I don't know how many people will side with Kane on this one, but I'd like to give this a shot.

Is Harry Kane right now a better player than Wayne Rooney was in his prime?

Kane plays slightly further up the pitch than Rooney did, but he's still extremely effective. Undoubtedly a better goal-scorer than Rooney, Kane has notched 31, 28, 35, and 41 goals in the past four seasons - certainly a fantastic record. Harry Kane also has the record for best goal ratio for a PL Golden Boot winner (29 goals in 30 games).

A prime Rooney was more known for his ability to merge an aggressive, physical style with clever, technical football. Rooney was not as prolific as Kane, but did knock in 34 goals twice in his career.

Who was better? Kane right now or a prime Wayne Rooney?

I’d still take Rooney if I’m honest. Kane has a long way to go.

I would lean Rooney. Of course, I have to acknowledge that Rooney's supporting cast was unreal, but then again Eriksen is no joke either. That being said, prime Rooney was just incredible. Kane is solid, and is getting there, but not yet.

Then again, it's like trying to compare Muller to Klose or something. Their roles were/are very different.

Rooney. Complete player. Rooney can be goalkeeper if you need him and usually if management is tough on him like Sir Alex was then he produces some of the most incredible football. After Sir Alex left the club he just started to slack and get lazy otherwise he should have been still going strong because skills and quality is still there just not the speed and pumped up rage drive to win

It wasn't the fact that Rooney slacked off after Fergie left, his age was starting to affect his overall performance, yes, but he still worked his socks off for the team whilst the rest slacked off (I blame Moyes partly for this).

I'll admit, Kane's a great striker, but Rooney was simply a great all round player. Kane is getting there, however, no doubt. Just a bit of a late bloomer.

rooney has achieved a lot with man utd. but the argument based on team is hard to made given the huge difference in lvl between old man utd and recent spurs. the way to look at it is to ask if harry kane would have played for that man utd team would he had score as much? I am not so sure. hence, I still think rooney benefited a lot from his partnership with cr7 and tevez and kane wouldn't suit to play with those players. kane needs to be fed, while rooney can play the role of a feeder.

If I want a goalscoring striker then I'll take Kane any day. Rooney was a much better technical player but not as prolific.

Will be interesting to see if Kane is able to lead the front line for England and maybe help push them to a title or something. I do believe Kane needs to be in a team that will challenge for every single trophy to get the proper recognition.

Wayne Rooney is one of the best British footballers of all time. Harry Kane is far from that atm.. Maybe when he joins a top tier team he can prove he is worthy of comparison. Right now I feel that comparing Rooney to Kane is absurd tbh. Kane is a great player but he still needs to perform at a higher level and keep his form for 2/3 more seasons to be a contender for Englands best goalscorer ever.

If you ask people in Britain they won’t say Rooney. But for raw ability I would pick him. But as a person to score goals I’d lean towards Harry Kane.

Honestly, Rooney was probably better, but gotta take in mind Kane is still relatively young and his peak will come for few years. Rooney though, he was unbeliveable during his best years, player who was entertaining on field along with very good goalscoring ability and perfomances on different positions... although yes, if stars alligned he could have had few more seasons when he wasn't considered bench player at United.

Rooney > Kane

Rooney in his prime was an absolute beast. Scoring, dribbling, free kicks, tackling...you name it, he did it. I wouldn't pick any other English striker over him in the past 50 odd years.

Rooney for me.

Wayne Rooney, from 2004 to 2017, scored 183 goals in 393 league games (0.47 goals per game) for Manchester United, the undisputed superpower of English football during most of that period.

Harry Kane, from 2014 to 2018, scored 108 goals in 150 league games (0.72 goals per game) for Tottenham Hotspur, a team attempting to cement themselves as a Top 4 regular.

For England, Rooney scored 53 goals in 119 appearances (0.45) playing for England's Golden Generation, while Harry Kane has scored 13 goals in 24 appearances (0.54), playing for an England that nobody around FootyRoom thinks are any good.

It's very hard to make the case that Kane isn't better now than Rooney was in his prime. Rooney himself says that Kane is the best striker in Europe.

Was Rooney ever the best striker in Europe?

Just sayin'. ;)

Yes Rooney was best striker in Europe and was compared to likes of Messi and Ronaldo. Rooney is more rounded player and has many functions in the team not just poacher and scorer.

Yes Rooney was best striker in Europe and was compared to likes of Messi and Ronaldo.

So is Harry Kane.

Rooney is more rounded player and has many functions in the team not just poacher and scorer.

So does Harry Kane:

So, once again we go back to numbers, where Kane is clearly outperforming Rooney's prime.

@Lodatz I guess what most of them are saying that Kane career still isn't as prestigious Rooney career, but the positive is that he clearly got time to change that.

Personally, I think is very hard to compare player who played in different times and in completely different situation. Rooney played with United in a winning team fully of incredible talent that won the league again and again, Kane team is also very good but nowhere as dominant as United. This for me should play a part in the comparison anyway.

Rooney was a wonderkid at Everton and overall had a much better career than all silly Spurs players that won nothing, btw Bale is from Southampton academy :)

@Emobot:

I guess what most of them are saying that Kane career still isn't as prestigious Rooney career,

Well no doubt. Playing for the undisputed superpower of English football will make that happen. But the topic was about is Kane better now than Rooney was in his prime. I think that it's very hard to argue that he isn't.

Kane team is also very good but nowhere as dominant as United. This for me should play a part in the comparison anyway.

But why? Steven Gerrard was better than Michael Carrick, but his team was less dominant. If anything, I think that the fact that Rooney played for a super-team instead of an aspiring one and yet couldn't get the numbers Kane has produced is a point towards Kane, not the other way around.

I think that part of the problem is that you have a consistent narrative on FootyRoom which says that Kane isn't as good as he obviously is. First he was a One Season Wonder. Then he was "one dimensional". Then he was "not a complete forward", etc. All of these criticisms were wrong, and yet nobody (on here) wanted to admit it. Do you recall I talked about this on another thread, when I destroyed Golazo's claims about Chelsea being better than Tottenham? It's just the conventional wisdom, which unfortunately is often just a narrative forged by people who want to harass and annoy someone.

I mean, just look at Golazo's post, which offers nothing by way of value as football analysis, and instead is an obvious attempt to troll me. I guess he never got over me exposing him.

Stats is stats, Lodatz, but I think we can both agree that football back then was a lot of challenging and competitive than it is today. There's no stats to prove this, but football fans who have been watching the game for as long as we did just know it, so its hard to compare Kane with Rooney where both played in very different circumstances.

I mean...Rooney is Man Utd's alltime leading goalscorer as well as England's. To be as good as he was for as long as he was is incredible. It shows how good he was from 04-07 in particular that people were (and are) still disappointed about how he played from 08-13. As if we were somehow cheated by Rooney never hitting his ceiling. Much like many other England players, it may have just been something created by the media and fans, and that people are still disappointed with his career when he's the leading goalscorer for both club and country is inane.

It's hard to overstate the effect Rooney had on United after Ronaldo moved to Madrid. Of course, Rooney hardly ever played truly up front, more in the Muller kind of CF role behind a Berbatov or a Van Persie or something. For that reason a direct comparison with Kane is not as clear as one might hope.

However, it is a common observation that Fergie ran Rooney into the ground for several years, and probably shortened his overall career as a result. The reliance several of those United sides (including a UCL runner-up team) was way too high. Until Kane starts hitting that level of (importance?) it's hard for me to put him higher than Rooney.

wooney