David: Beckham's attack on his England colleagues and their World Cup failings is presumably an attempt to further ingratiate himself with Fabio Capello.

In his crude and transparent attempt to exonerate Capello from all blame for England's South African debacle, Beckham's aim must surely be to carry sufficient favour to prolong his international career which should have come to an end long ago.

He speaks airily about participating in the Olympic Games of 2012 where Capello's writ will not, of course, run, and even of the World Cup in 2014.He now has, notionally at least, 115 England caps, but so many of them were so-called cameo appearances, absurdly bestowed on him by Capello.

To say that England's inept displays in South Africa were all the fault of the players is a travesty of the truth. Throughout England's limited sojourn in the tournament, Beckham was swanning around the training camps for no apparent purpose.

Wretched flop

Of course, the players must accept much of the blame for the team's failure. It was hardly Capello's fault that Wayne Rooney, from whom so much was expected, was a wretched flop. Nor could be bargain for the injury which deprived the squad and team of Rio Ferdinand, though in the event Dawson might surely have been a better bet that either Matthew Upson on Ledley King. Yet Capello didn't try Dawson out in the friendlies, when he could so well have done, and only called him up at the last moment.

Again in Capello's defence, he could hardly be held responsible for the tactical blunders of John Terry and Upson against Germany. Picking Gareth Barry when he was clearly not fully fit was another error, as was bringing along a Michael Carrick who had been quite out of form and wasn't even used.

Fielding James Milner in the opening game against the US when he was still suffering from an infection made no sense at all. Nor did the eternal failure to solve the central midfield problem of Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard. Sticking Gerrard out on the left wing has always been nothing better than taking evasive action and wasting an important player whose best position was surely the one he occupies for Liverpool, just behind the central striker; in this case, Rooney.

As for Emile Heskey, the non-scoring striker, who couldn't even hold a regular place with Aston Villa, what was the point of taking him at all? True, he neatly set up a goal against the US, then proceeded, all too typically, to miss one. In the German debacle, what in the name of logic was the point of bringing him on as a sub so late in the game, when a goal was desperately needed. Granted the shamefully disallowed in-off-the-bar goal by Frank Lampard could have made a difference in the German game. Goals, as we all know, alter the psychology of games. We cannot be sure it would not have been the case against the Germans, though it seems unlikely.

 

- The author is a football expert based in England