So, will David Cameron have given it straight to Barack Obama?

Of course, he needed to say something to the England team. But forcing his 'We're all in this together' catchphrase into the video was almost as big an own goal as ending with 'Come on England.' From the Downing Street garden to the public school playing field in one awful PR stunt.

He should know better. His £140k a year media adviser Andy Coulson should also know better.

But maybe they've got other things on their minds. Such as their 1600 BST call to Barack Obama, to discuss the BP oil crisis.

What Cameron needed to do on that call is make it abundantly clear to Obama that his petty rhetoric again 'British Petroleum' and the company's bosses was totally out of order.

If Cameron was really in the mood for following through on his pledge to do what needs doing, he might have then advised Obama that he's made a fool of himself by indulging in namecalling against individuals.

This is the world's most powerful man we're talking about (Obama, that is - Cameron isn't even the most powerful man in the Tory party). Say what you like about George Bush Jnr but when a crisis came (often of his own making) he did a pretty good job of giving the impression he'd got his sleeves rolled up trying to find a solution.

Obama, on the other hand, took an eternity to meet those affected, seems to have shown little interest in solving the problem, and resorted to telling clucky stories about how one of his kids comes into the bathroom every day to say 'Daddy, have you stopped the oil yet?'

If Daddy Barack was honest in his answer, he put down the razer, turn round to his child and say 'No darling, I haven't. I'm in out of my depth. But I'm trying my best to turn it round to my political advantage.'

Of course, Cameron won't set Obama straight on this because the cult of Obama lives on, at least in political circles. He's the man who defied the odds to win the race to the White House. Politicians also like to believe that the public mood is fickle, so it suits them to hope that Obama will swing the public mood in America back behind him.

Obama will be hoping against hope that by creating a scapegoat in the boss of BP, he'll look like he is being strong. But here's the rub - it doesn't solve the crisis. It does, however, deflect attention from the fact that America seems happy to have allowed such drilling to take place when there was no cast-iron fix to such problems, and deflect from the fact that America continues to be the most oil thirsty nation in the world. Would BP be getting such a kicking from Obama if this accident had taken place in one of the oilfields America libertated/colonised in Iraq? Of course not.

The man who was all about change - even if that came with a Bob the Builder slogan - isn't that different to many other politicans, it turns out. When the heat is on from many sides, simply aim the fire elswhere.

His call for BP shareholders not to receive a dividend is a joke. It simply won't happen. Not even the president of the US can do that. There's an art to being the world's most powerful man: You have to create the illusion of being invincible, even when you know you aren't. In other words, you don't overplay your hand. Obama has done that this time.

And all that poses a dilemma for Cameron. Does he go into bat for BP, as his voters expect (or rather, the nation which has ended up with him in charge, delivering a set of policies no-one voted for?) or does he try to keep Obama on side in the same way Blair did with Bush as if to say to a suspicious British public 'He likes me, so you should too?'

I know where my money will be. I suspect we'll soon realise Cameron - in the knowledge he is a one-term wonder thanks to economic circumstances - doesn't mind giving us hard truths, but won't be so keen to do the same to the president of the US.

And once they've done talking about a problem, but not solving it, they can talk about the World Cup. Two men on a common ground - both clearly knowing little about the beautiful game.