I suppose it depends on how much you have to strain
Didn’t a ManU midfielder have something similar a few years ago?
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I suppose it depends on how much you have to strain
Didn’t a ManU midfielder have something similar a few years ago?
Fletcher?
Not that his agent is so keen in reassuring Spurs fans, just so happens it does.
Its more about reassuring any suitors that he’s not crocked.
If he knows its not serious, the club does.
If nobody is ‘interested’ in your signature, wiling to give you a bigger, maybe longer contract then you have less leverage in contract negotiations.
If Fletcher completely different. His was an intestinal issue which was hugely debilitating and very serious.
Whilst as a club we have form for 'small' issues becoming lengthy absences, there is nothing as yet to suggest Eriksen's problem is one that will keep him out of action for too long.
Famous last words hopefully do not spring to mind.
Someone in this thread said Eriksen could potentially have ulcerative colitis - which is what Fletcher had.
But that was when the issue was potentially chronic, but abdominal pain is a symptom.
I believe its been cleared up that it isn't chronic though so highly likely he doesn't have that and probably just tore a muscle in his belly.
Ah right, thanks.
Ulcerative colitis would be a problem and massively impact on his stamina, which is one of Eriksen's underrated strengths.
Fingers crossed it is an abdominal strain but the club is very funny when it comes to disclosing the real nature of players' ailments.
I just cant see him signing a new contract which is sad, i fucking love Eriksen
I love Kane, it's great to have an all-English out-and-out Yid up front, but in all honesty Eriksen is pound-for-pound our best player.
We should negotiate hard, but at the end, pay what we need to pay to keep him. Because replacing him like-for-like will cost a boat-load more.
We should negotiate hard, but at the end, pay what we need to pay to keep him. Because replacing him like-for-like will cost a boat-load more.
I think he'll sign, is apparently very settled in London.
Chelsea it is then.
Not sure we've sold a player to Chelsea for over 30 years, can't see us starting now.
Strongly disagreed.
I think Eriksen is a brilliant player and we are lucky to have him... he is hard working, industrial and at the same time very creative with good passing range. Buuuut... sorry. I believe there are plenty of playmakers that are better than him. Sure, we ain't gonna find this kind of specific packedge. But I watch some other teams and I see playmakers who can make the attack to be sharp, direct and clever. Who can find striker with absolutely magical touches and play passes that look very simple but no defender can anticipate it. Eriksen can see them at times, but more often our attack lacks this dirct cutting edge/swiftness.
Don't get me wrong, I love the guy to pieces and his workrate is absolutely phenomenal. And at times his passes rly brilliant as well. But to compare him to Kane... I mean, I am not sure there is better player in the world in his element (I am not saying that there is no better striker, but striker of his mould). He has the shot, he has the composure, he has the strenght and what is most amazing - he has absolutely brilliant game reading ability and he can play very good passes (to put it mildly) to others as well. Basically you cannot mark Kane out of the game. Bottom line? I think it would be much easier to replace Eriksen than Kane. And with that being said, I believe both will stay here
Svend Larsen
and
mojo
I respect people right to disagree with my views. But I'd appreciate some argumentation or pointing out with what do you guys disagree?
For example to me it is clear- Harry Kane is best striker in EPL.
And Eriksen is not best playmaker in EPL.
I mean just take a look- Lukaku is half the player Kane is and was sold for 75 mil. How could we replace player of his calibre? Not to mention that he is the talisman of our team - one of our own and a bloke who always plays with heart.
Also we have not had striker even anywhere close to quality of Kane in ages. But just purely on AM position we had very similar level VDV quite recently. I am not saying that anyone FROM WITHIN could replace Eriksen - no, we'd have to bring new playmaker from another club. All I am saying that it would be easier to replace Eriksen with similar level of AM/playmaker than it would be to replace Kane with similar level striker....
mojo
I respect people right to disagree with my views. But I'd appreciate some argumentation or pointing out with what do you guys disagree?
For example to me it is clear- Harry Kane is best striker in EPL.
And Eriksen is not best playmaker in EPL.
I mean just take a look- Lukaku is half the player Kane is and was sold for 75 mil. How could we replace player of his calibre? Not to mention that he is the talisman of our team - one of our own and a bloke who always plays with heart.
Also we have not had striker even anywhere close to quality of Kane in ages. But just purely on AM position we had very similar level VDV quite recently. I am not saying that anyone FROM WITHIN could replace Eriksen - no, we'd have to bring new playmaker from another club. All I am saying that it would be easier to replace Eriksen with similar level of AM/playmaker than it would be to replace Kane with similar level striker....
We are a totally different team without Eriksen. It's not just his ability, it's his workrate.
When Son replaces Kane, we're inferior. When Eriksen doesn't play, we are *much* worse.
It's pretty close, but I'll stick with my assessment: Eriksen is our best player and the most irreplaceable. You talk about better AMs in the prem...debatable, but even if so: which one is a feasible signing? I'd suggest none.
When Son replaces Kane, we're inferior. When Eriksen doesn't play, we are *much* worse.
It's pretty close, but I'll stick with my assessment: Eriksen is our best player and the most irreplaceable. You talk about better AMs in the prem...debatable, but even if so: which one is a feasible signing? I'd suggest none.
Isn’t that what we are paying Kane? Levy will offer that I’m sure, there is no downside. He is worth the money and if he’s on a big contract we can extract mega money if he eventually wants to leave.
It would be stupid not to give him what he wants, assuming it’s merely parity with Kane.
Svend Larsen and
I respect people right to disagree with my views. But I'd appreciate some argumentation or pointing out with what do you guys disagree?
For example to me it is clear- Harry Kane is best striker in EPL.
And Eriksen is not best playmaker in EPL.
Does it occur to you that Kane is "the best striker in the EPL" precisely because he's playing in front of Eriksen ...
There are opinions and statistics about who the best midfield players in the world are today ... I've not seen one that doesn't have Eriksen in the top 5 AM's ...
What's perhaps most telling is his fellow professionals nearly all rank him in their top three in the world, only KDB in the EPL gets a bigger vote ....
Personally I believe that no player is bigger than any club, Kane, Dele, Eriksen can all be replaced ... however having a team that's now in it's third/fourth season playing together allows the sum to achieve more than the parts, for that reason alone getting Eriksen to sign, even on 200k a week, would be far better than replacing him with a similar quality player ... who would cost 150m, and want 300k a week anyway, and probably wouldn't sign for us ...
So is Eriksen the best playmaker in the world? maybe not ... but is he the best for Spurs? ... I would say 100% yes ....
Waitwaitwait, now we are talking totally about different things.
I even specifically mentioned that I am not saying we could replace him internally in my 2nd post.
I agree with the fact that given our current players Eriksen is the one who does not have alternative. But that is question of our squad management and does not prove that "Eriksen is pound-for-pound our best player." . Those are different scales. Yes, Eriksen is the player we have least replacement to. But Kane would be harder to replace in the team (and is better player).
No. It does not because it is not so.
I see very little evidence how Kane's ball retention ability and holistic vision of the field nor the passing ability is related to Eriksen. In 14/15 Kane bagged 21 goals in EPL. Within the season Eriksen gave 2 assists...
Who has said that he is not best for Spurs? Of course he is.
He is brilliant little player. Really nothing less than brilliant. And exactly the same could be said about Kane. Best for Spurs and all that. And of course our team is way better with Eriksen in it
would be mad to even suggest smth else. But does that prove he is better player than Kane is (or harder to replace)? I don' see how it would.
I would make him par with Kane. As the only other player. The lack of spending going to wages for our most important stars, wouldn't mind it.