Figure this one out. You are coaching a national side and you've reached the European tournament semi-finals. You lead by one and you have done since just before half-time. You've contained pressure for the whole of the second half. Do you . . .

1) Bring on an attacking player;

2) Bring on a defender;

''It may be his achilles heel in management that at heart he is a defender whose signature is more 'blood and guts' and a tenacious approach to the beautiful game''


3) Do nothing.

Stuart Pearce's response was to bring on a central defender to clog up the midfield and then give up so much ground that a late goal was conceded, leading to that titanic penalty shoot-out  which the England Under-21s ultimately lost by 13-12. The decision was in part to lead to the decimation of the troops so that the game ended with only ten players left to soldier on. Likely most tacticians would have brought on an attacker to spread the play or done nothing to disrupt the tactics that had worked for 50 minutes.

Of course Pearce is new to management and on present evidence trades overmuch on his motivational skills. For the Holland game, the tracksuit had been replaced by the white rolled-up shirtsleeves. He was getting the job done. But Pearce has also overseen a Manchester City side that failed to produce an attack worth speaking of.

It may be his achilles heel in management that at heart he is a defender whose signature is more 'blood and guts' and a tenacious approach to the beautiful game. When you think of Pearce as a manager, you don't yet think of a thoughtful approach - well, not in the manifestation of his players' performance on the field either at national or club level. His abiding comment after the defeat in Holland was that the experience would be good for the development of the players; that they would know how to 'fight' to win.

The FA, in confirming the two-year appointment, may well have thought they were confirming success. The team did, after all, make yet another England semi-final appearance. They might well also have thought they were grooming a young track-suited manager for the future and in this decision you would wish them well.

But Pearce was also the man wanted by many to replace Sven-Goran Eriksson as England senior boss. At that time he had no management experience to speak of and it may be that in private, the FA hierarchy knew they would not appoint him at this stage of his management career (Steve McClaren had at least some longevity in the business and had taken teams to Europe - surely the minimum criteria for such a prestigious job).

According the Trevor Brooking on the announcement of Pearce's appointment, the job will not just address the playing side of the game but inevitably and correctly will also involve club liaison and player development.

With McClaren's role in the senior position under scrutiny, Pearce will have every chance to be a contender for the top job - one day. In the meantime, the considerable talent England boasts at Under 21 level will hope to be the recipients of more than wild rhetoric.

For his part, Pearce will hopefully extend his repertoire and demonstrate that he can offer more than a one-sided view of the game - and that at no time in the future will players be exposed as 'carnage' without the possibility of reinforcements.

General Haig has much to answer for.