It's baffling, isn't it? Even in the year 2025, the debate rages on: is Harry Kane's tendency to drop deep for England a problem? You'd think the argument would have faded by now, especially considering his brilliant performances. But here we are, again.
Let's dive into the heart of the matter. Craig Hope's reaction in the Daily Mail seems to pinpoint the moment his heart breaks:
"Morgan Rogers chose a bad time to have his first quiet game for England last month, and here was his second. Now that Jude Bellingham is back, the noise for his inclusion will grow, just like the cheer that welcomed his replacement of Rogers in the second half."
Hope spent the last two international breaks trying to convince everyone that England didn't need Bellingham, even hinting at preparations without him. But, after a couple of underwhelming games, the argument crumbles.
Rogers is portrayed as a 'spectator,' lacking the necessary skill, with his progress seemingly stalled. And, of course, there's a dig at Bellingham's 'positional discipline,' as he 'can wander like the star he believes he should be for England.'
But here's where it gets controversial... Hope seems to be right about Tuchel's smart management, but the reaction to it? Not so much.
You Kane hardly believe it: The narrative that Kane shouldn't drop deep persists. Ian Ladyman suggests it's 'infuriating' to see one of the world's best strikers roaming midfield, playing phenomenal passes, before joining the attack. This is despite Kane's incredible form, often playing behind a striker for Bayern Munich.
As Kane himself said after an inspirational performance: "I think it was one of my best games, probably of my career, to be honest, in terms of affecting the game in all different ways." He likes to get involved and excels at it. It's not like Wayne Rooney, dragging out his career, aimlessly passing the ball.
Sure, it's one thing in a mild November game, another in a World Cup summer against better teams. But building that argument seems premature, especially with a winter break coming up.
The question is, why focus on the negative?
Surprise, Surprise:
Phil Foden was credited with a "key" role in Eberechi Eze's wonderful goal. But this is where things get weird.
John Cross writes in the Daily Mirror player ratings of Declan Rice: 'No surprise he delivered a free kick which led to a goal.'
Rash Decision:
There's nothing wrong with differing opinions, but this is a stark contrast.
"Marcus Rashford, who did not even go to Germany, had a clear chance to book his ticket to North America last night. But the on-loan Barcelona forward failed to grab it" – Neil McLeman, Daily Mirror.
"Rashford’s form for Barcelona is being mirrored for England now and he was arguably his country’s best player on an otherwise rather slow night at Wembley” – Ian Ladyman, Daily Mail.
So, Rashford either 'flattered to deceive' or is 'wrapping up another position' in this England side.
Admission Impossible:
Liverpool gets an 'Antoine Semenyo boost' as Bournemouth admits they won't stand in a player's way if they want to leave, if the new club is 'higher in the food chain,' and if it makes sense financially. Is that a boost, or the obvious after Bournemouth sold players for about £150 million?
What do you think? Do you agree with the criticism of Kane's deep-lying role, or do you see it as a strength? Let's discuss in the comments!
