Let the public decide Roy Hodgson's best England XI if he can't

At the end of his triumphant, snag-free Euro 2016 qualifying campaign, Roy Hodgson could use some help.

If that seems a little excessive given the ease with which he steered England to France without dropping a single point (albeit through a group so weak, qualification was effectively achieved from the moment they won in Switzerland in their second game), consider this: two years on from the nadir of Brazil 2014, Hodgson is no closer to organising a defining way of playing.

Frankly he is no closer than he was 24 months ago to knowing what is his best eleven. Right now he has just one player who absolutely insists on being selected, who stands head and shoulders above anyone else in his position. Every other place in the side is up for grabs. All we can say for certain at a distance of nine months is that when England line up in France next summer, their team will consist of Joe Hart and 10 others. And that’s if Hart remains fit.

For sure, the manager has not been helped in his search for consistency of selection by a wearisome succession of injuries. Lack of availability of those he might consider key performers has led to him using 33 players during the campaign. Which adds up to about half those Premier League starters who are eligible to turn out for the country. Nine different full-back combinations in 10 qualifiers does not speak of continuity. It speaks of the splurge gun approach to team matters.

A couple of seasons back the non-league club Ebbsfleet United came up with a marketing wheeze which involved club members choosing the team every week. As ideas go it was one which garnered a lot more publicity than it did points. But if the FA were looking for a way to ignite public interest in the team ahead of next summer’s championships, they could do worse than revive the concept.

Imagine what a ratings winner it would be, a televised event in which the votes were counted and a publicly elected team chosen. The betting market alone would be frantic. Nobody could blame the manager – or indeed the other standard scapegoat, the media – when the publicly willed-for side crashes and burns in the finals. And frankly, it might as well be done by that methodology, so far is Hodgson from a settled team.

We can all have our opinions. This is the England side I would field were I in the dug out:Hart; Clyne, Stones, Smalling, Shaw; Wilshere, Henderson; Walcott, Barkley, Sterling; Sturridge. Looks all right that.

There’s pace and daring there even if it comes accompanied by a surfeit of youthful inexperience. Trouble is, four of that dream team are currently injured and at least two of them are likely to go down before the end of the season. The chances of that lot ever being simultaneously fit are zilch.

Besides, realistically and honestly, is that so much better an eleven than this one made up from others in contention for a starting place? Butland; Walker, Cahill, Jagielka, Baines; Carrick, Milner; Oxlade-Chamberlain, Rooney, Welbeck; Kane.

It was a point Hodgson himself made after the Estonia game at Wembley, when the reporters were asking him about Ross Barkley’s chances of nailing down a place in the team. He pointed out that there are at least another half dozen midfielders of similar merit all pressing for a place. Put like that, the lack of consistency in selection cannot be entirely blamed on the manager.

Competition for places is a good thing, but this is more to do with a lack of obvious options than a whirl of potential. The paucity of resources, the shortage of top-class selections has sent him on a never-ending cycle constantly examining his best options. In a situation where nobody stands out, it is hard to be certain who is the best bet.

Hodgson has let it be known that his major regret in the build up to his failed World Cup effort last year was that he experimented too much. Once qualification was secured, what was needed was some continuity, so that those expected to be in the starting XI could bed in, get used to each other’s style of play.

It is a legitimate, understandable point of view. If you know what your starting XI is, that is. But there is absolutely no indication Hodgson does as we head for France. Nor indeed what style they should be playing. What system would he employ, for instance, to accommodate both Harry Kane and Wayne Rooney in the same side? Does he want to use the likes of Sterling and Walcott as wingers or inside forwards? Is Wilshire a defensive midfield anchor or a deep-lying quarter back? And if the latter, won’t they both be trying to do the same thing if he plays alongside Barkley?

These are the questions with which he will have to wrestle during the testing programme of friendlies he has lined up between now and the championship (well, testing in the case of Spain, France and Germany, less so with a Netherlands team that appears to be imploding in a way spectacular even by their own history of world-class in-fighting).

And the problem with playing teams of that nature – admittedly wisely chosen given the standard of the rival teams in qualification – is that they reduce room for manoeuvre: you simply can’t experiment too much for fear of being overrun.

The fact is, it will only be in the harsh examination of the tournament itself that we will have any indication of how good this England generation are. Let’s hope by then, for his sake and ours, Hodgson has at least a vague idea of his best line-up.