With the benefit of hindsight....

Changed my lottery numbers.

Not clicked on this link if I’d known it was about THAT subject again

I agree that he should have dropped Kane who was not only slow but was missing chances that a year or two ago he would have buried. It definitely did not get the best out of Foden, Saka, Bellingham. I think Palmer tended to come on after Kane had been subbed.

The other player who disappointed me, especially in the KO games was Rice. Another player who is apparently beyond reproach and whose selection cannot be questioned. He struggled under any kind of press and gave the ball away several times in good positions. Someone in that midfield needed to exert control and he never did. Without that, it was somewhat academic whether we played Kane with two flyers or used a striker who would make runs, occupy the defence and stretch the game (Sure Mainoo was absent for large parts of the final but he’s not the golden boy….yet)

Southgate’s selections and tactics have been characterised by making decisions to cover for weaknesses instead of enabling our strengths. So Maguire became critical because he was aerially dominant in both boxes, but in order to play him you then pick Trippier for deadball delivery and Walker for the recovery pace that Maguire doesn't have. Arguably weakening both full back positions.

Kane worked as a centre forward in his 2018 team where we had a lack of midfield ball players - basically Henderson to win it and Dele Alli and Lingard to run past Kane. But in the current squad he clogs up space that others are better at using.

The question is whether the positive atmosphere creates by players feeling secure and valued is outweighed by that lack of ruthlessness in switching things when needed. I would argue he got the balance right initially but we passed that point several years ago.

Edit: and I agree with Guru’s point above about Rice. Ponderous on the ball throughout, always needing an extra touch.

Agree about Rice. In addition to the points made by Guru and des, Rice was almost always at the heart of passages of play where England lost momentum and passed square, backwards or just too bloody slowly.

Sterling was at his best in broken play or when we played on the counter and he was so effective with his pace and had some room. We were really only using Kane and Sterling as attacking outlets (arguably Rashford). It was relatively easy to play against if you were a decent side (as Italy showed in the last final) and we needed a different way. If there is a genuine move to change to a possession-based system that makes the most of players like Foden, Bellingham, Palmer, Saka, Eze etc then Sterling is not as effective (in my opinion) and Kane even less so as it requires a forward with a different skill set. If GS was intent on playing Kane to his “strengths”, he should have taken Rashford and Sterling or played Gordon and another holding midfield player (who didn’t give the ball away). It could have been interesting in the final if he had done that. Eze or Gordon on the left, Saka on the right, no Foden, Bellingham as an 8.

That said, even then Kane would still not have been the right choice!!