Gary Neville has claimed that Manchester City would have the Premier League title sewn up if they had managed to buy Harry Kane during the summer.
City were heavily linked with a move for Kane all through the summer transfer window but Daniel Levy remained resolute and managed to hold on to the striker.
However, the England captain has not hit the ground running at the start of the campaign and has looked lacking in sharpness, with some pundits even questioning his motivation to perform in a Tottenham shirt.
Some sources have indicated that City are unlikely to reignite their interest in Kane in the future and that the striker could be open to signing a new deal with Spurs.
The 28-year-old has shown some signs of regaining his form over recent days, netting a hattrick against NS Mura on Thursday and showing glimpses of his quality in the 2-1 win over Aston Villa on Sunday.
Despite the fact that Kane is yet to open his account in the Premier League this season, Neville confidently asserted that the striker would have been the difference for City in a game like the one at Anfield on Sunday.
The former Manchester United defender told Sky Sports: “I know Pep likes to play with a team of midfielders, but there is that doubt that exists only through them lacking a striker.
“If Manchester City had Harry Kane, I’m telling you now this league is done. It would be done.
“Forget the form that Kane is currently in. Against Liverpool with those City players, he’d have definitely taken one of those chances in the first half. He’s gold, so he’d remove any doubt that I have about City.”
Spurs Web Opinion
I do think Kane would have hit the ground running at City had they pushed through a deal for the striker in the summer.
With the number of chances Pep Guardiola’s men create, the England captain would have scored well over 30 goals for them for each of the next few years.
That is why I was all the more baffled that City did not push the boat to get Kane in the summer. Whether they return for him in January will likely depend on their position in the table at that time.
Have something to tell us about this article?