• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

World Cup 2026: Mexico, USA and Canada

thfcsteff said:
I am intrigued as to what you mean by 'he has to listen to his manager and do what he's told'?

I think Kane did too much of that with Tuchel TBH. He trogged along last night in that desperate last 30 mins where he did, indeed, look utterly ineffective. Meanwhile, Argentina brought subs on to make the very most of what Messi can do in terms of playing a perfect pass or cross.
Click to expand...

It's things like where he plays, If Tuchel wants him to drop deep or drift into the channels then he should. If Tuchel wants him to stay at the point of the spear then he should. Regardless of this, I do believe Kane could offer more for the receiving pass. He is more than capable of receiving the ball under pressure and retaining it or winning a free kick, He is also way better with his back to goal than we've seen. He is 6'2" and a strong guy yet there were quite a few uncontested headers last night. Kane wasn't prepared to be the big man and left his feet planted and pretended he was being fouled. Now I get that if you're a diminutive Defoe, but if you're ripped like Harry then he has to compete better. I actually think the ref also clocked it and therefore gave Harry no change.

As I've said above though, we're looking at a 7 game series in the WC and Kane came off after 84 mins against Panama. He's played every other minute. Look for root causes of last night and that is probably high on the list. The dreaded red zone. He's been as low as 19 touches in 100 mins in one of the games. I don't think player or manager has optimised Harry this world cup where he has generally been at 100% unlike the last one. I guess you could say that about a few other players as well though.

My interest is actually looking forward. What has happened has happened but we're no longer talking about a 29 or 30 year old Kane. He's 33 this month and he is quite a big built guy. He's not built for marathons so how do we plan for an England at the Euro's with a 35 year old Kane? Messi has managed it by doing a lot of walking and then coming alive. That entire system is designed that way. Does Kane revert to a "finisher" of game like we saw with Becks? Do we make him the 60 min player. I'm just a little concerned if he is going to continue to spread his energy over 100 mins, we'll see more of the same.
 
Muttley said:
It's things like where he plays, If Tuchel wants him to drop deep or drift into the channels then he should. If Tuchel wants him to stay at the point of the spear then he should. Regardless of this, I do believe Kane could offer more for the receiving pass. He is more than capable of receiving the ball under pressure and retaining it or winning a free kick, He is also way better with his back to goal than we've seen. He is 6'2" and a strong guy yet there were quite a few uncontested headers last night. Kane wasn't prepared to be the big man and left his feet planted and pretended he was being fouled. Now I get that if you're a diminutive Defoe, but if you're ripped like Harry then he has to compete better. I actually think the ref also clocked it and therefore gave Harry no change.

As I've said above though, we're looking at a 7 game series in the WC and Kane came off after 84 mins against Panama. He's played every other minute. Look for root causes of last night and that is probably high on the list. The dreaded red zone. He's been as low as 19 touches in 100 mins in one of the games. I don't think player or manager has optimised Harry this world cup where he has generally been at 100% unlike the last one. I guess you could say that about a few other players as well though.

My interest is actually looking forward. What has happened has happened but we're no longer talking about a 29 or 30 year old Kane. He's 33 this month and he is quite a big built guy. He's not built for marathons so how do we plan for an England at the Euro's with a 35 year old Kane? Messi has managed it by doing a lot of walking and then coming alive. That entire system is designed that way. Does Kane revert to a "finisher" of game like we saw with Becks? Do we make him the 60 min player. I'm just a little concerned if he is going to continue to spread his energy over 100 mins, we'll see more of the same.
Click to expand...

In all honesty @Muttley given your protection of both this topic and any counter view of it/counter take on your take, I am going to say thanks for answering and largely move on.

With regards to the future, we simply have to look to it. I don't think we'll find a finisher of his elite level for some time, so IMO, we need a manager who is unfraid to implement elite creativity throughout the side. We have to back and support talent like Cole Palmer IMO, Wharton too in his field. I will add I am actually concerned about players like Saka, who are excellent talents that have been played to breaking point and might never fully recover. I would not be unhappy to see Tuchel bounced TBH.
 
thfcsteff said:
We are at the stage where I am not sure what we are debating or agreeing/disagreeing about.
I 'think' we're essentially saying the same thing about the game state.

Maybe where we're differing is that I believe Tuchel has ample opportunities to fortify or at least semi-invigorate what we we were doing. We did not have to get squeezed by Argentina, we simply needed to play higher up the pitch and be aggressive on the counter, in fact the conditions were perfect especialy after the goal. BTW, for all the brick Kane gets, it was his dropping in and turning to play that ball which cause the issues, and Rice was able to pick up the second ball (I think his injury was massive last night as he simply could not do that more often). We dropped right off, and allowed it to happen. Maybe the yellow on Anderson and Rice being injured were the main issues? If so, bring Mainoo on (not ideal but a box-to-box midfielder who might help you keep the ball). Tuchel froze in a moment where I think he should be standing tall and showing tactical nous; instead he thought he could Azteca it.
I do give Argentina full credit too; they sniffed the weakness/anxiety and attacked it like a pack of hangry hyenas (complete with cackles!!!!)...
Click to expand...
I'd disagree with that bit Steff. I don't think he froze. He made some decisions that he simply got badly wrong. He didn't stand like a rabbit in headlights having no idea what to do - he did something. It just proved to be wrong.
 
DeanoAustin said:
I'd disagree with that bit Steff. I don't think he froze. He made some decisions that he simply got badly wrong. He didn't stand like a rabbit in headlights having no idea what to do - he did something. It just proved to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I think that's a very good point mate, I stand corrected because he most certainly did make a concrete decision. My word though, how wrong it was!
 
MartyFunkhouser said:
Kane is not responsible for the subs and to expect anyone to lead a line of 2 with what ultimately became a back 6, I mean yeh we can question if Kane still has it, if we have to carry him sometimes, not last night though, we utterly shat the bed tactically.

Kane isn't going to last forever, I am ok with that, but he is still an absolutely fabulous player with alot to offer

View attachment 22934
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your point actually. My thought process was moving to a place where if you are going to get into that back 6 sort of tactic, then you need a different profile of a striker than an ageing Harry. They need boundless energy and need to put in the big shift, It wasn't fair to ask Harry to do that.

What your chart shows more though is the other piece that hasn't really been discussed. There is no scenario that you ever take a 100% fit Rice or James off unless they were not match fit. You don't change the defensive personnel that much, even though you might add an extra centre half or midfielder. It is sort of where we found ourselves with Saka as well in this competition. These are our stalwart players that complete the 90 in your best case.

I guess we could have withdrawn Kane and thrown Bellingham into that forward role. Perhaps Watkins would have been a sensible bet as well.

Ultimately, if Tuchel and his guys had held on for those last 10 mins then this would be a moot conversation. It's fine margins. What we can all agree on is that as Argentina moved into the ascendency, as they were always going to do, we didn't have a way of making gaps appear. That is the head scratcher for me.

I'm still in the boat where I've seen way more "football management" from Tuchel in this comp than we saw from Southgate though. I'm all for sticking with him.
 
Muttley said:
Not sure I understand your point actually. My thought process was moving to a place where if you are going to get into that back 6 sort of tactic, then you need a different profile of a striker than an ageing Harry. They need boundless energy and need to put in the big shift, It wasn't fair to ask Harry to do that.

What your chart shows more though is the other piece that hasn't really been discussed. There is no scenario that you ever take a 100% fit Rice or James off unless they were not match fit. You don't change the defensive personnel that much, even though you might add an extra centre half or midfielder. It is sort of where we found ourselves with Saka as well in this competition. These are our stalwart players that complete the 90 in your best case.

I guess we could have withdrawn Kane and thrown Bellingham into that forward role. Perhaps Watkins would have been a sensible bet as well.

Ultimately, if Tuchel and his guys had held on for those last 10 mins then this would be a moot conversation. It's fine margins. What we can all agree on is that as Argentina moved into the ascendency, as they were always going to do, we didn't have a way of making gaps appear. That is the head scratcher for me.

I'm still in the boat where I've seen way more "football management" from Tuchel in this comp than we saw from Southgate though. I'm all for sticking with him.
Click to expand...

I should have also added that the last thing we needed was guys like Anderson sitting in alongside the centre halves as well. We needed our centre halves pushing them back out to where they should be engaging.
 
thfcsteff said:
Yes, and if he had taken players like Cole Palmer who have little regard for history and a keen sense of, err, self, then you can write different scripts.
Click to expand...
Hate to say it but England could do with some of that clams arrogance.
I don't think one player having it is enough though and it's just isn't in English players make up.
 
Muttley said:
Not sure I understand your point actually. My thought process was moving to a place where if you are going to get into that back 6 sort of tactic, then you need a different profile of a striker than an ageing Harry. They need boundless energy and need to put in the big shift, It wasn't fair to ask Harry to do that.
Click to expand...
Then we are in agreement.

Ultimately what was being asked of Kane (I actually think the same of anyone asked to perform the thankless task) My point is the tactics were the issue not Kane.

I dont think TT should be sacked BTW
 
thfcsteff said:
They're different players, I mean I know you know that but it seems to bear repeating.
On the counter, with refreshed wingers and someone like Mainoo to carry and hopefully feed quickly, perhaps Kane would've found the pockets to play those passes that only he can play.
Let's face it, we AGAIN found ourselves at a World Cup where the best passer in the team was not in midfield. How can that be? How can we as a nation have this curious state of affairs? I end up back at the squad selection, which almost put me off following the tournament it was so weird and (IMO anyway) wrong. I mean, Wharton is not Hoddle but he can pass the ball very well, and Thomas saw no need for him???
Click to expand...
You have this situation because English teams prefer a runner and tackler in midfield than someone that can actually use the ball.
Even when there is a passer available they're still expected to run their arse off and throw themselves into tackles.
A lot of British football is still stuck in the 70s mentality.
 
They just mentioned a mental stat on the radio..

In the last 19 mins, England completed just 2 passes! (One was Pickford to Stones and the other one Stones to Pickford lol)

So our 10 outfield players did not complete a single pass amongst themselves during that period!!!


...Probably Kane's fault that.
 
dingdongo said:
They just mentioned a mental stat on the radio..

In the last 19 mins, England completed just 2 passes! (One was Pickford to Stones and the other one Stones to Pickford lol)

So our 10 outfield players did not complete a single pass amongst themselves during that period!!!


...Probably Kane's fault that.
Click to expand...
Harry Bloody Kane

1000_F_58408731_tpKPh36adkgSmxzvUL1rjHguCw3E9QKs.jpg
 
Last edited:
thfcsteff said:
They're different players, I mean I know you know that but it seems to bear repeating.
On the counter, with refreshed wingers and someone like Mainoo to carry and hopefully feed quickly, perhaps Kane would've found the pockets to play those passes that only he can play.
Let's face it, we AGAIN found ourselves at a World Cup where the best passer in the team was not in midfield. How can that be? How can we as a nation have this curious state of affairs? I end up back at the squad selection, which almost put me off following the tournament it was so weird and (IMO anyway) wrong. I mean, Wharton is not Hoddle but he can pass the ball very well, and Thomas saw no need for him???
Click to expand...
Tbh I don't really see Kane as someone who can play those passes. He's a fantastic switch passer over long distance, but tight between the lines? That's not his forte at all, but yeah maybe the opportunity would have arisen if we had made the subs we are suggesting.

Personally I think bringing on Watkins, Rashford and Saka would be a more productive counter attacking threat although you lose Kane's long distance switch pass.

I dunno its all speculation and we will never know but the pattern of the game in terms of Argentina squeezing England did not surprise me at all, it's exactly what I predicted I just expected England to offer much more on the counter and again I think that's where I think Tuchel failed, not the getting squeezed, that was inevitable (England do not have a midfield that can compete against aby if the top sides), but not being able to offer a counter attack as a pressure release was a failing.

As I said I just think Tuchel must not really believe in their quality so instead going for the counter gamble he decided to try and keep them out.
 
Last edited:
Bishop said:
Tbh I don't really see Kane as someone who can play those passes. He's a fantastic switch passer over long distance, but tight between the lines? That's not his forte at all, but yeah maybe the opportunity would have arisen if we had made the subs we are suggesting.

Oersobally I think bribing on Watkins, Rashford and Saka would be a more productive counter attacking threat although you lose Kane's long distance switch pass.

I dunno its all speculation and we will never know but the pattern of the game in terms of Argentina squeezed England did not surprise me at all, it's exactly what I predicted I just expected England to offer much more on the counter and again I think that's where I think Tuchel failed, not the getting squeezed, that was inevitable (England do not have a midfield that can compete against aby if the top sides), but not being able to offer a counter attack as a pressure release was a failing.

As I said I just think Tuchel must not really believe in their quality so instead going for the counter gamble he decided to try and keep them out.
Click to expand...
We were nothing like a counter threat either
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back