Thanks for posting BC, and I can see where you are coming from with the graphics. However, I feel that they also lend some weight to what I was posting. As you state, we have to factor in the tactics of the game, and I think that using Huddersfield as the comparison is incorrect. Huddersfield continued to show intent from the first minute against us, meaning that Winks had to maintain his CM discipline and remain in a deeper position alongside Dier. You also have to factor in that Eriksen is playing ahead of him, meaning that his was less of a playmaker role and more of the "metronome" role, as you put it, where his remit is to recycle early to the likes of Eriksen from the deeper role. Lithuania played much deeper, as you've stated, meaning that his default position is higher up the pitch with our defence effectively lining up at the halfway line. Regardless, his touch map is showing that most of his work is in two fairly confined areas either side of the centreline of the pitch, just inside their half. In the context of the game, that is a deep position just ahead of the defence. I would postulate that the touches shown in the more advanced positions came predominantly in the latter half of the first half, when Winks was involved in the intricate play I alluded to earlier. In the second half that pretty much disappeared, barring a couple of pots at goal. If possible, could you overlay Henderson's touch map, in another colour, so we can compare the two to see whether I imagined him playing as, predominantly, the more advanced of the two. The other thing I'd mention is that the Huddersfield touch map shows Winks evenly spread across the width of the pitch, affecting play in all areas. For England his movement appears more condensed to rigid areas, suggesting his movement, and therefore his influence, was curtailed. I think the Henderson comparison will either confirm what I'm saying or totally blow it out of the water!