When Sheffield United paid a reported £10 million to sign Tom Cannon from Leicester City in January 2025, the move was met with cautious optimism.
Cannon had impressed on loan at Stoke City in the first half of the season, netting 11 goals in 25 appearances. At just 22, he appeared to be a long-term investment with the potential to fire the Blades back into the Premier League.
Instead, many fans now regard him as one of the biggest transfer flops in recent Championship history. The numbers, the tactics, and the opinion around Bramall Lane all suggest that assessment may be harsh—but not unfair.
One Goal, Minimal Contribution
Let’s start with the data. Cannon made 15 appearances for Sheffield United in the Championship and registered just one goal and one assist. That’s a drastic drop-off from his Stoke form earlier in the campaign, where he averaged a goal every 2.27 games. At Bramall Lane, he didn’t look remotely like the same player.
Unlike other strikers who offer value in build-up play or aerial duels even when they don’t score, Cannon struggled to impact games in any area. One fan forum described him as “weak as a kitten,” lacking the aggression or work rate to unsettle defenders. In some matches, he barely registered more than 10 touches. For a £10m forward brought in during a promotion push, that simply wasn’t good enough.
A Tactical Misfit From Day One
Much of the blame lies not just with Cannon himself, but with how he was used. Chris Wilder’s preferred system revolves around a lone striker, capable of holding the ball, linking play and pressing from the front. It’s a role Tyrese Campbell and Kieffer Moore filled with varying degrees of success—but it was never Cannon’s game.
At Stoke, Cannon thrived on quick balls into space, playing off another striker or receiving service from dynamic wide players. United, by contrast, often played with narrow support behind the striker, slow build-up, and little width.
There was little evidence of chemistry with teammates. His movement went unnoticed, his pressing lacked intensity, and when chances did fall to him, decision-making deserted him. Fans noted that he often took too long on the ball or made the wrong pass, highlighting a lack of tactical understanding. Whether that’s a reflection of coaching, confidence, or compatibility, the result was the same: disjointed, ineffective attacking play.
High Price Tag, Low Return
The weight of the £10 million fee cannot be ignored. In the context of the Championship, it’s a sizeable investment. It’s more than double what Sheffield United paid for both Michael Cooper and Harrison Burrows combined. Supporters naturally expected a match-winner, not a bench option with minimal impact.
To make matters worse, Cannon’s arrival disrupted momentum. Campbell was in good form before Cannon joined, and the shift in selection, most notably in the 3–0 defeat to Hull City, seemed to throw off the attacking structure. His arrival felt like that of Rhian Brewster the season prior – another who didn’t fit the system.
It wasn’t just the money—it was the opportunity cost. With injuries to Harry Souttar and the need for defensive reinforcement, many supporters believe the club prioritised the wrong area. Instead of building depth at the back or bringing in a creative midfielder, they invested in a forward who didn’t fit the existing tactical setup.
A Victim of Circumstance?
Still, there are those who argue Cannon deserves more time. He arrived mid-season, walked into a team chasing promotion, and was immediately judged against in-form players. He was also playing second fiddle to Campbell—ironically, a player Stoke City released after favouring Cannon only months earlier.
Sadly, Cannon is a player who likes a partner, who wants to be in and around someone picking up flick ons and making troubling runs at defenders. That’s not how the Blades play (for now) but it is seemingly the way to get the best out of the striker.
That idea has gained traction. Cannon is seen by some as a poacher who thrives off low crosses, through balls, and a strike partner to do the physical work. None of that existed at United, where he was expected to lead the line and manufacture chances himself.
Conclusion: A Price Paid for Poor Planning
Tom Cannon may still prove to be a good Championship striker—but based on his half-season at Bramall Lane, the move looks like a serious misfire. Poorly suited to the system, priced far above his current value, and dropped into a team that didn’t play to his strengths, Cannon struggled to justify any part of his January arrival.
Whether he’s truly the worst Championship transfer of the season is up for debate. But when you weigh fee against output, expectations against delivery, and need against performance, it’s hard to find a deal that backfired more spectacularly. If the Blades do sell him on, it’ll almost certainly be at a loss—and that alone makes the answer to this article’s question a resounding yes.
