• 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!

Ex-Spurs Player Harry Kane

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Raumdeuterz said:
theathletic.com

Conte: ‘I don’t see a Tottenham team without Harry Kane starting’

Tottenham head coach Antonio Conte does not believe that he would pick a team without Harry Kane in the line-up. Spurs’ squad-building has come under some scrutiny, with Kane nominally the only centre-forward in the side. Kane has also been out of goalscoring form ahead of a busy festive period...
theathletic.com theathletic.com
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hopefully this means he will figure out that Kane can be a very good number 10.
 
Go on son said:
I tell you what. You tell me what i should and ill say it.
Youre right in every arguement
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Or how about I’ll ask you a question, and you try and answer it without contradicting yourself.

You said our policy was wrong, but tried to mock the notion a peak Kane should see rotation.
Before denying that, remember I can just drag the post up.

So quite simply, would you have rotated Kane by signing a top striker or would you have continued with a policy you claim was wrong?

It’s ok to have fuzzy thinking, just own it.
No need to lash out and try and distract from the topic
 
TEKA said:
1. I do not believe that City only offered 75m for Kane.
2. If Grealish went for 100m then Kane would be more.
3. Levy should have sold Kane for 100m plus, but never worth 150m.
4. Kane’s head was turned.
5. Kane, Sterling and McGuire’s form after Euros all suffered.
6. In Contes judgement I trust for the best for Spurs.
7. If Conte keeps, sells or re positions Kane so be it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
City offered over 100m - but the lying cunt Levy bottled it
 
iz futbal said:
Hopefully this means he will figure out that Kane can be a very good number 10.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

From the article.

“In this moment, I am answering in this way. I hope later to improve the situation, to improve the confidence of all players, and to see that maybe without Harry we can cover the situation, not in the same way, but in a way that can be good to get three points.

“In this moment, honestly, I don’t see this team starting without Harry.”

Conte is no fool. He answered as best he can, and he hedged his bet. Fair play.
 
NDomBadBoy said:
Exactly - there's a difference between us and the England national team and Man City.

Maybe having Kane would be effective for those teams because they can get away with a striker that just needs to be at the right place at the right time and let others do the hard work. Kane can still do that and he does it well.

But we as a team are not City and England and we're never going to be those type of teams. Our golden years 3-5 years ago was the perfect storm and likely to never happen again.

As you say, we've got all these fast, high intensity type of players, only to be slowed down by our main point of attack and the man closest to the goal. We need a more aggressive, athletic and cerebral striker that can lead the attack.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The root cause of the awful style of play for two years is shithouses like Lucas and PEH. Only once they are pushed aside in Jan can we objectively assess Kane’s decline (or not)
 
sammyspurs said:
Or how about I’ll ask you a question, and you try and answer it without contradicting yourself.

You said our policy was wrong, but tried to mock the notion a peak Kane should see rotation.
Before denying that, remember I can just drag the post up.

So quite simply, would you have rotated Kane by signing a top striker or would you have continued with a policy you claim was wrong?

It’s ok to have fuzzy thinking, just own it.
No need to lash out and try and distract from the topic
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No fuzzy thinking. I know what i said. I know what i answered. I answered the topic you brought up.People here know what i answered and thats good enough for me. You good sir are a troll. You start a debate and then i practically agree with ye apart from one minor detail and still you try twist peoples words.
At least you admit you are a loser so fair play 👍
 
Go on son said:
No fuzzy thinking. I know what i said. I know what i answered. I answered the topic you brought up.People here know what i answered and thats good enough for me. You good sir are a troll. You start a debate and then i practically agree with ye apart from one minor detail and still you try twist peoples words.
At least you admit you are a loser so fair play 👍
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So, that’s a lot of words but not one word of it is on topic.

Do you think that a peak Kane should have been rotated with a top striker a few seasons back?

If yes, then your mocking post about dropping a peak Kane makes you look stupid.

If no, then you claiming our policy regarding Kane was wrong makes you look stupid.

Either way, not a good look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top