It’s not the first time, of course, that a small eastern European country has humiliated England at Wembley, giving the nation that invented the game a lesson in how to play it.

Hungary’s famous 6-3 victory over England under Wembley’s Twin Towers in 1953 is the stuff of legend.

Croatia’s win under the floodlit Wembley Arch on Wednesday night ought to serve as just as big a wake-up call to the English game as that famous victory of the Mighty Magyars did, 54 years ago this week.

For what cannot be ignored in the wreckage of England’s humiliating 3-2 defeat was that Croatia outclassed England tactically and technically – just as Ferenc Puskas and his team did when they became the first ever foreign side to beat England at home.

The wet, slippery conditions were the same for both teams — but Croatia mastered them and England could not. Their players controlled the ball better, and Croatia coach Slaven Bilic outwitted England coach Steve McClaren, pulling the largely inexperienced England defence all over the pitch. Croatia had so much space and time. Their players looked sharper and fitter. Their passing was more accurate.

McClaren’s decision to drop Paul Robinson and David Beckham back-fired spectacularly. Scott Carson, making his first competitive appearance for England, was beaten twice in the opening 14 minutes and while not at fault for the second goal, he was for the first.

The sense of incredulity at Wembley was tangible. People were looking at each other saying, “I don’t believe what is happening here.”

But Carson cannot shoulder all the blame. At the heart of the matter is the fact that there are now far too many ordinary foreign players earning their fortunes in the Premier League.

No-one begrudges the fact that some of the world’s top players are here. But so, it seems, is everyone else who can kick a ball in a straight line. As a result, the pool of English players at the top level is diminishing.

When England won the World Cup in 1966, more than half of the goalkeepers playing in the old First Division were English. Right now there are four.

English pundits never stop telling the public the Premier League is the best, most exciting in the world, but as Steven Gerrard said last week, what’s the point of having the best league in the world if the national team is not good enough to qualify for major competitions.

It took England time to learn the lessons and catch up with the developing world of football in the 1950s after losing to Hungary. Thirteen years in fact.

There are different lessons to be learnt now, and in my view the main one is this.

England’s Premier League clubs should stop importing “ordinary” foreign players. That does not mean English football needs “quotas” to limit foreign players; it can impose its own by actually playing English players.

Clubs should concentrate on developing their own local talent instead of casting the nets ever wider across the world.

But we all know there is as much chance of that happening as England winning Euro 2008 in Austria and Switzerland.

PHOTO: Steven Gerrard walks off the pitch following England’s Euro 2008 qualifier against Croatia at Wembley, November 21, 2007. REUTERS/Kieran Doherty

I was standing at the side of the pitch as England’s goalkeeping coach Ray Clemence was working with keepers Paul Robinson, Scott Carson and David James at Arsenal’s London Colney training complex on Tuesday morning.

They were preparing for Wednesday night’s vital Euro 2008 qualifier by doing their usual drills, diving low to the right, then to the left, saving shots from in front of them, then from behind them as Clemence varied the routines.

The thing that struck our little posse of reporters was just how relaxed the trio was and what great camaraderie there exists between them. They are a strange, tall breed of men are goalies.

I remarked to a  colleague just how relaxed Paul Robinson looked. “That’s because the pressure’s off!” he shot back. “He knows he’s been dropped!”

We won’t know for certain whether Steve McClaren has or hasn’t left him out of the starting line-up until just before this crucial game.

He has played in every minute of all 11 qualifiers so far and actually kept clean sheets in nine of those games. The four goals he has conceded came in the 2-0 defeat at Croatia in October 2006 and in the 2-1 loss to Russia in Moscow last month.

Despite the impressive stats, Robinson’s confidence has never been the same since that game against Croatia in Zagreb 13 months ago when a harmless-looking backpass from Gary Neville hit a divot and went bouncing under Robinson’s boot and into his own net as he went to clear it.

Mistakes this season against Germany and Russia haven’t helped his cause, and his club form for Spurs has also been patchy. But he has played for England 41 times since making his debut nearly five years ago and is still the No.1 choice.

Scott Carson, on the other hand, is 22 and has played once for England, in last week’s friendly against Austria. England won 1-0 and he hardly had a shot to save. David James, 37 years old and 35 caps in his cupboard, is unlikely to start — but if Carson edges out Robinson then surely James should be on the bench. If McClaren believes Robinson is out of form, why have him as his nominated substitute?

And who else will be on the bench? David Beckham or Shaun Wright-Phillips? Beckham has played 98 times for England, but just twice in England’s six internationals this season. Wright-Phillips has played five times for England this season and scored twice in the last three games at Wembley.

Will McClaren opt for experience, or go for, as he called it on Tuesday, “the innocence of youth”? He’ll be damned for whatever decision he makes — unless England win.

Even if Carson and Wright-Phillips get the nod, which is very possible, I don’t think Robinson and Beckham will be out of the frame for long. Beckham will eventually get his 100 caps. Robinson deserves to fight another day.

Reuters Soccer Correspondent Mike Collett will be at Wembley on Wednesday

PHOTO: Ray Clemence watches goalkeepers (L-R) Scott Carson, Paul Robinson and David James during a training session in London Colney, November 20, 2007. REUTERS/ Eddie Keogh

Gordon Strachan, the Celtic manager, believes that the days of FIFA and UEFA are numbered and that a new European League, run by businessmen and comprising around 60 clubs is bound to happen sooner or later. Strachan said last week:

“The businessmen coming into football now will say, ‘Forget FIFA, forget UEFA, we’re so powerful we’ll have three (European) leagues with the best 60 clubs. I think that’s the way it has got to go.”

Doesn’t that sound like a terrifying prospect? For all their faults, and there are plenty of them, world soccer cannot exist as we know it without FIFA and UEFA and the other continental confederations running it.

What should not be forgotten is that FIFA and UEFA are non-profit making organisations: the revenue they generate is to all intents and purposes put back into the game at every level from elite to grass roots.

Of course the rich get richer and the likes of Manchester United, Arsenal, AC Milan, Barcelona and Real Madrid, will probably never now fall too far from the summit.

But occasionally, like Bayern Munich last season, they stumble. None of them are guaranteed success and a place in perpetuity at football’s top table. They still have to earn it, season by season. If Strachan’s nightmare vision came to pass, they almost certainly wouldn’t have to do that.

The danger is that any organisation formed by businessmen for the elite clubs to prosper could seriously damage the game. Would it tolerate relegation? I don’t think so. Would it change the laws on a whim? I suspect it would. A European league for the top 60 clubs? Yes, I’m sure lots of ordinary travelling fans would just love the expense of a trip to Moscow or Istanbul from Paris or Madrid every other weekend for nine months.

FIFA and UEFA, CONMEBOL (the South American confederation), CONCACAF (the north and central Americans), CAF (the African), the AFC (Asian) and Oceania (New Zealand and the Pacific region) may not be perfect. But can you think of a better alternative?

Excuse me if I’ve missed something, but why has a debate suddenly started about increasing the number of home-grown players appearing for England’s leading clubs via a quota system?

Reading’s erudite manager Steve Coppell kicked it off  earlier this week, Steven Gerrard supported it on Wednesday and it’s immediately a hot issue.

Now the great and the good, including FIFA president Sepp Blatter, UEFA president Michel Platini, Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger and none other than the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are all involved.

According to reports, discussions involving senior advisors to the prime minister will try to develop what The Guardian calls a “consensual British solution” to the apparent decline in the number of British and Irish players in the nation’s top sides.

Having so many foreigners is, according to Coppell, one of the few men in football with a University degree, having a damaging effect on the England team. If it hasn’t already, it will do soon.

Arsenal, the best team in the country right now, have been singled out by Platini for fielding so few English players. They did not start with one Englishman in the side when they beat Coppell’s Reading 3-1 on Monday. Arsenal manager Wenger totally disagrees with his countryman, and says that the foreigners coming here have improved the standards of English players playing alongside them.

“I have only been here since 1996 but between 1966 (when England won the World Cup) and 1996 you had 30 years without foreign players and you still didn’t win anything,” said Wenger, and you can’t argue with that.

In any case, the argument is flawed.

After the Bosman Ruling of 1995 when the barriers came down on cross-border movement of players within the European Union*, English clubs signed up almost anyone with two half-decent feet and a clever agent for far less than an English player would have cost them. Gradually many of the world’s best players came to England for huge salaries funded by clubs cash-rich from huge TV deals.

So the English game, whether it be the FA, the Premier League, the major clubs and even those lower down the scale all benefit because of the glamour the overseas players bring.

Yet, the argument goes, the English game is suffering because there are too many overseas players here and not enough home-grown talent. You can’t have it both ways. Also, as everyone from the Prime Minister down knows: under EU law you cannot prevent a Polish footballer playing for a top club, any more than you can prevent a Polish plumber fixing a leaky tap in Plumstead.

Saying you MUST start with six English-born or home-grown players in the starting line-up would also not be tolerated by the likes of Wenger or Alex Ferguson. They want to pick the best players available to them on the day.

The authorities have tried before to get round the EU laws without success. I don’t think they will do any better this time.

Mike Collett, Reuters Football Correspondent, London

* See here for a full explanation of the Bosman ruling and a look at the surrounding issues.

PHOTO: Gerrard celebrates his goal against Besiktas in the Champions League, November 6, 2007. REUTERS/Phil Noble

The Champions League is European club soccer’s Holy Grail. Top players move from smaller clubs to big clubs to play in it.

UEFA says it is the greatest club competition in the world and success guarantees millions of pounds, euros or dollars for those who achieve it.

But cracks are beginning to appear across the glossy, glittering showpiece competition that is slickly marketed and packaged for a global TV audience.

The group stage has become too predictable and boring. Don’t take my word for it — listen to Wayne Rooney who criticised Dynamo Kiev after Manchester United’s one-sided 4-0 win over the Ukrainian side at Old Trafford on Wednesday.

“They were negative and didn’t want to play. It spoilt the game. We were getting frustrated and bored as a team because it was just like training session.

“They just came here to be negative. I didn’t really enjoy playing tonight, but we’re delighted we are through and maybe we can rest a few players in the next few games to make sure we’re all right for the later stages.”

Dynamo Kiev came to Manchester beaten in their three previous Group F matches and without much hope of qualifying.

They embarked on a damage limitation exercise because they didn’t want to go home beaten 7-0 or 8-0. In the end United won easily and have qualified with two games to go. Arsenal have done the same — into the last 16 with two dead matches to come.

Is it a coincidence that two of the three biggest wins in Champions League history have come in the last two weeks?

Portsmouth manager Harry Redknapp, whose team is challenging for a place in next season’s competition, doesn’t think so.

In his column in The Sun on Thursday he said: “This may sound odd, but isn’t the Champions League getting a bit boring ?”

He says Liverpool’s record 8-0 win over Besiktas on Tuesday and Arsenal’s 7-0 win over Slavia Prague two weeks ago are not good adverts for the competition because the huge disparity between many of the teams involved makes the group stage too predictable.

“The Champions League is fast replacing the Carling Cup as a stage for the reserves to enjoy a few days in a pretty foreign town and a run out.”

UEFA president Michel Platini wants to revamp the Champions League bringing in more champions from lower-ranked European countries and even, possibly, domestic cup winners. But won’t that just make the situation even worse and create more lop-sided group matches ?

The Champions League REALLY only springs to life after Christmas when the 16 best clubs in Europe enter the knockout round.

What a brilliant idea for a competition. A straight knockout cup with home and away ties between the best clubs in Europe. But hey … that’ll never catch on.

Mike Collett, Reuters soccer correspondent, London

PHOTO: Manchester United’s Wayne Rooney in action against Dynamo Kiev, Nov. 7  REUTERS/ Darren Staples

Sometimes the men in suits get it right and FIFA’s decision to open up the World Cup bidding process is right on the money.

Well, of course, money had a lot to do with the decision, but FIFA’s call to end rotation and give the finals to what they consider the best candidate makes sound footballing and commercial sense.

The only restriction is that countries from the confederations that hosted the previous two tournaments are ineligible.

Therefore the bidding battle to stage the 2018 finals will be a worldwide contest excluding only countries from Africa, who are hosting 2010, and South America, whose bid from Brazil was rubber-stamped on Tuesday. African nations can bid again for 2022, while South America can re-enter the fray in 2026.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter may have many critics, but he’s an astute politician and on Tuesday he as good as admitted FIFA had made a mistake by rotating the bidding process around the continents.

FIFA did not really anticipate that a confederation would only nominate one country like South America did for Brazil. FIFA thought there would be an internal competition, but they were wrong.

The bidding process will become more like the Olympics bidding process now, but there is nothing wrong in that. It creates excitement, generates interest and gives more countries around the world a chance, at least, of hosting the world’s greatest sporting tournament.

Mike Collett, who saw his first World Cup match in England  in 1966 and would like to see the tournament return to England in 2018.

PHOTO: October 29, 2007. FIFA’s executive committee has voted unanimously on Monday to end its policy of rotating the hosting of World Cups through its six continental confederations. REUTERS/Michael Buholzer

Tottenham Hotspur find themselves at yet another crossroads.

A month after celebrating their 125th anniversary and 14 games into the season, Spurs have not only sacked manager Martin Jol, but the cack-handed manner of his dismissal has left their fans hanging their heads in disbelief.

Of course it is the board’s prerogative to sack and fire as they like. But Martin Jol was Spurs’ most successful manager since Keith Burkinshaw left after winning the UEFA Cup in 1984.

Jol didn’t win any trophies but he restored the club’s faith in itself and gave them their self-respect back. In my book, that’s success too.

Burkinshaw is famous for saying, as he walked out of White Hart Lane for the last time, “There used to be a football club over there.” He didn’t know how right he was. What there is now, like almost everywhere else in the Premier League, is a brand name, a merchandising hub, a machine for creating revenue streams. A multi-million pound industry.

That’s all fine. That’s football today and we, as fans and media, buy into it if we want to.

Spurs, though, do far better than most. For the last two seasons they have been the fifth best club in England and that was down to Jol, who led the team out of years of mid-table mediocrity.

They almost got into the Champions League in 2006. They were not far away last season. On the back of those relative successes — big successes in recent Tottenham history — they have made more money than ever before by playing in Europe again.

But UEFA Cup football is not Champions League football and that’s what chairman Daniel Levy demanded. Spurs have not played in Europe’s top club competition since their only appearance in the European Cup in 1961-62.

The clever money before the start of the season was that this was to be their season. They would finally break into the top four, but Spurs have made a very poor start to the season and one win from 10 league games is relegation form.

Still, the fans stood loyal to Jol. They appreciated him. I was at White Hart Lane last night when around 35,000 stood to salute the departing manager, singing his name and applauding him. It was surreal and something I have never seen before.

Sacked managers usually walk out to jeers, boos and catcalls. Martin Jol walked away with the cheers of the faithful ringing in his ears.

Word leaked out about his dismissal during the UEFA Cup match with Getafe. As word spread around the crowd the singing started. Jol waved at the fans. They applauded back. They also sang Levy’s name, but this is a family blog and we’ll not go into that.

Perhaps Levy and his fellow directors will be proved right. Perhaps Jol’s replacement will take the team that stage further and finally bring that coveted Champions League spot. But what if he doesn’t? Does he get three years and the bullet, like Jol.

Here’s a final thought. Arch-rivals Arsenal have enjoyed fabulous success over the
last 10 years and now regard Spurs as little more than an irrelevance. Spurs desperately want to emulate Arsenal’s success and get back to either being their betters or equals.

For much of the last century the clubs enjoyed periods of dominance over each
other. Spurs are unlikely to enjoy that feeling for a long while yet, if ever again.

For since 1996 Arsenal have had one manager: Arsene Wenger. Spurs are about to employ their eighth since Wenger arrived at the other end of the Seven Sisters Road.

The board better be hoping they have finally chosen the right man. Whoever he may be.

Mike Collett, Reuters Football Correspondent, London

PHOTO: Tottenham’s Dimitar Berbatov reacts after missing a chance against Getafe during their UEFA Cup Group G soccer match at White Hart Lane, October 25, 2007. REUTERS/Dylan Martinez

There’s an awful lot of rubbish served up in the name of good football and a lot of hype is shovelled out by self-interested media types desperate to promote “the product”.

One TV anchor man was so desperate to sell the sport he regularly described tedious goalless draws televised live on his show as “fabulous”, ”amazing”, “what a great advert for the game,” when everyone watching knew they were absolute dross.

In total contrast anyone watching Arsenal’s 7-0 demolition of Slavia Prague in the Champions League on Tuesday knew they were watching something so special they will speak about it for years to come.

It was one of those performances that can define a season, define a team or even define an era in a club’s history, although the way Arsenal are playing right now, it might not be the last time they demolish their opponents in such awesome fashion.

Sports journalists, if they are lucky enough to stick around for long enough, periodically get lucky and see these defining moments unfold before their very eyes.

I can reel off a few personal favourites.

Greatest game: the 1982 World Cup semi-final between West Germany and France which the Germans won on penalties after Harald Schumacher sent Patrick Battiston off to hospital with an elbow in the face.

Greatest goal? A toss-up between Ricky Villa’s slalom through the Manchester City defence for Spurs to win the 1981 FA Cup final replay OR Zinedine Zidane’s thunderous volley which gave Real Madrid their ninth European Cup final success in Glasgow in 2002.

Greatest devastating seven minutes of attacking football which produced three goals to renew your faith in the beautiful game? Arsenal on Tuesday night at the Emirates Stadium.

My pick of the three was the one Aleksandr Hleb scored after the most amazing pass from Cesc Fabregas. Or perhaps it was Fabregas’s which rounded off a sweeping Arsenal move from one end of the field to the other, or perhaps it was Theo Walcott’s with the outside of his right foot. I’m not sure yet, each one was as good, if not better than the other.

Don’t worry if you missed them. They will be shown repeatedly on TV for a while yet.

Arsenal were simply awesome on Tuesday. Their passing was spot on, their teamwork almost telepathic. Ahead 3-0 by the interval they could have rested on their laurels, but that is not coach Arsene Wenger’s way. He told them to score more if they could — and they did.

In essence, there was very little to fault in their display. But as I left the press box I overheard one fan say to his mate: “Shame about that Rosicky shot that hit the bar. He should have scored that.”

Some people are just never satisfied. Arsenal had just scored seven goals to equal their own European winning margin, and equal the all-time record established in the Champions League when Juventus beat Olympiakos Pireaus in 2003.

Perfection is rarely achieved in football, but Arsenal came as close to anything I have seen for a long while on Tuesday.

Mike Collett, Reuters Soccer Correspondent, London

PHOTO: Arsenal’s Theo Walcott celebrates after scoring against Slavia Prague during their Champions League Group H soccer match at Emirates Stadium in London, October 23, 2007. REUTERS/Toby Melville

The hardest part of being England’s football manager is probably not managing the team. It’s convincing most of the 60 million people in England who think they can do the job better than you that they can’t.

Since England’s stunning 2-1 defeat to Russia in Moscow on Wednesday night, the position of Steve McClaren, the man who actually holds the job, looks untenable. And suddenly, everyone is an expert. But let’s quickly recap.

With 69 minutes played, England were leading 1-0. Russia were increasing the pressure but the defence was coping. A scribbled observation in my notebook reads: “Russia swarming, but nothing coming of it. Pavlyuchenko settling in slowly.”

Sol Campbell, recalled by McClaren in place of the injured John Terry, looked impregnable. Rio Ferdinand was playing superbly. Joleon Lescott, making his full debut, looked a little unsure at the start but grew in stature as the match progressed. Micah Richards kept Yuri Zhirkov totally subdued.

From my vantage point high in the Luzhniki Stadium England were keeping their shape well. True, Russia had upped the tempo in the second half, but what else where they going to do?

McClaren had inexperienced defenders Nicky Shorey and Luke Young on the bench alongside the vastly experienced Phil Neville.

This is now the crucial question. Should he have reinforced the England defence before the 69th minute when Russia equalised with the first of Pavlyuchenko’s two goals. Sixty million managers-in-waiting will have an opinion about that. But in that stadium, until Russia scored, the English press corps were largely united.

I didn’t hear any of them say, “McClaren, bring on the cavalry.” I did hear them say: “It’s getting hairy, but they can hold on.” They were of the belief that England were doing well  enough. Russia had not had a serious threat and England looked like holding out.

You see a different match on television. In the stadium England looked under pressure –but comfortable with it. Then they conceded two goals in four minutes and lost.

Massive telecoms problems in the stadium meant that many of us could not file our pieces for an hour or more after the match finished.  It gave us time to think, and for the pens of the more vitriolic to be sharpened to a knife point.

McClaren and the rest of us may or may not have seen the goals coming. But once they did, McClaren knew the daggers in the back would follow and they have.

Mike Collett, Reuters Football correspondent, who doesn’t want the job of
England football manager

PHOTO: England’s Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard leave the pitch after their team’s 2-1 defeat to Russia in their Euro 2008 Group E qualifying soccer match at the Luzhniki stadium in Moscow, October 17, 2007. REUTERS/Darren Staples

Let’s be totally frank about this: it is absolutely crazy to boo one of your own players. There are normally more than enough opposition fans in the stadium ready to do just that so why do their job for them?

The latest victim of this ridiculous show of moronic behaviour was the Chelsea and England midfielder Frank Lampard.

The blog posted yesterday by my colleague Patrick Johnston regarding Lampard addressed the issue of whether he should return to the England team for the match against Russia. A totally valid, and separate argument.

For the fact that England fans have taken to booing him, as they did when he came on as a substitute for Michael Owen in Saturday’s match against Estonia at Wembley Stadium, holds no validity whatsoever.

It has sparked a huge debate in the English media with former players turned pundits, columnists, and fans all having their say.

The case against Frank seems to be this: He had a poor World Cup for England last year. He plays for Chelsea. He kisses the badge every time he scores and he earns a fortune. Ergo, he has come to embody the very worst aspects of the money-laden Premier League.

But a number of those points apply to other members of the England team. True, they might not play for Chelsea, but they all earn a fortune and many of them had a poor World Cup.

Many fans who were booing Lampard were also laughing at the same time. What happens next time he scores for England? Do they say the goal didn’t count or do they boo louder still?

Two weeks ago Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson said that England was developing a “blame” culture spawned by reality TV shows that owe much of their popularity to public humiliation.

He is absolutely right and the modern-day morons who booed Lampard at Wembley on Saturday were the type who would have enjoyed throwing rotten apples at some jackanape in the village stocks 300 years ago.

England fans were vilified for their thuggery throughout the 1970s and 1980s. That may have changed for the better, but is booing one of their own players really much better?

Mike Collett, Reuters Soccer Correspondent. Mike saw his first England match in 1962. No-one booed their own players then.

PHOTO: Happier times: Lampard celebrates after scoring for Chelsea against Portsmouth on August 25, 2007. REUTERS/Alessia Pierdomenico.