They were without THREE of their first choice of CB's.
Had Kane and Son been available, would we have played any differently? Evidence would suggest not. Yes, had they played they are more likely they would have taken half-chances better, capable of producing something out of nothing. But we would have still set up to be reactive, playing a low deep block and hope the oppo don't take their chances and hope we might nick one of ours.
Leipzig, on the other hand, would have played exactly as they did whether we had Kane and/or Son in the team. Unless we address this Jurassic football nothing is going to change for us and we will come up short big time by the clubs that are playing or are attempting to play a progressive style (Wolves, City, Liverpool, Southampton, Leipzig, Chavs) and struggle and scrap past those that don't.
Genuinely Guido, who would you rather lose:
Kane & Son?
Konate, Orban & Upamecano?
I like you but I think you've got a bit of a vendetta against Mourinho mate. Of course we'd have been different with the likes of Son & Kane available, I don't see how you can say that the evidence suggests we wouldn't. What evidence is that? Unless I'm missing something glaringly obvious of course.
On the flip side how do you think the game would have gone if Leipzig had lost Werner and Schick and we had to make do without Alderweireld, Vertonghen & Sanchez? We could have still used the likes of Tanganga, Foyth, Dier and Davies as CBs, all 4 could have done a decent job against what would have obviously been a far weaker Leipzig attack if the tables were turned.