more here...

Italy: La Gazzetta dello Sport was extremely complimentary, calling it a “wonderful” match between two excellent teams and declaring Kane and Bellingham “super.” Its report said England struggled during the first half but were clearly superior after the break. Bellingham received 7.5/10 and was described as “genius,” while Kane was praised as insatiable. The Italian view was essentially that England had joined the tournament’s genuine heavyweight contenders, although Croatia showed how they could be troubled.

Portugal: A Bola used perhaps the strongest contender language of any outlet: “England win with a candidate’s second half.” It said the opening 45 minutes were uninspired apart from Kane, but described England as “overwhelming” after the interval and concluded that they possess all the weapons required to win their first World Cup in 60 years. It also noted that England could easily have scored more but for Livaković.

Argentina: Olé called it the best match of the World Cup so far and said England had “struck the table”—Spanish football language for making a forceful statement. Its coverage focused on the authority of Kane, Bellingham’s decisive contribution and England displaying the credentials of a major contender. The tone was less concerned with England’s defensive errors than the British coverage and more impressed by the attacking spectacle and star quality.

Germany: The German angle was strongly influenced by Kane’s Bayern connection. Coverage praised his two goals, leadership and unusually complete contribution, including his defensive work. The implication was that England’s captain is currently functioning as much more than a penalty-box striker and gives them a tournament-winning focal point.

Australia: Australian coverage was divided. ESPN Australia presented it as a chaotic but important victory powered by Kane, whereas ABC and other commentary were more alarmed by the first-half defending. The Australian interpretation was approximately: great entertainment and enormous attacking talent, but a better team might not allow England to escape after conceding twice.

United States/international media: Reuters concentrated on England’s psychological response and Tuchel’s tactical correction. It portrayed the performance as evidence of composure: England were nervous and indecisive initially, but altered their approach, played more aggressively and controlled the second half.

The interesting difference is that the British press seems more worried about the defending than most overseas coverage. Abroad, the dominant reaction was not “England looked shaky”; it was:

England scored four against a very experienced tournament nation, responded impressively to adversity, and have exceptional attacking depth.

The main foreign caveat was that Croatia’s two equalisers showed England are not yet balanced enough to be called the complete team. But in Italy, Portugal and Argentina especially, this was treated as a performance that moved England firmly into the front rank of contenders—not merely an entertaining opening victory.

Posted By: Tombs, Jun 18, 09:30:08