striker since Shearer. The only question mark is his injuries.

There’s a reason why Kane is still at Spurs and may continue to be next season. His price tag is too high.

JPA

TheCitizen wrote: »

There’s a reason why Kane is still at Spurs and may continue to be next season. His price tag is too high.

His price tag is high because Spurs don't want to or have to sell him. The PL is flush with cash, there's relatively few big money deals between the top 10.

If he pushes for the move and somebody can and will pay he will get the move. Or Spurs may just outright refuse any negotiation.

Shanotheslayer

TheCitizen wrote: »

There’s a reason why Kane is still at Spurs and may continue to be next season. His price tag is too high.

There's loads of reasons. Just because he's expensive doesn't mean his price tag is to high.

Realistically who needed him before this season:

United? They were bet into getting Sancho and pretty sure that was there main focus which ended poorly.
Liverpool? Firmino wasn't as terrible at the time albeit imo Kane was a better replacement. I'm sure some may say he didn't suit the system.
Chelsea? They went with Werner
City? They've Aguero just so happend to get injured

That's without taking into account where the teams had to improve their squad with bigger priorities etc

garrettod

My crystal ball predicts that Kane will go to ManU this summer, assuming he stays in England.

Personally, I think I would rather buy Son, but I think Spurs may hang onto him another year or two.

Pogue eile

garrettod wrote: »

My crystal ball predicts that Kane will go to ManU this summer, assuming he stays in England.

Personally, I think I would rather buy Son, but I think Spurs may hang onto him another year or two.

I think that's the biggest conundrum facing Spurs - the likelihood is if they lose one they will lose both and then they really are up sh*t creek.

Gbear

Pogue eile wrote: »

I think that's the biggest conundrum facing Spurs - the likelihood is if they lose one they will lose both and then they really are up sh*t creek.

Unless they get relegated, not much will change for them, so I don't see how they'd be up **** creek. The minimum amount of winning is 0 and they're already doing that.

If they got 200m-odd for two 28/29 year old strikers, that wouldn't be bad business. Unfortunately (or fortunately for everyone else) we haven't seen them be able to make top class signings with much regularity over the past 10 years. If they were able to leverage it the same way Liverpool did with the likes of Coutinho's fee, they could bounce back into the top 4, but that remains to be seen.

If Dortmund can sign a Haaland before he becomes the hottest property on the market, then that's the same niche Spurs need to fill. But they need someone who can sell a project that they'll actually win anything at the helm, and/or, offer them the chance to move on when the club or the player stop progressing. Dortmund, or Lyon, or any other number of quality European clubs aren't too proud to operate this way.

Pogue eile

Gbear wrote: »

Unless they get relegated, not much will change for them, so I don't see how they'd be up **** creek. The minimum amount of winning is 0 and they're already doing that.

Well that's a very narrow and black and white way of looking at football. They have been regular European qualifiers for a long time, which has helped finance the new stadium.

You would be talking about taking away over 60% of the teams goals - if you exclude Bale who has stated he is going back to Madrid - the next top scorers in the Spurs squad is Ndomble and Moura with 3 each! So yes in short relegation candidates!