Looking at the Norway and Argentina games together, I think Kane showed two different kinds of performance. Against Norway he was quietly world class, even without filling the highlights. He kept dropping in, linked everything together, occupied defenders and created space for the runners around him. England's attack functioned because of the work he was doing, even if it wasn't the flashy stuff.
Tonight, I thought he was good rather than world class. He did plenty of good work early on and was involved in England's best attacking spells, but once England dropped deeper he became isolated and couldn't really influence the game in the same way. That's not all on him, but the very best performances tend to come with a defining moment when the game is in the balance, and that never really came. Over the two games, I'd say one world-class performance and one very good one.
His strength is football IQ and technique rather than intelligence or pace and that requires looking closely at the game and understanding it to assess impact rather drawing a colourful heat map. Any number of forwards can run, but very very few can influence games, grasp moments or finish as well as him.
But you're setting me up to defend him after two games which aren't his best, which is palpably unfair. If you want to understand how good he is and why what he does is harder than running and pressing ask why Nicolas Jackson, who can run and press all day long, was so much less effective in the same squad as him. Look at his stats across the year. Watch what he does next year.