Don't panic.

Without Wayne Rooney, England have no hope of success at the World Cup. This seems to be new consensus in light of England’s latest metatarsal mishap. This is the opinion of Britain’s best sports writer. Despair has enveloped both Englishmen and the Anglophile fans of the Premiership’s global satellite TV empire.

I beg to differ.

In 1978 the Dutch went to Argentina without their best player, Johan Cruyff. Despite that they made it to the final against hosts Argentina and came within a few dodgy refereeing decisions of winning. Of course had Cruyff been there they probably would have won, but point is they did not go from potential winners to no-hopers in with the loss of one player, no matter how irreplaceable.

When assessing how bad a loss is, you shouldn’t focus on the quality of the first option that is no longer available; instead look at the quality of the next best option and the gap to first. Holland sans Cruyff were still a team which had made the final four years earlier and England sans Rooney are still a better team than in 2002, when they lost only to eventual winners Brazil (which you could say is sort of like losing in the final) . Viewed like that, England’s situation is far from desperate.

Arguably the loss of Owen would be at least, if not more, harmful to England’s chances. Owen may not have Rooney’s all-round genius, but he is their only proven goalscorer. England can still turn to Cole, Gerrard and Lampard to supply most of, if not all, of the drive, creativity and goals Rooney would have provided; together they have scored more than 50 goals for club and country this season. By contrast Owen’s 33 career international goals are almost greater than the current England squad’s combined total, to say nothing of the other striking options (Bent, Defoe, Crouch).

With Rooney (realistically) out and Owen a question mark, England should instead look to maximize their remaining strengths; namely, a defence marshaled by John Terry and a midfield which features two players (Lampard and Gerrard) who trailed only Ronaldinho in voting for the European Player of the Year award.

Such thinking suggests a 4-5-1 formation, with Beckham abandoning his pretensions of dictating play in the center to hug the right flank and bringing in Konchesky or Downing to do likewise on the left. This would leave Gerrard and Lampard to operate in the centre, with Cole playing behind a lone striker. Alternatively a holding midfield player, preferably Carrick, could slot in behind Gerrard and Lampard with Cole shifting out to the left.

If Owen’s recover is deemed insufficient for him to start the initial group stage matches his place should be filled by Crouch. Crouch is no replacement for Rooney or Owen, but his 6ft 7in frame and oft-noted good touch would be effective in winning possession upfront to feed the on-rushing midfield attackers. If Owen’s fitness and sharpness return by the knockout stages, or indeed the opening match against Paraguay, the option comes in of playing him and Crouch in a traditional “little ‘n large” partnership.

While such is Rooney’s talent that it’s scarcely possible to exaggerate what England have lost, it is certainly possible to exaggerate the extent to which it has damaged their World Cup prospects. The consensus a week ago was that this England team is the best since 1966 and has a real chance of winning this summer; the loss of Rooney should not have changed either of these views.

And if nothing else, England fans can still cling to the words “Greece” and “Euro 2004” for hope.

[get this widget]