It seems unnecessary to say it, but Jose Mourinho will undoubtedly be missed. He brought so much to football in this country, and our native football journalism will be all the poorer for his abrupt departure.

But it is the football journalists, rather than the fans, who will miss him the most. A lot of fans tired of his ungracious moaning and shameless referee-baiting a long time ago, but when you read the testimonies of journalists who have spoken to him face-to-face, you get an impression of a warm, charming and immensely generous individual who couldn’t be any further removed from the endlessly parodied cardboard cut-out ‘Special One’ so readily paraded before us at pre-match press conferences and post-match interviews.

Mourinho certainly did a great deal for English football. Tactically, he introduced a counter-attacking 4-3-3 formation that – in his first season at least – was breath-takingly efficient, and which has since been aped by managers the length and breadth of the country.

He developed promising young English players like John Terry, Frank Lampard and Joe Cole into the genuinely – OK, occasionally – world-class performers they are today, gave Eidur Gudjohnsen the chance to prove himself a midfield artisan of the highest quality and placed sufficient faith in Didier Drogba to enable him to become one of the most complete centre forwards in the world.

Likewise, he reminded us that, behind every media-peddled stock image of a manager – Ferguson the Firebrand, Wenger the Scholar – is a man, with a family and concerns of his own that have absolutely nothing to do with the over-hyped, endlessly self-publicising Premiership.

But, for all this, we must be careful not to overstate his achievements. He certainly produced a tremendously successful team at Chelsea – galvanised by a team spirit that, for all the rather stage-managed training ground joshing appears to be real and lasting – but he was nonetheless able to do so thanks to a quite simply incredible budget that is unprecedented in English football.

Yes, he brought the Premiership trophy to Stamford Bridge – twice – but he inherited a team already brimming with international talent that had finished second in the league (behind Arsenal’s 2003-2004 Invincibles) and reached the semi-finals of the Champions League.

He produced a trophy-winning team capable of playing brutally effective football, but how many top European managers would be confident of achieving similar results if given a budget of hundreds of millions of pounds?

And for all the success that players like Drogba, Michael Essien and Petr Cech achieved, let’s not forget the turkeys. Over £57 million were spent on Paulo Ferreira, Mateja Kezman, Asier del Horno and Andriy Shevchenko, not to mention free transfer Michael Ballack. Mourinho may have lamented how his team struggled without John Terry, Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba in the side, but with the resources at his disposal it’s hard to feel genuinely sympathetic.

The less palatable elements of Mourinho’s managerial style must not be overlooked either. For all his great soundbites and mischievous charm, he remained a terribly ungracious loser, and was partly responsible for hounding Anders Frisk – one of the best referees of the last 10 years – into retirement in 2005.

Mourinho was – and is – a truly gifted manager. He brought a style both on and off the pitch which had never been seen before on these shores, and he achieved notable success. But he was also, at times, deeply unpleasant, and for all his love him-hate him popularity, his most impressive achievement to date remains the Champions League trophy he won with Porto in 2004. That was a team he can genuinely claim to have crafted himself.

The record books will show that Chelsea were an ambitious, underachieving club who suddenly won everything there was to win in the domestic game following the arrival of a Russian billionaire. The sad thing for Mourinho is that he wasn’t given the time to intertwine his own story with Chelsea’s more irrevocably, and for that the blame must lie squarely with Roman Abramovich and Peter Kenyon and a Stamford Bridge hierarchy that expected too much too soon.

If they want to know what the future holds for Chelsea Football Club now, it might be an idea to cast their minds back to the summer of the 2003, and the departure from Real Madrid of a certain Vincente Del Bosque…

David Beckham is back in the England squad. He deserves to be there. I can’t think of another English right-sided midfielder who has been as consistently effective over the last few months.

But in spite of this, I don’t think he should be in the squad.

Suppose Beckham comes back, plays a blinder against Estonia and gets England’s Euro 2008 qualifying campaign back on track. What then? There is clamour for him to be included in the next squad, and, in all possibility, the squad after that and the squad after that.

Having dragged everyone through the rigmarole of his decision to step down as captain following England’s World Cup exit last summer, he won’t allow himself to be dropped again without putting up a (doubtless heavily publicised) fight.

All of which will set back England’s progress as a team. McClaren was right to drop Beckham in the first place. He was looking to the future. So bringing Beckham back is a backwards step, even if he is the in-form right-sided midfielder at the moment.

It’s unfortunate that players like Aaron Lennon, Shaun Wright-Phillips and David Bentley haven’t been able to stake a claim for the number seven berth in Beckham’s absence, but the decision to recall Beckham suggests McClaren has no faith in them.

Beckham is not England’s future, no matter how well he’s playing. He is England’s over-hyped, gratuitously self-important past.

Furthermore, putting him in the team means the side has to be balanced with a left-sided player who will provide similar width. As a consequence, either Joe Cole has to play as a traditional left winger, or the typically ineffectual Stuart Downing is brought into the side, and if England’s first choice strike partnership is Michael Owen and Wayne Rooney, there is no need for wide midfielders whose principle asset is their crossing ability.

McClaren must experiment. He must be allowed to experiment. He will lose matches. He will get huge amounts of flak. But the future of English football depends on it. The 4-4-2 must be abandoned. Players like Joe Cole and Aaron Lennon and David Bentley must be given the freedom to play their natural game, not tied to the touchline like 1950s-style wingers.

And Beckham must be allowed to go to America to finish his career without constant speculation about whether or not he merits a place in the England team.

Many players could be said to ‘deserve’ a place in the England team. But the team should consist of the best eleven players capable of playing together in a particular system, not the eleven most deserving.

Steven Gerrard - one player who should survive the anticipated cull...It was hard not to feel a little bit sorry for Liverpool last night.

For almost the entirety of the first half they cowed Milan into submission. Mascherano and Alonso successfully nullified the twin threats of Kaka and Seedorf, presenting Gerrard, Zenden and – in particular – Pennant with the opportunity to make inroads into the Rossoneri’s much-vaunted back four.

But for all their territory, they didn’t once stretch Dida, and paid the price with that cruel Inzaghi goal on the stroke of half-time.

The second half was distinguished by the lack of any discernable onslaught from the men in red. They poked and probed, but Milan stood firm. Gerrard spurned
Liverpool’s best chance when he tried to work the ball too hard when faced with Dida one-on-one, and the nearest they came to breaking the deadlock before Kuyt’s late header was Crouch’s speculative 25-yard effort.

The problem with Benitez is that he didn’t have the players for the formation he wanted to play. Mascherano was excellent, and Alonso supported him commendably. Gerrard was typically influential, and Kuyt’s link-up play was customarily efficient, but it was on the flanks that they were found lacking.

Paradoxically, Pennant was Liverpool’s most dangerous player in the first half, but the limitations of his play meant that he was unable to make the most of the advanced positions he found himself in. Zenden, likewise, was heavily involved but frustratingly ineffectual.

The problem with Pennant and Zenden – and this is no personal criticism – is that they are both conventional wide midfielders (although Zenden has learnt how to play as a combative and disciplined central midfielder).

The 4-4-1-1 that Benitez deployed last night requires wide men capable of cutting in and heading for goal. Joe Cole and Arjen Robben are one of the most effective wing partnerships in this context, with both players placed on the ‘wrong’ flank (Robben on the right, Cole on the left) so that they can cut in and shoot at goal with their stronger foot.

Ronaldinho and Lionel Messi assume similar roles for
Barcelona, and Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo are sometimes asked to do the same for Man United.

With touchline-hugging wide-men like Pennant and Zenden in the team, all you get are a succession of high crosses delivered in the general direction of a solitary striker (in this case Kuyt) who, given the sheer number of defenders around him, is unlikely to get many headers on goal.

If Benitez is intent on improving his team, attacking players whose target is the goal rather than the byline should be a priority, although it must be said that subtlety is as much a necessity as raw pace in these positions.