Quater-Finals/Fallout from England's exit: While the tabloids vented their spleen, England's principals made a graceful, if unrepentant, exit, writes Emmet Malone

England left Lisbon for home with their dignity but not much else of significance yesterday. The final press conference given by Sven-Goran Eriksson and his captain, David Beckham, was a subdued affair, with both men accepting defeat graciously, something, more importantly, that the team's supporters also appear to have done during their final hours in Portugal.

Not everyone was happy, however, and leading the charge, as ever, was the Sun which ran the back page headline "CHEATED", over the line "England out as ref robs us".

Beside those words was a picture of Sol Campbell heading his side's disallowed goal in the last minute of normal time and, also clearly visible was the arm of John Terry across the shoulder of Portuguese goalkeeper Ricardo, who was obviously being impeded by the Chelsea centre-half. On an inside page Swiss match official Urs Meier was described as a "reffin' half-wit".

Despite what appeared to be a consensus among nationals of every country other than England that the referee had basically been correct, Eriksson maintained yesterday that, even after watching replays on television, he remained convinced the goal should have been allowed. Like Beckham, however, he made his case coolly and rationally.

"I thought it was a goal then and after seeing it on the television I still think it was a goal," he said. "But in football it is a goal when the referee says it's a goal and it's not when he says it's not."

Also up for discussion yesterday was the penalty-spot controversy, which Eriksson calmly pointed out, was the "same for both sides" and the suggestion that a complaint might be made over Wayne Rooney being asked to walk from the pitch while suffering from an injured foot (it was subsequently established he had broken a bone and will be out for at least six weeks). This too was quietly dismissed.

Eriksson was also pressed about his future as England coach and insisted it is his intention to stay "unless the English people or the association, who employ me, make it clear that they would prefer that I go, then I can do that".

It is almost unthinkable, however, that the Swede will follow in the footsteps of Rudi Völler, Inaki Saez and Giovanni Trapattoni - who yesterday, the Italian football federation announced, would be replaced by former Juventus coach Marcello Lippi - by walking away from his current job. And it is even more unrealistic to imagine that an association already struggling to cope with the financial strain of funding their end of the Wembley redevelopment would come up with the £10 million or so that it would take to sack a man with whom they have only just agreed a new contract.

There is, in any case, little to be gained by replacing Eriksson, whose tactical conservatism may have cost England during the past couple of weeks but who is, nevertheless, the best coach to have worked with the team in at least a decade. He is also a man who remains deeply popular with the country's leading players.

Asked yesterday whether he felt he had gotten anything wrong in the way he had approached things, the 55-year-old maintained he had not, although it is hard to believe that if he had it all to do again he would not have made a slightly tougher stand in his talks with the players ahead of the Switzerland game.

When Eriksson told them then that, having used a flat four in midfield against the French, he wanted to switch to a diamond formation he was dissuaded by players who preferred a system that allowed them more flexibility.

The result, particularly against the Portuguese on Thursday night, was that no single player was charged with providing a link between the midfield and attack, a failing that, once Rooney made his exit, left England with a serious problem.

It was one, however, that Eriksson himself exacerbated over the course of the game. Having declined to rotate players over the course of the group games he was faced with some difficult choices when it came to making substitutions, for most of his key players looked exhausted in the second half on Thursday.

Still, the decision to take off Paul Scholes and Steven Gerrard, hard-working players who possess an ability to add something to a team's attack, and replace them with Owen Hargreaves and Phil Neville, surrendered the initiative to the hosts who, under little pressure at the back themselves, were free to throw on an extra striker for a full back.

Eriksson's loyalty to Beckham in particular is impressive but having even the world's greatest crosser of a ball looks like a luxury when your team's only attacking threat is coming from long passes and runs from very deep by the two centre forwards.

As he looked forward to tomorrow's semi-final in Porto yesterday, Danish coach Morten Olsen observed that "this tournament has emphasised that the teams who dare to play football are the teams to get success", and, for the most part, he is correct. Teams like Italy and Germany have failed miserably, while the Czechs, French and even the Danes themselves have been rewarded for adventurous, attacking football.

The Czechs, the best team of the tournament so far, have been behind in each of their three games to date but have come back every time to win. England, on the other hand, led both of their most important games but under their coach's direction set about defending that lead and on occasion were found wanting.

Eriksson said yesterday he believes his team is now "right up there" with the best, despite reaching only the quarter-finals of the World Cup and this European Championship. There is, he added, "almost nothing" between winning and losing. On both counts he may be just a little misguided.

Where he is right, however, is that this group of England players should improve between now and the next World Cup. Players like Gerrard, Michael Owen and Ashley Cole are all under 25 and nearing what should be their peak. Few, if any, will be ruled out of the finals in Germany by virtue of their age.

With most currently playing for, or on the way to leading clubs, they should learn a good deal more about their trade by the time they face this sort of test again in 2006. How much their coach has learned from the experience of the last two weeks, however, may be just as important when it comes to determining their fate.