[Soccernet: This letter was sent to Soccernet just before the Final of Euro 2000. It's author, Aidan Brunskill, is a 15-year-old in Australia who says he might be considering a career in sports journalism. We reckon he should; see what you think...]

Italy, France, Holland, Portugal, Spain. The teams with that 'special something' all managed to make it to the quater-finals. Even Hagi's Romania impressed at times. And though the (usual) big guns, England and Germany, got knocked out in the group stage, Euro 2000 has been a huge success.

Denmark proved to the footballing world how much its ability is or was dependant on the Laudrup brothers, and co-host Belgium failed to deliver. The Czech Republic never really got off to a start, even though they had to face favourites Holland and France.

But the teams these tournaments are made for are the powerhouses. Italy produced some good football and still managed to keep to their defensive style of play. Holland were unlucky against the Italians, they dominated play throughout the whole semi-final but Nesta and Toldo managed to keep the goals at bay. Anyone would admit that the dreaded penalty shoot-out is exciting but it was an unfortunate way for the favourites to exit the competition.

It was good to see underachievers have their say.

Portugal definitely thrilled with Figo and Rui Costa running the show in midfield, and the antics of Fernando Couto at the back showed that Portugal could win Euro 2000 and have fun at the same time. Spain played solidly, and entertained as well. Players like Raul and Mendieta brought their good form from club level to the international stage. The exciting group match against Yugoslavia showed Spain's courage and passion, which could possibly have taken them to the semi-finals apart from the dreadful miss from the spot by Raul against France.

France were lucky in this tournament. The extra-time penalty against Portugal and the penalty Raul missed caused the world champions to travel to the final.

Sport is all about skill and luck, though, and in major tournaments you need a lot of both. I think you will find that the teams which did well were all attacking (yes, even Italy had its moments) and contained that 'special something' as I mentioned above.

It has also been pointed out, and quite obviously, that England failed. Again. I am a fifteen year-old boy from Australia but coming from an English family I have my own opinion on how the show should be run. Here in Australia we have an excellent youth development program, even though our clubs are... well, amateur.

I am not doubting the program in England as I am sure it is great as well (keep in mind here that I have not researched this).

With players such as Joe Cole being produced, it is clear that there is no problem with youth. Instead, it does lie within the actual national team. Shearer is an inspirational leader but his presence up front provides varied performances from the skipper. It will be good for England when he leaves the international stage because it will open up more opportunites for other strikers.

The midfield of England. Beckham should stay on the right, even though his rating is too high for his ability. He has a good right boot but he lacks the flair of a player like Portugal's Figo.

The left flank is a problem, and if four midfielders are played then perhaps the midfield needs a new structure. Scholes, McManaman, Wise, etc seem to be very attack-minded. Brazil's Dunga would be a brilliant example of a type of player the English midfield needs. He managed to just hold everything, like a pivot, but it seems that the three mentioned above don't have that ability.

And McManaman should not play on the left. It just does not suit him.

If McManaman was to be shoved there, his role should be more tucked in towards the centre with a wingback overlapping for width. But the use of Phil Neville out there is a mistake. England just need a new wingback.

The young John Harley would suit that role in the future but it is time to bring him into the system now. Harley has managed to sneak his way into a star-studded Chelsea line-up, and no matter how poorly they play sometimes he has still managed such a feat.

With Becks fitting nicely on the right there is no need for a such attacking wingback on the right. Gary Neville is good at moving forward but the defence would probably benefit most without him. Sol Campbell and Gareth Southgate would be good in the centre of the defence. Adams' time is up.

Basically I would have to live in England to give a good bit of advice, but from here in Oz i have a fair idea. Here are the rules:

1. Bring in a new system, formation.
2. Out with the old, for its time for the new.
3. Teach the young players to suit the roles they have been given. It is too late to tell people what to do 6 months before a major championship.
4. Gradually build a strong squad around the new players, experienced players and system.

I know it is obvious but in Australia we have missed out on a lot of the obvious.

Aidan Brunskill, age 15
Canberra, Australia

Remember - to have your say, don't forget to email us at letters@soccernet.com