The media are in a bit of a feeding-frenzy at the moment, what with three English teams making the last four of the Champions League, with only poor old 'sexy football' Arsenal missing out.

Not so long ago I would have sneered at the notion of our teams being described as 'English', given the huge number of foreign players involved. I mean, yes, they play in an English league, but could we really claim any of these teams as English?

Actually, at the moment, we can look at them, and Chelsea and Manchester United in particular, and consider them to have an essential 'Englishness' about them. Between the three teams, they have 15 of the current England squad, with the Blues and United providing six each.

Closer inspection sees only four from each club as being first-team regulars, but it's still a healthy international representation. And not just the squad, actually. The first team could easily see Gary Neville, Rio Ferdinand, John Terry and Ashley Cole in defence, Steven Gerrard, Frank Lampard and Joe Cole, maybe even Michael Carrick, in midfield, with Peter Crouch and Wayne Rooney up front. Only Wes Brown, Jamie Carragher and Sean Wright-Phillips are peripheral to the team.

That's 10 of 11 potential starters from those three clubs, and if the young Watford keeper Ben Foster goes back to Manchester United, then it could be a full set.

Given what I've just written, how is it then that these are all doing so well in the Premiership and in Europe, yet they stink in an England shirt? Do the foreign players around them make them better players for their clubs? Well, JT certainly plays better alongside Ricardo Carvalho, and Lamps plays better knowing Claude Makelele is behind him. Lamps also knows he can play a ball forward and be sure that one of his Chelsea colleagues can actually control the pass.

I'm not sure if that team above has ever played for England, though I guess we must have come close a few times. I just wonder what that line-up might do…given a decent manager. Because whilst perhaps few of them are as good as their PR might suggest, none are as bad as they have often been wearing the three lions. So does it come down to management? Coaching? Tactics? Why are these players so lacking in confidence when they are not playing for their clubs?

One of the reasons, I am sure, is the weight of expectation. The English are masters at building players up in order to knock them down again. We expect them to perform at their very best each and every time; we complain and shake our heads when the first pass is misplaced, groan and whistle when the first shot is mis-hit. The media apply so much pressure on our players that, on many occasions, they take the easy option. Pass sideways rather than forwards, lurk in the background rather than move into position and scream for the ball.

Let me provide an example. In the World Cup, Joe Cole played a delightful backheel to one of his players, moved to turn it into a one-two, and set England off on a great attack. Co-commentator Mark Lawrenson waxed lyrical about Cole, telling us all how great it was that he showed some flair and the confidence to do it. But in the very next game, in exactly the same area of the pitch, Cole did exactly the same thing, only this time the backheel didn't quite come off. This time Lawrenson described Cole's attempt as 'showboating', going for the 'Hollywood' moment.

G that so many of these players are involved at the highest level for their clubs, they ought to be doing a lot better for England. But the supporters and the media need to allow them to play, allow them to make mistakes. When we don't, when we get on their backs and hound them for the slightest error, we turn them into rigid automatons, players who panic when given the ball, players who hope the ball does not come to them next.

If England play with no freedom, perhaps part of the problem is because we won't release them.

Well, are we to blame for our best players not turning it on for England, as Tony Forder suggests? Sportingo would love to hear your views.