Nick Townsend: Eriksson's world of limited advancement

Perhaps it is time for the manager, unable to reap a rich harvest, to return to club management

In one sense, it could have been worse. At least Sven Goran Eriksson's men retreated with shirts glued by sweat to weary torsos, but undone by their own, and their coach's, ineptitude. The French had no such claims. "Les Bleus are stark naked. They showed no desire, no ideas, no enthusiasm" was how L'Equipe reflected on Friday night's shameful exhibition against Greece.

But that said, what would givemore scope for encouragement: the quarter-final elimination of an England team who gave their optimum performance under the circumstances; or the premature exit of their manifestly more gifted French counterparts, for whom the delights of such exotic destinations as Réunion appeared more of a stimulant than next Sunday's European final?

This observer would suggest the latter. At least there is scope for French redemption under the successor of Jacques Santini. England remain a crop of limited promise, who Eriksson, after four years of cultivating, appears unable to transform into a bumper harvest. That truth will presumably become accepted once we halt attributing all our ills to the men in black, and instead inspect the heavily endorsed bootprints of the truly guilty. When even Tony Blair (albeit obliquely) and Sir Clive Woodward begin to oblige us with their opinions on football officials, it is time to despair.

Grieving may have been appropriate; grievances expressed against the referee, Urs Meier, are reprehensible. Possibly these are observed more acutely from abroad, but these xenophobic, periodic fits of national indignation render us utterly ridiculous in the eyes of our fellow Europeans.

And, excuse this observer for an intrusion, but wasn't the Swiss official's decision actually correct? Just a small point. Have we not learnt by now that goalkeepers are as much a protected species as the humpback whale? Leap anywhere near those precious custodians, and you are liable to be penalised. To complain is as much nonsense as the platitudinous verdict from the self-serving England followers, that everyone loves us. Take it from me, they don't. And certainly not all of "us". Not if you're a family or a couple in the proximity of certain alcohol-fuelled individuals with their disturbingly racist refrains.

But to return to England, the team and their coach; by any other modern football logic, other than the fact that the Football Association have indebted themselves by many millions by extending and increasing the benefits of his contract, Eriksson would tomorrow be seeking to re-immerse himself in club football.

Not because he has "failed", but more crucially, because there is scant evidence of any progress over the past two years (bearing in mind that this time the Swede had the benefit of a "fit" Beckham, Gary Neville and Steven Gerrard, and serendipity had rewarded him with Wayne Rooney, even if Rio Ferdinand was absent. This commentator, after Japan-South Korea, when some even then were casting Eriksson as the condemned man, declared that his tenure should be prolonged. But close to four years should be sufficient for any coach to demonstrate his prowess, or offer some promise. In that last respect, Eriksson is still found wanting.

This tournament, after all, is eminently winnable by a coach who can marshal his forces effectively, as Greece's German-born Otto Rehhagel has demonstrated, thus far, with splendidly schemed victories over Portugal and France. His men never appeared liable to defeat having secured leads against those sides. The fact that England looked vulnerable in the same position should raise doubts about the tactics of Eriksson and his acolytes.

The mere spectacle of Phil Neville on the touchline, prepared for action, has the effect of a white flag where the opposition are concerned. But the loss to Portugal or, more pertinently, the failure to defeat them, was about more than one substitution. It concerned a midfield that is not half as technically gifted as many English judges believe it is; a band of four who, despite inflicting occasional damage on the opposition, are too frequently incapable of maintaining possession.

Gerrard and Frank Lampard are particular culprits. Blame the "Wham, bam, thank you, Sam (not necessarily Allar-dyce)" approach to the Premiership, if you like, where possession tends to become only one tenth of the law. Whatever the reason, it exists and is a fatal flaw among England's players.

Statistics can be misleading, but it was informative afterwards to learn that Gerrard's completed passing ratio against Portugal was less than 50 per cent. Comparatively, the success rate of Luis Figo, Cristiano Ronaldo, Costinha and Nuno Gomes was high. If you are to contemplate merely maintaining a lead - and against the hosts, England did, either by design or fatigue - then retention is a prerequisite. Otherwise the rearguard, who on the whole performed with distinction (notably the Arsenal pair, Sol Campbell and Ashley Cole) are placed under unrelenting pressure.

As England prepared to pull out on Friday, the enormous marquee which provided the England media facility - Sven's big tent with no main acts, only clowns - echoed to "goddas". As in "we godda great bunch of lads... a great spirit... a great team". David Beckham was at it, 10 to the dozen. Michael Owen had done so the night before, leaving the Estadio da Luz. Now, let it be said that the England striker should be absolved from general criticism, having performed creditably against Portugal and, in the Alan Shearer-like, leader-of-the-line role he dislikes, had been offered poor service in previous games.

But when he states: "I believe this team can become a force at the next World Cup", you have to say that he is deluding no one but himself and his fellow players. This would be a World Cup with South American and ever-improving African nations, would it? Not the local affair England had just departed.

Eriksson has spoken often of his admiration for the midfield four. Worldclass, he has opined at some stage in almost all their regards. The evidence here does not support that stance. Unless someone clones Wayne Rooney, producing players with a capacity for midfield invention and ball retention, England will continue to suffer.

If Eriksson does remain, as he presumably will, handcuffed by that £4.5m- a-year contract, then it at least provides the Swede with two years to develop both players and alternative strategies before Germany 2006. He must scrutinise young pretenders like Joe Cole, Jermaine Jenas, Jermain Defoe. Maybe Shaun Wright-Phillips. But also he may have to contemplate the unthinkable, and not least Beckham's future as player and captain.

Where the latter is concerned, it may be contended that he, like Eriksson, has overstayed his welcome. If nothing else, that responsibility demands, if not pure leadership qualities (and Beckham himself concedes that is not his forte), then at least leadership by example. The Real Madrid player, perhaps for reasons examined elsewhere in these pages, has fallen short on that requirement, too.

Eriksson maintains: "We've seen Beckham do better as an individual player, but I think he did well and was disciplined." The coach was being extraordinarily kind.

It was perhaps fortunate for Eriksson that Rooney, football's Artful Dodger - pickpocketing expensive rearguards a speciality - has brought such genius and youthful devilment to this European party.

But it will require more, considerably greater resourcefulness and technique from coach and personnel, if delirium is to replace disillusionment in two summers' time.