Why are so many people always so critical of English players’ technique? I read an article this week lamenting the technical ability of the country’s young talent and blaming the FA. But it’s wrong to suggest that English players have serious technical weaknesses and rubbish to blame the FA in any case.

The writer took England under-21s’ poor showing in the final of last month’s European Under-21 Championship as evidence to prove his case, but that 4-0 defeat by Germany just showcased the inadequate management of Stuart Pearce, not any inferiority among the players. It was Pearce’s tactics that were at fault, not his team’s technique.

England were disorganised, and it was a poor collective performance on the night, but that doesn’t mean that Kieran Gibbs or Lee Cattermole can’t trap a ball or play an accurate pass.

Theo Walcott was disappointing, but Pearce asked him to play a role he’s clearly not suited for, as a central striker having to stand with his back to goal and act as a target man. His quiet display wasn’t down to poor technique, it was because he wasn’t right for the task he was given. That England reached the final despite looking disorganised during the tournament – remember how that 3-0 lead against Sweden was blown – is, if anything, a tribute to their ability in the midst of mismanagement.

It’s too easy to suggest that the FA should take responsibility for the technical standard of players when the onus is obviously on the clubs, who look after them for 95 per cent of the time and from an increasingly young age.

If you’re going to argue that Walcott isn’t improving as he should, you’re really suggesting that the Arsenal manager, Arsene Wenger, isn’t doing a good enough job of developing the forward. That’s quite an accusation to level at a manager who’s among the best in the world at coaching young players.

Fabio Capello, the England manager, recently said he was impressed by the calibre of English clubs’ academies. For me, in the past few years, the standard of technique has improved significantly, helped no doubt by the influence of foreign players and managers.

We’re too pessimistic about the skill level of England’s players, too ready to do them down in comparison with the likes of the Spanish and Italians. Peter Crouch, Emile Heskey, to take two favourite whipping boys, are more talented than they’re given credit for and certainly far from the stereotypical big lumbering centre forwards of old.

Joe Cole, Steven Gerrard, Gareth Barry, Michael Carrick – internationals with excellent ability. They may not have the magical flair of a Lionel Messi or a Kaka, but who does? They’re special cases.

England players are often slated for being “limited”, even the more successful ones – but the nation doesn’t have a monopoly on footballers such as Michael Owen who rely on pace to compensate for mediocre technique. How much of a threat would Samuel Eto’o, for example, be without his speed?

In any case, we shouldn’t get over-obsessed with technique. It’s a big piece of the jigsaw, but it’s not everything. Kaka may be a more inherently gifted player than Gerrard, but given Gerrard’s energy and versatility, I’d argue against the new Real Madrid signing being a superior player overall.

The question to ask after England under 21s’ defeat isn’t “Why were England technically poor?” It’s “why weren’t England effective?” And the answer is: because of one-dimensional tactics influenced by the fear of defeat that failed to get the best out of good players. That’s a problem common to past England regimes and many clubs below the top four in the Barclays Premier League.

Explore Football

• Premier League

• Football League

• Scotland

• European Football

• International Football

• TheGame

• Live Match Tracker

• The Fink Tank

• Fantasy Football