Everyone was saying that we'd be doing well if we got out of the group. We didn't get out, so what's the big deal really?

You know Uruguay have a higher place in the footballing pantheon than we do, right? To use them as a subtle punchline is ridiculous.

A casual fan no doubt.

Uruguay. 3.25 million people. FIFA ranking = 7. Highest FIFA ranking = 2 (in 2012). Two time World Cup winners. Fifteen time Copa America winners (a record). Two time Olympic gold medal winners in football. They have a squad of players who play in Spain, Italy, England and Portugal with two of the best strikers in world football as well (and Forlan isn't bad either).

Per capita they are probably the most successful football nation on the planet. So, yeah, bad example really.

Just watching Algeria last night - what separates England from teams like this (really England should be head and shoulders above) was passion. Algeria played with their heart and soul! I haven't seen an England side have that drive for many years. My favourite England side has to STILL be 1990. Nothing I have seen since then surpasses that.

Didn't you know, "insert foreign country" and all others with the exception of Germany, Argentina and Brazil all bow down to the footballing superpower that is England. it's almost as comical as the passion and anthem singing arguments. Nothing to do with coaching at youth level etc.. or actually keeping to a coherent game plan and playing as a unit and not as individuals with eye-catching Hollywood passes when a simple but largely unappreciated 5 yards forward pass would suffice.

They were organised and astute, that was what separated them from England far more than really wanting it badly.

Did you watch the group games in 1990? The game against Ireland was so bad, the Italian TV producer cut to a 1,000 feet aerial shot of the stadium while the ball was in play. England were a goal away from not making the second round. Had that happened, the team would be as badly thought of as the one in 2014.

I thought that Hodgeson's motto was for his teams to be organized and astute?

I'm sure he planned for them to win a game too, but the best intentions and all that.

I didn't actually like football before Italia 90 (being a girl who hated it). Then I happened to catch the Belgium V England game when Platt scored in the dying moments...I instantly fell in love with the team and the game.

I won't have seen any of the other matches before that - But I do remember us playing Cameroon (with Milla etc.), then West Germany and almost getting through but for misses from Pearce and Waddle.

Suffice to say I have watched every World Cup since then and haven't really loved another England team as much as them since.

I live in hope they will find that magic again. I know we didn't win anything that year, but we were a tight unit I felt and fairly strong in every area of the pitch.

its no doubt been said already but every one of the team plays in the English premier league. what bearing has that compared to other countries ?

I agree. England were not as great as people like to remember. Scraped through the group stage, scraped past Belgium in the second round, scraped past Cameroon thanks to two penalties and lost to Italy in the third place playoff. The only decent game was against West Germany which we lost. I think the only decent thing about England that summer was John Barnes rapping

For me, Euro '96 was probably the best side I've seen. Belted the Dutch and Scottish and came so close against Germany. The song wasn't half bad either. And we actually won a penalty shoot-out

I've said this elsewhere. I bought the England edition video tape after the tournament and wondered why I'd bothered. The media hyped up the 1990 campaign no end afterwards focussing on Gazza, who had a decent game against the Germans and cried!!

The England team play a type of footballing from the ark. It's irrelevant in today's world. We never learn.

The FA always appoint the wrong manager, overpay him and give him a long "virtually unsackable" contract that's not based on performance or results.

The manager meanwhile, for each tournament, picks eleven household names from the Premiership instead of a team.

TBF Not many people were complaining about the squad selected apart from suggesting John Terry and Ashley Cole could have gone.

2 very big household names - one of whom had retired and wanted to stay that way.

Most were saying what a bright fresh young squad it was with players in form and who could excited.

For an hour against Italy we were pretty good attacking wise before unlike most other teams losing energy and appearing to be unfit just when we needed to step the performance up.

Uruguay was a tight game decided by a couple of defensive mistakes leaving a world class striker to score twice (motivated no doubt by Hodgson saying Suarez needed to prove himself!)

The Costa Rica was a non even but it was worrying at how our main striker managed to pass up so many chances and again we really did appear to tire as the game went on.

I think its a bit more than passion we need to work on...making sure we last the whole 90 minutes is one and concentration at all times.

Plus maybe ensuring members of the England squad/management and media don't hand out easy motivational tools to the other countries before we play them - presume they have PR people?

There are a lot of criticisms of Hodgson, but I'm not sure one about him just picking big names is a completely valid one when Frank Lampard sat and watched Raheem Sterling, Jordan Henderson and Ross Barkley play ahead of him.

True with the new owners we do look at that overseas market but in the past we've had the likes of Malky Mackay, Brendan Rodgers, Aidy Boothroyd and of course Sean Dyche in charge so we've helped young coaches get their chance as well.

It comes back to the point though that owners and managers plus probably fans are only interested in getting the best for their club rather than worrying about how England get on...maybe due to the money involved and demand/need for instant success.

One bad run for Liverpool as an example and it will be "Rodgers out" or "we need to buy more proven quality" rather than trying to build a young term for the future.

Maybe in other countries that have done well the national team comes first?

As a Man U fan I wonder if Greg Dyke had his club side or England at heart first before becoming FA chairman...

Lampard should not have been on the team, neither should Gerrard or Rooney. It would have caused an uproar, but so be it. England will never win anything with them on the team. Just like Spain could not get anywhere with their superstar Raul or Germany with their star Ballack.

Until those players are off the team England will never look like a unit on the pitch with a coherent game plan. England should be playing like Algeria, Mexico, Chile etc, but because they consider themselves to have "star players" they try playing like the big teams with disastrous consequences.

The manager is completely useless. There could be anyone else in his place and the result would have been the same (or even better). He doesn't understand the game and can't make the necessary changes midway through, he was completely unprepared to face Pirlo and Suarez, there was no strategy or game plan in place and England just played their usual kick and rush football.

Lampard wasn't on the team, he didn't get a sniff of football until the glorified lap of shame that made up the last game. Gerrard and Rooney had fine seasons so earned their place, regardless of revisionism.

You say that but, if you have look at the "Predict the Quarter Finals" thread, you will see that many of the posters had England in the quarters!

Not playing footballers in their right positions and picking systems which is unsuitable. Don't bring footballers who are unfit, who have been injured most of the season or those who play for the big teams but are second/third choice in their own club.

There is a lot of complaints about Rooney. But to be fair he wasn't match fit, very talented and I think to ease pressure off him he would have been better used as a sub or even brought in to help midfield as he has done for United ie similar role to Scholes.

People complain about the players but if the system is wrong then it's down to the manager. We had midfield of just Henderson and Gerrard, is it any wonder the team got over run at times and couldn't get hold of the game.

To say England have not got the players is nonsense. Players in teams that qualified are in teams lower placed teams than some of those in the England team. Tactics was completely wrong.

I agree with this. Yes, England don't have any superstars, but so what? Many teams do well without any stars, but with great management. The England manager is a non-entity. He might as well not be there.

Yes and no. I agree there are no great candidates that jump to mind for next England manager but even with a great manager I think the FA and the system would still undermine the manager's chances of doing well.

They have a large pool of players but they have obvious weaknesses in their squad too. Defensive midfield is a problem position. There are less centre backs coming through too (to match the level Campbell, Ferdinand, Terry, Carragher, King reached at similar ages). And the goalkeeper position isn't all that strong but then I don't think it ever has been. Fullbacks who can defend are rarer in modern football than even 10 years earlier because of the tendency for most teams to tell them to bomb on and play pretty much as midfielders.

However it's of much lesser concern than their main problems which I think are that they don't play a style of football that does them any favours (they are bypassing midfield far too much) and they seem tactically naive at times. Take the Italy match - 2 man midfield against 4 man Italian midfield with Pirlo getting all the time in the world to pick passes and Italy doubling up on Baines. That went on for pretty much 90 minutes with the only change that I can remember being Rooney, Sterling and Welbeck switching around further forward (to no great effect to England's left side). Any coach worth his salt, firstly wouldn't send a team out that was so obviously mismatched in midfield, or when he saw the match progress, would have made drastic change to try to remedy the situation. Mourinho would have been switching things around a dozen times if he had to. That was my main criticism of Hodgson there. I thought he didn't do enough to try to change things after his initial mistake of sending out a team without much of a midfield.

However, in his defence, I read a lot of discussion pre-game and a lot of people wanted England "to go for it" and play the "Liverpool formation". I always thought it was just weakening an area (midfield) that didn't match up very well to begin with. And I don't think the extra attacker really helped as often players were making similar runs. I think a 4-3-3 (or 4-3-2-1) would have been far more balanced. If anything I think Hodgson took too much notice of the populist opinions pre-game and got lulled into putting that side out.

These are only individual things from one tournament though. I think if you viewed every England world cup campaign since (eg) 1990 and looked for common themes most people would say England's main problems are in keeping possession, playing through midfield, and creating passing moves. That's what I often think when assessing style of play anyway. That's a deeper problem that goes beyond the manager and even the current players. A short passing and possession based style of football doesn't seem to be in the British (let's be fair) football make-up (sadly).

Then there's the youth coaching thing too. We have far fewer coaches per player than other countries at certain levels and you only need to look at older BBC documentaries on football (from the 80s and 90s) to see what the standard of coaching was up to. I wonder how far we've progressed on that with the introduction of more foreign coaches into the country.

Not to mention how many distinct football clubs we have rather than feeder clubs which is another difference in British football versus continental football. Perhaps we are too focused on results at lower level rather than developing players? You'd think the two would come together but maybe young players being barked at to hit it long and tackle hard and run hard whilst they are playing for some 8th division side as part of their development isn't the best coaching for them as players.

couldn't agree more with that paragraph

in order to try and fit rooney, wellbeck, sturridge and sterling into the same team just compromised the middle of the pitch too much , gerrard and Henderson were basically bypassed when England had possession and not really effective when they didn't