Impossible not to feel a lot of sympathy for Spain. Like England in 1998, they came to the tournament with a determination that this time, their talent would find its reward - and, like England, after playing impressively, they’ve gone out in the Second Round.

You can’t force football history - football’s magical coincidences, mawkish anniversaries, years of hurt and - increasingly - its graves and memorials, are all bunk when it comes to what’s going to happen next. We should all have picked this one up in 1953, when England’s undefeated home record was surrendered - thankfully, not to e.g. Belgium, but to the greatest international side of the 1950s and perhaps the greatest still of all time. Spain, I sense, hoped somehow that their years of apparent “underachievement” gave them a mysterious wind at their backs this time, and their early form reinforced the sense within the press that here was a side - unlike England! - that had really arrived meaning business.

It was all too easy for France, once Vieira decided to involve himself. So poor were France in their first two matches that their excellence since has gone almost unnoticed. And now they face Brazil, riding a different wind from Spain’s, one made up of hype and luck and the dearest hopes of commentators who think nothing’s changed since 1970 if only we stare at Brazil long enough and hard enough.

Do they have a defence capable of stopping Thierry Henry? Do they have one capable of stopping Sylvain Wiltord, for that reason.. and who wil come out on top, Ronaldinho, who is having to carry his team at present, or Zidane, who, unexpectedly, turns out after all to have capable lieutenants on all sides?

A semi-final against France would suit England very well. England have the mentality to take on the French. If they get past Portugal, it will have been the ugliest game of the tournament, and the last thing they deserve, after a tournament spent facing ten men behind the ball in every game, is the Valhalla of Brazil. France represent a chance to cut free and play..

But that’s all football history talk, and football history is bunk. So, Portugal beat England messily and with controversy and ill feeling. Brazil beat France with the help of the referee, just as such help handed them past Ghana. And win the World Cup, in a one-sided Final against Germany, because football history dictates that few South American sides win in the Northern Hemisphere and it also insists that the host nation lift the trophy more often than not. And England’s four years of mediocrity begin, and begin as ever, trophyless.

You’d have asked for anyone save Portugal.

It’s one for the remaining band who believe that the lesser the opposition, the better our chances. For the rest of us, we can only hope that England stir themselves, and trust in something more interesting for the semi-final.

Brace yourselves for a week of the following stories on the back page, none of which are likely to do anything other than sour your day:

• “Big Phil” would have dropped Beckham
• “Big Phil” has “outthought” Erickson twice: will he do it again?
• “Big Phil” could teach Erickson a thing or two about substitutions and inspiring his players (we’ll forget about Portugal’s lack of penetration against a weak Dutch side, and the way Scolari’s players lost their discipline completely in the second half..
• Various comparisons between Scolari and Steve McClaren, all of which will run in Scolari’s favour
• Erickson should drop Beckham/Hargreaves/Robinson!!/Terry/anyone else, but won’t because he lacks the football knowledge and nous of the sweating tabloid hack in question.

It’s going to be a horribly ugly game, in what has suddenly become an ugly World Cup - Wimbledon can’t come soon enough.

I’m not going to enter into any detailed analysis here, but these are some pointers as to why I think England have only one World Cup star on their shirts:

• England’s best teams have almost always peaked outside World Cup years - the 46-48 side, the 60-61 team, and the 75-78 side that Revie never picked are just 3 examples.
• Although the press and the fans prioritise World Cup success, the FA haven’t on the whole, preferring to see the England team as an enjoyable adjunct to the real business of maintaining the best grass-roots game in the world. Choosing the England manager has been a case of finding someone who will take care of far more than just the international side - one reason among others for the appointment of Bobby Robson and Ron Greenwood; similarly, the non-appointment of Brian Clough.
• For the first half of the twentieth century - the half that gave Italy two of their three World Cups, and Uruguay one half of theirs - England were quite correct to focus on the Home Championship as their source of international competition. Between 1900 and 1920, other international matches - such as the Olympic tournaments - were far too one-sided. England, with a fully-fledged league system behind them, got into double figures frequently, and ended up sending an amateur team to the Olympics just to make things more competitive. Between 1920 and 1950, things were a little closer - but when Italy brought their “World Champions” to England, they resorted to thuggish tactics simply to keep England in sight. After the war, England became far more involved in international football, but before 1950 the story was much the same - easy victory. It’s forgotten that England’s defeats abroad - to Spain, for example - were defeats for what was almost certainly a badly hung-over team who were treating the trip as a holiday yet playing hyped-up super-motivated opposition for whom the game was the highlight of their lives.
• What’s seen as England’s fallow period since 1970 was in fact very short - lasting perhaps from 1972 and the Netzer game at Wembley, to 1977 and the defeats to Italy. It’s a period coinciding with Ramsey’s decline and Revie’s failure to pick a team from perhaps the best generation of skilful, inspiring footballers England’s had since the War. The anxieties and lack of confidence that were born in that period are still with us today, and are reflected in the bizarre, Cassandra-esque reporting of international matches. I believe that England teams have, until Erickson, played at 5-10% below their real ability as a consequence of this. By contrast, our success in European club football in the 1970s raised confidence and expectations to such a degree that a mediocre side such as the Aston Villa of 81-2, or the talent-limited Forest teams of 78-9, could expect to win European cups and do so, repeatedly.

It sounds strange to say it, but behind all of this is an unexpected truth: we have cared less than other countries about winning the World Cup. Mexico have gone home already, but their team had six months together to prepare; we negotiated an extra week. During tournaments, there’s a lot of huffing and puffing in the media, but the fact is that we can put up with not winning - and that’s why we don’t.

Four years ago, Clive Woodward decided that nothing was going to stand in the way of England’s rugby men winning the ultimate title, and that was the beginning of a quite extraordinary and utterly focussed effort that just - by the skin of the teeth - succeeded. Such was the mental energy expended that the side have since gone into colossal decline, and have no chance of defending their title next year. Likewise, the England cricket team won the Ashes through what appears now as a moment of decision - that it mattered at the ultimate level to win, and it mattered now. Since then… it’s all gone away. In both rugby and cricket teams, the vital players have been missing through injury almost ever since.

If England win - and they seem to have a similar outlook to the rugby and cricket teams - you can almost guarantee four years of total mediocrity afterwards. You can probably guarantee it anyway - Erickson’s successor has been chosen, not to win trophies, but to facilitate the development of a new generation of English coaches. It needs doing, but it’s not a goal shared by the press or the fans.

A little late, perhaps, as I’ve already seen German gamesmanship sneak them past Sweden in their second-round tie, and I’ve already watched (yet another) epic Argentine victory, this time over an excellent Mexico. That match, at any rate, lived up to the extraordinary standards that the tournament’s set so far, and my worries that things would now settle down into a kind of football we’re all too accustomed to have been temporarily assuaged.

I no longer see England as potential winners of the tournament, but that’s not really their fault: they haven’t played badly. Indeed, finding out how they have played requires detective work: there have been no match reports in the press, and in their place we’ve been given a series of tired re-rehearsals of each writer’s individual gripes, whether those be over Beckham or over the Swedish coach or over the non-selection of any number of what you might consider worthies…

No, my doubts about England are less reasons than celebrations: for once, everyone has turned up at the World Cup. The last to check in were France. As I gloried in the M40 sunshine on Friday evening, over my blowtorching sunroof the radio gave me Henry and Viera, finally, being there; I’d almost given up. For the French, this is very much their last hurrah. Really, their matches should be senior tour exercises, full of the skills men still have in old age, careless, tension-free and with all that mugging to camera. You almost expect to see Jack Charlton there, feigning annoyance at yet another yellow card. And then you do… Yet, they are here, and not in the sense that the Rolling Stones are here, or the Eagles.. Most tournaments have perhaps two teams who show the kind of limitless, exultant promise that we’ve seen pouring off at least seven sides this time. England aren’t going to fail because they don’t produce what we expect of them - they’ll lose simply because everyone else is absolutely turning it on: we didn’t expect it, and it’s marvellous.

I’ve already said that my team of the first round was the Ivory Coast, and that remains the case, but Ghana have shown the same intent, the determination to be a proper team at a proper World Cup with proper ambition. There was a decision to be made by the subSaharan African sides - were they going to be the energetic, naive, skilful sides that cameo every four years, patronised by Pele and wearisome English commentators, or.. and they’ve taken the second option. And the psychological effect on the viewer - on this viewer - is considerable: if Togo, Ivory Coast, Ghana, contain more of these intelligent, committed people, if they have millions of the kind who have played with such pride and discipline in Germany, then - if it’s not too much of a change of subject - certain negative opinions about the future of their continent can be revised. I’ll say it again, it’s been a magnificent tournament.

The most interesting writing on the tournament hasn’t come from the press, but the Independent’s having a good 2006. Isn’t that just extraordinary? The closest modern equivalent would be a discovery of cutting-edge investigative reporting in Weekly World News. Liberal intelligence survives in the Independent, in their own little Brigadoon in the back pages. I fear that mentioning it may cause it to blink out of existence and become as if it never were. The best football blogs haven’t been in the expected places, either; the first of my choices would recoil at the very idea of having provided excellent coverage, but that’s the beauty of it; the second has done his best work away from his normal base, but both are worth chasing up. Some existing football blogs have produced joint efforts - see what you think of this one.

But this is all very well: England are playing Ecuador this afternoon, and what of it? And it’s another rejigged side, and what of that? Well…. I’d rather it had been Germany: England don’t need yet another “relatively easy path” through a tournament, as the team responds best to the kind of stimulation famous opposition provides. But Ecuador are a better side than Germany, and their best players have had a week’s rest. England are up against a real challenge, and one camouflaged by an unfashionable flag and the inability of our slow, slow media to outrun the guinea pig stories. Erickson won’t be fooled: some of his players will be, and the commentators certainly will be.

The rejigged team is not a new formation - don’t believe the papers there: something very similar was used in the warm-ups immediately before the tournament. Without Owen, this is very much the side I’d play, but I’d wish to God I could pick Neville.

It’s going to be terribly hard to win today. It’s going to be terribly hard listening to England - listening to the English - undergoing the experience. Time for a stroll up Port Meadow, where there are no radios or televisions, and just enough riverside path and ruined Nunnery to last me the 140 minutes plus penalties.

If you want me, I’ll be in the Perch.

I didn’t necessarily expect to be writing this at this stage, but…

It’s been good, hasn’t it? Really!

So often, the World Cup flatters to disappoint, but just for once, that old phrase “feast of football” is actually useful. Almost every match has been marvellous. What’s going on? Whatever it is, let’s hope that like Euro 2000 it keeps on going (great tournament, horrid final).

The only team not to impress me at all have been France. I’ve been most bored by Angola, but I’ll forgive them. Deciding who have been the most impressive has been far harder. It’s not Argentina. They’ve played the most attractive football, and scored the goal of the tournament, but… in both of their matches, they’ve had great assistance from the officials, they’ve been given huge space to play, and the one time a team have come at them (poor Ivory Coast) they found it very, very hard to live with: had the Ivory Coast possessed a calmer head in front of goal, the result, and the whole tournament, would look very different.

No, my most-impressive team are already out - astonishingly, but there it is. Ivory Coast have shown verve, courage, skill and no small amount of sportsmanship in their two narrow defeats. They more than matched both Argentina and Holland, and as I’ve said, only the lack of a top striker (they had a brave, never-say-die leader of a striker in Drogba, but he’s no Owen or Crespo) prevented them coming away with maximum points. In Yaya Toure, they have a superstar of the very near future, and the whole team is young enough to come back better next time. They will inflict appalling damage on the ruined Serbia-Montenegro squad in the final match, and go home with their heads up.

Aforesaid Serbia are second to France in the disappointment stakes. A good team - disrupted by some significant injuries, especially that to Vidic in defence - should do better than undergo that kind of psychic collapse (one for everyone who comments here saying that sports psychology is bunk).

England have neither inspired nor worried me thus far. As I wrote here a while ago, I regard this team as one who tend to “float” through games against mediocre opposition, and so it’s proved. I’m hoping for Germany in the next round - if it’s Ecuador, the danger is there that England will only half turn up again. It’s overconfidence, not lack of motivation per se. The other side of that particular coin is that England, like Brazil, are opposition that provide lesser teams with “peak of our career” type experiences. That’s why teams so rarely fold before England in the way they might do to Argentina or Holland - playing England (or Brazil) matters for its own sake, and no player wants to walk off after ninety minutes against either of the founders or the masters of the game without having played like they have never played. England’s opposition play chock-full of meaning, whereas for England the same fixture will be an awkward chore with no glory on offer but much potential humiliation. Not “embarrassment” as John Motson kept putting it; Trinidad and Tobago had to qualify for the World Cup just like everyone else, and proved against Sweden that they possessed both high morale and a very good defence.

Owen’s form is a nuisance, and I wonder about his being substituted, even for Rooney, just when there were signs against Trinidad that his magic rhythm was coming back. He should be given ninety minutes against Sweden, in partnership with Rooney.

My response to comments in the press calling for England to play with a holding midfielder is that Gerrard has performed that role quite adequately so far. England have played recently with Carrick or Carragher in the holding role, allowing Gerrard to move forward, and I’m expecting that to be the pattern against Sweden on Tuesday - it’s the sort of game that formation’s been put together for.

Or, we could do this.

2-3-5:

Robinson

Ferdinand Terry

Beckham Lampard Ashley Cole

Lennon Rooney Owen Crouch Joe Cole

I know, but wouldn’t it be fun…..

Reading the almost universally stupid write-ups of England v Paraguay on Sunday morning, I wondered whether I’d been at the same game as these journalists. Most depressing was the sheer determination on the part of these men that every single prejudice they’d been peddling about England in the run-up to the tournament would be illustrated by the match. So, Owen was completely out of sorts, Beckham faded out of the game, Sven’s substitutions were hopelessly conservative, he himself sat emotionless on the bench, and so on…

Rather than rehash arguments I’ve already made about why I disagree with this set of views, I’ve been conducting my own little experiment. I’ve been watching the other top sides - as though they were England. I’ve sat through matches featuring Holland, Argentina, Italy, Portugal and Brazil, and I’ve demanded of these sides the same standards as we demand of England.

I’ve been commentating in my head, too. This is something we all do as boys - running with a tennis ball at our feet in the playground, intoning “Dalglish” (usually). But my year at school was unusually lacking in football talent. My teacher stood at the side of the tarmac, as the running ball pulled a comet’s tail of boys around with it. As we trooped off at the end, he smiled beautifully at us and declared “I should thank you boys. I’m going to be laughing all weekend at what I’ve just seen. You all think you’re superstars, but you’re all rubbish.” Thirty years later, John Motson has the same opinion of England; if at any stage they aren’t actually threatening the opposition goal, he thinks it’s us letting the other team into the game, or the opposition causing us trouble, all of which he intones at us in the notes normal men usually reserve for when they’re providing a voiceover for footage of a natural disaster.

So, as I say, I’ve been commentating in my head, applying the Motson standard to our principal rivals in the tournament. How do you think they got on?

Argentina: Completely failed to cope with bright, brave Ivorian attacking. How will they deal with a real attacking force, like Holland or Italy? Hyped playmaker Riquelme can only perform when protected by two other midfielders, and then only in fits and starts; he’s cramping his team’s style and should be dropped - yesterday’s man, and only his close relationship with the coach can explain his continued presence in the side. Argentina’s superstar attackers couldn’t live up to their billing, either; midfielder Saviola was his side’s saviour, after Crespo’s scrappy opener. The entire team faded badly, and the second half was almost entirely Ivorian; but for some neglectful refereeing, the Africans would have come away with a shock victory. As it is, questions have to be asked about Argentina’s selection policy and its reliance on established players who may feel they have nothing left to prove.

The Czech Republic were gifted an early goal, but failed to build on their advantage against the minnows of the United States. McBride was always a worry in attack for the Americans, and if the Czechs are to provide a serious challenge for the cup, they are going to have to look at ways for their midfield to protect their defence. Without bright young prospect Rosicky’s enthusiasm, and shocking US defending, the Czechs would have been exposed for what they are - a flat-track side, short on creativity and adventure. Fading badly in the second half, they were flattered by a 3-0 scoreline, and their supporters will be concerned.

Samuel Kuffour is the toast of Italy as his second-half howler got the Azzuri out of jail. His Ghana team took full advantage as Italy faded badly after the break, and only poor finishing and the late error gave the European team - strongly tipped before the tournament despite recent scandals at the Italian FA - a narrow victory. Italy’s strikers lacked bite and penetration, soon resorting to hopeful shots from long range, whilst only Pirlo from the midfield showed any ambition or creativity. Italy take the points - but this is a game for the underdogs to relish, and they’ll take confidence from this into their next match.

Portugal’s golden generation ran into the sand two years ago, and coach Scolari’s failure to refresh the squad was cruelly exposed as they struggled to beat World Cup outsiders Angola by a solitary early goal. Poor substitutions compounded a weak initial selection as Angola took the initiative in the first half and kept it for the remainder of the game, leaving the Portuguese to rely on Figo’s ancient legs and occasional breaks out of defence. Out of favour Cristiano Ronaldo came closest for the favourites, hitting the bar. Ronaldo should be the hub of this team - but he will be made to wait by Scolari, unless player power can be made to tell.

The fear expressed before the tournament that Holland were a one-man team proved all too true against a brave Serbian attacking effort. But that one man isn’t Ruud Van Nistelrooy, or glory-hunting winger Arjen Robben. The Dutch hero was ageing keeper Van Der Saar, whose series of excellent saves kept Holland in the match and sustained their slim hopes as least as long as the second group game. Serbia expected to come away with nothing from the match, but as their invention and endeavour took a grip on the encounter, they must have rued a string of near misses and will go into their second game with a new confidence. Holland left many excellent players at home - and rookie coach Van Basten’s dizzy confidence, so visible at the ceremony that announced his squad, will have been replaced with regret as his unbalanced, immature squad flailed and fumbled against second-rate opposition. The second round is the best they can hope for.

Brazil, given the plum evening kick off and mediocre Croatian opposition, failed to take advantage as their unmotivated side fell back on deep defence and sheer luck against the invention and courage of their opponents, so ably led by Dario Prso. As Prso poured down the left wing for the nth time, sending the Brazilian defence into panic, he must have wondered why he is left plying his trade in the slums of Glasgow while the likes of Ronaldo, Adriano, Kaka and Robinho, anonymous against him last night, bestride European club football. Only Ronaldinho showed any intent for Brazil, and he is fast becoming their Rooney figure. If anything happens to him, Brazil’s hopes go with him on this performance. Ronaldo, obviously behind the pace, sullen and uninterested, was pulled off far too late in the game, showing yet again this coach’s overreliance on star players living on past glories. Kaka was reduced to hopeful long-range shots, and it was one of these, gifted him by a rare Croatian defensive lapse, that led somewhat fortuitously to the only goal of the game.

This is a very long way round to making a simple point: our commentators and journalists are being ridiculously negative about England and about England’s performance. I grant that British culture values pessimism and the Cassandra approach as signs of intelligence, but frankly they aren’t justified this time - just as none of my reviews above quite capture the essence of the matches in question (the Brazil report isn’t far off, though; I thought they were shocking, apart from Ronaldinho).

Digital viewers of the BBC’s coverage can now opt for an audio setting called something like “Match Sound”, which cuts out the commentary altogether. I’ve a fondness for Alan Green’s atmosphere-multiplying style of coverage, so I won’t be using it - but, if you want to know how England are really getting on, it might be the one you want.

The actual commentary on Brazil’s game with Croatia tonight will be the usual “samba” rubbish, I’m sure, but this magnificent BBC article on the background to Brazilian football adds some balance at least.

So, what lies behind the Brazilian brilliance?

1. Priority:

Journalist Alex Bellos, author of Futebol - A Brazilian Way of Life, believes it was also due to the relatively late abolition of slavery at the end of the 19th century, and a lack of positive symbols.

Whatever the reason, Brazil very early “recognised football in our future and tradition and (as) our opportunity to communicate to the world that we are powerful,” says 1994 World Cup winner Leonardo.

“In the 1930s, we started to organise a team to be competitive in the World Cup, and the 1950s were the beginning of this big dream to make Brazil the best international team in the world,” he added.

2. Detailed Planning and Preparation:

Losing the final to Uruguay in 1950 was viewed as a national tragedy, but it only heightened the desire to win.

And it led to a little-known aspect of Brazilian football. Believing they had let themselves down through personal weakness and a lack of research, the national side came to see comprehensive preparation and innovative tactics as crucial to success. Contrary to the popular belief that Brazilian teams are defensively naive, the idea of the modern back four originated in the 1958 World Cup-winning team.

Through a careful evolution of the way they played, Brazil continued to have a tactical lead until 1970.

3. Unique Training

In Brazil children learn football in a very different way from their European counterparts.

There are no leagues or competitive matches for young children - such a concept is seen as likely to hinder a player’s creative impulses.

“The children play a lot but it’s always very free,” says Leonardo. Parreira agrees: “We don’t put them in a cage, say ‘you have to be like this’. We give them some freedom until they are ready to be coached.”

4. Sheer Hard Work:

Brazil’s success, though, stems from more than talent and the freedom to express it - behind Ronaldinho’s gleaming smile lies hours of hard work.

“The English academy system is one where players are training for just four hours a week,” says Brazilian football expert Simon Clifford.

“Compare that to Ronaldinho when he was a 16-year-old with Gremio, where he would have been training for up to 20 hours a week. ”

Parreira adds: “In Brazil players are fabricated, they are produced. “They come to the clubs when they are 10-12 and then they start in categories according to age.

“There are no more players from the beach or from the street. This is a myth, a legend. They are built, grown in the clubs.”

More on Simon Clifford here.

One of the reasons why many people believe than an African nation will win the World Cup in the near future is the fact that “street football”, from where they think the natural creative players come, is still predominant there. I’ve seen two African sides so far at this World Cup - Ivory Coast, and Ghana - and rather than remind me of Brazil, their physical strength, bravery, endeavour and fair play have reminded me far more of British sides from the 1950s. The Brazilians are in no danger of losing their preeminence, if only for the thoroughly bad reason that the Europeans are keen to hold on to their Copecobana fantasies, to hug football’s version of Orientalism to their chest and keep it there.

I’d keep one eye on Simon Clifford, if only for the short while until he really takes over British footballing consciousness. Which he will.

Because England have only the one World Cup to their name, there’s a tendency to exaggerate how far behind the best we’ve been since the end of the Second World War. It’s exaggerated because England’s greatest sides have always peaked in between tournaments - the 46-49 side being the principal victims.

But sometimes far worse things than bad timing have placed a truly world-class England side in obscurity. Look at these statistics from the second half of the 1950s.
England results between their 4-2 defeat by Uruguay at the 1954 World Cup in Switzerland, and defeat to Yugoslavia in May 1958:

Won: 20 Drawn: 4 Lost: 4

England results between May 1958 and May 1960:

Won: 4 Drawn: 10 Lost: 7

On 6 February 1958, Manchester United’s aircraft bringing them home from Yugoslavia crashed at Munich Airport, killing - amongst many others - England back Roger Byrne, England midfielder Duncan Edwards and England centre forward Tommy Taylor.

So much is said about the Busby Babes that this side of the accident is lost. In essence, the the heart was torn out of one of the most successful England sides of modern times. Manchester United took five years to recover. England had to await the emergence of Jimmy Greaves.. star of another mispeaking England side.
The Munich Disaster Memorial

I’ve pulled the two most recent posts from the site, and now it all seems to be working again.

The gist of my comments were - for what it’s worth - that I thought England did well against a talented side in horrid conditions; the television commentary varied between bizarrely furious (Alan Green’s semi-vendetta against Erickson), doomridden (John Motson always sounds as if a nuclear strike on the stadium’s imminent) and childishly semi-racist (ITV’s shame-inducing coverage of Trinidad v Sweden). The newspapers on the other hand think that potential tournament winners never show the conditions and win every game 8-0 at a canter, which for apparently grown men is juvenile.

So you didn’t miss much..

It’s my somewhat unfashionable opinion that England had the makings of a truly wonderful side in the ’70s - if they’d wanted to have one enough. (And that’s not necessarily a pejorative statement, by the way). Consider the following, all of whom would have been 30 or under in 1978 (Osgood would have been 31):

• Stan Bowles, 5 caps
• Tony Currie, 17 caps
• Charlie George, 1 cap (subst. famously at half-time)
• Rodney Marsh, 9 caps
• Alan Hudson, 2 caps
• Duncan Mackenzie, 0 caps
• Peter Osgood, 4 caps
• Bob Latchford, 12 caps
• Frank Worthington, 8 caps

“Lifestyle” is the word in the background here, but even so, this is bordering on the ridiculous, isn’t it? Take Hudson’s 2 caps - on his debut, he destroyed West Germany and we won 2-0. You can’t do that kind of thing twice, and we only won 5-0 in his second game against Cyprus, so of course, he had to be dropped thereafter.

There won’t have been any consistent reason for the exclusion of such spectacular footballers from the national side - I expect it was a matter of expediency, match by match, rather than any deliberate policy. But 1974, 1978, came and went, and you can’t go back to change things after it’s all over.

There’s a bitter-sweet picture in my head of Clough leading England out for the 1974 World Cup Final with a team composed of many of these players. Clough wasn’t considered as a successor to Ramsey, something that bewilders me (he was turned down, famously, in 1977 after Revie’s undignified departure). Fantasy, of course. But add to that the success of British sides (Rangers and Celtic too of course) in European club competition, and were would have been the national footballing inferiority complex we’re still trying to overcome today?