Peter Corrigan: Fortune smiles in land of the rising Sven

With one bound our hero was free... Sven Goran Eriksson was left in no doubt what would be his fate if England had lost on Friday. Their performance against Sweden had left him roped hand and foot to the railway line with the Argentine express bearing down on him.

Mashed Swede had a very prominent place on destiny's menu for this weekend. But, not only did Eriksson wriggle free in time, he also managed to derail the bloody train.

No one can diminish the achievement that was wrought out of the most unlikely material in the Sapporo stadium. The collapse of Argentina's World Cup favouritism may not have been out of context in a tournament that had already seen the deflation of France, but it was a priceless landmark in the frustrating history of English international football since 1966. That year was the last time England beat their old foes, but Friday's was a better, more rounded victory and certainly more deserved.

The undertones of revenge and retribution were inevitable and formed a major part of the press reaction yesterday. Defeat would have been far less forgivable because of it, and the threat was barely disguised in the papers on the morning of the match. They were full of warnings about "now or never", "ultimate test", "moment of truth", "searching questions", "immediate inquisition".

There was speculation about how much turnip treatment Eriksson could take. The tabloids would have had their crude and cruel headlines ready. It is difficult for a punster suddenly to put his mind into reverse. "Up yours señors" was the best they could manage at short notice. Sober reflection reminds us that the drama has a bit yet to run. Before England qualify for the next stage, there remains the matter of the point required from Wednesday's encounter with Nigeria. Even if the Nigerians, whose battle is already over, mount a farewell show of exhilarating defiance, of which they are more than capable, Eriksson has already succeeded in his task by giving England a team they can respect whatever happens from here on in.

In the process he has also let loose a stampede of expectation that may yet be doomed to disappointment, but he has still achieved all he could have realistically expected from this expedition.

The euphoria of their 5-1 victory over Germany last year had evaporated in the undignified scramble to qualify for the World Cup. David Beckham's miracle free- kick against the Greeks covered up a catalogue of confused adherence to doubtful tactics.

The very fact of qualification had, for some, been enough to confirm Eriksson as a saviour. Many others delayed their welcoming speeches.

A week ago I offered the opinion that Eriksson "is either the most magical manager England have had or the luckiest". He might be both. Part of that conclusion was based on the build-up to the World Cup that had seen England suffer a succession of injuries which at one time raised the doubt they could get a team up.

This had the effect of reducing national optimism to the lowest level I can remember before a major championship, but not that low that we were prepared for the poverty of the performance against Sweden last Sunday, from which they were lucky to escape with a point.

Friday's performance raises even more questions about what the hell they were up to in that first match. The questions won't be asked, of course, and Eriksson will get the credit for selection and tactical changes that the pundits were begging for all week.

Not that Eriksson escaped criticism, but it seemed that most in the media did not relish doling it out. It was a little like carping at the Queen because it rained on her Jubilee parade.

In yesterday's media reaction you could sense the relief that they were able to pile praise on England after the digs they'd been applying to Eriksson's ribs during the previous five days. This represents another aspect of Eriksson's luck. Most people want him to succeed.

The point has been made before that no previous England coach has carried such unqualified backing from his employers. The young professionals at the hub of the Football Association have seen to that, and they can't be blamed for attempting to establish a feel of continuity and collective will around the national team.

The appointment of the England coach used to be the subject of a vote that was rarely unanimous, and those who voted against inevitably formed a caucus that quietly set out to pick holes in his reign.

Thankfully, Eriksson will avoid that particular quirk of an England coach's existence and revel in the free hand; so much the better if it's a lucky hand. Regular good fortune counts as an ability in the world of sports leadership, and not the least of Eriksson's fortune is having had an emerging giant at the heart of the team.

Eriksson deserves credit for helping provide the responsibility that has nourished David Beckham. Even fuddy-duddies who look askance at the fashion of the modern male must take pleasure that such a remarkable man is taking shape before our eyes.

Beckham was a massive force in a team performance that embodied many of the often-derided English qualities of speed, strength and courage. Even the fourth-minute injury to Owen Hargreaves worked in their favour. Trevor Sinclair came on and the resulting reorganisation couldn't have worked better if it had been planned for a year. All Sinclair could have hoped for this summer was free membership of BA's frequent flyer club, and now he is a vital cog in England's whirring machinery.

Some managers inherit great teams, some create great teams and others have great teams thrust upon them. As long as a great team emerges, who cares?

The professional at work

Where Rivaldo made his big public relations mistake when Hakan Unsal of Turkey deliberately kicked the ball at him was to fall holding his head.

If he'd clutched his genitals instead, the world's attitude would have switched from extreme indignation to deep sympathy. And when the replay showed that the ball had hit him halfway up the thigh the sympathy would have been joined by admiration. Most people outside the game were shocked by his blatant deception that led to Unsal's dismissal from the game. Then they were shocked again by both Fifa's mild punishment of a fine that was small change to the Brazilian and his attitude to the offence.

He was unrepentant. Unsal was wrong in kicking the ball at him, so he was trying to ensure the Turk suffered the top penalty. So what if it was near the end of the match; Unsal would miss the next game, and as Turkey are Brazil's main rivals in the group his absence would be to the South Americans' advantage. Having spent a lifetime close to professional sportsman I am not surprised at this rationale. They take the same philosophy into their games of five-a-side or head tennis. They'd kick their grannies to get an advantage.

David Beckham admitted last week that he would assist his country's cause if the rules needed bending. Michael Owen knows that a run into the box can be more valid than a telling pass to a colleague because you can tempt a defender into a desperate lunge. Last Friday proved that.

By no means does that amount to cheating, but it is professional to be mindful of the possibilities. You don't need to dive to create a penalty.

Neil Back's illegal act in tapping the ball out of the Munster scrum-half's hands in the Heineken Cup final comes under the same heading. And what do the authorities do about it? Nothing. Sadly, they accept it as part of the game.

The average professional team player approaches a match in much the same way as many people approach their tax return. You try to get away with what you think you can get away with, and to hell with the consequences.