Sam Wallace: England victims of constant tinkering

He mentioned it again on Tuesday evening. Sven Goran Eriksson says he knows the England team to play Paraguay on 10 June but, with a sigh of resignation, he added, "I don't want to discuss it with anyone but my coaches". Presumably those are the same coaches who were kept so well informed of Eriksson's plans that they responded to news of Theo Walcott's inclusion in the squad with a stunned silence.

As we come to the end of the Eriksson era, he is no less amenable and no more argumentative than ever before. He is, as ever, a courteous man who struggles to communicate the passion he says he has for the job. Five years ago the aura of tranquillity and the professed devotion to Tibetan poetry (whatever became of that?) reassured us he knew his mind, and that his thoughts were buried deep. But now, amid such radical change so late in the day, can Eriksson really claim that he knows the identity of the first XI to face Paraguay?

Eight days from the World Cup finals, he is reinventing defenders as midfielders, midfielders as strikers and that old affliction of his is more prevalent than ever: he searches out the system to suit the players, not the players to suit a system. Losing Wayne Rooney to injury was a blow as savage as any, but the constant re-arrangement of England's formations had begun long before his metatarsal gave way on 29 April.

Since World Cup qualification began in September 2004, Eriksson has used three different formations in competitive matches. The friendly against Argentina added another. Tuesday night offered yet one more permutation. The question is becoming not what systems England have tried but those which they have not. Three centre-halves and two wing-backs against Jamaica on Saturday?

The introduction of the 4-1-4-1 system against Hungary was the latest in 20 months of changes and a merry journey from 4-4-2 to 4-3-1-2 and back again, with a brief stop at 4-5-1 as well. This England team are, on their day, a collection of some quite brilliant individuals but as you watched them in the first half on Tuesday, the question was: exactly which stage of the Eriksson masterplan have they reached?

It is one of the fundamental problems to have afflicted Eriksson's regime. The question of momentum, the dwindling sense that his team are striving towards an ideal way of playing or perfecting the plan that exists in the head of their manager. Just as Liverpool have come to represent what Rafael Benitez stands for and Chelsea embody Jose Mourinho's ethos. It should be the natural progression of any great team.

England's World Cup qualification has been a success in the most basic terms, but no one could describe it as progression. Back in September 2004, playing 4-4-2, Alan Smith and then Jermain Defoe partnered Michael Owen in attack in the absence of Rooney. When Rooney came back against Wales that October, Defoe's goal against Poland was adjudged to have made him too valuable to drop so Eriksson stretched to 4-3-1-2 with Rooney behind two strikers.

Rooney and Owen in attack and 4-4-2 was restored for the visits of Northern Ireland and Azerbaijan in March 2005 before, in September of that year, came the disastrous flirtation with 4-5-1 and Shaun Wright-Phillips' brief status as a first-choice international. It culminated in that calamitous defeat at Windsor Park with Rooney on the left side of a five-man midfield while Wright-Phillips, on the other flank, almost destroyed his international career in the space of one night.

Until Tuesday it has been 4-4-2 ever since (with a brief 4-1-3-2 diversion in the Argentina friendly) but the result of all this adaptation is clear. It makes every match an event unrelated to the last game or the next one and there is no sense of development. It is the irregular nature of international football that there are always a few decent reasons to change a formation each match, but that facility Eriksson likes to describe as "options" is no use if you do not have a first choice.

How else do we know that Eriksson is improvising? Just look at what he has said of late about his players' roles. When the World Cup finals squad was announced, Jamie Carragher was identified by Eriksson as his deputy right-back, cover at centre-back and nothing more. Now he is the first-choice holding midfielder, an idea that can only have had its genesis in the two weeks or less.

When it was suggested to Eriksson on Tuesday night that Joe Cole could be another candidate for the auxiliary striker's job fulfilled by Steven Gerrard, the notion was dismissed with a wave of the hand, "I haven't thought about that", Eriksson said. Again, check his words on the day the squad was announced and Cole was described on more than one occasion as the "fifth striker" option.

Yes, the forensic examination of answers, of post-match analysis made in haste can trip up anyone and the finer details have never been an area of Eriksson's expertise: identities of match referees, dates of games - he leaves that to someone else. But we are no longer talking of finessing of the smallest details, these are the big questions concerning line-ups and formation and the proximity of the World Cup makes them ever more urgent.

England's players made it work on Tuesday night, they did so brilliantly in the second half - especially David Beckham and Steven Gerrard - but who knows how they will find themselves deployed next. Only Eriksson claims to know the secret to that, and his current mood can be most kindly described as changeable.