Football: YOUR BIG BLUNDER

THE debacle in Denmark was a freak result but you have to question the way Sven Goran Eriksson treats friendly games.

The England coach devalued them the moment he walked through the door by making ludicrous changes to the team and preventing continuity.

If FIFA had not intervened he would probably still be bringing on 11 players at half-time, which is utter madness.

In my playing days, the manager would make three or four changes towards the end of a game but, if he wanted to look at a player in a particular position, he would use them from the start.

Then again, perhaps the current problem is far deeper than this. If players know that Eriksson has struck deals with Premiership managers to play them for just 45 minutes are they really that interested?

I have campaigned against this for a while. It is morally wrong that managers, TV companies and sponsors are dictating who is picked in the squad and when and how long they play for.

Eriksson should be a man about it and stand up to them. He's the England manager and he should be dictating the terms of the players's involvement - not the other way round.

It never happened in my day. You never had these deals struck, the manager simply would not tolerate it. The problem with England is the tail is wagging the dog, and that can't be right.

I am at a loss to explain why Jermain Defoe was used for only 45 minutes on Wednesday when Sven knew Michael Owen is suspended for the vital World Cup qualifying game against Wales.

But I am not convinced about Defoe. He is unproven at this level and I don't necessarily believe he's the answer. There is, however, a big problem with all of this. There does not seem to be any logic applied to his thinking.

I think that Liverpool's Peter Crouch is a better option because he is a different type of player to Defoe.

The Tottenham striker is the same as Owen but, with Crouch, you have a player who offers you more options.

Undoubtedly, Sven's tactical awareness is now being questioned. People have been quick to question his tactics in the past and believe he can no longer stray away from a 4-4-2 formation.

But I'm not entirely sure that is fair because he came in and initially wanted to play 4-3-3.

The big test comes in games when you have to change things and as we saw against Brazil in the 2002 World Cup finals he found it difficult to diversify from a formation that was not working. I can see David James has created a problem for the coach.

James had a disastrous 45 minutes and he did not exactly help himself by coming out and saying he had not prepared for the game.

But without making any excuses the defending in front of him was kamikaze. There were far too many towels being thrown in.

I wouldn't axe James immediately but I would certainly monitor what he is doing. I would go as far to say that if he is picked in the squad, I would leave him as cover. I wouldn't bring him on.

Paul Robinson is streets ahead of the opposition and the main problem Eriksson has is who he would bring in if he axes James.

Chris Kirkland is always injured and Robert Green is no longer playing Premiership football.

My biggest fear for the future is that Sven puts so much emphasis on his 11 key players winning the World Cup.

Why does he always go on about the team when it should be the squad he's focusing on?

History suggests that the team that starts a World Cup never finishes it and that's a serious problem for him.

You could say his first 11 are capable of winning the World Cup but if you look at the depth of his squad and the obvious inexperience, England will struggle in Germany.

As in the past, key injuries have undermined England in major international tournaments. It's been the same throughout the years and what will Eriksson do if he loses Rooney, Owen or Lampard?

Let's be absolutely honest about it, aren't we being over- optimistic rather than realistic about England's chances?

Copyright 2005 MGN LTD
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.