PaulC Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) I can never understand this lets see what he does next season. We can only deal with the present! Nobody can see into the future so whats the point of those type of comments. I'm pleased we have an English striker that is outscoring all the the expensive imports and that it gives hope to our national team. Yes I'd rather he was a Villa player but I don't begrudge him because he plays for Spurs. As highly as I rate Benteke he is not a natural goalscorer like Kane. He might be more naturally gifted but he could learn a lot from Kane's movement. Edited March 28, 2015 by PaulC 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordoncharles Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 "He's scoring goals in the Premier League and now he's doing it at international level" said Rooney. Except as far as these qualifiers are concerned "international level" is some way short of Premier League level, the same as it's short of the standard of every major European league, and several times 1.6km short of "Champions League" level. I admit that I have given up entirely on international football except for the knock out rounds of the major competitions as the rest of it is a giant waste of time, energy and money; a delusion for the foolish. Still, there is going to come a time, simply by the law of averages, when the next-big-thing actually lives up to the hype (remember the outrage in the press when Guaradiola suggested Barcelona had players as good as Jack Wilshere in their B team? Turned out Guardiola underplayed his hand), and so I have some sympathy with OutbyEaster's post. It's perfectly valid to suggest that we wait and see about Kane before declaring him to be the latest saviour as nobody can be sure if he can repeat his current success over time or whether he's going to be the new Michu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YLN Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 I admit that I have given up entirely on international football except for the knock out rounds of the major competitions as the rest of it is a giant waste of time, energy and money; a delusion for the foolish. In sharp contrast with premier league football which is a sophistication reserved for the measured and realistic. I'd love to hear your justification for how the patronage of any top level professional football isn't a waste of time, energy and money, without a healthy degree of foolish delusion. I'm not sure what you're so smug about basically, such that you can call me, because I like going to international football, foolish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordoncharles Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) I admit that I have given up entirely on international football except for the knock out rounds of the major competitions as the rest of it is a giant waste of time, energy and money; a delusion for the foolish. In sharp contrast with premier league football which is a sophistication reserved for the measured and realistic. I'd love to hear your justification for how the patronage of any top level professional football isn't a waste of time, energy and money, without a healthy degree of foolish delusion. I'm not sure what you're so smug about basically, such that you can call me, because I like going to international football, foolish. If you like it, good for you, but I don't because unlike you I don't consider the qualification process for any of these competitions to be top-level. they're way, way behind, and fundamentally uncompetitive. The time was that international football was the highest level of football, but that was an era in which, apart from a handful of stars, everyone pretty much played in their own country. Bringing together the cream of the talent of domestic leagues automatically raised the standard. But that's all changed now as all the world's best players play for Champions League sides and any half-decent pro from anywhere in the world plays in a major European League. In the 1970 World Cup Finals only 8 players in the entire tournament played outside their own land, in 1978 it was still only 22. In last year's World Cup (albeit the number of teams has doubled) there were 462 foreign players. As for the Euros, there's the splitting of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavian teams into about 20 independent nations and the arrival onto the scene of Conference North standard nations like Andorra, San Marino, Faroes and Gibraltar. This is quality? Edited March 29, 2015 by gordoncharles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 uncompetitive? only England and Slovakia have a 100% record after 5 games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordoncharles Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 uncompetitive? only England and Slovakia have a 100% record after 5 games Of course it's uncompetitive. 53 participants, 23 of which qualify, and the non-qualifying 30 will include the likes of Kazakhstan, Andorra, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Georgia, Gibraltar, Estonia, San Marino, Faroes, Moldova, Malta, Azerbaijan, Armenia. Even Leichtenstein are currently in with a chance of qualifying for the play-offs. 23 of the 53 nations in it didn't even exist as FIFA or UEFA members more than 25 years ago. Most of the matches are Championship standard at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Have to say the England group is so boring, can't get into the games at all and that isn't England's fault, just the format. Belgium were nearly drawn into England's group, those would've been two exciting and interesting games at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAZZAM Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 When u speak of Harry Kane YOU must include all his goals (even Micky mouse Europa league goals)to make him sound more impressive. Rule of Harry Kane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 29, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 29, 2015 I actually think the format has made the tournament better so far. It's boring for the "big" nations. But it's given a lot of hope for smaller nations and the games have benefited as a result. Under the normal format we'd still have these fixtures, but 90% of them would be meaningless because most of the teams have no chance of qualifying. With this format those borderline nations actually have a chance of qualifying and it's resulting in some much more interesting games. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 It's boring for the "big" nations. But it's given a lot of hope for smaller nations and the games have benefited as a result. Agreed. the 2nd tier countries have really stepped up their game and caused a few problems. Germany, Holland and Italy with a total of 8 wins from 15 games combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 When u speak of Harry Kane YOU must include all his goals (even Micky mouse Europa league goals)to make him sound more impressive. Rule of Harry Kane. He's still the top scorer in the PL, tied with Diego Costa and ahead of the likes of Aguero so. I don't understand why people are so reluctant to give Harry Kane credit. It's this weird football hipsterism I notice a lot where any player getting recognition is due to "hype" and not because they're actually performing well. For a 21 year old to score 19 goals in the PL by March, the first of which came in the middle of November (and being one of the top scorers in Europe if you include his "Micky Mouse" goals) is very impressive and deserving of all the praise he gets. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 In the long term, playing against the minnow nations and getting more teams involved in the actual tournament will increase the quality over time. Look at the African nations now compared to just 30 years ago in the WC's, they're making Quarter finals regularly. The more chance of these small nations reaching a Tournament, the more professional coaches they can encourage to manage them, which increases quality. As a "senior" nation, we just have to accept this, and encourage the small nations to participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I'm disappointed that Kane is doing well because it may actually make England do well. I detest the national side so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Kane's an exciting addition for England, the annoying factor is the media's hyperbole. Listening to a game at the weekend the commentator was wittering on about the 'Kane effect'. He must be the first player in history to score shortly after coming on. I know England fans haven't exactly had much to cheer about but the media can make you resent these players before they've done anything, see Jack Wilshere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 30, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted March 30, 2015 I'm disappointed that Kane is doing well because it may actually make England do well. I detest the national side so much. This is a bizarre point of view. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 When u speak of Harry Kane YOU must include all his goals (even Micky mouse Europa league goals)to make him sound more impressive. Rule of Harry Kane. He's still the top scorer in the PL, tied with Diego Costa and ahead of the likes of Aguero so. I don't understand why people are so reluctant to give Harry Kane credit. It's this weird football hipsterism I notice a lot where any player getting recognition is due to "hype" and not because they're actually performing well. For a 21 year old to score 19 goals in the PL by March, the first of which came in the middle of November (and being one of the top scorers in Europe if you include his "Micky Mouse" goals) is very impressive and deserving of all the praise he gets.Agree, I don't understand how anybody could dislike a young English striker who actually scores goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Because of the media! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 True but thats not his fault and he can't be good for him all this media attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I'm disappointed that Kane is doing well because it may actually make England do well. I detest the national side so much. This is a bizarre point of view. Nah. It interrupts PL football, our players either get tapped up or injured on duty and England players are generally detestable and hard to get behind. I quite like Kane though now. Seems a decent lad and knows where the net is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Aside from the obvious, England don't look that shit (on paper) compared with a lot of teams at the moment. I don't think it is a surprise that the teams with long term national plans, Germany & Spain, are miles ahead of everyone else (at least in terms of quality & strength in depth). England usually qualify just as well as those teams but the lack of quality really shows at tournaments. Those two aside, and France who will peak in time for a home tournament, the rest of Europe's 'big nations' are around the same level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts