by Of all Gareth Southgate’s strategies to win the Euros, few expected Harry Kane to reinvent himself as Erling Haaland.
On the surface that seems like a great plan for the country and any striker. The role is distinctive and in some ways old school; playing as much as possible on the shoulders of the last defender, staying on the edge of the action while the midfielders take on all the creative responsibilities, patiently waiting for one moment to strike.
The problem with a player of Kane’s multiple abilities is that it reduces his effectiveness by 50 percent. Kane is a modern multi-tasking substitute who was reduced to one-dimensionality during the 1-0 win over Serbia.
If Southgate continues with the same system for the rest of the tournament, his 9 will be put in serious jeopardy. Maybe too much. After coming into the Euros with Phil Foden’s feud, after one game Southgate has Kane’s head.
In the first half, Kane registered only two touches of the ball. For a player of his class, that’s a big concern.
By full-time that had risen to 24, showing that he was more involved in the second half – ironic given that England were less dominant in possession. There is a tactical curiosity that Kane was not involved at all when England played well. When he didn’t, he nearly scored and had more possession.
I have always distinguished the main players up front between great players and great players. Haaland is a great scorer. Kane is a great player who has scored many goals.
The reason he is first class is because he doesn’t need to score to make an impact on a game.
At his best, he is the No. 1 goal scorer. 9, 9 false and No 10 creative.
Redefining himself as a poacher to accommodate so many team-mates looking to land a world-class spot, the No 10 position will be Southgate’s most controversial decision if England fall short.
Kane is at his best when he is surrounded by pace. At the last three international tournaments, he liked to drop deep and provide passes to quick and wide strikers such as Bukayo Saka and Raheem Sterling, or (when selected) Marcus Rashford.
Even when England dominated during the first 30 minutes against Serbia, Saka was the only attacker to run beyond the defence. He was brilliant, but he had too much responsibility to make those runs. The lack of pace that hurt England the longer the game progressed, so it was surprising that Anthony Gordon wasn’t introduced. There is also an argument that Ollie Watkins should have replaced Kane in the last 20 minutes as he is faster and could rejuvenate him physically.
It’s true, Kane was of little value when he went against the crossbar on 77 minutes. Like Haaland, such opportunities define the interpretations of whether he played well or not.
Score and the job is done. Fail to do so and questions begin to be asked about whether the wider contribution is sufficient. But while Haaland strikes me as a striker who measures himself only on the goalkeeper, Kane does not. I’m not sure playing the old fashioned battering ram against a physical centre-half is a role he likes or wants. He wasn’t playing like that in the Euro opener because of unselfishness. It was a necessity, not a choice. The fans demanded it from him.
The England captain suggested in his post-match interview that the set-up was specifically designed for the opening game. We will have to see what tweaks, if any, are made against Denmark and Slovenia.
Southgate’s game plan proves that you can never be the international manager everyone wants. With the competition coming up before the championship, both Jude Bellingham and Foden were keen to play as a Number 10, and against Serbia they did so. They were always central. With Trent Alexander-Arnold also in there, it was too crowded for Kane to occupy those spaces.
Southgate’s plight in this profile of the England squad reminds me of the decisions facing Vicente Del Bosque with the formidable Spanish side who continued their World Cup success by defending the Euros in 2012.
Del Bosque had a number of players who all held the same position, and had to make room for Xavi, Busquets, Andres Iniesta, Xabi Alonso, David Silva and Cesc Febregas. His solution was to pick them all, Spain winning the final with no recognized striker. Great players made it work.
England have a long way to go to compare with one of the greatest international teams of all time, but it is an example of how managers can ensure they get their best players on the pitch at the same time.
The conundrum is whether what is gained by having so many high-class personnel in the line is lost with the arrangement.
The question for Southgate is this: what serves the side better? Maximize Kane’s full potential or continue to flood the space “between the lines” where he works at his best?
In the short term, I would expect Southgate to stick with the Sunday night plan. But from now on, getting the most out of Kane is the only way England can win the tournament.
