THE Big `F' continues to stalk Euro 96; the fear factor I believe being primarily responsible for what has been a relatively mediocre tournament so far.

I've no doubt that there are outstanding, attacking players in this tournament, but it is the fear of the coaches which has imposed the shackles, with the most notable exception being the Germans.

The Russians are a prime example of this massive, over burdening fear of failure. They are a promising team going forward but they are not committing enough people into the penalty area. If they had done so, certainly against Italy, they wouldn't have been beaten.

Germany, Italy and Portugal excepted, you feel as though teams haven't been given their heads. All of these teams have negotiated ten qualifying games come through hell and high water, and yet hold something back. Why? All right, you might lose a game but certainly with players like the Russians have you ought to win two out of three.

Admittedly they were drawn in the toughest of groups. Talk about the Group of Death, it was the Kiss of Death for them to be drawn against the Italians and the Germans, especially in their opening two games. What could be worse than being one down after five minutes to Italy?

They have several outstanding players, such as Mostovoi, Kanchelskis, Kolyvanov, Oaopko and Tsimbalar, but like so many of the participants they play with only one striker. Sure, many sides line up with two, but almost from the kickoff one drops back into midfield.

Now, they are almost certainly on their way home. Germany, as a case in point, play with two strikers. Top goalscorers. End of story.

They've looked the best so far because they've such a simple way of playing. They make a lot of chances and they always have people in the opposition penalty area. They set out their stall at the back but they always have a midfielder playing as a spare man at the back, because they realise that often he's free to start the attacks or come forward, as did Summer in scoring yesterday. It's just such simple logic, the way they play their football.

They're comfortable on the ball in all positions and they seem, as well, to have 22 good players, i.e. the best squad. I'm pretty sure about that. As the European country with the best, record in the finals of the two major championships it's clear that success breeds success.

Regarding England's win over Scotland, I'm just glad it's over after all the furore. If the truth be told, it was a poor match. The Scots played well, probably as well as they can, but confirming my view of them as toothless in attack, they didn't deserve anything from the game because they never looked like scoring.

Craig Brown has actually done well with what he's got, but he cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The problem is he knows his squad's limitations and he's had to adapt his tactics accordingly. He doesn't possess true scoring potential within his squad.

A consequence of this is that it made England look better than they are. Wembley saw two average sides on Saturday and there's no doubt that Seaman's penalty save changed the course of the game.

It's the weakest group in the competition and bearing in mind everything is in England's favour, playing at home with a favourable draw, there's still no discernible pattern to their game. They are over reliant on one man, namely Gascoigne, and it is a reliance by the manager as much as anybody.

to be quite honest, I think I'd be more inclined to rely on McManaman and to give him more of a foraging, open role, because he's the one who will create things for England. Gazza's goal was a wonderful piece of skill but his overall, contribution to the game was negligible.

One of the other problems is Adams, because the central figure in the three man defensive system has to be comfortable on the ball and able to come out and play. I'm afraid that's not Adams. I would much rather have a back three of Neville, Southgate and Pearce. It would give England more mobility, and ability on the ball, from the back.

Thus far England have played in fits and starts. They haven't played a decent side yet and whereas other sides will get better as the tournament progresses I'm not convinced that England will.

I have always included France amongst the better sides but I'm puzzled by them. I thought going into the Spanish game that they would show us why they have been unbeaten in 25 games. And they didn't.

Their loss of two points, against Spain on Saturday was largely self inflicted. Aimed Jacquet needlessly reshuffling his iron clad defence and now they play a strong Bulgarian side with their qualification under threat.

The central defensive pairing, of Desailly and Blanc is very good, I rate the goalkeeper too, and with Deschamps protecting the back four I feel they could be far more progressive than they have been. If they had been they'd be perched at the top of the group with six points.

The same to an extent, applies to the Italians, whose defeat to the Czechs can be put down to Sacchi trying to play God. I understand the logic of not playing one or two players four days after such a good win, but not five. It's half a team. You can't do that. Even Brazil at their peak couldn't afford tub do that because you lose the continuity of your team play.

All told, however, the general lack of adventurous football has been the disappointment of Euro 96. I wouldn't say it's been boring, because no matter what match you watch, at whatever level, there are always things in the game that you find fascinating but it needs a kick start, a 4-3 game to set the tournament alight.