The clock is ticking for Eriksson as doubts about his judgement grow

England coach will need every second of next four months to devise new strategy for revival

You peer into those same "lovely" eyes Ulrika Jonsson had found so irresistible in the man she refers to in her memoirs as "Svennis", and wonder whether behind them really lies a cerebral cold-store, as the demeanour suggests.

It is late on Wednesday night and you question once again, as he stands there hemmed in by his interrogators, like one of several tinned pilchards, whether this is the calculating clinician of the diplomatic arts that he appears, a man whose self-regard is seemingly impervious to criticism. Or is this, in reality, a troubled soul who may yet succumb to the extraordinary demands of the job and the intrusion into his private life?

It is nearly an hour after Macedonia – hardly Big Macs in world terms – have restrained England to a 2-2 draw at the Friends Provident St Mary's Stadium in Southampton, and he is on the defensive. Yet the urbane Swede might be constructed of pack ice for all the effect the swinging verbal picks have had upon him.

And that after 20 minutes, during which he was advised that his team are woeful – well, a line-up who managed to produce one of the most embarrassing results in England football history, anyway – that his goalkeeper, having been the butt of certain supporters' ridicule, should have been pensioned off in the summer, and that his strategy has been, at the least, debatable. Under intense cross-examination, Eriksson reminds you of a rather genial, bespectacled hare atop a grass verge, deciding whether to take a chance and cross the busy road. You gain the impression that he is not the most decisive man in the world.

There's a standing joke that, whenever he is asked anything vaguely controversial, he will respond with: "Maybe. Maybe". Even Eriksson himself shares the amusement.

But one area in which he has no doubts is that of the all-consuming interest in his "home" life. "Off the field I have never ever in my life had such a spotlight, so many questions," he admits at one stage. "Not even close to it."

Asked how he would deal with the inevitable fall-out from this result, Eriksson adds: "We wait and see how much flak there is. If you take this job and think it will be pleasant for 365 days a year, then you should change your job.

"The last 20 years have been the same; you have good results and you are up, there are bad results you don't expect and you are down. Football-wise, Italy is a very good school."

Someone demands to know whether he is prepared for an assault from his critics after England's "most embarrassing result in years". There is not a hint of pique from Eriksson. No flush of anger. "I don't know if I'm prepared for the wrath of England," he says. "You can ask me in one week's time.

"Maybe it was a very embarrassing result in England's history. I don't know if that's right. I just know it's a bad result. I don't think the game was bad. We played rather good football, but made some mistakes in attack and defence."

We have witnessed England managers before whose teams have failed to account for modest opposition, whereupon the tormented soul of a coach has been laid bare before us. Some have reacted with hostility, others have sulked, some have accepted reality. But Eriksson, quite simply, doesn't do emotion. In fact, he doesn't really react at all, whatever the degree of provocation. Never. Even in the aftermath of these most improbable few days.

Even in the unpredictably wacky world of English football management, it has been a crazy week. Crazy as the World of Arthur Brown, you might say, particularly as the manic Sixties singer, it may be recalled by those of a certain age, once screamed the lyrics:

"You know you've really been so blind. Now's your time to burn your mind. You're falling far too far behind. Oh no, oh no, oh no, you're gonna burn!"

Somewhat apposite in the circum-stances, it might be said. But will the Swede burn? Contrary to the wishes of some commentators, this period was never going to end with Eriksson roped to a stake within the vicinity of some handy faggots, unless Ms Jonsson had let rip with some post-orgasmic admissions that her one-time beau had confided in her. That didn't happen. The tabloid serialisation was tame stuff. Just Eriksson's former lover recalling in Mills and Boon terminology a liaison with a somewhat more venerable figure than the handsome young studs with whom she had associated before.

Which takes the heat off him in one sense, although not in the strict footballing one. After his boys became World Cup quarter-final victims to Brazil in Japan, most commentators were prepared simply to blame England's elimination on old Shakin' Seaman, or attribute it to fatigue. Eriksson had made a reasonable fist of finishing the job that Kevin Keegan had started before walking away with the construction of the England team in a poor state of repair.

This is Eriksson's era; four years leading up to Germany 2006, with a halfway examination in Portugal in two years' time. By then, who knows, the eclipse of Turkey home and away might have radically altered our perceptions. Certainly that must be the desperate wish of the Football Association, who have invested so greatly, and not just financially, in Eriksson. Before then, the England coach has four months to ponder England's future. On recent evidence, he will require every second. Having foraged a fortuitous victory in Bratislava, his selections carelessly yielded two points to a nation secreted down among the regular recipients of thrashings in Fifa rankings.

Thus far, fortune had nourished Eriksson. At St Mary's it induced sickness in him, although, it might be asked, why should a coach have to depend on providence against such opponents?

The seeds of disquiet had already been planted last Saturday on a paddy field of a pitch. As Eriksson had apparently declared to Ulrika when there were fears that their relationship might become public: "You have to take a risk". It appears he takes a similar view concerning his deployment of players. Though why do so against a team of Slovakia's limited abilities is anyone's guess. Determined to pack in his favourites in midfield, he merely succeeded in ensuring that Nicky Butt and Steven Gerrard duplicated each other and Paul Scholes was wallowing out of position on the left.

Only in the second half did the coach transform things satisfactorily. His rough diamond, with Scholes propelled into a position behind the strikers, just about did the business.

On Wednesday, it was all change yet again, with Wayne Bridge ahead of Ashley Cole on the left, although logic said it should have been the other way round, Bridge being the better defender, Cole the more adept attacker. In the event, Wayne Bridge was a bit like John Wayne Bobbitt, cut off before he became dangerous. Too many forays came to nothing. On home territory, the Southampton man supplied only three crosses. One was cleared; the others came to nothing.

The second half saw a three-man forward line introduced. It was not spectacularly effective. Darius Vassell possesses devastating pace, but at this level he is unconvincing in possession; and Alan Smith is wasted on the right. The result was that Michael Owen tended to be isolated. Ideally, the Liverpool striker requires a powerful target-man to play off. Alan Shearer was not a perfect foil, but he was close enough. Apart from Emile Heskey, who is probably more suited to a free-running wide role, there are no other obvious contenders, unless you source the Under-21s, where the lamppost-like Peter Crouch exists.

Such matters will be on Eriksson's mind in the coming weeks, together with how he envisages his future midfields to be comprised. The England coach will consider whether Scholes should serve as a second striker, just behind Owen, and how he can utilise the talents of Matt Jansen, who is soon to be restored to the Blackburn team. Maybe Eriksson will accept that he reduced his own options in Wednesday's frustrating second half by a failure to include Joe Cole, arguably the one player who could have turned the game against such an obdurate rearguard.

Eriksson may even have to re-evaluate his continued assertion that England have five world-class performers. On the latest evidence, questions must be posed against the three midfielders among them. Steven Gerrard has many attributes, but his delivery of the ball is too often abysmal, while Scholes did not dictate the contest in the manner expected of him. Indeed, at times Macedonia were overrunning the England midfield.

As for Beckham, he continues to baffle even his most avowed admirers. He can be exhilarating, but exasperating. At times he is the equivalent of Cruft's best of breed (and not just because of his impeccable grooming). He is beautifully balanced and a wonderful example as a ball player and a captain. But there are other occasions when he is more like a raging pit-bull with the scent of a bitch on heat.

He was cautioned for a ridiculous imitation of Zebedee, leaping up and down in front of a player taking a throw-in as he waged his own battle against perceived injustices. He might have been dismissed later, just as against Slovakia, when he was fortunate the referee was in a benign mood. To use the vernacular, he lost it, and played directly into Macedonian hands. What kind of captain is that? And they say he could well be voted the Greatest Briton in a BBC poll.

And then there is David Seaman, deceived by a brute of a corner from the admirable Artim Sakiri. A few other custodians would have been duped, too. But it is overall performances that count, and the 39-year-old Arsenal man simply looks fallible to deep crosses.

In the coming months the England goalkeeper will presumably quietly retire from international duty. You would have been malicious indeed not to have felt pity as the visitors shot on sight and the crowd responded with ironic cheering when he saved. "I was not aware the fans were ridiculing Seaman," said Eriksson. "I am sorry about that. It's not nice."

I put it to Eriksson that, in hindsight, it would have been a kindness for all concerned if the old boy had been dispatched to the Seaman's Rest Home in the summer. "I think David is doing very well for Arsenal," the Swede retorted. "He knows better than anyone else what happened on the first goal. You can't kick people just for that. I am sure Dino Zoff made some mistakes when he was playing with Italy until he was 40."

No one can say that Eriksson does not stand implacably by his men. But surely the Swede would privately concur with the view that the perpetuation of Seaman's international career, and perhaps worse, the failure to blood Leeds' Paul Robinson in the Portugal friendly, were errors. Establishing a competent replacement is distinctly more difficult than ditching an old retainer.

That is far from the only front on which Eriksson's judgement is being questioned. A back three might have been advantageous on Wednesday, particularly as Macedonia fielded only one striker. But Eriksson appears utterly fixated by a four. Does Steve McClaren, who uses both formations at Middlesbrough, have any input into such decisions?

Meanwhile, for the first time, there are suggestions of dissent in the camp, with reports of two of the "world-class" club being dissatisfied with his tactics. Yet he will not be easily moved. Her Majesty's Government might wish it had a minister made of such absorbent material. Even as he was verbally savaged, he still managed to placate even the most belligerent. That is a formidable weapon.

"The important thing now is not to believe that life is finished, that we have to change 11 players or all the tactics," said Eriksson. "It is important to try to be strong and win the group. There are eight games to play, and we have Turkey twice, which is very good. Now we need to win, win, win in the group. We can do that."

The problem is that what the last few days have left us with is concern that England have a coach slowly shedding his reputation as a master practitioner like a snake does his skin. Perhaps his bedroom strategies, bringing new meaning to the expression one-on-one, and the aftermath of his escapades, have been a greater distraction than first thought?

His coaching prowess is something that will have to be enhanced significantly in the public eye well before the conclusion of the Euro 2004 qualifiers. Otherwise, prepare for the stench of scorching.

Sven's England

28 Feb 2001: v Spain (won 3-0, friendly, Villa Park)
24 March 2001: v Finland (won 2-1, World Cup qualifier, Anfield)
28 March 2001: v Albania (won 3-1, World Cup qualifier, Tirana)
25 May 2001: v Mexico (won 4-0, friendly, Pride Park)
6 June 2001: v Greece (won 2-0, World Cup qualifier, Athens)
15 August 2001: v Holland (lost 2-0, friendly, White Hart Lane)
1 September 2001: v Germany (won 5-1, World Cup qualifier, Munich)
5 September 2001: v Albania (won 2-0, World Cup qualifier, St James's Park)
6 October 2001: v Greece (drew 2-2, World Cup qualifier, Old Trafford)
10 November 2001: v Sweden (drew 1-1, friendly, Old Trafford)
13 February 2002: v Holland (drew 1-1, friendly, Amsterdam)
27 March 2002: v Italy (lost 2-1, friendly, Elland Road)
17 April 2002: v Paraguay (won 4-0, friendly, Anfield)
21 May 2002: South Korea (drew 1-1, friendly, Sogwipo)
26 May 2002: v Cameroon (drew 2-2, friendly, Kobe)
2 June 2002: v Sweden (drew 1-1, World Cup first round, Saitama)
7 June 2002: v Argentina (won 1-0, World Cup first round, Sapporo)
12 June 2002: v Nigeria (drew 0-0, World Cup first round, Osaka)
15 June 2002: v Denmark (won 3-0, World Cup, second round, Niigata)
21 June 2002: v Brazil (lost 2-1, World Cup quarter-finals, Shizuoka)
7 September 2002: v Portugal (drew 1-1, friendly, Villa Park)
12 October 2002: v Slovakia (won 2-1, Euro 2004 qualifier, Bratislava)
16 October 2002: v Macedonia (drew 2-2, Euro 2004 qualifier, St Mary's)

Total: Played 23, Won 11, Drawn 9, Lost 3.