Kane has never played in midfield.
What he has done and shows how good a player he is is to briefly play as a 10 and provide assists as well as scoring.
The argument that you advanced at the time - that DCL was better than Kane - was absurd and gets worse with time.
I think other posters on here are correct - you significantly overrate our young players - sadly it can tend to undermine other very good points that you advance on other issues.
Back ontopic with Gordon. Yes he has potential but I am totally unconvinced that h will ever progress to be a top player.
Well that wasn't what I said.
I said DCL would do more as a number 9/target man than Kane from that point moving forward. I made explicitly clear Kane had been the better 9 at that point. I also said Kane was the better player. Just for the sake of accuracy.
Kane for a time was also playing much deeper.
I also stated with DCL, that he would be s good player for us, would score goals and we would miss him if he got injured. This is at a time when much prevailing views were he was rubbish, we would be better without him, and he would never get 10 goals in a season.
So where the odd view I get wrong gets clung too, there are probably 10 things I will say that are true, that people will forget or omit. And that's fine too, but if we are having a proper discussion, both sides need to be reflected.
As for overating players, I'm not sure. I was very keen in Gordon and DCL, but the rest not really. I was never really massively bought in by Richarlison, or Pickford, or Godfrey (although think he did very well at fullback).
As for Gordon, I think he has every chance to be a top player, which is why a club like Chelsea are willing to pay huge money for him.