Yet again, England is being placed as strong contenders for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. All after two giants of world football were dispatched in the Ukraine and Slovakia. Patrick Barclay, now of The Times, has claimed only Spain present a viable threat to England’s quest for global supremacy.

To return from Wembley late on Wednesday night, turn on the television and find Argentina being mangled by Bolivia was to be reminded of just how close England are to world supremacy.

This idea is flawed, with the closest contenders all masters of possession football – a style which England undoubtedly struggle against. Brazil, Argentina, Spain all play a ‘tiki-taka’ or ‘pass and move’ game, and even Lippi’s Italy can play fluid counter-attacking that can expose the holes in a static England. The Germans always perform on the big stage, while a number of other sides are also capable of defeating England in a one-off game and vice-versa. Holland, Russia, Turkey are also strong contenders and it would be logical to place England below that bracket currently, given the failure to qualify for Euro 2008 and the inability to play against sides who can starve England of the ball.

That they have yet to qualify for the World Cup is academic - even during the brief spell when Andriy Shevchenko’s goal threatened to deprive them of points, failure seemed unfeasible - and, as England learn, others lurch towards the sort of crisis that prompted the FA to spend a fortune on Fabio Capello.

Argentina would not stoop to that, even if they could afford it. Yet how worried they must be. Although their latest native coach, Diego Maradona, could hardly be more deeply loved, he cut something of a Steve McClaren figure in La Paz, the cameras dwelling on his helplessly vexed expression as his team lost 6-1; all he needed was a parasol to shade him from the glare.

The Bolivians, true, displayed a rare relish for work and had the advantage of their capital’s thin air, but you had to remind yourself that these diggers with altitude were second bottom of the South American qualifying pile and had been beaten at home by Chile. Only then did the magnitude of Argentina’s humiliation sink in.

Lionel Messi suffered like everyone else. He would run at the Bolivia defence only to be dispossessed by a relative unknown and before long the shouts of olé would arise from a pinch-yourself crowd. Argentina will not recover in 15 months, even if Maradona goes.

Using a one-off game in the highest capital city in the world (La Paz) to discredit another nation once again is illogical. The quality of the pitch was also disrupting Argentina’s passing game. In South Africa, there won’t be matches played at such high altitudes or on awful pitches and the climate will favour Diego Maradona’s men. Why can one not remember Argentina’s victory in Paris or their simple dismantling of Venezuela?

Maradona may be an inexperienced coach and his tactical decisions will come under more scrutiny than most, but his shift to a back-three against Venezuela was very effective, though his shift to a 4-4-2 was not. He has Carlos Bilardo beside him to warn him of constant tinkering with the tactics and will grow as the campaign progresses. Argentina have an awful record in Bolivia, and Maradona may have been more wise by picking a team more experienced in playing at such altitudes, with those such as Riquelme vital in slowing the pace of the game down. Of course, that bridge has already been burnt.

The attacking triumvirate of Messi, Aguero and Tevez would strike fear into the heart of any opposition team. They may lack height, and while Tevez has a tendency to get sent off in qualifying matches, the side has the movement, pace and intelligence to carve open England. If one of this trio is replaced by a more traditional target man like the great Batistuta or more recently, Hernan Crespo, Argentina’s attack could be far more clinical. Fernando Cavenghi of Bordeaux or Diego Milito of Genoa could do a job.

If Alan Shearer is a legend on Tyneside, Diego Maradona is a god in Argentina. After such a humiliating loss, only ‘el Diego’ could repair the mentality of the team, and the AFA would be fools to sack a national icon after just 2 competitive games in charge. After equaling their record loss, it can really only get better and by the time South Africa 2010 rolls around, Argentina should threaten once again.

So that is one opponent fewer to fear. We saw in Seville in February that England cannot yet match Spain’s European champions, but scan the horizon and little else demands more than respect. Even Brazil, though their qualification campaign is back on an even keel.

How many Brazilians would make England’s team? Júlio César in goal. The right back, Maicon. Maybe Lúcio, who, at his best, practises central defending like no other. Maybe the young holding player, Felipe Melo. Unquestionably Kaká. Not a lot more. And, now England understand teamwork, there is no reason to believe the magic of the yellow shirt could make up any shortfall between the sides.

The convergence since the World Cup quarter-final of 2002 has been dramatic. Then, Sven-Göran Eriksson’s England took the lead (through Michael Owen, after an error by Lúcio) and were to receive the further boost of Ronaldinho’s dismissal for a foul on Danny Mills, but found themselves being both played and bullied into submission. It would be less likely now.

Brazil’s natural flair is being tempered with Dunga at the helm. Yet this is no criticism, as if Argentina can be dominated by lowly Bolivia, Dunga can be vindicated in his pragmatic approach. The Selecao are more tactically and technically adept at football than England and a player by player comparison is often inaccurate as this team often greater than the sum of its parts, unlike the star-studded 2006 World Cup squad, which failed spectacularly.

If one is to compare the starting XIs of Brazil and England, there is only one winner. Patrick Barclay is right to praise Julio Cesar, who was world class in the draw against a dominant Ecuador (at altitude), and Maicon. Lucio and Juan are a excellent partnership at international level, but are often vulnerable given the tendency of either to surge up the pitch at various points during any game. At left-back, Marcelo is developing well at Real Madrid, playing almost as a left-winger, given Brazil’s need for over-lapping full-backs. Defensively Ashley Cole is better, but his end-product is miniscule in comparison.

Gilberto Silva and Felipe Melo are very effective as a partnership in breaking up opposition moves and providing a solid base for Brazil’s own attacks to start from. Throw in Anderson, and there is a good mix of technique, experience and physicality (As long as only one specialist volante plays and neither Josue nor Mineiro come near to side, that is).

Kaka is more effective than any of England’s midfielders for his national team, being economical in his movement and clever positionally, something which both Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard lack, despite their many qualities. The volatile Luis Fabiano is a better striker than any of Fabio Capello’s options for someone to partner Rooney. As is Pato, for that matter. In short, England are well short of Brazil in a number of departments. Capello’s improvement to the defensive side of the players will be key if England are to hold their own against such countries.

As for Germany, Capello’s reserves have beaten them this season. Italy, though they proved in 2006 that the blue shirt and Marcello Lippi’s management can be an irresistible combination, look over the hill, like some Serie A club squads.

Holland are doing well and have younger forwards such as Klaas-Jan Huntelaar and Robin van Persie ready to replace Ruud van Nistelrooy, but lack the defensive resources to stay in a tournament. If I had to choose a dark horse, it would be Guus Hiddink’s Russia, who are experienced but not too old. They would, however, have to develop startlingly to merit short odds in South Africa.

France? For all Franck Ribéry’s qualities, would you swap Wayne Rooney for him? And the lame-duck management of Raymond Domenech looks certain to hamper them. Do not bet your house on their qualifying. The same goes for Portugal under Carlos Queiroz.

Germany reached the Euro 2008 final with a mediocre team because they know how to play in the big games. It would be foolish to discount such a constant threat so early. As for Lippi’s Italy, the retirement of Totti and the decline in legends such as Del Piero has affected the Azzurri. After the disappointing tenure of Roberto Donadoni, Lippi has returned and younger players such as Giuseppe Rossi and Antonio ‘Bari Brawler’ Cassano (if he can ever mature and control his anger) would be central to Italy’s hopes. They are beatable, but you can never count the World Champions out.

As for Holland, there is a plethora of world class attacking options that will all be in their prime in South Africa, but players such as Dirk Marcelis, the young PSV defender, should be ready for the 2010 World Cup. France has a wonderful young generation of players thanks to the famed Clairefontaine academy. As Patrick Barclay rightly says, Raymond Domenech, who even Alistair Darling couldn’t fail to do an impression of, is failing to harness that potential.

Ribery (who shouldn’t really be compared to the enigmatic Rooney, but an actual winger / playmaker) has saved France by scoring two winners against Lithuania in 4 days, reducing the effect of their awful start. As for Queiroz, the odds he’ll be returning to Old Trafford soon will drop drastically, especially if Portugal keep their current form up.

In other words, just about every country that has confounded England over the past quarter of a century looks less well equipped on the field and in the dugout than Capello’s England. Except, of course, Spain.

Try the combined-team test and you realise Capello will need those 15 months to complete his building. Iker Casillas is superior to any of his goalkeepers and, while Rio Ferdinand and John Terry would displace Spain’s central defenders, the decline of Ashley Cole would let in both of their full backs.

They would have five of the front six, too, for, while Rooney might edge out David Silva, there could be no interfering with Xavi, Andrés Iniesta, Cesc Fàbregas / Xabi Alonso, David Villa and Fernando Torres, even to squeeze in Steven Gerrard.

While there is no argument, Spain are superior to England, it tells one something when the nation’s best player is placed on the left wing during a comparison of the two XIs. In the predicted 15 months Capello will require, Spain are also likely to develop, with squad players such as Fabregas becoming even more prominent. The only source of weakness in La Furia Roja is the lack of a true replacement for Marcos Senna.

When that changes, the world title will beckon.

‘When’ is used in the sense that England’s rise is inevitable when in fact there is little chance of the national team becoming dominant when the competition is logically considered. While Patrick Barclay is a respected journalist, who has written innumerable critically insightful pieces, this one stinks of banal nationalism.