Harry Kane

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
VoiceOfThePoshSeats said:
Its a complete tear of the hamstring. Regardless of re attaching it or whether we can cure ligament damage. For a football its the worst injury because the acceleration and power comes from that muscle. If you take even 5% away from a stiker he will never be the same. We just have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
It's not as bad as Andy Murray getting a false hip. And yet he beat Wawrinka to win a second 250 on that hip! Even as a scientist, I prefer to believe in the boundless possibilities of human endeavour for those who want it enough. Of course I'm terrified of what this injury has done to Kane.. I'm rational, after all, but I'm also an optimist. Let's just hope and pray to our various gods for the best.

Edit: Actually I think Andy won Queens with Lopez the first time(?), which is a 500 IIRC but that's irrelevant detail.
 
1966 said:
It's not as bad as Andy Murray getting a false hip. And yet he beat Wawrinka to win a second 250 on that hip! Even as a scientist, I prefer to believe in the boundless possibilities of human endeavour for those who want it enough. Of course I'm terrified of what this injury has done to Kane.. I'm rational, after all, but I'm also an optimist. Let's just hope and pray to our various gods for the best.

Edit: Actually I think Andy won Queens with Lopez the first time(?), which is a 500 IIRC but that's irrelevant detail.
Click to expand...

So where is Murray in the rankings and how many grand slams has he won since his hip replacement?
 
1966 said:
A thought occurred to me: people in here are talking about a crocked Torres as an example of injury-relared transfer business but don't we have a better example closer to home? Spurs bought Ndombele just this summer gone for a club record fee and so far he looks like a footballer in his 30s and on the wane (in terms of fitness).

Did the club not understand what they were buying or did they spend 55m on him anyway? Kane is far fitter than Ndombele when neither has an active injury. And Ndombele seems to spend just as much time on the table from the limited evidence we have so far.

Based on all of that noise, why wouldn't someone else take a similar gamble on Kane? 55m for a sick note with high potential versus 100m for a proven world class striker with all the individual plaudits available but a potential injury problem? I know which I'd pick if it was my money.

And I'm not even in the "sell Kane" camp so I don't know why I'm formulating this argument. I guess the number of people trying to sell him while deflating his value got to me enough to justify him still being worth a nine-figure fee.
Click to expand...

I agree and if anyone cares to note, my post began with "IF we chose to sell him".

I'd do anything to get him to stay but we have to look at it from his perspective:

Trophies, Cups and financial security for him and and his family for life. Look at Bale and Walker, do you think they regret for one second leaving Spurs.

Can we really blame Kane if he did go?

Anyway, much more important things to worry about ... Burnley.

Come on lads.
 
So none of the trolls who now classify Kane as a sick note are able to qualify that statement with any statistical analysis. He seems to get injured the same amount as your average player to me. Happy to be proven wrong; I would just like to shown some data.
 
1966 said:
Football is dead to me once Kane retires. He feels like the key link that keeps me identifying with the England squad. I don't consume the hashtags or play the Instagram and Kane seems like the last big England player to belong culturally to my world instead of the world of Facetube and so on.
Click to expand...

tenor.gif





Surprised you managed to find your way here if you are trying to “Play the Instagram” and find “The world of facetube”

Good old Harry!! anyway - here’s him sharing a fleeting glance of the world you apparently live in!

Toodle pip And tally ho old chap!!


img_8845-1024x688.jpg
 
It’s amusing to read about Harry wanting to leave now to be at a side who can challenge for the Premier League and European Cup. Then in the next sentence the Sky Sports report says that Coach Solskjaer and Man U are his favored destination! Sky Sports and the Premier League brand desperately need Man U back at the top.
 
The reality might well be what we all fear the most, that ENIC will never bankroll the investment we need to progress. The only way to rebuild will be to sell and, IMO, Kane and Son are the only assets we have in 2020 that could raise "squad building" fees.
 
Why is everyone freaking out and opposed to selling Kane, getting $$ and using the proceeds to build a more well rounded team? We haven't been the "Harry Kane" team for quite some time and his injuries/on-and-off playing time have been very detrimental to our team's ability to develop any kind of consistency. We've coped well without Kane and can make the squad more solid, front to back.

Since the Start of 2018/2019 Season (From: Aug 2018 Onwards)
*Includes ALL Matches/Competitions with Kane out due to injury AND Sonny starting the game/not getting a red card*

Champions League
Dortmund (Round of 16) - Win/Advance
Man City (Quarter Finals) - Win/Advance
Ajax (Semi Finals) - Win/Advance

EPL
9 Wins
3 Loss
1 Draw

FA Cup
Middlesbrough - Win/Advance
Southampton - Win/Advance

This is a SOLID record
 
Last edited:
Claud601 said:
How do you he hasn’t said that? To anyone? Ever? He’s getting to an age where perhaps he wants some glory and get Bale rich. It’s business no one would fault him given the shit show the team has become. I give him one more year under Jose Levy
Click to expand...
You are speculating that he wants to leave based on what you think he is thinking.
I am saying he has said nothing of what we know, so story is likely bullshit.
 
sammyspurs said:
So I see history is already being re written.
Ndombele was a crock when we bought him was he?
Well in 2017/18 he played 50 games, and last season he played 49 games.
In those 99 games he missed three with injury, and was out for one game each time.

Then he trained one summer with Poch and this is what we have.
Disagree with that too if you want but they are facts.
Click to expand...
No, that's fine. That's a fair point. But all the evidence we've seen so far at Spurs, from well over half a season of observation, is enough to make you wonder if Ndombele should've been able to pass a medical here.

I'm posing a hypothetical assuming the market for Ndombele at the end of this season. Would you, for example, still want him bought for Spurs at 55m if you'd seen the same levels of fitness and application from him last season?
 
Last edited:
eugekhan said:
Why is everyone freaking out and opposed to selling Kane, getting $$ and using the proceeds to build a more well rounded team? We haven't been the "Harry Kane" team for quite some time and his injuries/on-and-off playing time have been very detrimental to our team's ability to develop any kind of consistency. We've coped well without Kane and can make the squad more solid, front to back.

Since the Start of 2018/2019 Season (From: Aug 2018 Onwards)
*Includes ALL Matches/Competitions with Kane out due to injury AND Sonny starting the game/not getting a red card*

Champions League
Dortmund (Round of 16) - Win/Advance
Man City (Quarter Finals) - Win/Advance
Ajax (Semi Finals) - Win/Advance

EPL
9 Wins
3 Loss
1 Draw

FA Cup
Middlesbrough - Win/Advance
Southampton - Win/Advance

This is a SOLID record
Click to expand...
Every part of your analysis is cherry-picked to maximise the effect of Son and/or minimise the effect of Kane. It doesn't make sense (except in the way you wanted it to). If Kane is the player under scrutiny, how does it make sense to only look at games where Son was involved? I might be stating the obvious here but Son isn't Kane. There's a sort of inherent assumption that "Son will be playing all the time so it doesn't matter what happens when he isn't". If you want to get rid of Kane because Son is apparently a viable replacement at CF, how are you accounting for Son's absences and the dire effect that would have on the team without Kane (see also: right now)? You're also introducing a false dichotomy between Kane and Son despite the fact that the team is easily at its best in attack when both are acting as a synergistic unit.

In tandem, it all looks like a ploy to keep losses off the record, like how the added constraints erase the losses to Colchester in which Son played as a sub and Bournemouth where Son played half the match before getting sent off (is his recent tendency to get red cards not his own fault now?). You're looking only at the last outcome of cup ties to exclude the fact that both of those FA Cup ties required replays (add an extra two draws to the results total) and that two of the CL matches resulted in losses (add two losses). There's at least two more dubious cases I can think of off the top of my head.

I can't be bothered to go through all of this in depth again but the way you've presented what is a mediocre record without Kane (not "without Kane and then only when Son is present but not when Son's done anything wrong") during that time period is similar to the way a corporation tells its shareholders about a bad year. It's disingenuous. And I'm completely ignoring my own analyses from the recent past that explain how Kane has been shafted by fate over the years because I've said enough already and I'm bored by the basic premises that a lot of people seem to bring to the debate. They can be found in this thread anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom