By and large, England’s defeats are masterminded by their best 11 players. So why, when Illingworth talks about the “fine dividing line between winning and losing”, do England so unerringly alight upon the latter.It is, pure and simple, the system. The domestic competition is neither competitive nor structured towards a national pyramid, and the net result – almost always – is that the moment England’s most talented players come under pressure, there is a chemical reaction similar to pouring salt on to a slug. An Australian journalist once memorably described England’s cricketers as having “all the never-say-die qualities of a kamikaze pilot”.Unless and until the game is geared towards an England production line, instead of a series of second-rate competitions propped up by charity hand-outs and involving inadequate practitioners motivated mostly by the antiquated system of allowing them tax-free raffles after 10 years, it will ever be thus. We might weep for England on the field of cricket, but we should never be surprised by them.Robin Smith was not a hopeless selection, although John Crawley might have been a more logical choice to partner the ever more redoubtable Atherton, and having Alec Stewart keep wicket allowed for six batsmen and five bowlers. As Illingworth pointed out, with Darren Gough making the traditional English fast bowler’s visit to the physio’s couch, they would have been in an even deeper pickle with only four bowlers.

There was even some kind of logic in preferring Devon Malcolm to Angus Fraser. But Malcolm will always be what he is – a potential match winner, but with as much potential to win a match for the opposition as for his own side Problems, problems. Nothing but problems.Atherton and Illingworth will be trying to solve them again at this weekend’s selection meeting for Lord’s, but miracle cures are only really expected by those newspapers who portray you either as a hero or a turnip. On current form, expect Raymond’s silvery-grey dome to be turned into a root vegetable sometime around mid-series..

“It is half-term,” suggested Terry Venables after his pupils had been given a lesson by the Brazilian masters of the footballing arts on Sunday. A better analogy might be that long summer break enjoyed by 15-year-olds the year before they sit their GCSEs (or ‘O’ levels to anyone over 24). But, while Venables’ players lounge on the beach or hang about the shopping mall, he will be busy swotting over the videotapes of the Umbro Cup and planning for next June. That is when England sit their first examination under his tutelage: the European Championship finals.
A few days ago it was fairly clear that England would flunk the test. Clueless against Japan, defensively hapless against Sweden, the Brazilian challenge seemed to offer only the prospect of embarrassment.It did bring England their first defeat in Venables’ 10 matches as coach, and their heaviest home loss since 1972, but there were encouraging signs. For an hour at Wembley, England matched the best.In the end they were undone by the customary English failing – poor technique – and by defensive confusion due, in large part, to fielding an almost new back four.In some ways the big successes of the tournament – apart from Brazil – were those English players who did not take part. David Seaman, Tony Adams, Paul Ince and Rob Jones are more sure of their places than ever, although Gary Neville will soon be pushing Jones at right-back.Matt Le Tissier’s case is less sure He was available, but left out.