I CANNOT help but think there is an arrogance when it comes to England and the perception of our place on the world sporting stage.

Certainly when it comes to football and rugby.

We haven’t won a major football tournament in half-a-century and our rugby team was dumped out of their own World Cup in the group stages.

In anybody’s book, that’s nothing to shout about.

Yet, when the top job becomes vacant in either sport, we seem to think we can just click our fingers and the best will come running.

Take the RFU for example.

Following the departure of Stuart Lancaster as head coach, the game’s governing body said it would scour the globe looking for the replacement.

Which is all very admirable but what makes us think we have the pick of the world game to choose from?

Lancaster had barely cleared out his desk before the pundits were throwing names into the hat for the gig.

Coaches such as Michael Cheika, Warren Gatland and Joe Schmidt were all mentioned, conveniently overlooking the fact that all are employed by nations more successful than England.

Cheika this week ruled himself out.

That’s hardly surprising given he masterminded an Australian revolution and took them to the World Cup final, losing only to arguably the greatest team in history.

Gatland oversaw Wales giving England a bloodied nose at Twickenham last month and Ireland coach Schmidt, like Gatland, took his nation to the quarter-finals.

He has also led them to back-to-back Six Nations triumphs.

So what makes the RFU powers-that-be think these guys would give England a second glance?

They claim the job is one of the most appealing in world rugby but we are ranked lower than all the aforementioned nations.

Coaching England is an attractive proposition but it is wrong to assume that everyone else should see it the same way.