Wouldn't he have done the second on the list too?
- First England player to score in first three games at a World Cup
?
-
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
Wouldn't he have done the second on the list too?
?
And yet bizarrely you'd have to say he had a slightly disappointing tournament in some ways, very poor in our last three games. Of course he could have been carrying a knock but he and Southgate repeatedly denied it so the only explanation is that his form dropped off.
I know he was being asked to play a different role, but even so, he was missing chances that he'd be putting away with his eyes shut normally, esp vs Croatia.
Not having a Scouse-esque go at him, his captaincy was fantastic, as was the unselfish side to his game (esp vs Colombia), but strikers inevitable are judged on how they take their chances
Depends if it's his first or the team's first three.
I may have mis-read it as Engald's first three games (ie, Belgium) but i think your interpretation is correct.
Take Eriksen away and Kane can't do it.......so what you're saying is that a striker needs service to score goals....? Thanks Einstein. What next, a car needs wheels to run?
Take iniesta and Xavi away and Messi's numbers would drop considerably. Take Lewandowski's service away and he won't get much either. The same applies to almost every striker in the world.
The fact that Kane still finished as top scorer in a World Cup with next to no service just makes you think what he could do if England had any creative players.
As for the big game accusation, facts prove you wrong here. He has regularly scored in Europe and against the big premiership teams at crucial times. Liverpool, Arse, Juventus, Chelsea etc.
Last edited:
I can only remember the Croatia chance as clear cut?
About as innocuous as this I reckon:
Kane is a fucking beast no-matter how you look at it. If he'd had the slight rub of the green against Croatia when he hit the post then all we'd be seeing is news stories about Real Madrid and £300m bids.
Level with 6
4 goals away.
He done this if it means score in his first three games at a World Cup. As he never played against Belgium.
1 goal off.
Broke this and made it 8 consecutive England games with a goal.
Equalled this with 12 - will likely break this at the Nations League in September.
Basically. The guy is a fucking legend and he's 24.
Think its only just sinking in looking at that tweet how remarkable some of our boys have done this year.
We've gone from failure having an echo of glory to glory having an echo of failure running through our team. I love it! Massive achievements for both of them as well as all of the others that took part
I have been issued a "yellow card". So much for free speech. That's the way to stop a discussion in here - just press "foul" a few times and make anybody who disagrees with you go away.
Probably shouldn’t come in here slagging off one of the greatest strikers in tottenham’s history then, should you.
We don’t sing “he’s one of our own” for nothing…
Obvious troll is obvious.
And you still haven’t answered the question you were asked – who, realistically, could we sign that is better than Kane?
Answer or fuck off, frankly.
Who realistically can anyone sign that's better than Kane. That's an even bigger question he should be asking himself but he won't because if he knew anything about football we all know what his answer would be
Harry Kane is our best no. 10 and no. 9, but he can't play both roles simultaneously.
As i said earlier. When a someone new signs up and the very first thing they do is start slagging of Spurs players, red flags go up.
Any name I'd tender would be immediately ridiculed (and "fouled").
Free speech is not freedom from the consequences of your speech. Please don't play the victim here; you surely knew that your opinion would be very controversial
Giroud?
Of course I knew. But why cry "foul"? Isn't "disagree" enough?