this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Football / Soccer / Calcio / Futebol / Fußball
142 readers
2 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Btw anyone who still thinks that Haaland had a more impressive season than Kane last year should look at their respective big chances scored/missed. The fact that they were just 4 non-penalty goals apart was laughable.
Completely agree Kane's been better this season and is a more complete striker thsn Haaland generally. But the revisionism around last season is also laughable. How about we start by looking at their stats in all competitions rather than the Prem?
Both Haaland and Kane were incredibly prolific in the Prem. Haaland maintained that goalscoring rate in all competitions (all games really) he played in. Kane didn't. Haaland scored 36 in the Prem and Kane scored 30 in the Prem. 6 goal difference and 4 non penalty goal difference which is what you, all other Spurs fans and a lot of other people are referring to generally when revising last season. But why exactly would you ignore the 18 non Premier League games Haaland played in last season and the 11 non Premier League games Kane played in last season?
Haaland scored 16 in those 18 games. Kane scored 2 in those 11 games. That's a massive reason why City were able to compete on all fronts last season and won an actual treble. It feels disgusting that I have to say anything against Kane because I love him as a player and I'm proud we have an English player of his bracket right now. But the amount of disrespect Haaland's been getting from this same Kane comparison that only accounts for their Premier League goals is insane. It's 52 goals and 9 assists all comps in 53 games vs 32 goals and 5 assists all comps in 49 games not just 36 goals vs 30 goals. And I'm all for giving a disclaimer with those stats to say Haaland played in a much much better side than Kane last season. But don't be disingenuous by making out their numbers were basically the same last season, because they weren't.
This doesn't even just go for last season. This season Kane's been the more prolific goalscorer. But Haaland's scored a goal a game for basically his entire career (including at Salzburg, Dortmund and Norway so not just City) and he's only 23. If you were to plot player's careers as a curve on a graph, Haaland's would be a lot steeper than Kane's at the same age. He's a lot further along at his age than Kane was at 23. And that's all you can do to compare - look at their trajectories. If Haaland plateus and never becomes as complete as Kane is now in terms of holdup play and playmaking then you can say that. But up until this season Haaland has been a better goalscorer than Kane and it's only November so there's a good chance Haaland returns to his more clinical self and ends up being more prolific this season too.
I don't lean either way Haaland or Kane in terms of who I like more. But I don't like it when players get disrespected and fans start to twist the truth to big up their own player. From a neutral: Kane is the better/more complete striker right now, up until this season Haaland was the better goalscorer, we are currently only 15 games into the season so Haaland could still be the better goalscorer by the time the season ends, Haaland is a better player now than Kane was at the same age. All of these things are backed up by the stats as long as you don't twist them to fit whatever narrative you're trying to push.
This doesn't just happen in a vacuum. Kane didn't magically turn into a "better goalscorer" this year because he's reached some new level at Bayern. He's scoring at this rate because he finally plays in a team where he gets like 1.04xg per game, and since he pretty much always overperforms his xg, he's looking like the best striker in the world "right now". Haaland didn't magically become better after joining City either.
As for your claims about last season, I just compared the two strikers' lethality in front of goal when a big chance comes their way. According to their prem stats, Haaland had 59 big chances, scored 31, missed 28, which means he converted them 52% of the time. Kane had 34 big chances, scored 22 and missed 12, which means he converted 64% of the time. I know that there's a lot more to football than statistics, but do we really doubt that if Kane had 25 additional big chances, he might score at least 4 of them? Or even 6 of them?
The only good point you bring up is Kane's champions league record last year. Let's just say that Conte didn't exactly have a sterling record when it came to european competitions, and that was reflected in the performance of his players(it was a tough watch, let me tell you). However, before that season, he was on 20 champions league goals in 23 matches and this season he's got 4 in 4. I'm not saying he couldn't have played better in those matches, but the Conte effect in Europe is real lol.
By the way, I'm never going to deny that Haaland is anything other than world-class and he's likely gonna be in everyone's top 3 strikers lists for the next 10 years, but I still wouldn't say he's in the top 5 finisher itw(I probably should have worded that part a bit differently in my original comment). I just feel that some people don't always put things into perspective when talking about how player x who plays for this team must be better than player y who plays for a worse team because of their output. Hell, even as a fan of Kane's I can sympathize with someone like Serhou Guirassy, who's likely gonna play second fiddle to Kane this season, much like Kane did to Haaland last season, solely because his team won't be able to provide him with the same kind of service in the long run.