When I interviewed Terry Venables in June, I asked him the obvious questions about his future: "Do you want to manage again?" and "Would you manage England again?"

His response was negative both times, although he did say "I might feel different in a couple of months time."

The day after I interviewed him a poll was published in an English newspaper that said Venables was the No. 1 choice of soccer fans to be the manager of England.

Now those couple of months have passed and Venables is said to be "starving" for the chance to manage England again. He knew what changes he wanted to make back in June when England turned in yet another disastrous performance at Euro 2000. What he saw there and what he's seen since then has undoubtedly changed his mind about coming back. Venables, like most Englishmen, is profoundly embarrassed at what has happened to the team he took to the semifinals of the European Championship in 1996.

Kevin Keegan to his credit resigned after admitting his limitations following the 1-0 World Cup qualifying loss to Germany two weeks ago and now the English Football Association is trying to find a new manager.

For the Finland game, the F.A. put the team under the control of its technical director Howard Wilkinson, the former Leeds manager. For England's friendly with Italy in Turin on Nov. 15 it will be Peter Taylor, the excellent former England under-21 manager who Wilkinson sacked so he could do the job himself -- and do it badly.

England's national team has withered since the sacking of Glenn Hoddle two years ago. Hoddle did pretty well after taking over from Venables, but the F.A. couldn't stomach his eccentricities, most notably his published belief that cripples were paying for sins in a previous life.

So the F.A. dumped him and turned to Keegan, a coach known to have tactical limitations. With Keegan's demise, the men at the F.A. are scratching their heads once again wondering who can take the job.

Which is strange, because everyone in England knows exactly who should get the job: Terry Venables.

And Venables knows once again that he wants it.

So, you have the ideal candidate -- and let's face it, he's the only candidate -- for the job you need to fill. What do you do?

It's obvious: You form a committee to decide how to avoid giving it to him.

The F.A.'s so-called "Gang of Seven" is agonizing over a new England manager. The candidates they are reportedly considering are former Switzerland boss Roy Hodgson, Arsenal's Arsene Wenger and Lazio manager Sven Goran Eriksson, all of whom are under contract with other clubs.

Hodgson, currently managing FC Copenhagen, is the only other candidate with international experience. He is also the only Englishman.

The man they aren't considering, by all accounts, has already done the job better than anyone since Alf Ramsey in 1966; he's not under contract to any club and is available today.

The players want to play under him because they respect him as a coach, both tactically and personally; the English managers in the Premier League want him as the England coach because they know he is the best in the country; the fans want him as England coach because they know he's the best in the country and will bring the spark back to the team, which they know is underachieving; even Alan Sugar, the Spurs chairman who sued him and probably hates him more than anyone else, wants him as England manager.

Never has the crisis in the England team been so great; never has the answer to the problem been so clearcut.

Yet the "Gang of Seven" can't see it. Apparently they are fearful that Venables will find himself on the wrong end of another lawsuit -- like the one he faced with Sugar that led him to quitting England after Euro 96 -- and put them in a quandary once again.

They had trouble with him before and they had trouble with Hoddle. They don't have the guts to face up to more trouble, unlikely as it is.

Just who makes up the gang? It is: Adam Crozier, a 36-year-old Scotsman who until a year ago was working in advertising; Noel White, the head of the F.A.'s International Committee who hates Venables; David Dien, Arsenal's vice president; David Richards, the Premier League chairman; David Davies, the F.A.'s former press secretary (now executive director of the F.A.), a man who showed astounding duplicity by ghost writing a book for Hoddle when he was England manager; Leeds chairman Peter Ridsdale; and Wilkinson, the F.A.'s arrogant and ungifted technical director, who is detested so much by the players they have let Crozier know they are not willing to play under him again.

The insidious thing about the whole affair is that this committee is not basing its decision on what is best for English football. And if it isn't doing that, then it isn't doing its job. And if the committee members aren't doing their job, they shouldn't be there. But who decides who decides? And when do they take responsibility?

The question is relevant in Japan, too. After Hans Ooft resigned following the failure of his team to qualify for the World Cup in 1994, Japan suffered similar crises, first under the woeful Brazilian Falcao, then under Shu Kamo during the qualifiers for the 1998 World Cup.

More questions were raised after last year's abysmal performances by the national team and the 1-0 loss to South Korea earlier this year.

But the cries were always for the head of the manager when it would have been more appropriate to call for the heads of those who appointed him.

Now Japan is in the semifinals of the Asian Cup after some impressive scorelines. Suddenly, the chiefs at the Japan Football Association are looking like geniuses for not dumping manager Philippe Troussier, although, in truth, the jury is still out on the Frenchman.

But if Troussier's boys had flopped in the Asian Cup, would the men who decide his fate have decided their own fate as well?

For now, it is a question that JFA chairman Shunichiro Okano and his fellow mandarins don't have to worry about.

England's F.A. has provided itself with enough rope to hang a thousand committee members. Like with the JFA, I hope they don't need it. And like with the JFA, I hope even a bad decision turns good.

But like with the JFA, the wrong decision should never be made in the first place.