Football FanCast columnist Alex Dimond feels that Ian Wright has a point, with regards to Wembley, and wonders if there is a strong case for the national team to move their home fixtures to Anfield or Old Trafford.

Despite England's fairly convincing 5-1 win against Kazakhstan on Saturday, many people in the media were less than impressed by the collective performance of Fabio Capello's Three Lions.

After last month's dominate 4-1 away victory in Croatia, a similar performance was expected in front of a vociferous Wembley crowd. Unfortunately, that really didn't happen - especially when, in the 68th minute, Ashley contrived to give the unfancied nation an easy goal.

With the score at 2-1, it also gave the minnows a glimmer of hope of grabbing an improbable draw.

The resultant booing of Cole, coupled with the uninspired performance of the rest of the players, has led one respected former international to question whether Wembley is the right venue for England's international matches.

Speaking to the Sun, Ian Wright revealed his hatred of the new stadium, and the effect he believes it has had on the national team:

"It is hard to criticise your team on the back of a 5-1 win but Fabio Capello's troops seem more confident when they are on their travels and I think it's because the players don't really enjoy playing at the venue.

"In fact, I wouldn't care if we never played at the place again. Wembley leaves me cold."

And the former England international, who won 33 caps for the national side, believes something needs to change:

"The new Wembley has no soul. The negativity has transferred to the fans and now on to the players, with the booing of Ashley Cole a clear example.

"Although Wembley cost something pushing £1billion, I think we should make it a white elephant and take football around the country - something which was such a success when the ground was being rebuilt."

In many ways, the 44-year-old looks to have a point. If the atmosphere at Wembley really is the root cause of England's poor form, it would make sense to move home matches around the country - after all, England never failed to qualify for a major tournament whilst they played their games at St James' Park, Old Trafford, and Anfield when Wembley was being rebuilt.

As Wright notes, it would also be a good opportunity for more fans (and perhaps as a result, more loyal fans) to get a chance to see England play. Wednesday evening kick-offs in a difficult-to-access part of London makes it impossible for anyone other than those within a 50-mile radius of the stadium to attend.

Games in England's other major cities would allow those from all around the country to see their heroes once more.

The problem for the FA, however, is the financial cost of Wembley stadium - a problem for which Wright has no real answer:

"At Wembley, we could shove athletics in there, or something."

Yet, with the FA having just re-financed the loan arrangement that paid for the building of the stadium - saving £3m a year - and the stadium currently believed to be losing around £1m a month, pure economics make it next to impossible for Wembley to be left as the "white elephant" that Wright so desires.

But if it comes to choosing between footballing success and economic prosperity, which would England fans prefer?