Sven should stick by his men

When the dust has settled and Sven has had a break, he will sit down at his desk and begin planning for the European Championships. He should look forward with confidence and this tournament will have done his youngsters a lot of good.

Elimination at the quarter-finals should not lead to panic and I expect 90 per cent of the players involved in this World Cup to be kept on. One or two players will be allowed to drift away but the majority of the squad should stay together for the next two tournaments over the next four years.

As for Seaman, Sven will do what I did four years ago - come to the conclusion that if we had got to the final, David would probably have been the best goalkeeper in the competition.

Right from the start against Sweden he looked very assured and he was not responsible for the defeat against Brazil.

Of course Seaman would have been very disappointed with the goal from Ronaldinho but others bear responsibility for failing to capitalise on our numerical advantage when Brazil were reduced to 10 men. We failed to answer the first attacking question thrown at us. Seaman has been a fantastic servant for his country and should he decide to carry on I am sure he has it in him to be our No1 for at least another two years.

Much has been made of the fact that we couldn't keep possession in the second half against Brazil, but I disagree with those who view this as symptomatic of a wider malaise.

Sven has already called for a mid-winter break and fewer teams in the Premiership, although neither of these sensible suggestions would help us hang on to the ball. England sides have shown the ability to do this, most notably against Italy in Rome when we qualified for France '98 and, under Sven, against Germany in Munich last year. That 5-1 victory was definitely not just an 'up and at 'em performance' - we kept the ball. And three years earlier we also stood the test against Argentina when we were reduced to 10 men.

In this World Cup we played things very tight and were very hard to break down. Even when we went into a lead, we played two banks of four with one striker occasionally dropping into midfield. It is a system similar to Liverpool's and worked a treat. Of course had that taken us all the way to the final and eventual victory, there would have been no post-mortem on possession.

The truth is there are times when you have to come out and attack, something that England had not been required to do in this tournament. If anything, we have learned the hard way of the need for a flexible approach because we were unable to change against Brazil, whose 10 men kept the ball better than us. It is the balance of our game, rather than pure possession, that needs to be looked at: Once we work on that we will be ready for every occasion - defensively strong enough to play out a game as well as sufficiently confident to switch shape for all-out attack.

Having said that, when I was England manager I did feel we were a little bit behind other teams in terms of keeping the ball. That's why, when we enjoyed possession, I liked to play with five in midfield. Defensively you switch from three at the back to four when you lose the ball. This flexibility helps you outnumber the opposition in certain areas.

Overall we missed Steven Gerrard, who would have slotted in a midfield three alongside David Beckham. Looking at the immediate future I think Joe Cole needs to play in a midfield three because you will never get the best out of him in a wide role or as part of the central two. Until he gets more experience, he requires the protection that a three-man midfield supplies. Michael Carrick is another one for the future but while he is a lovely passer of the ball, the West Ham player still needs more Premiership games under his belt.

But no one should be downcast. So much is about confidence and we have to ensure that the players believe they can pass the ball well when they need to. I'm sure Sven will have noted that already.

Despite England's elimination, this has been a great tournament. At the start I backed Brazil to win and I see no reason to change my mind. Both Germany and Brazil came through the back door when qualifying but are now in the semi-finals. Both teams have got better as the tournament has gone on and Germany, while still not at their best, have improved since England gave them a 5-1 drubbing in the qualifiers.

I think Senegal, beaten in the quarter-finals by Turkey, would have caused more problems for Brazil than Turkey because of their unpredictability. Senol Gunes's side will be in fear of the Brazilians and are just happy to have reached the semi-final.

However, while the football has been good to watch, it has not been one of the best competitions for referees or their assistants. I was far from happy with what I saw in South Korea's quarter-final against Spain who should have gone through.

I know exactly how the Spanish team and coach must have felt because I was on the receiving end against Argentina four years ago. It is frustrating because all you are asking for is a bit of honesty and justice.

The officials will always get one or two things wrong but when that figure becomes three or four vital decisions, then the standard of officiating is obviously not good enough. The Spanish have been particularly unfortunate and while it has been romantic to watch the progress of the Koreans under Guus Hiddink, they have been very lucky to reach the semi-finals.

It is a shame that England are not facing Turkey in the semi-finals tomorrow but this is a post-tournament period when Sven, his players and the nation should reflect on what has been achieved and look ahead to the next two major tournaments with a real sense of pride and optimism.