[Ska'dForLife-WBA]

Got to agree there. England were a good side in '66, but undoubtedly got the rub of the green, and slavish adherence to what was then considered "the winning formula" handicapped a national team which had far better players in the 1970s, while our clubs were setting the example by playing great football and taking Europe by storm.

I don't buy into the notion of physicality being some magical English "strength". It's something our coaches have always instilled into young players, and thus has always been part and parcel of the English game, but recent decades have seen foreign teams absolutely school us in individual technical ability (and before anyone starts, I don't think tiki-taka is the holy grail of football tactics; indeed, like us with 4-4-2 and "strength", Spain became too obsessed with the style, didn't innovate or evolve, and thus came an absolute cropper last summer as a direct result). The gap between us and the opposition was painfully illustrated when we played Italy, and Pirlo was controlling the game and setting the tempo without breaking a sweat. Who do we have who can do the same? Why can't we produce such a player? Why is our inbuilt kneejerk response to being outclassed always "be FASTER and STRONGER!"

What's the physical difference between young Paul kicking a ball in Birmingham, Paolo kicking it in Milan and Paulinho kicking it in Rio? They've all got two legs, a chest and a head. What's the mental difference? They've all got brains, they can all think and act on instinct. Is there a cultural difference? Undoubtedly, but I don't think it's as big as some would have us believe. The difference is what they're being taught, and as long as we're neglecting Paul's technical ability in favour of beefing him up into some brick shithouse, we'll carry on struggling.