Should a striker be a summer priority for Spurs?

Tottenham have signed RB Leipzig's Timo Werner on loan to plug the gap created by Son Heung-min's current absence at the Asian Cup. But should a permanent and more direct Harry Kane replacement be a priority in the summer, or are there enough goals in the current squad to focus priorities elsewhere?

FC Basel v FC Bayern München - Friendly Match
FC Basel v FC Bayern München - Friendly Match / Christian Kaspar-Bartke/GettyImages
facebooktwitterreddit

Amidst the hysteria traditionally associated with the January transfer window, a new striker didn't appear to be at the top of Tottenham Hotspur's shopping list, as all the early talk surrounding the club's potential activity was about signing central defenders, box-to-box midfielders, and wingers.

That is, of course, until the surprise arrival of Germany's former Chelsea star, Timo Werner, whose link to the club came out of nowhere.

Werner's transfer, however, is a mere six-month loan deal, meaning it appears - at least initially - to be a short-term solution with Son Heung-min's absence due to the Asian Cup in mind. He'll likely take up his strongest position on the left, with Richarlison spearheading the attack. As much as everyone will hope he does well, Spurs' fortunes with loan signings aren't great, one or two recent exceptions aside. With all that in mind, Werner may return to RB Leipzig when his loan spell ends - and, to be blunt, his performances at Chelsea and, more recently, at Leipzig suggest he's no longer a prolific goalscorer. It has to be assumed Ange Postecoglou sees something in him, but it still raises the issue of the possible need for a permanent new top-class addition to provide regular goals.

Timo Werner
RB Leipzig v VfL Bochum 1848 - Bundesliga / Cathrin Mueller/GettyImages

Harry Kane's departure last summer left a gaping hole in Spurs' frontline. While players like Son, Richarlison, and Dejan Kulusevski have done the utmost to contribute their fair share of goals in his absence, someone who's more of an out-and-out goalscorer who can practically guarantee 20+ league goals every season is always welcome in any squad.

Some argue that Son is that player; others say it could be Richarlison. But, as good as Son is, his best years are probably behind him, and he won't be around forever. Moreover, why go from having Kane and  Son to just having Son? And, let's be completely honest, while Richarlison is a valuable player on his best day, it's hardly revelatory to say he's nowhere near Kane's standard regarding putting the ball in the back of the net.

The likes of Dane Scarlett and the injured Alejo Véliz have potential, as do several other youngsters in Spurs' various academy age groups. Still, there's no telling if that potential will result in them being top-class players - and they certainly aren't ready to step into Kane's boots.

Ideally, as soon as England's captain went out the door, ENIC should've dug deeper into their pockets and replaced him with a superstar striker. Less demanding fanbase members will insist Spurs spent the Kane money - and spent it well - on James Maddison, Mickey van de Ven, Guglielmo Vicario, and the other summer recruits. At the same time, the more ruthless supporters will claim Maddison is the Christian Eriksen replacement the club had needed for three years and that there was plenty of surplus money available to have bought a direct Kane replacement in addition to the other summer signings, with some understandably believing it was downright neglectful to let a £100 million striker leave without a ready-made replacement (after all, the club is announcing new avenues of income - sponsorships, partnerships, affiliates, concerts, other sporting events, etc. - on a startlingly prolific basis, and that much-discussed stadium debt is being paid off quickly and easily without having a significant impact on the club's hefty balance).

The need for a direct Kane replacement is undoubtedly a debate-worthy topic. Still, there's no debating that Spurs don't have a natural successor to Kane who'll provide numbers similar to the iconic striker. He's undeniably a considerable miss, regardless of how well the existing players work together to compensate for the goals he provided.

In the likable Australian Postecoglou, the club finally has a manager most of the fanbase believes deserves to be fully backed. That means giving him the players he wants in every position on the pitch. Truthfully, nobody knows if Postecoglou even wants a new striker brought in permanently, but why wouldn't he? He's won silverware everywhere he's managed, and Spurs have been trophy-averse for 16 years. Postecoglou knows what it takes to win, including the importance of depth in squad quality, and that notion applies more than ever now that he's plying his trade in arguably the toughest league on the planet.

So, while Spurs' January window sees them linked to players like Genoa's Radu Drăgușin to plug the defensive gap, Chelsea's Conor Gallagher for that pivotal box-to-box role, and Al-Ittihad's Jota for some extra threat on the wings (and while Werner provides a temporary option in Son's absence and until his loan ends), should the summer priority be a new out-and-out goalscorer?

The teams regarded as the best in the world all possess that one player who regularly scores a similar number of goals to Harry Kane. Manchester City has Erling Haaland, Liverpool has Mo Salah, Barcelona has Robert Lewandowski, Paris Saint-Germain has Kylian Mbappé, and Bayern Munich has Kane himself. If Spurs wish to be as successful as those teams domestically and in Europe - which they consistently claim is their ultimate aim - common sense suggests they need someone they can regularly rely on to compete with those superstars' numbers.

Many Lilywhites fans will say they'd love to see someone brought in whose sole purpose is to emulate Kane's contribution - Ivan Toney, Victor Osimhen, Dušan Vlahović, Ollie Watkins, Jonathan David, Evan Ferguson, and Dominic Solanke are some of the names suggested as potential successors to the legend's goalscoring throne - and nobody would complain if someone of that ilk were brought in. The thought of James Maddison providing such a player with regular assists is mouthwatering. Other fans insist the club will do okay sharing the goalscoring burden more generously throughout the squad, with Maddison playing his part in consolidating the contributions of Son, Richarlison, and the rest of Spurs' forward line.

What do you think? Given their undoubted financial might, their supposed aspirations for tangible success, and the monumental loss of the top goalscorer in the club's history, should Spurs' hierarchy actively seek to sign a new striker to replace Harry Kane in the summer? Who should they be looking at? Will Timo Werner surprise everyone and force the Lilywhites to sign him permanently as Kane's successor? Should another striker be signed even if Werner signs permanently? Should the club be looking to offload any existing attackers to make way for a new one? Or are Son, Richarlison, and company all that's needed to bring that elusive silverware back to N17 after a tragic and - in modern times, at least - unprecedented 16-year trophy drought? Let us know your thoughts on the striker situation at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.

feed