Hard to believe that the **** Harry Kane is going to end up being England's all time greatest goal scorer, it's almost like he's quite a good player.
Good goalscorer, but compared to Lewandowski and other great forwards who've helped their clubs win league titles, domestic cups and Champions Leagues, Kane's best accolade of 'England's Top Goalscorer' won't look that impressive. 28-years-old without a major trophy is disappointing for someone who's regarded as one of the best.
How would you describe some of the Paralympians who came fourth of fifth? Losing an fa cup final for hull city was pretty successful for us
To you perhaps it was successful but to me we were unsuccessful in winning the FA Cup. To reach the final was a great achievement. Sometimes it’s a great achievement just to take part and I am absolutely proud of the para Olympians wether they come first second or last. I think you know what I mean about Alf Ramsey, his success was winning the World Cup. No other manager has achieved that.
Le Tissier was considered ****-hot for Southampton but never won anything. Individual players who stand out in mediocre teams and don't win important trophies aren't at the same level as world-class players who've helped their teams win the biggest trophies at club and international level. It is a team sport after all. Kane could win the golden boot at Spurs every season until he retires and break Shearer's record without winning a single trophy for club or country and his career would be considered less successful than Olivier Giroud's.
Winning means winning by coming first doesn’t it? At least in a competition it does. Or maybe you subscribe to David Coleman’s view in his over excited commentary on a British competitor “ She has won bronze! And you can’t do better than that!”
Bill Shankly would have disagreed with you on Tom Finney. Le Tissier, scorer of many of my favourite goals, would have no doubt one things if he had moved to a better club and surrounded by better players. Wouldn’t necessarily mean he was a better player though. If Messi or Ronaldinho had played for Southampton they wouldn’t have won anything but it wouldn’t have meant they were crap players.
I'm not saying the likes of Le Tissier and Kane are 'crap'. It's quite clear they're exceptional players but not on the same level as the players who've won league titles, Champions League and international tournaments.
What is the point of this tangent. Surely we all agree that Kane is an excellent player but is yet to win anything. That's why he wants to go and play for a club that can win things. What is there to argue and what does it have to do with his performance for England?
Clearly not - nowt to do with their team mates being at a lower level than those defined by you as at a higher level with higher quality team mates enhancing their chances of reaping awards (titles etc etc) ?
You don't think there's a connection between a player's club career and how they perform at international level? He's scored in every qualifier but he's also missed several sitters he should be scoring in those same games. It's hard to ignore the possibility that the whole transfer fiasco over the summer has affected his concentration and performances on the pitch. He looked off-the-boil in the group games at the Euros too so it's not too far-fetched that all the speculation about his future is affecting how he plays. Him playing for a better club that actually competes and wins trophies alongside players of much better quality than Spurs can only be a good thing for England.
Second half reminded me of that wonky home snooker table, when all the balls end up in one corner. All the play was in the far corner (left side upfront), with Grealish, Mount, Shaw, and then Kane, Phillips, Rice, Harry dipping in and playing it very tight but no one seemed able or willing to spread it. All I could assume was that the pitch tilted dramatically into that corner. Not sure if there are any stats that show percentage in that quarter (am been very generous with the quarter)
Have a look at the club careers and what they had won before the World Cup in 1966. Hardly a lot in the majority of cases.
Messi aint done a lot at international level. That's why for me I'd always put Ronaldo ahead of him, continuously dragging a crap team to the business part of the tournament.
