Ex-Spurs Player Harry Kane

[Igula]

I don't think it was baffling. Questionable yes, but baffling?

He was our top scorer + by far the biggest name player at the club. I'm sure he was begging Poch to start and the medical team must have given their okay. Maybe he was banging them in during training as well, who knows?

I can see why he would have made either decision. Kane also had a pretty good record vs Liverpool back then. Lucas was very hard done by but it wasn't like the Ajax game was something he consistently came up with. He wasn't on Kane's level on a regular basis.

Click to shrink...

It wasn't even questionable, it was 100% the right decision.

Maybe, and even that is a stretch, if we had a competent back-up you might have considered of playing him instead of Kane but when the options were terrible in crap players like Moura or Llorente, starting Kane was the only option.

 

[Deuterz]

It wasn't even questionable, it was 100% the right decision.

Maybe, and even that is a stretch, if we had a competent back-up you might have considered of playing him instead of Kane but when the options were terrible in crap players like Moura or Llorente, starting Kane was the only option.

Click to shrink...

The myth that developed around Lucas because he had one great game for Spurs is pretty remarkable. It would've been a very risky decision for Poch to assume he would recreate the Ajax game when it was one in a million.

 

[iz futbal]

You're just not getting the point I was making. Have a word with yourself, I can't do it for you.

Edit: I've never once said Haaland wouldn't score as many as Kane in the Premier League. I clearly only said that he wouldn't score against the better sides all the time if he played for us, just as he often hasn't scored against the better sides in the Champions League when playing for Dortmund. I literally can't make it any more clear now. If you still don't get it, you've got issues.

Click to shrink...

Of course any striker will score more in a better team than a worse one. Theres nothing genius about pointing that out.

Talk like a normal person, the bolded bit just makes you look like a little pussy.

 

[todd1882]

Taking whatever we can get for Kane assumes that we will do something worthwhile with the money and after the summer we just had there is zero reason to think that we would have spent the money wisely at all.

Click to shrink...

I reject your premise. These are independent events and should be viewed as such. The merits of selling Kane can and do stand on their own.

Just wondering, how many more games like the previous 4 will it take for you to say "Damn, perhaps we should have sold Kane"? I guess a better way of asking is can you envision a scenario where you will view the keeping of the player to have been a bad idea? Say from this day on he never scores another goal for us, his availability is below the Anderton-line, he accumulates red card offenses in 50% of the games for which he is available, has alcohol and granny scandals monthly, and is tainted by whispers of match-fixing. Would you then concede that it is regrettable that we didn't sell him? Serious question to establish a baseline. If you say no, then you've abandoned all reason and there is no argument to be had on the matter.

 

[Juno]

I don't think it was baffling. Questionable yes, but baffling?

He was our top scorer + by far the biggest name player at the club. I'm sure he was begging Poch to start and the medical team must have given their okay. Maybe he was banging them in during training as well, who knows?

I can see why he would have made either decision. Kane also had a pretty good record vs Liverpool back then. Lucas was very hard done by but it wasn't like the Ajax game was something he consistently came up with. He wasn't on Kane's level on a regular basis.

Click to shrink...

Of course Kane is in Pochettino’s ear saying I’m fit and ready to go. He hadn’t played in 8 weeks since he injured himself against Citeh in the first leg. That’s where a manager earns his stripes in making the tough call. You can’t be match fit after all that time out to go up against a beast like Van Dijk. We’ll throw you on after an hour as the pace of the game slows down and opposition are beginning to tire.

 

[todd1882]

We did. RESPECT THE COCK @Five todd1882 @todd1882 myself, several others, maybe not as loudly as you Sammy!

Click to shrink...

Indeed. By the time some of the squeakier wheels got on board I was already in the depression stage of grief.

 

[SpursSince2012]

It wasn't even questionable, it was 100% the right decision.

Maybe, and even that is a stretch, if we had a competent back-up you might have considered of playing him instead of Kane but when the options were terrible in crap players like Moura or Llorente, starting Kane was the only option.

Click to shrink...

Those terrible crappy players got us to the finals making significant contributions along the way.

It is a little Monday morning quarterbacking for me as I wasnt against Kane playing if he was fit. But we know this didnt work. We absolutely do not know that starting Moura wouldnt have worked. We dont know who rises to the challenge with guys believing in each other, pulling the same direction.

 

[Deuterz]

Those terrible crappy players got us to the finals making significant contributions along the way.

It is a little Monday morning quarterbacking for me as I wasnt against Kane playing if he was fit. But we know this didnt work. We absolutely do not know that starting Moura wouldnt have worked. We dont know who rises to the challenge with guys believing in each other, pulling the same direction.

Click to shrink...

He came on against tired legs for 24 minutes and honestly I just remember it being the usual Lucas Moura.

Obviously we don't know for sure if he started it wouldn't have gone differently. But I can see why Pochettino wasn't exactly convinced he would have a major impact.

 

[Deuterz]

Of course Kane is in Pochettino’s ear saying I’m fit and ready to go. He hadn’t played in 8 weeks since he injured himself against Citeh in the first leg. That’s where a manager earns his stripes in making the tough call. You can’t be match fit after all that time out to go up against a beast like Van Dijk. We’ll throw you on after an hour as the pace of the game slows down and opposition are beginning to tire.

Click to shrink...

That makes sense. But I can also see the other side of the argument, so I don't see it as being as bad a call as people seem to think. If Lucas had been more consistent during the season rather than having a handful of good games, he would've started 100%.

But it's very much just down to opinions.

 

[todd1882]

It wasn't even questionable, it was 100% the right decision.

Maybe, and even that is a stretch, if we had a competent back-up you might have considered of playing him instead of Kane but when the options were terrible in crap players like Moura or Llorente, starting Kane was the only option.

Click to shrink...

Disagree again...give me a second while I drop that 'X'. Ok, I thought there was a tactical and personnel route to shake Liverpool. And it happens to be one that to this day Klopp has shown no ability to counter...and in fact it had worked for us against them previously.

It was the wrong decision to start him and that was predictable. And I don't use the result as the basis of evaluation but Kane's performance which I did predict. He had nothing, has nothing, and will never have anything in his locker to worry VVD who is bigger, stronger, faster, and just as intelligent a footballer. Game's about matchups.

 

[todd1882]

He came on against tired legs for 24 minutes and honestly I just remember it being the usual Lucas Moura.

Click to shrink...

How'd he do in the previous CL game that he started?

 

[Crackers71]

It was a baffling decision to start him. Kane even in his pomp always took a few games to get going at the start of a season (not scoring in August) or coming back from an injury.

Click to shrink...

Thought at the time, that surely, after Lucas’s heroics getting us to the final that he has to start. Not a fan, feel like he’s a bit of a headless chicken, but he’d earned his place. We were all hoping Harry would be fit for the final and just to have him on the bench, I feel, would’ve been a threat. IMO, dippers were there for the taking that night. Don’t even blame Sissoko for the handball, when it was intentionally hit at him. Anyway, I think my point goes back to the Burnley game, where Poch lost it. Harry had been out injured and we’d had the usual panic (what we gonna do without Kane ?) and as usual had done well. Kane comes back and it seemed like everything that had been worked on went out the window. ‘ Give Harry the ball’ ,lost 2-1 . Beginning of the end for Poch, I feel.

 

[Deuterz]

How'd he do in the previous CL game that he started?

Click to shrink...

Very well. But that was one match. As a manager I think you have a tough decision when you're weighing up a player having an incredible performance in one game vs a player who has been consistently good for you in the season.

I'm not saying Pochettino necessarily made the right decision. I don't know that. But I am saying I get why he did it, and I disagree that Lucas had made himself undroppable due to one incredible game.

 

[Igula]

I reject your premise. These are independent events and should be viewed as such. The merits of selling Kane can and do stand on their own.

Just wondering, how many more games like the previous 4 will it take for you to say "Damn, perhaps we should have sold Kane"? I guess a better way of asking is can you envision a scenario where you will view the keeping of the player to have been a bad idea? Say from this day on he never scores another goal for us, his availability is below the Anderton-line, he accumulates red card offenses in 50% of the games for which he is available, has alcohol and granny scandals monthly, and is tainted by whispers of match-fixing. Would you then concede that it is regrettable that we didn't sell him? Serious question to establish a baseline. If you say no, then you've abandoned all reason and there is no argument to be had on the matter.

Click to shrink...

I think in the hypothetical world of a message board you are right but in the real world of Daniel Levy and Fabio Paratici we need to consider what will be done with the money if we did sell Kane, especially for anything. If selling Kane means we end up with a Bergwijn-Son-Moura front 3 then there is no scenario in which it makes sense to sell him, at least no realistic scenario.

As to the second part, really right now I would almost say it is a mistake already if the decision is to keep Kane and not build around him. If the plan is to build for the future with potential buys then sell Kane and use that money to buy quality potential buys and numerous ones so that when we see that potential full filled it isn't a team of 2-3 guys like we have now but a team of 8-9 guys that can actually compete.

The problem I currently see, which the Kane scenario is only part of, is that there is zero plan. Zero big picture thinking and less than zero thinking in terms of how to build a team. We are trying to win now, but not making moves to win now that doesn't work.

For me the best way for us to have any success, and it is likely to be little success, is to keep Kane and pair him and Son and hope their individual excellence (and yes Kane still has individual excellence) can overcome the lack of talent in the squad, lack of depth and mediocrity in the manager.

If you asked me my ideal (and somewhat realistic plan realizing Levy is not going to buy the players needed to compete with the top 4 teams) I would bring in a proper DOF or manager I am not too hung up on the power structure so long as someone or some people that are competent are making the decisions not Nuno, Paratici or Levy, sell Kane and many others (likely Son as well) and build the team from almost scratch.

I have always said I am fine selling Kane but I need to see a plan of what to do. Saying (not you necessarily) that we are better off with Bergwijn-Son-Moura is not a plan, that is a relegation fight. I also think saying buy young players is a techinically a plan but a poor one. Replacing Kane with a lesser version who is younger (Toney, Vlahovic, even Martinez) to me isn't much of a plan either, it just makes us a younger team with the same exact problems.

The issue we have now with Kane and Son is that they paper over the cracks which prevents us from moving on to make changes we need because Levy is scared what happens when his security blankets are gone and at the same time if we fuck up moving on we lost our security blankets and it could get ugly.

Not sure if any of that answers your questions but the short answer is yes there are certainly times to sell Kane but that comes with a lot of qualifiers for me.

 

[Igula]

Those terrible crappy players got us to the finals making significant contributions along the way.

It is a little Monday morning quarterbacking for me as I wasnt against Kane playing if he was fit. But we know this didnt work. We absolutely do not know that starting Moura wouldnt have worked. We dont know who rises to the challenge with guys believing in each other, pulling the same direction.

Click to shrink...

They got us by in some of the luckiest situations that we have seen. Both the Ajax and City ties we made it by on the skin of our teeth. Now we can't, and wouldn't want to, take those results away but to think that they are representative of what is likely to happen going forward is crazy, especially when Lucas and Llorente not only had shown none of the ability to play like that at a consistent level but in fact showed the exact opposite.

It is a massive amount of Monday morining QBing. If Kane is on the bench for any period of time in a game we fail to score in the cries for Poch's head would be 10x what they were after that final.

Klopp himself had a similar decision with Origi and Shaqiri starting in the SF win for them and then starting Firmino and Salah but there isn't an outcry about his decision.

 

[Igula]

Those terrible crappy players got us to the finals making significant contributions along the way.

It is a little Monday morning quarterbacking for me as I wasnt against Kane playing if he was fit. But we know this didnt work. We absolutely do not know that starting Moura wouldnt have worked. We dont know who rises to the challenge with guys believing in each other, pulling the same direction.

Click to shrink...

We don't know that starting 8 players instead of 11 that day wouldn't have worked but we can make educated guesses based on looking at past results to determine it likely wouldn't have worked out.

Lucas Moura has a whole career of being not good enough. To think that in the CL final he would have magically been better than he has his whole career is asking a lot.

The other issue is that Kane was far from the only issue that day. Perhaps if the team had played great and Kane was missing chances or looking tired they may be an argument but the whole team was poor and playing a better team. Hard to see how Lucas, especially with how he plays, making a big difference.

 

[todd1882]

I have always said I am fine selling Kane but I need to see a plan of what to do.

Click to shrink...

If you have an asset, keeping hold of it while it depreciates and the market dries up is foolish. We are not benefiting from Kane's presence ATM and I don't expect that to change much. this is what I posed to you in the summer. We will finish 7th plus with him and slightly worse without him. Very little benefit to be gained by keeping and we've lost out on 100-ish Million in the process. Now every is going to see his very glaring limitations. We should have sold.

Replacing Kane with a lesser version who is younger (Toney, Vlahovic, even Martinez) to me isn't much of a plan either, it just makes us a younger team with the same exact problems.

Click to shrink...

Yes, and accepting a rebuild then we aren't concerned with that. It will give the youngsters time to grow. the problem here is your logic is serving two masters...both poorly. You want to be good now and later...you aren't accepting the short term pain. And by doing that, you and Levy are setting us up for longer term mediocrity. It has needed to be blown up for a few seasons now. Spring 2018 was my first (public) call on it and some folks are still not accepting it now in Fall 2021.

The issue we have now with Kane and Son is that they paper over the cracks which prevents us from moving on to make changes we need because Levy is scared what happens when his security blankets are gone and at the same time if we fuck up moving on we lost our security blankets and it could get ugly.

Click to shrink...

Uhhh, I believe the phrase "shit or get off the pot" would fit here. Or in Levy's case, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" would be more apt. But I don't see a conundrum here. Sell and rebuild is the answer.

Not sure if any of that answers your questions but the short answer is yes there are certainly times to sell Kane but that comes with a lot of qualifiers for me.

Click to shrink...

Welp, we've hit the crux. There are objective reasons to have sold Kane. The bolded part is all subjective. Your points may have merit but there will be wildly divergent opinions as to what those qualifiers are, buy this player or that. But keeping Kane will hurt us now and later...and beyond that we already know what that ceiling looks like and it's not acceptable. Rather try something new and see if the ceiling is higher.

 

[SpursSince2012]

He came on against tired legs for 24 minutes and honestly I just remember it being the usual Lucas Moura.

Obviously we don't know for sure if he started it wouldn't have gone differently. But I can see why Pochettino wasn't exactly convinced he would have a major impact.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, obviously we dont know, it might've been 2-0 either way.

But I dont think all players react the same way, perform the same way starting a big game verses subbing in in a big game. There is a psychological difference that could manifest itself on the pitch especially if a player feels like they deserved to start. The team might not respond the same with Kane verses without. They couldve been buoyed by Kane starting then let down by his form. Its all conjecture.

We do know that Kane wasnt fully fit and played poorly and we lost. We dont know for a fact if the team that got us to the final couldve won. So there is an valid argument we shouldve danced with the one who brought us.

 

[Igula]

If you have an asset, keeping hold of it while it depreciates and the market dries up is foolish. We are not benefiting from Kane's presence ATM and I don't expect that to change much. this is what I posed to you in the summer. We will finish 7th plus with him and slightly worse without him. Very little benefit to be gained by keeping and we've lost out on 100-ish Million in the process. Now every is going to see his very glaring limitations. We should have sold.

Click to shrink...

I disagree on where we could finish without Kane, I think it could be a lot lower than 7th. There are no glaring limitations and as you and Five have pointed out many times these are supposedly not new things so I would assume if you can see it most competent football people, and the teams in for Kane have competent football people, likely can see it before just as well as they can now.

Yes, and accepting a rebuild then we aren't concerned with that. It will give the youngsters time to grow. the problem here is your logic is serving two masters...both poorly. You want to be good now and later...you aren't accepting the short term pain. And by doing that, you and Levy are setting us up for longer term mediocrity. It has needed to be blown up for a few seasons now. Spring 2018 was my first (public) call on it and some folks are still not accepting it now in Fall 2021.

Click to shrink...

I don't want to be good now and later, that is what the club is currently doing. I am fine with dropping off if there is a plan attached to it, what I don't want is to be bad now and bad later. I have said it needs to be blown up in the post you are quoting and others, but I can't force Levy to do that. I am operating in a world in which Levy is running the club.

Uhhh, I believe the phrase "shit or get off the pot" would fit here. Or in Levy's case, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" would be more apt. But I don't see a conundrum here. Sell and rebuild is the answer.

Click to shrink...

Yes I agree Levy should have done this earlier and still should do it now but won't.

Welp, we've hit the crux. There are objective reasons to have sold Kane. The bolded part is all subjective. Your points may have merit but there will be wildly divergent opinions as to what those qualifiers are, buy this player or that. But keeping Kane will hurt us now and later...and beyond that we already know what that ceiling looks like and it's not acceptable. Rather try something new and see if the ceiling is higher.

Click to shrink...

No hurting Kane does not hurt us now and maybe not later either. I agree again that I would also like to try something new to see if the ceiling is higher but there is no guarantee that is the case and with Levy and Paratici I would argue the guarantee is that it isn't the case.

 

[SpursSince2012]

We don't know that starting 8 players instead of 11 that day wouldn't have worked but we can make educated guesses based on looking at past results to determine it likely wouldn't have worked out.

Lucas Moura has a whole career of being not good enough. To think that in the CL final he would have magically been better than he has his whole career is asking a lot.

The other issue is that Kane was far from the only issue that day. Perhaps if the team had played great and Kane was missing chances or looking tired they may be an argument but the whole team was poor and playing a better team. Hard to see how Lucas, especially with how he plays, making a big difference.

Click to shrink...

No one is arguing playing 8 players or picking someone at the tail end of the squad wouldve made a difference. People are arguing for the lineups with fully fit players who won the games leading up to the final. Its a very valid argument.