You may argue it is not a counter attacking goal, but it demonstrates how England set up to score. It works for 60 minutes of the game with England winning plenty of set pieces and there's a penalty shout from Sterling, until Italy starts to make tactical switches and Southgate fails to cope.
While I agree with the counter attacking approach, it doesn't mean I agree with the personnel on the pitch. Like I said, Mount should never have started, or should have been taken off much earlier. Other fresh legs should have been brought in to create more threats to the veteran CBs.
If you mean that it demonstrates how wingbacks in a 3-4-3 can be the extra man in attack and sneak in at the back to assist or score, then yes. But that's not counter-attacking football. If anything, it works equally or better against deep defenses.
I didn't find that England were set up to counter attack at all. They just set up to play like they did against Germany, same line up except Mount starting over Saka. It wasn't a counter-attacking set up there and it wasn't yesterday.
Once they scored though they abandoned any intent to attack and just defended hoping to see out the game. Just hitting long balls to Kane and hoping something breaks kindly.
EDIT: Counter attacking isn't hit and hope. It means fast players breaking from midfield and wings to join the attack. We didn't see any of that yesterday. And my point is, that this wasn't a line up to play counter attacking football. It had only one fast player with the ability to hit the Italians on the counter, Sterling. It was a team set up to overload the wings and create goals like they did against Germany. But after the goal, all ambition disappeared and it just became an attempt to cling on.