Disastrous performances prompt widespread calls for grassroots rethink.
A couple of weeks ago I was lauding the launch of Kick off Your Career, the new initiative to get women involved in all aspects of football.
I cooed over the glossy brochure, the high profile unveiling by the Football Association (FA) and the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation(WSFF), and the super-positive emphasis on straplines such as "it's your sport too."
It is, therefore, particularly hard for me this week to have to focus on the all-too-obvious inadequacies of the current English women's game, as embodied by the team's performances recently at the European Championships.
I think you'll find I said it here first, and I apologise for quoting myself but: "If they get out of the group, they surely have a chance, but at the moment, this is all we can hope for."
Well, they didn't.
And how.
Three abject performances against two mediocre teams and one very good one saw England record their worst tournament result since 2001.
They finished bottom of group C with one point, and that one point was gained through a last minute equaliser against Russia.
And I hate to say it, but, in truth, they were lucky to get that.
As a PR exercise for women's football in this country it has been a disaster. There is no doubt that the media was "bigging up" the team's chances; the BBC committed plenty of radio and television air time to cover the tournament.
It was supposed to be a second massive summer of sport to rival last year's Olympics.
There have already been notable performances this summer; Andy Murray at Wimbledon, Chris Froome at the Tour de France and England's men's cricketers walloping the Aussies (so far) in the Ashes, with the athletics World Championships and women's Ashes still to come.
The only disappointments have been in football.
The men's Under-21 side failed to win a game in the Under-21 European Championship, as did the Under-20s in their World Cup both earlier this summer.
So should we have been expecting any more from the women?
A huge sum – £105 million – was spent on the new St George's Park ‘centre of excellence’ in Burton upon Trent, opened after much argument and delay in October 2012. It is home to the FA's educational department, FA Learning. It provides a base for all 24 England teams, from the senior sides to the junior boys' and girls' sides.
And one of its key roles it to deliver courses to prospective coaches.
The chairman of St George's Park, David Sheepshanks, told the BBC on its opening: "The teachers of the game have the defining influence. We are investing in the teachers so that we can get ahead of what they are doing in France and Spain.
"Really it is the investment in coaches that is crucial and from 2020 onwards we will have winning England teams."
So there it is, 2020 is the big goal.
But we're already in 2013, and the gulf seems to be widening rather than closing. The lack of coaches is something I have written about, not only in women's football, but in women's sport generally.
It is something the new director of elite development at the FA, Dan Ashworth, has recognised.
“I certainly think it’s important we make sure that women have the same opportunities on coach education courses and with these new jobs that are coming up. It’s healthy and important that there are women’s role models working within the women’s game."
Not that I'm saying only women can coach women, but it would be nice to think there were several candidates waiting in the wings if Powell ever does quit.
But to go back to the Euros: trying to be positive, this tournament was always going to be a watershed moment for the England set-up.
Several of the players are coming to the end of their international careers. Coach Hope Powell was obviously hoping it would be a fond farewell to the likes of Kelly Smith, Fara Williams, Rachel Yankee and perhaps even Casey Stoney, but for some it was clearly a tournament too far.
It is thought that Powell herself may be "bumped upstairs" to the newly created post of Director of Elite Women's Football at the FA.
The frustrating thing, and this is what I really don't understand, is that Powell took youngsters with her to the championship. She took Gemma Bonner and Lucy Bronze as defensive cover but they didn't get a look in.
The defence she did play looked creaky, at best. Steph Houghton was clearly unfit, as was the captain. Without Rachel Unitt marshalling the back four they looked disorganised and slow.
Aluko and Duggan aside, the front players looked clueless, devoid of inspiration and, again, incredibly slow and ponderous.
It was far too late when Powell brought on Toni Duggan against France. She looked cool and fast, but was not given enough time to show her class. Nor could she do it all on her own.
WSL top scorer Natasha Dowie wasn't even in the squad. But even if she had been, she probably couldn't have turned it round, as multiple instances of poor defending had already cost us.
The most worrying aspect for me was the tactical naivety and inflexibility shown by England and, I'm afraid, blame for this must lie at Hope Powell's door: she has played the same system for 15 years and while other countries have moved on, England have been treading water.
TV pundit Michael Gray called the England performance against France "embarrassing".
While I wouldn't go that far, I would say that England were so far behind France in terms of speed, agility, fitness and finesse it was scary.
In an interview with BBC television on 21 July, Powell was disappointingly unrepentant. When asked why she didn't make changes when the established team obviously wasn't working, she said she didn't think the young players were ready.
So why take them to Sweden in the first place? Why have them there just to warm the bench? As Geoff Boycott always says (kill me now, I'm starting to quote the great Sir Geoff), "if you're good enough, you're old enough." And I suppose that's the point.
When Powell says "they weren't ready" is she really saying, "they're not good enough"?
And if she is, that opens up a whole new can of worms.
If Powell thought she didn't have sufficient players good enough to make up a full tournament squad, what does that say about the state of the women's game in this country?
France made changes for the last group game against England. They had already qualified and had nothing to play for. And yet the replacement players were just as good as the first team. They were keen, they were fast and they were skilful. The idea of strength in depth is a cliché, but no less true for that, and is the key to any sporting side winning anything.
The French training system is very different from ours. Eleven of the squad play for the same side in France, Olympic Lyon, and get to train together six times a week. Players from English teams can be sometimes lucky to train twice a week.
While I'm not sure that having such a large number of players playing for the same team is necessarily a good thing, there can be no doubt that the levels of professionalism and commitment are impressive.
The results since England's exit have also shown that there are fine lines between victory and defeat in tournament football.
Neither France nor Sweden, by a large margin the best teams in the group stage, will contest the final. Both were defeated in close, tense matches. This makes it harder to judge exactly how far England have slipped.
I am as keen as anyone to give the new St George's Park facilities, the time and money invested in the women's game and the improved media coverage time to work, but I cannot help thinking that 2020 is approaching fast and we have a long way to go.
Next up for England's women is the long process of trying to qualify for the 2015 World Cup in Canada.
Their first game is against Belarus on 21 September at Dean Court, Bournemouth. I just wonder how many of the 2013 Euros squad, and indeed if coach Hope Powell, will be there to see it.
