If you had been rooting for England in this World Cup - as I had - then these last 10 days have made for miserable - and predictable - fare.
England, that great country of football heritage, is now the also-ran of the world's elite. It isn't just this World Cup that has established this fact. It is the last six international football finals, stretching over a persuasive 10-year period.
If Gary Lineker or Adrian Chiles have said it once, they have said it 100 times: England have just fallen at the group-stage of a World Cup for the first time since 1958. And we're supposed to be shocked by this?
The last 10 years of English under-achievement in international finals should soften that shock somewhat. Because, steadily and consistently, England have proved themselves purveyors of a lung-bursting mediocrity in these tournaments.
Here are England's "feats" of the past 10 years:
World Cup 2014: out at group-stage.
Euro 2012: reached last 8.
World Cup 2010: reached last 16.
Euro 2008: failed to qualify
World Cup 2006: reached last eight.
Euro 2004: reached last eight.
With the odd high and the odd low, this is a recitation of dogged trying. Determined, patriotic England really are the doughty bulldog of international football: full of bark and menace but with little subtlety or sleight of foot.
A whole series of gifted coaches - from Sven Goran Eriksson to Fabio Capello to Roy Hodgson - have presided over these flawed efforts. A good manager can certainly make a difference, but not in the case of England, where the best of her talent looks leaden compared to the rest of the world's elite.
Hodgson, in the wake of watching his players claim one point from three games in Group D in Brazil, has had to resort to the time-honoured England manager's wafting optimism of old.
Hodgson believes his group of players is "very talented". He thinks there are many "positive signs" for the future. He can't fault England's "attitude or effort".
This has become the great canon of the beaten England manager: droning on in heedless hope while, for an umpteenth time, the world has told you again you are not good enough.
Actually, I quite like Hodgson, and don't believe for a moment he is not a good football manager, filled with knowledge. But this is almost beside the point. The plodding, deflated state of English football is something I doubt Jose Mourinho or Sir Alex Ferguson in his prime could have transformed.
Everyone knows the main problem, so there is no point in banging on about it. English football, such a rampant commercial success at club level, sees its native young flowers being choked and stifled by the invasion of foreign players.
This doesn't mean that a Steven Gerrard, a Wayne Rooney or a Daniel Sturridge cannot come through and prevail as a fine English footballer. Of course it doesn't. But, critically, it means that many more such players cannot emerge at club level due to the recurring foreign imports.
Players like Luke Shaw, Ross Barkley and Raheem Sterling are the latest England players to be deemed "the future". At 24, the slightly older Sturridge is also now a torch-bearer for England's tormented, doomed years ahead.
Sturridge, after such a fine season for Liverpool, is almost being set up as the next Wayne Rooney. Which is to say, the next fall-guy of a striker once held in such high esteem in the cities and shires.
Woe are those English football writers, whose job after all these finals is to breast-beat anew about where it has all gone wrong. By now, this is all a very familiar lament. England, it seems, try as it might, simply cannot deliver.
As a Scotsman writing this, I take no pleasure in it. I'd love to see England thrive again on the international stage - though never against us - simply because it is a country I like and admire, with a brilliant culture of football. The country of Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Spurs and so many more deserves far better than this.
I'll look forward to the day when English international football really is transformed and elevated again. But I don't see it anytime soon.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article