What's new

Harry Kane

canadacelt

Well-Known Member
May 1, 2006
442
465
I wonder if Kane's mentality would change towards meaningless internationals if he starts being dropped for important Spurs games that are played right after as a result. Kane always seems to want to play every game for club and country, he should be able to see by now it can have a negative impact on his overall performance and the amount of injuries he picks up, and likely his longevity in the game. If he plays for England tommorow,then he should be on the bench against West Ham, partly because it's West Ham and Son,Bale,and Vinicius should be raring to go and partly to make a point to Kane.
 

THFCSPURS19

The Speaker of the Transfer Rumours Forum
Jan 6, 2013
37,886
130,485
All the best teams over the years have pulled their top players out over "niggles", only to be fit come the weekend. I don't see why, if we want to get there, it's a big issue if we begin to do it. It's like we were too nice. But nice guys, they never win.
Because maybe Kane doesn't want to?

I wonder if Kane's mentality would change towards meaningless internationals if he starts being dropped for important Spurs games that are played right after as a result. Kane always seems to want to play every game for club and country, he should be able to see by now it can have a negative impact on his overall performance and the amount of injuries he picks up, and likely his longevity in the game. If he plays for England tommorow,then he should be on the bench against West Ham, partly because it's West Ham and Son,Bale,and Vinicius should be raring to go and partly to make a point to Kane.
So you're saying we should basically punish Kane for playing England internationals when he is literally the CAPTAIN OF ENGLAND. What utter nonsense.
 

absolute bobbins

Am Yisrael Chai
Feb 12, 2013
11,649
25,962
You lot want to build a winning mentality at the club but don't like when England take a competition seriously? Do you not see how backwards that actually is? You win every game you can. Winning breeds confidence. That confidence then goes into the Euros.

Kane is England captain and someone who takes pride in both club and country shirts. I'm sure if he starts tomorrow it won't be the full 90. He's older and wiser. He isn't stupid. This agenda against Southgate needs to end as well. Every manager would want their best players to play as much as possible, because you then have a higher chance of winning. Beat Denmark and then all that's needed basically is a win at home v Iceland. Anything in Belgium is a bonus.

I must be the only one who sees nothing in this media frenzy. He looked fine v Belgium. There was no 'injury'. There will be no traveling due to it being at Wembley. He'll be fine.











Unless Hojbjerg does him in..
It’s the audi cup of international football. And my team have won the thing
 

THFCSPURS19

The Speaker of the Transfer Rumours Forum
Jan 6, 2013
37,886
130,485
Just because a lot of you guys don't give a shit about England, it doesn't mean Kane doesn't. I don't understand why so many people don't get that and think we can just unilaterally demand Kane doesn't play any games and isn't in any squad. Every single time Kane plays a game for England, regardless of the competition, so many Spurs fans complain like every game is pointless unless it's a World Cup Final. How are England meant to play well if their best player never plays? FFS.
 

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
There were different reasons for each of the players you mention being 'finished before they were 30'.

Owen had serious hamstring injuries and lost his pace. But he actually joined Man U in the year he turned 30 and was there until he was 33, so not really finished, just a totally different player as he had no pace and was effectively a goal poacher super sub (17 goals in 52 games across 3 years).

Torres had serious knee injury that also took his pace which was his prime asset.

Rooney I think of as being like a boxer whose weight balloons between fights, eventually the booze, cigarettes and junk food caught up with him. He never relied purely on pace, but he was at Man U for 18 - 31 years old and won everything.

With Rooney and Owen they played a lot of PL games as teenagers - Rooney 109 and Owen 79. Torres played a similar number of times as a teenager for Atletico Madrid (debut at 17, captain at 19). Kane did not start a PL game for us until his 21st year.

Kane does not drink or smoke, has a healthy lifestyle 365 days of the year and does not rely on pace. Like Sheringham he can play until he is in his mid-thirties IMO.
The same with Torres. He was still a useful player well into his 30s, just not really a goalscorer. But even that is overstated. His goal scoring was mediocre in all clubs apart from Liverpool and three effective years in Liverpool sort of clouded peoples judgement of him.

Rooney had a very long career at a very high level. dropping in the early 30s isn't particularly unusual particularly for players who start so early. Owen lost his pace quite early, but what really hurt him more was that he just completely fell out of love with the game, and started caring more about his horses than his football. Consistent injury problems most certainly didn't help him.

There are many examples of footballers who thrive at older ages, including plenty of strikers. But it's worth pointing out that most top footballers are only really at their peak for 5 or so years, players like Rooney, who were so good for so long (while never truly being excellent) are the exception to the rules not the norm. Kane may decline during the second half of his career, but their might be a number of reasons for this happening that has nothing to do with being played unfit or whatever.

Kane's career doesn't appear to be in danger of injuries, a reoccurring ankle issues are a concern, but his fitness worries are overblown particularly in this case. He has no major history of any other kinds of injuries, and his injuries last season were not linked with his ankle worries and nothing suggests it's likely to be a reoccurring problem. Thankfully his ankle problems don't tend to keep him out that long and even with his problems he has still got around 30 league games or more per season after 2017 which is very normal and no one would even mention it if he wasn't a player which is always in the spotlight.

This whole argument, based on what doesn't appear to be an injury is manufactured by the press and, I think by Mourinho as well. It's all power plays and all that. I don't think there is anything to worry about regarding Kane playing or not.
 

JUSTINSIGNAL

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2008
15,980
48,499
England might be the only country that takes the Nations League seriously. Almost everywhere else it's considered a glorified series of meaningless friendlies.
Just veto Harry's participation v Denmark and get him back so Spurs. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

Why is it? He’s the England captain and professional footballer - I’m sure he’s desperate to play. He’s only played about 30 mins while he’s been with the squad anyway ffs. He’s hardly been flogged.

The whole club v country narrative is just really tired and boring. If he’s fit let the guy play ffs.
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
54,776
99,338
The fact of the matter is that Kane's game time needs to be managed.

We all get he wants to play every minute for Club and Country but he's going to end up out for further extended periods if it isn't managed.

We pay his wages and playing for Spurs is his bread and butter at the end of the day.

If he's going to play every minute for England, friendlies included, and Jose feels the need to rest him thereafter so be it, not to punish but to manage...there's a big difference.

Consequently Harry may then be a bit more selective in terms of what minutes he plays on international duty.

Mourinho is only doing what he's done at the other big Clubs which is to protect his players, and he pretty much managed to do it.

We just arnt use to it but Mourinho is just right. He knows full well the importance of it.
 

mil1lion

This is the place to be
May 7, 2004
42,344
77,596
Gary says he’s fit to start tomorrow night. Fucking Gary.
tenor.gif
 

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
it would be our decision and the risk is borne by us. kane is contracted to spurs and his salaries are paid by spurs. how come we do not have the say on handling the fitness of kane, especially with his injury records.
Okay. International clearance is built into contracts. We have a legal obligation to allow England to both pick him and play him, and have no control over that. Those are the rules of the game and is legally included in the contract. We absolutely don't have any meaningful say on the matter, and that's how it is for everybody.

The way football is organised there is no reason to believe we have more of a say regarding Kane, or more of a right to risk him than the international team. To say otherwise is a misunderstanding of how football really works, and what football contracts actually do. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is. Southgate is well within his right to play Kane if he sees it fit and has no responsibility towards us. We, as a club, know this, it's in the football contract, we can't really legitimately complain too much. We can attempt to put informal pressure on England, but there is absolutely no reason why England should follow it, and Southgate is paid to prioritise England, not placate other clubs. It seems like we are trying to put pressure on him, but if Southgate is any good at his job he should ignore any such external pressures.
 

tommo84

Proud to be loud
Aug 15, 2005
6,120
11,100
Southgate’s presser today seemed to pour a lot of cold water on the issue. If Kane now pulls up with a thigh injury tomorrow night then Southgate and the medical staff would look bloomin’ stupid so he must be very sure that there’s no issue. Most encouragingly he indicated that there’s been more positive dialogue with Spurs than what the papers have made out.

Move along.
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
54,776
99,338
Just because a lot of you guys don't give a shit about England, it doesn't mean Kane doesn't. I don't understand why so many people don't get that and think we can just unilaterally demand Kane doesn't play any games and isn't in any squad. Every single time Kane plays a game for England, regardless of the competition, so many Spurs fans complain like every game is pointless unless it's a World Cup Final. How are England meant to play well if their best player never plays? FFS.

I care about England and fully understand Kane does big time.

However, imho, he'll be out for longer periods and play less overall if it isn't explained to him that his game time has to be managed better than it has been.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be playing for England regularly, he will be without question.

Does he need to play every minute though? No he doesn't.
 

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
I care about England and fully understand Kane does big time.

However, imho, he'll be out for longer periods and play less overall if it isn't explained to him that his game time has to be managed better than it has been.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be playing for England regularly, he will be without question.

Does he need to play every minute though? No he doesn't.
Firstly, we don't really know this. Kane's injury record is no way near as bad as some seem to make out. It's just his injuries are magnified and get a lot more attention than other players. Similarly, his only reoccurring injury is his ankle. We should worry about his ankle, but he hasn't had an ankle problem for over a year and a half. Last season's injury was completely unrelated and likely to be just one of those things.

Kane probably does know how to remain fit, and playing games or not is only a small part of managing fitness. But there is no reason to think he needs to be particularly more protected than other players, apart from his importance to the team. It might be the case, but what you write just seems very speculative and necessarily born out of reality.
 

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
Why is it? He’s the England captain and professional footballer - I’m sure he’s desperate to play. He’s only played about 30 mins while he’s been with the squad anyway ffs. He’s hardly been flogged.

The whole club v country narrative is just really tired and boring. If he’s fit let the guy play ffs.
That's the thing. The Irony is Southgate has actually very much managed his playing time and protected his fitness. Like they decided not to start him against Belgium as a precaution. He even had a few days not training as a response to muscle tightness, which is very safety first, and is likely to play one slow paced game against Denmark. Like..
 

DiVaio

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2020
4,173
17,393
All the best teams over the years have pulled their top players out over "niggles", only to be fit come the weekend. I don't see why, if we want to get there, it's a big issue if we begin to do it. It's like we were too nice. But nice guys, they never win.
We just did the same with Lo Celso, Bergwijn, Tanganga
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
54,776
99,338
Firstly, we don't really know this. Kane's injury record is no way near as bad as some seem to make out. It's just his injuries are magnified and get a lot more attention than other players. Similarly, his only reoccurring injury is his ankle. We should worry about his ankle, but he hasn't had an ankle problem for over a year and a half. Last season's injury was completely unrelated and likely to be just one of those things.

Kane probably does know how to remain fit, and playing games or not is only a small part of managing fitness. But there is no reason to think he needs to be particularly more protected than other players, apart from his importance to the team. It might be the case, but what you write just seems very speculative and necessarily born out of reality.

It's based on his past injury issues, and when he's out he's normally out for considerable time.

Of course we don't know for sure but I don't want to see him being run into the ground. I know he hasn't been this time, more thinking future.

When you've had some serious injuries being overworked leaves you more vulnerable, that's not speculative its logical.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
Nah. Winning the league is winning. Winning the Champions League is winning. Winning the Nations Cup is wasting your time. Just. Don't. Care. Keep Harry safe, we need him scoring goals. That's what matters.

You know Kane's said several times that he wants to win the Nation's League? Or does that not matter?

I wonder if Kane's mentality would change towards meaningless internationals if he starts being dropped for important Spurs games that are played right after as a result. Kane always seems to want to play every game for club and country, he should be able to see by now it can have a negative impact on his overall performance and the amount of injuries he picks up, and likely his longevity in the game. If he plays for England tommorow,then he should be on the bench against West Ham, partly because it's West Ham and Son,Bale,and Vinicius should be raring to go and partly to make a point to Kane.

So drop him to teach him a lesson? The guy is loyal to a fault, but if we start trying to put pressure on him with regards to his England duties he could decide that its
time to move on.

The fact of the matter is that Kane's game time needs to be managed.

We all get he wants to play every minute for Club and Country but he's going to end up out for further extended periods if it isn't managed.

We pay his wages and playing for Spurs is his bread and butter at the end of the day.

If he's going to play every minute for England, friendlies included, and Jose feels the need to rest him thereafter so be it, not to punish but to manage...there's a big difference.

Consequently Harry may then be a bit more selective in terms of what minutes he plays on international duty.

Mourinho is only doing what he's done at the other big Clubs which is to protect his players, and he pretty much managed to do it.

We just arnt use to it but Mourinho is just right. He knows full well the importance of it.

He's not playing every minute for England. He didn't play the friendly against Wales. He was a substitute in the last game.

I've got no problem with us resting him, but to do it straight after an international break to make a point would be a big mistake.
 

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
Granted but the club assumes all the risk. As a poster mentioned previously, if Kane gets injured, hey ho here you are Spurs... many apologies and here is the whatever amount they have to pay if a player gets injured under them... I dont think they do or should have a smuch of a right given we own the asset and we pay the wages that said I know where youre coming from.

I agree that Kane should also take and shoulder responsibility to say - sorry not too happy with my muscle/injury and dont want to rush it but lets be honest Kane will never say that - he wants to play every game.

Anyways I think i was playing devils advocate which led to this in the sense that I dont think it was or is a big deal and he seemed ok today although was very much out the game which is understandable given he came on as a sub when we were going to sit back after going 2-1 up. He didnt expend too much energy although I suspect he will start on Wednesday along with Sancho...

Jose is right in putting pressure, because he is under pressure himself to win and knows without Kane we wont achieve what we want to achieve.

We are all a bit nervy as Spurs fans which is understandable.
That might be your opinion on how it should be, but it's not how it is. We don't own Kane, we simply have an employee under contract, with weird footballing stipulations that would almost certainly would not hold up as legal in a court of law, but it'll be to no ones advantage to rock the boat and that's why we have the system we have.

But the weird football contract situation has stipulations, including being allowed to represent ones country. Footballers have that right entrenched into the whole football contract law. So it doesn't matter if you think they should or shouldn't have as much of a right, they absolutely do. We pay his wages, but we are only allowed to even have him as an 'asset' on the basis that he can play international football.

Like its not Club vs country. It's a false dichotomy because they live side by side, they come together with football works as a thing really, from the origins of the sport itself.
 

philip

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2009
1,347
2,490
That's the thing. The Irony is Southgate has actually very much managed his playing time and protected his fitness. Like they decided not to start him against Belgium as a precaution. He even had a few days not training as a response to muscle tightness, which is very safety first, and is likely to play one slow paced game against Denmark. Like..
I wonder if England would have taken the same approach with Harry had Mourinho not gone public with this club v country thing.

Looks like it worked!
 

Guernman

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2013
1,507
7,838
I don't like it but,

Southgate has a responsibility to look after the players while they are on international duty, and he has done that. Kane didn't feature in the first match, played 30 minutes in the second and is now likely fit enough to start tomorrow.

Our problem is we then want Harry to play on the weekend, and that is when he might be at risk of over doing it. Unfortunately, that really is our problem, not England's. The scheduling of course is totally insane.
 
Top