Perhaps there has been no greater symbolism in my 35-year-old life than the disappointment of opening a pack of Panini stickers only to find they are all “gots.” Let’s not dwell on the futility of existence, however, but instead celebrate World Cup Fever, because, with less than two weeks to go, I am starting to show all the symptoms. I’m even excited about tonight’s friendly with Peru. Well, as excited as anyone over the age of 12 can get about England friendlies.

Much of my World Cup Fever can be put down to what has euphemistically been dubbed the World Cup Barn. Brookside Manor House in Bronygarth is no barn – it has a snooker table, tennis court and hot tub! – but the World Cup will be centre stage for the week that 20-odd friends and I are there. I can’t wait.

It’s not just the prospect of me and my middle-aged, middle-class mates enjoying a World Cup holiday that is getting me excited. It’s England’s prospects, too. Or, rather, the lack of prospects, because the build-up to Brazil 2014 has been refreshingly realistic where the national team is concerned. My theory is that we have passed on the over-hyped mantel to Belgium. Think about it: the Belgian squad is full of players who have done it week in week out in the Premier League – the Best League In The World©.  I’m willing to be proved wrong, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they went out on penalties in the quarter-finals, blaming too many egos and the lack of a winter break in the Premier League.

Back to England, and, while I’m happy for expectations to be lowered, I’m not convinced that the squad is any worse than it has ever been in my lifetime. Matthew Upson played in South Africa, remember. The squad is less experienced, for sure, but that may be a blessing. Likewise, the weaknesses in defence. There is an irony in Roy Hodgson, chased out of Anfield for playing dull football, having to harness the attacking verve of Liverpool, but that is surely the best chance of success. Maybe success in terms of results, but, more realistically, success in terms of maintaining the sympathy and support of fans and media alike.

On the subject of Liverpool, perhaps the heartbreak of their end-of-season implosion will act as motivation – particularly for Steven Gerrard. It must be hoped, too,  that Wayne Rooney is not lacking in motivation, not to mention fitness. It is high time a player of his undoubted talent lit up a major tournament again.

All in all, I am ready to be pleasantly surprised by England – starting tonight, and ending up … who knows where? Moreover, I am ready for a holiday. Bring on the World Cup (Barn).

The new coach is the old coach. The new squad, with the exception of Harry Gurney, is the old squad. Perhaps England’s brave new world isn’t all that new, but along with today’s other announcement – Graham Gooch’s departure from the post of batting coach – it seems a good time to look back and assess the Andy Flower era.

In the toxic post-Ashes atmosphere, there is the risk that it is forgotten that the Flower era, to someone of my vintage, hit unimaginable heights. Winning in Australia in the middle of three consecutive victorious Ashes. Winning a global event. Winning in India. Number one in the world in all three formats.  England were a good team.

Were they a great team, though? It’s true that you can only beat what’s put in front of you, but in many ways the tree which England topped was not a particularly healthy one. Given that they were alone in prioritising Test cricket over the IPL, it perhaps should have come as no great surprise that England rose to the top. Then again, England’s relative shunning of ODIs has never given them much advantage in the Test arena, and belittling the opposition does a disservice to the likes of Kevin Pietersen, Graeme Swann and Jimmy Anderson – and, of course, Flower.

As with the perception that KP was a player of great innings rather than a great player, it might be said that England played some great matches (and series) but were not a great team. The emphatic victory at Adelaide in 2010 was described as the perfect storm, and indeed it was arguably the high water mark for Flower’s England. Compared to the great 1980s West Indians and the Australians that followed, England’s period of dominance was just that: a storm. Could you imagine the West Indies of Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge and Malcolm Marshall losing 3-0 to Pakistan? Or the Australia of Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath ever getting whitewashed?

Why England could not sustain their dominance is an interesting question.

There is the question of quality. Compared to the all-time greats that filled those all-conquering West Indies and Australia sides, England lacked players who could win games in all conditions. Perhaps KP gets in that bracket, but the rest, as good as they were, would struggle.

Then there is strength in depth. Would the England Lions ever be described as the second best team in the world as Australia A were once memorably hailed? England lacked the conveyor belt of talent that the great Windies and Aussie teams enjoyed. Heirs to Andrew Strauss and Paul Collingwood were never found, and it must be a doubt that Jonathan Trott, KP, Swann and possibly Matt Prior can be adequately replaced.

Last of all there is the cultural aspect. England sporting triumphs in all the major sports have been famous one-offs. 1966. The Rugby World Cup. The 1981 and 2005 Ashes. Taken in this context, perhaps Flower-era England is as good as it gets. Is there something in the English psyche that prevents us from carrying on winning? Are we satisfied to win once? Are the rewards too great? Is it post-colonial guilt? Are we more comfortable thinking of ourselves as underdogs? As amateurs? As a nation do we have nothing to prove? Are we that arrogant? That lazy? Lacking in any kind of deep cultural motivation? Would any other nation have beaten itself up over the style of the 3-0 Ashes win last year? “Winning is never boring,” my half-American friend Ryan said, but he was going against the grain.

In defence of Flower’s England, it must be noted that they had to play a hell of a lot of cricket. Perhaps a couple of years at the top is all that can be expected now. Maybe the days of prolonged dominance by one great team are over. Storms instead of climate change. It is no coincidence that the ICC Mace has been passed around so frequently since the Australians lost their decade-long grip. It remains to be seen how firm the current Australian grip is. A whole generation of international greats seems to have retired, and the Test match landscape has yet to take shape.  With an ageing team and an international schedule that has never been more demanding, it would be no great surprise to see Australia come back into the peloton.

Equally, it would be a surprise if England quickly scale the heights of the Flower era. Or indeed the heights of the early Michael Vaughan era. That 2005 team is my favourite England team. Injuries and the fact that Australia still had the best wicket-keeper/batsman and the best leg-spinner of all-time – not to mention a few other all-time greats – prevented it from being a great team. Neither were Flower’s England great, which is not to say they haven’t been the best England team of my lifetime.

A composite team might just have been great, though:

1. Marcus Trescothick

2. Alastair Cook

3. Michael Vaughan

4. Kevin Pietersen

5. Ian Bell (Flower-era)

6. Andrew Flintoff

7. Matt Prior

8. Graeme Swann

9. Jimmy Anderson

10. Steve Harmison

11. Simon Jones