Are England really that bad?

The Sunday paper pundits have written off England but it is an interesting with hindsight to reflect on whether Wayne Rooney et al could have made an impact at Euro 2008.

If they had been drawn in group A then Portugal could have run rings round them but probably they might equally have held their own. Against Turkey or the Czech Republic, you could see it going either way - disaster or plain sailing.

In Group B they have lost to Croatia and would have lost to Germany. In Group C they would have died as they did in February to France which now looks like a bad loss when at the time it was thought a good result. In Group D they are as good or as bad as Russia, although against the Greeks the Russians seemed to have stepped up a gear and will have Zenit’s Andrei Arshavin back from suspension. So perhaps Russia is the best pointer to the realistic kind of progress Englabnd might have made

But tournament football is different to league and international friendly football. That is where England have lacked. Losing on penalties so often is a coahing weakness (please note Fabio, get them started now). Maybe iot just requires the kind of patriotic self belief that players used to earning £100,000 a week cannot be arsed with?

Maybe if they were asked they would rather be by the pool. Or getting married on a yacht?

But what Euro 2008 has shown is that a well organised team at the back will have a chance, even if it lacks the flair and guile. It can sit back and launch bombs. But what France and Italy have also found, you need to take the sniff of chances that come your way. As for the kind of inspiration that drives Portugal, Holland and sometimes Spain, that is another story.

But at least we have answered the age old connundrum as to whetehr Gerrard and Lampard can play together. The answer is no. You don’t get to the finals.