If there is to be yet another intense yet ultimately futile inquest the likes of which English football specialises in come July - or, more realistically, June given the Euro 2012 quarter-finals will be concluded by the end of the month - events on Wednesday may come to assume real importance.

Not the news that John Terry's court case has been delayed until after the finals - and the possible repercussions that could have on the squad dynamic - but in the confirmation that Arsenal midfielder Jack Wilshere has suffered a setback in his recovery from injury, a fresh stress fracture to his right foot.

Though Arsenal were quick to deny the injury has ruled Wilshere out for the remainder of the season as some reports had ominously suggested, fears have inevitably been heightened that it will leave the midfielder with little time to prove his fitness ahead of what should be his first major tournament with his country, leaving England's plans in some disarray as a result.

While they say success has many fathers and failure is an orphan, such are England's structural and technical shortcomings, it would take a paternity test worthy of Jeremy Kyle to apportion direct blame should they fail again in Poland and Ukraine. But what is certain is that if Wilshere is absent due to injury it would not just cause a personnel problem, and seriously damage England's chances of making any impact on the tournament, it would also result in the postponement of a much-needed metamorphosis.

Because if the defining image of the demise of England's team at their most recent major tournament could be said to be a sprightly Mesut Oezil accelerating away from a slothful Gareth Barry in Bloemfontein, then the rapid promotion of Arsenal's teenage dynamo following the 2010 World Cup was supposed to be imbued with significance in itself, ushering in a sea-change in attitude from England. It was surely a recognition that a stale midfield, a stale philosophy even, needed an overhaul. Wilshere, with his Wenger education at London Colney, an HD-rich map of the pitch in his head and magic in his boots, was to be the figurehead.

After all, Wilshere is a distinctly and commendably un-English player: small, technical and savvy in possession, he treats the ball with utmost care. When coming through the ranks at Arsenal it was Liam Brady and Dennis Bergkamp he was compared to, not Ray Parlour; during his peak last season he was described as England's Xavi, not the next Frank Lampard; when forced to settle on an English comparison it is Paul Gascoigne who is cited, not Nobby Stiles.

Yet now that this model of football modernity, at least in English terms, is at best a doubt for the finals in Ukraine and Poland, a cold chill has wrapped itself around England's Euro 2012 preparations. A realisation encroaches that, as we approach the tournament, the composition of England's midfield could have a depressingly familiar complexion.

Though the utilisation of Scott Parker in a Euro 2012 qualifying win in Wales in March 2011 proved an unadulterated success and has led to him becoming a certain pick in midfield, the concern comes in who will be tasked with playing alongside a man whose task is largely destructive and disruptive, and who relies on energy and application to successfully make his imprint on a match. England's team that day in Cardiff was deployed in a 4-3-3 formation, with Parker and Wilshere being joined by Lampard to produce one of the most cohesive performances of Capello's reign.

The tactical anachronism that is 4-4-2 has been flirted with since, but England have by and large stuck with a model that demands a sole striker flanked by two wide forwards, and three players deployed in the centre of midfield. With Wilshere possibly missing, the concern arises when you consider who in this midfield triumvirate is tasked with setting tempo, a vital role in international football and a skill often overlooked by a national team hardly preoccupied with a menial task like keeping possession. Leave that to the foreign fancy dans, while we just hoof it around, eh?

Barry remains a Capello favourite despite some lamentable performances in the national shirt over the past 18 months - so much so that it was he who supplanted Lampard from the starting XI for the first time in four years in competitive fixtures against Bulgaria in September. Phil Jones was also handed the chance to audition in friendlies against Spain and Sweden in November. Neither player could ever be mistaken for Xavi.

And with the return to fitness of Steven Gerrard at Liverpool, an even more worrying scenario is on the horizon: the return of that infamous partnership with Lampard. Such is the overwhelming evidence for the case against, the 'can Lampard and Gerrard play together?' question is no longer legitimate. The fact such a question is still being asked after 10 years is surely proof enough that they cannot. But does anyone truly think it will not be raised once again in the build-up to the finals?

Given Wilshere's possible absence, the fear that England will be once again grappling with an uncomfortable and uninspired midfield, firmly characterised by the strangely valued yet somewhat hollow qualities of passion and industry, is a very real one. It is also very familiar.

After all, England is a country that surrendered any chance of technical progression by criminally shunting Paul Scholes out to left midfield to accommodate the dreaded Lampard-Gerrard axis under Sven-Goran Eriksson, and then eventually out of the international picture for good. Indeed, the closest England have had to an accomplished passer of the ball in recent years has been Michael Carrick: though undoubtedly undervalued with just 22 appearances to his name, his form has fluctuated wildly and the Manchester United midfielder has not won a cap since prior to the 2010 World Cup.

Capello's willingness to embrace Wilshere - to make him the 10th youngest player in England's history against Hungary in August 2010 and then swiftly incorporate him into the starting line-up soon after - hinted at a brighter future for a midfield that has for years suffered greatly in comparison to its international rivals. It hinted at a midfield able to retain possession, to use the ball quickly and intelligently and to mould itself around a young man who did not look out of place when lining up against Xavi and Andres Iniesta in the Champions League last season.

Now his injury may deprive England's midfield of the chance to take a significant if not yet decisive step forward, and the concern is that Wilshere's possible absence may result in a regression to the status quo, the dark days that were so brutally delineated by Joe Cole in an interview with L'Equipe on Thursday. Cole, one of England's lost midfield talents, is revelling in the chance to play possession football during his loan spell with Lille and spoke candidly of his incomprehension at how his national side have struggled to do likewise over the years.

"When I played with Liverpool, or elsewhere in England, sometimes you had to ask why the team against whom you were playing had more possession than you," Cole told L'Equipe. "In the England team, we had Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham and Rooney and when we played, for example, Macedonia, they had 60 per cent possession against us ... and we did not know why."

Famously Cole became something of a cause celebre during the 2010 World Cup as he remained on the bench while England struggled to string three passes together, but painting him as some kind of instant remedy to his country's passing malaise was naive: he and England were too ingrained in the system by that point. Similarly, it would be highly optimistic to suggest that Wilshere alone can transform England, particularly given the country's deep-rooted failings.

However, it is certainly true that Capello and England stand a far better chance of rectifying their historical shortcomings with Wilshere in the side; without him, they are far more likely to be condemned to repeat the mistakes of tournaments past.

Tom Adams - @tomEurosport / Eurosport