Sometimes you read an article or a newspaper column and nod along, agreeing with the good points being made. Sometimes you don't agree with the arguments, but understand the point of view.

And sometimes you read a column and wonder how on earth such moronic opinions could ever earn someone a pay packet for writing them. Come on down, Paul Parker.

I've long since disagreed with most of his columns, which are generally written to provoke, in the same way that so much of NewsNow is taken up with dramatic and misleading headlines. But this article takes the proverbial biscuit, coming up with 'solutions' to the England debacle.

Here are his genius ideas:

1. Pick the right man for the job

Couldn't agree more. We all know McLaren wasn't the right man, the next choice must be a wise one. So Parker, in his infinite knowledge, makes his choice:

"Alan Shearer may be a 16-1 outsider, but he certainly gets my vote. I appreciate that he is inexperienced in terms of managing a team, but the players he will be working with do not need any more coaching - they are already good enough."

England need a strong manager, someone who makes tough decisions and says things as he sees them. Shearer, judging from his punditry, has a backside full of splinters from all the fences he sits on. He is dull, uninspiring, and would pander to the media.

As for the notion that the players are 'already good enough', Parker must be living in the same deluded world as some of these so-called 'superstars'. Was he not watching on Wednesday night?

2. Limit the number of foreigners in the game

Ah, here we go again. Never mind the fact that these foreigners have added so much to the English game, taught the homegrown players skill and craft, and changed the style with which football in this country is played, Parker and his band of Little Englanders insist on blaming them for the shortcomings of the national team.

This argument is so transparent that it is incredible it is given any credence, yet it is repeated ad nauseatum as if nothing could be more obvious.

There are 355 English players registered with the twenty Premiership clubs. Granted, most of these are reserves, but there are still plenty in and around the respective first teams. It is a much misrepresented fact that foreigners have pushed Englishmen out of our top teams, when in reality, they have mostly replaced the Welsh, Scottish and Irish. When you begin to examine the figures, they show quite clearly that there are still plenty of homegrown players available at the top, not the sharp decline the press would have you believe.

And so what if it is more difficult for a journeyman player to make it in the Premiership? They are not the sort of player England looks to. If the number of English regulars reduces from 100 to 50, how does that matter? Those that miss out are those not good enough, and the top talents still make it, benefiting from playing with the best players from overseas, rather than the inadequate also-rans.

The only way a top club can harm the English national team is by buying the top talent and not playing them. Yet Chelsea, for their treatment of Shaun Wright-Phillips, are vilified far less than Arsenal, whose lack of English players therefore does not affect the national side one iota.

Steven Gerrard's comments about reducing the number of foreign players in the league are ludicrous when you look at the Liverpool squad, complete with average players from overseas, while xenophobic and lazy opinions such as Parker's are borne simply of a desperation to blame anyone but our own.

I thought Britain was proud of being multicultural and open?

3. Address the silly money in today's game

Good luck with that one - football is a massive business. Television companies make extraordinary sums from their coverage, and thus pay top dollar for the privilege. With that money flowing through the game, the players are right to feel, as the product, that they deserve a large cut of it. It is the simple law of supply and demand.

Besides, there is a myth in the country that footballers are the richest sportsmen on the planet. Have you seen the salaries of top baseball and American football players recently?

"Money changes everything and when huge rewards are laid on a plate for players, it is all too easy to become idle"

The gap between the salaries of the top players, and those behind them, is astronomical. So conversely, the financial reward of being at the top is surely a great motivation for getting there?

For his final point, Paul Parker finally and completely loses the plot.

"Scrapping academies can only have a beneficial effect in the future. Kids of 10 or 11 do not want to be forced into playing or training three times a week; they love the game because they love winning and playing with their mates"

Does this not say everything about the character of footballers in this country? His argument that players should not actually be trained to play football, but should lark about with friends and learn next to nothing, is ludicrous. Players from abroad are honing their skills at this crucial early age, learning technique and precision. Ours are running around like headless chickens, being taught to 'give it 110%'.

If 'kids of 10 or 11' want to make it as top class footballers, they have to be willing to train or play three times a week. And if they truly love the game, surely they'll love getting better at it?

"By forcing them to train at academies in a regimented atmosphere, all the fun is taken out of the game; how then are they supposed to develop into top players?"

How exactly will they turn into top players if the don't train? And surely a down to earth young footballer wouldn't lose interest in the game simply because someone was teaching them how to pass the ball along the ground instead of hoofing it up to their tallest friend?

And then, as a coup de grace, Parker concluded as follows:

"I used to train once a week when I was a kid - the likes of Matt Le Tissier did the same, and he turned out alright"

Holding Matt Le Tissier up as an example of a footballer with the right attitude, who reached the peak of his abilities because he never lost enthusiasm for the game?

As I remember it, Le Tissier was one of the most naturally gifted footballers to grace these shores in decades, but never fulfilled his massive potential because, quite honestly, he couldn't be bothered.

If his is the attitude we want to instill in our young players, we'd better get used to the mediocrity we saw this week.

I've listened a lot of people's opinions on who should become the next England manager, and their reasoning behind their choices, and I'm left to ask one question:

Why is the automatic assumption made that the requirements for club and international management are the same?

Let's look at a couple of the names that I've heard come up.

Harry Redknapp

Various people have suggested Redknapp as a viable candidate, based on his success story with Portsmouth. Now I think he's doing a tremendous job at Fratton Park - he has turned a struggling Premiership side into one that will probably be playing in Europe next season. Since their great escape in the Premiership 18 months ago, they have only amassed more points than anyone outside the 'Big Four'.

But what is this success based upon? From what I can see, Redknapp is a master wheeler-dealer, a genius in the transfer market who assembles a powerful and athletic squad, with no small sprinkling of skill, on a relatively modest budget.

But as an international coach, he would be stuck with the players he has. He couldn't effectively trade them in for bargain models as he does at his club.

Arsene Wenger

Bear with me here, but I don't think Wenger would be a successful England manager. Firstly, the expectations on him would be huge based upon his record at Arsenal, expectations which would be almost impossible to achieve.

But think about how Wenger operates. He scours the world for a certain type of player - quick, athletic, strong in body and mind, intelligent, articulate - and signs them at an early age. Then, he and his team train them in the Arsenal way, before giving them a chance to prove themselves on the biggest stage. And because his initial judgement is generally so accurate, many of these players become superstars.

But he wouldn't be able to do any of that for England. He would be unable to find even a couple of teenagers fitting the mould he is after, he would not be with them for long enough to mould them into his way of thinking, and on the most part, those players available to him lack precisely the attributes he values so highly. That's why there are so few Englishmen around the Arsenal first team.

How many young England stars come across in interviews as intelligent and modest, down to earth and responsible?

And how many put their excessive diamond studs back in their ears for the cameras, struggle to string a sentence together, and then drive home in their Bentleys?

How many of them love possession of the football and are capable of playing the open attractive football Wenger would crave? These English players reach 17-18 with less skill and finesse than most of the 14 year olds Wenger sees at club level, and they're supposed to be the great hope of the nation?

Wenger would find international management incredibly frustrating in comparison to the free reign he has now, to mould the best players he can find into the footballing dream he strives for. He is wise not to touch the job with a bargepole.

So who would be good?

When choosing an international manager, you are not looking for a man with the ability to spot a cheap diamond in the transfer market. You do not need a man who can sell players at their peak price and replace them for 20% of the cost.

You need a tactician, a motivator, a manager who can react to the game unfolding in front of him with clever substitutions, a man who recognises young talent in the country and introduces them at the right time. A man who instinctively knows how to get the best out of players on an individual basis, and how to construct a team from a bunch of individuals used to opposing each other.

When a manager joins a struggling club, and dramatically improves their fortunes without dipping into the transfer market, they have potential at international level. Such managers are usually at smaller clubs, with success based upon the notion that the team is so much greater than the sum of its parts. Unfortunately, many of those managers, by their very definition, are not working with the sort of ego you get around the England setup.

So what do you need? In essence, a manager who can get the best out of average players, but will not tolerate ego and underachievement. He must be his own man, unafraid to drop the players who, despite their celebrity status, aren't performing.

In other words, the FA were stupid to turn down Martin O'Neill when he was available and interested.

Today, he ruled himself out of the race. So the search must go abroad, because no matter how much the Daily Mail promote their Little Englander notions, there is simply no-one else with the required attributes anywhere in Britain.

Fabio Capello is interested, experienced and bloody minded. He can cope with egos, having managed the dysfunctional Real Madrid to success, and he wouldn't flinch at the prospect of axing the famous names.

So in what new and creative way will the FA mess this one up?