It's not surprising that the FA have asked Stuart Pearce to manage England in the match against Holland. It is significant that he will be "minded" by Sir Trevor Brooking.
The FA manages to infuriate everyone given enough time. Just like rugby, football has a bunch of amateurs governing a game for highly-paid professionals.
Just like rugby, England will have to have a caretaker manager, and probably for some time. And, also like English rugby, the caretaker's name is Stuart.
The problem is, the FA is also sadly predictable and has shown itself incapable of picking the right manager time after time.
Now, I am of the view that Sven-Goran Ericksson was one of our better managers, but once the anti-foreigner bandwagon began to roll in the media, there was no stopping it. Sven didn't help with his public dalliances. Fabio took far too long to learn English, and even longer to learn from his mistakes.
So once again, we have a massive "appoint English" clamour, and once again, the FA insists the new man (or woman) may not be English. (Sorry, must be non-gender here, because of course, Hope Powell is qualified for the job and also knows how to beat Spain and lose to Germany.)
The nightmare scenario is that the FA takes too long to make its mind up (or to persuade the favourite candidate), and Pearce coaches England to several successes and gets the job by default.
It is already worrying that David Bernstein was so clearly moved by Stuart's readiness to be caretaker manager. It would also take a lot to persuade me that he hasn't been "serving an apprenticeship" at Capello's elbow.
OK, so there will be a national groan if he became England's permanent manager, and somewhat worryingly, he is already employed by the FA and would not have a Board to persuade to let him go and would come a darn sight cheaper than Capello—or even Redknapp.
So why should he not get the job?