We will eventually view England's dreadful exit from the Euro finals against a nation with a name more renowned for frozen food than its football in its proper context.

A blessing in disguise.

Anyone who follows me on Twitter will appreciate I have never been a fan of Roy Hodgson. Fortunately, he lived up to my low opinion in France.

I say fortunately through fear, fear that we would stumble through our group, reach the quarter-finals and go out gallantly.

That would probably have been enough to persuade the FA to award Hodgson a new contract - and that would have been a disaster.

Thank goodness for Iceland. England's spineless, humiliating defeat in the last 16 left him with no option other than to resign.

Of course, the players have to take responsibility for their gutless performance but Hodgson made a pig's ear of the tournament from before the start to its abject finish.

He made bad choices (Wilshere, not Drinkwater, Milner not Townsend), then repeated the error once we were over there.

Players were over-used (Sterling and Kane), under-used (Rashford and Barkley), used out of their best positions (Rooney, Vardy and Sturridge), given unwarranted responsibility (Kane on set plays).

Tactics were muddled, no plan A, yet alone plan B. Strong leadership was lacking, on and off the pitch.

For all of these reasons, contrary to popular opinion, I regard the search for Hodgson's successor as encouraging rather than uninspiring.

The FA's chief executive Martin Glenn, vice-chairman David Gill and technical director Dan Ashworth, are responsible for making the decision.

If it is true that Sam Allardyce, Eddie Howe and Jurgen Klinsmann are on their shortlist that's fine by me, a good mix of contenders, any of whom I am convinced would be more effective than Hodgson.

Big Sam is unfairly maligned for producing unattractive teams.

World Cups and European Championships are not beauty contests. Winning is what counts, not looking good.

Allardyce, 61, was born nine days after Fernando Santos. Both have what might be described as unfashionable profiles.

Santos had a star (Ronaldo) but nothing like the best squad of players in France.

Portugal won the tournament because they were well-organised and had a committed group with belief in their manager.

They also had a plan B (after losing Ronaldo early to injury in the final against France) and a manager who got a brave call right when it mattered most.

Hands up those who were a little perplexed when Eder was introduced at the expense of the dynamic Renato Sanches towards the end of normal time in the final?

Sanches certainly looked bemused but it proved to be a match-turning and match-winning change. Eder was handful for the French defence, culminating in his extra-time decider.

Allardyce would, I am sure, have done better than Hodgson with the same group of players in France, had them well-drilled.

He will not be afraid of shaking big reputations and the 'big club clique' which ensures you are far more likely to play for England wearing an Arsenal, Manchester United or Liverpool shirt than Leicester, West Ham or Stoke.

Howe (below) is a bright young manager, too young and too inexperienced some argue.

The Argus: Why not take a bit of a risk, a fresh approach with a fresh face in charge of a squad still with plenty of potential, particularly in midfield and up front?

Considering our chronic track record in major tournaments, plumping for the Bournemouth boss would be a low-grade, un-Brexit type gamble.

Then there is Klinsmann. I don't care that he is foreign, I don't care that he is German. His pedigree is hard to ignore.

And, in contrast to the previous overseas appointments, Sven and Fabio, he will have a better understanding of what makes English players tick from his spell at Spurs.

Allardyce, Howe, Klinsmann, I'd be happy with any of them. Not convinced? Then just ask yourself if we can possibly stoop any lower than Roy Hodgson's England against Iceland.