I'm not sure guardian columnists have the say over England squads that you seem to think they do.
-
Exactly correct.
-
Agreed. In games against lower quality opposition, where nine outfield players can outrun and dominate an oppositions ten, you can have a spare who chugs around and bags second phase goals, and penalties. They will get very good numbers. When it comes to playing against an equivalent level side where it's all hands to the pump, you need a striker to occupy centre-halves and stretch the play, so that your midfield has an even chance, and options. This is where the true cost of Kane manifests itself, and where the absence of a tested option, with known patterns of play, really hurt.
England generally oscillate between flat track bully, and mid/low block attritional side looking to maximise the return from set pieces, with no real coherent middle ground. We definitely should have tried to find that middle ground. Which would involve a higher, braver, press, and a forward stretching play and making defenders make decisions, when we have the ball.
If you think about the dying seconds Watkins goal in the summer - Kane never scores that. If you think about Bellingham arriving in the box, that's more potent if the striker has dragged the centre-halves around just before that. The second phase back post goals get shared around and scored by wide forwards or midfielders arriving late, rather than concentrated in the hands of Harry Trundle. Taking penalties well is a skill, and very important...but you can find it from one of ten players, without having to have a specialist, worst case. You'll get more penalties if you have forwards running past defenders, even if your conversion rate isn't as high.
It's not like I've ever suggested that Kane should be taken round the back of the shed and shot (maybe now). Just that when we have a game against a good side, it would be handy to have an option to have ten outfield players contributing, and causing attritional things to happen to open up space later in the game. Of which Kane could be an option to prosper from that. The idea that it's okay to toss in forward runs, because he can drop and play the odd pass as a no. 10 is just gaslighting. We have more, better quality, creative players that Kane doesn't get in the team ahead of, and we are struggling to shoehorn into the team. Don't make things worse by clogging the area up with a carthorse.
It has been a complete nonsense, in footballing terms, to have a striker that plays 90 minutes in every game. Let alone one with no first phase movement. It happens nowhere else, in any form of football. Let alone them be captain, when they are clearly not a captain.
...but....Brand England.
Well. I think that they have no say, so I'm pretty sure that they do.
The problem is that not enough people say what they see, and instead rely on all those loverly numbers. So it's okay for the F.A. (use) to keep cranking the handle.
...on Brand Engerland.
The idea that there was only one option, I do not find compelling.
-
All of this totally ignores how you play the game with a striker like Kane. Did Haaland, Benzema, Drogba, Ibrahimovic, van nistelrooy, Lorente, Klose stretch the play? You don't need to stretch the play if you have a half a dozen whippets running around you and you have the range of world class passing and touches to bring them into the game and the shooting ability to mop up their pieces. Not many players can do that and if you have someone who can and someone who is a world class finisher you're going to use them. It's as simple as that. It might be a different conversation Olie Watkins or any other English centre forward who can press and run was world class, but they simply aren't.
-
I'm more Team Tricky than not on this one. But, at the very least, England should have been experimenting with other strikers, succession planning, allowing Kane to rest properly, and trying out different systems with different styles of striker.
-
...or utilising Kane's finishing, after a runner has ground down the opposition defence.
Unfortunately the debate is generally dominated by idiots with an over-reliance on numbers, and binary opinions.
-
I agree that Kane’s England career should now be off the bench, rather than over completely. It looks like the argument is “he played one defence-splitting pass and showed off his new stop-start penalty routine, so he has to start.”
Carsley has at lease demonstrated it’s possible to play without him. Will be interesting to see what Tuchel does.
-
I love this one. If you are stats minded compare fodens passing stats with Kane's (because Kane's value is dropping in as a ten, not making striker runs. Right?) - UEFA has player stats for the current campaigns. Then imagine how more effective foden would be with runs ahead of him, instead of towards him.
-
Foden? Surely MGW
-
You don’t have to imagine. You can just look at Haaland’s effectiveness for Man City.
When it comes to sport, a lot of the people who rely on “stats” don’t really understand statistics, probability or the models that go into these metrics. On top of that, as ever, context is everything.
-
Foden has been largely garbage for England.
-
Helpful statement. Why do you think that is?
-
I blame Harry Kane
-
I genuinely don't know. Sometimes some players who are great in the league can never settle internationally, and he seems like he may be one of them. 40 odd caps and the only time he's played well was for about 45 mins in one of the first round games in the world cup to my memory. Could be positions, he is better on the left but seems to be deeper for England. Could be he doesn't have the head for it. But he is way behind the likes of Bellingham, Saka, Kane in terms of impact he's made for England and influence he's had on games. Way way behind.
-
I think that was sufficient.
-
It's also plausible that he's the kind of player who can only flourish in a Pep-type system. England's midfield lacks the control and fluidity seen at City and is always likely to as it takes a group of players who train together day in, day out to play that way usually. Without a midfield capable of dominating possession and progressing the ball as effectively, he can't do the quick combinations, off-ball movement etc that he is good at, and it may be he is not good enough to adapt to play any other way. A one trick pony if you will.
