It ended then, as always seemed likely, as soon as a team scored against England. They battled hard, had chances to pull level, but in the end were deservedly beaten 1-0 by Nigeria. When they needed a goal, they lacked the quality to generate one. A team that fails to score in four World Cup games can have no complaints when it is eliminated, even if Billy Knott smashed a bicycle kick against the crossbar and Matt Phillips blasted a series of chances over the bar.

To look purely at that statistic, though, is to miss the point. There must be concerns that England have scored only one goal in their last 13 matches at the World Under-20 Cup finals, but this side got through the group stage for the first time in 14 years, and for that they deserve credit. Brian Eastick does not look much like Maximus Decimus Meridius, but he has echoed him at times in this tournament. Not in terms of having his vengeance, or calling on his squad to unleash hell – very much the opposite, in fact – but in terms of turning to a sceptical crowd, as the gladiator did after swiftly dispatching opponents in a north African ampitheatre, and asking: "Are you not entertained?"

England reached the last 16 of the Under-20 World Cup with three successive 0-0 draws, something that has drawn a mixture of amusement and scorn. When pressed on the issue by journalists, Eastick has remained calm, asking whether the questioner would prefer his side to open up and be ripped apart. "If you think we're going to play scintillating football," he said, "then you're going to be disappointed."

With this squad – missing 36 players retained by their clubs, plus the injured Ryan Noble, Blair Adams and Dean Parrett, and still effectively in pre-season as far as fitness goes – open, attacking football simply was not an option. England sides in the past have – quite rightly – been condemned for a lack of imagination and flair, but that does not mean the determination, resilience and doggedness of this one should be dismissed. In the circumstances, realistically, what else could they have offered? A side gathered together from the remnants permitted by the clubs only three weeks ago played as effectively as is possible. It might not be thrilling, but so what?

Those who sit at home watching on television complaining about being bored – and I've been introduced to an awful lot of them on Twitter over the past few days – seem to be treating football not as a sport but as an entertainment. It may be entertaining, but it is not and should never be an entertainment. It's not WWE.

Football's beauty is in the struggle, in the fact that a weaker side, through diligence, industry and clever tactics, can hold off a stronger one. That means that often there aren't flicks and tricks and hatfuls of goals. If ready gratification is what these armchair moaners want, they should watch pornography, or perhaps basketball: it's the height of arrogance for them to demand a team should play in an ineffective way so that they can be entertained.

With TV rights deals and talk of brand values, perhaps the waters have been muddied a little, but football fundamentally is about two sides each wanting to beat the other using whatever methods the rules and spirit of the game allow. The spirit, of course, is largely self-determined: some will insist on an aesthetically pleasing style; others will be as pragmatic as they can be, and most will be somewhere in between. It is one of football's strengths, though, that at the very highest level, the most effective style tends to be an attractive one, with the odd Greece thrown in for variety's sake.

England, though, had no chance of playing at the highest level; as Eastick commented, imagine the full national side stripped of 36 players, then losing another three through injury. "Until Fifa puts the tournament in its calendar," Eastick said, "or until the Football Association insists on clubs releasing players for competitive fixtures, it's very difficult for England to send their best team. The English game revolves around the clubs, and until we can insist on players being released, it is unlikely England will ever win this tournament."

Eastick, understandably, spoke of his "pride" in what his players had achieved, and reiterated the learning experience those who hadn't been released have missed. "They've worked their socks off for their country," he said, "they've grown as a group of players. There are no losers here."

While that pride is justifiable, it bypasses the more basic point, which is that England, yet again, came into a youth tournament carrying a massive, self-imposed burden. Next time the senior England side underwhelm in a major tournament, the usual platitudes will come out about youth development, yet youth tournaments, the stage on which that youth development can be tested, in which young players can learn about the dynamics of a squad, about playing sides with radically different approaches in alien conditions, continue to be neglected by clubs, by the media and by English football in general.

In part, the issue is the structure of youth football, which is needlessly complex. This year, for instance, there have been world championships at Under-17 and Under-20 level, and European championships at Under-17, Under-19 and Under-21 level. It is, frankly, hard to keep up, and it's hardly surprising that players have to pick and choose between them. "It would be great for Fifa and Uefa to sit down and have a really good discussion about that," said Eastick.

"For instance, the Under-20 World Cup doesn't marry with the European Under-17, Under-19, Under-21, seniors. It would be nice if they could get that all into sync. The decision could be that we go with Under-17, Under-20 and a seniors. If they could get round a table and a) discuss that and b) discuss the calendar – when would be the best time to hold the tournament – would be very useful. To be fair to Fifa and Uefa, that would be very, very difficult because obviously our season is totally different to a season in Africa or South America."

But in part the issue is England's club-dominated culture. Perhaps that is what fans, players, coaches, directors and journalists prefer, but if it is, then the biennial handwringing about the state of player development is mendacious and hypocritical.

This group of English players go home having performed with great credit; to say otherwise is to ignore the context. But the real question is why that context exists and whether there is any desire to change it.

It would be unfair not to acknowledge how good Nigeria were. West African football has struggled for years to produce gifted wingers and creative midfielders, but Ghana now have Dédé Ayew and Kwadwo Asamoah, and Nigeria also seem at last to have genuine imaginative talent. Ahmed Musa of VVV Venlo, cutting in from the left, is rapid and intelligent; Edafe Egbedi, currently unaffiliated, is a threat from the right, and Abdul Ajagun is a poised central creator. The captain, Ramon Azeez, had a fine game as well, bursting forward from the back of midfield.

The stand-out figure, though, is their coach, John Obuh. Not only has he produced a cohesive, attacking side, but he has won the support of local fans by wearing a wide-brimmed striped straw sombrero. "I don't have much to give to the Colombian people," he said. "They have been very, very supportive and I wanted to give them something. I wanted to wear full traditional dress, but that's not allowed by Fifa. Apart from when I sleep, while Nigeria are still in this tournament, this hat does not leave my head."