Wayne Rooney - how good or bad, bias aside?

[Fuzzmaster101]

Hardly every game bar one then is it? He never played 4231 in the world cup because Lampard never sat back with Barry. Gerrard was on the left (bonkers) and Rooney played just off Defoe or Heskey (double bonkers). Today he was dropping back to help out with Gerrard and Barry in a midfield central 3 but he was the furthest forward of the three with Gerrard joining the attack when possible. This never happened at the WC but did happen in the qualifiers last year and before.

Is it not? Rooney's played up top in a 433 once, every other game he's played behind the striker be it with Defoe/Heskey/Zamora and be it in a 4411/4231/4321.

I think it's bizarre to call the role Rooney plays in a 4231 'midfield' but there you go, that's besides the point. Point is we both agree he's played the vast majority of his England career under Capello in that position, and to good effect too.

-- Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:56 pm --

What? He did play in the midfield! Just because he also plays as a striker doesn't mean he's incapable of playing in the middle. He was very rarely in the box today which really points to that fact. If Gerrard had played there and done what Rooney did today with Carrick taking Gerrard's position and Rooney on the bench would you have said that Gerrard was playing as a striker?

Is Berbatov a midfielder for us?

Usually when both he and Rooney are on he stays more Central and Rooney drops deeper, from what I've seen although I don't watch United as much as City. It's an irrelevant arguement. Tonight Rooney did not play up front at almost any part of the game. This is because Gerrard played much deeper than he usually does. I've already pointed this out. Whatever the semantics of it he was much better tonight than he has been in months. Not great, but very good.

 

[Anonymous]

It's all about opinions but it amazes me that Rooney can have a half-decent game,basically playing in midfield-and still be called "man of the match."

Yet Defoe looks like he's going to score every time he touches the ball,makes great runs,and gets a hat trick...and it's barely acknowledged.

Rooney only has to have a few good touches and the foaming starts...any team that he's in gets overshadowed and it becomes all about the "one we can't play without"

It's always happenened in my lifetime with England...we couldn't play without Keegan..we couldn't play without Robson....we couldn't play without Gascgoine....we couldn't play without Shearer..we couldn't play without Beckham.and now we simply can't play without Rooney...why do we always seem to need an on-pitch "messiah"...a player that we may aswell not bother going to a tournament without?

It does my head in.

I saw three lads tonight in Defoe,Milner and Hart who had at least as much influence on the match in their own way as Rooney.We played like a team,rather than "give it to bloody Gordon."

But I can pretty much say with confidence that a striker playing in midfield will get the majority of the praise and column inches tomorrow.

Because,as usual "England can't play without him."

 

[manchester blue]

They can play without him, they have proved that. You should not concern yourself with what Clive Tyldsley and The Sun come out with. Most people on here have been honest in their assessment and stated he is good but overhyped.

 

[Brwned]

Is it not? Rooney's played up top in a 433 once, every other game he's played behind the striker be it with Defoe/Heskey/Zamora and be it in a 4411/4231/4321.

I think it's bizarre to call the role Rooney plays in a 4231 'midfield' but there you go, that's besides the point. Point is we both agree he's played the vast majority of his England career under Capello in that position, and to good effect too.

-- Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:56 pm --



Is Berbatov a midfielder for us?

Usually when both he and Rooney are on he stays more Central and Rooney drops deeper, from what I've seen although I don't watch United as much as City. It's an irrelevant arguement. Tonight Rooney did not play up front at almost any part of the game. This is because Gerrard played much deeper than he usually does. I've already pointed this out. Whatever the semantics of it he was much better tonight than he has been in months. Not great, but very good.

Berbatov plays deeper than Rooney did today, or at least has done in the past two years at us, so I thought it highlighted an interesting point. Oh well. Isn't there this mystical position in between midfield and up front? You know, 'in the hole'? The #10/enganche/mediapunta/mezzapunta/trequartista/meia de ligacao?

Do people not remember how good Rooney was in the WC qualifiers?

 

[Fuzzmaster101]

Usually when both he and Rooney are on he stays more Central and Rooney drops deeper, from what I've seen although I don't watch United as much as City. It's an irrelevant arguement. Tonight Rooney did not play up front at almost any part of the game. This is because Gerrard played much deeper than he usually does. I've already pointed this out. Whatever the semantics of it he was much better tonight than he has been in months. Not great, but very good.

Berbatov plays deeper than Rooney did today, or at least has done in the past two years at us, so I thought it highlighted an interesting point. Oh well. Isn't there this mystical position in between midfield and up front? You know, 'in the hole'? The #10/enganche/mediapunta/mezzapunta/trequartista/meia de ligacao?

Do people not remember how good Rooney was in the WC qualifiers?

Absolutely, the hole, although I think Rooney was about 5 yards deeper than the hole for most of the game today. I wasn't aware of Berbatov and maybe this is his problem. He needs to stay in the box more and let Rooney come deeper. Personally I don't care what United do obviously. :D

I haven't got the space or inclination to go into depth here but I could literally write an essay on what England got wrong in the WC and what they got right today (and in the WC qualifiers). It's all my opinions based on what I've watched but that's all I've got, and I'm adamant they are right or if not damned close. ;)

 

[Anonymous]

They can play without him, they have proved that. You should not concern yourself with what Clive Tyldsley and The Sun come out with. Most people on here have been honest in their assessment and stated he is good but overhyped.

Sorry mate,don't agree.
Every England manager I can think of would play Rooney with one leg,regardless of form or fitness-on the "off chance" that he might come up with the goods.
Beckham was the same.
Bent could score 100 goals and you know that Rooney would still get in the team in front of him-every time.

England teams traditionally have been picked on personalities and parent clubs,rather than performances...and if they weren't,like Heskey for instance-it was becasue they were the "perfect foil" for wheover the star man was this week.

And we all know what happened there.

So credit to Capello for at least having the balls to do something different than the same old faces.

 

[Unknown_Genius]

It's all about opinions but it amazes me that Rooney can have a half-decent game,basically playing in midfield-and still be called "man of the match."

Yet Defoe looks like he's going to score every time he touches the ball,makes great runs,and gets a hat trick...and it's barely acknowledged.

Rooney only has to have a few good touches and the foaming starts...any team that he's in gets overshadowed and it becomes all about the "one we can't play without"

It's always happenened in my lifetime with England...we couldn't play without Keegan..we couldn't play without Robson....we couldn't play without Gascgoine....we couldn't play without Shearer..we couldn't play without Beckham.and now we simply can't play without Rooney...why do we always seem to need an on-pitch "messiah"...a player that we may aswell not bother going to a tournament without?

It does my head in.

I saw three lads tonight in Defoe,Milner and Hart who had at least as much influence on the match in their own way as Rooney.We played like a team,rather than "give it to bloody Gordon."

But I can pretty much say with confidence that a striker playing in midfield will get the majority of the praise and column inches tomorrow.

Because,as usual "England can't play without him."

I agree with everything. Imagine if the boot was on the other foot, and it was Rooney who scored the hattrick, and Defoe was the one who supplied the passes. It will be like the return of the king for the english media, and Defoe wouldn't even be mentioned, let alone considered for man of the match, it would be unthinkable. The whole "England can't play without Rooney/Beckham", mentality is everything thats wrong with this country.

 

[Fuzzmaster101]

It's all about opinions but it amazes me that Rooney can have a half-decent game,basically playing in midfield-and still be called "man of the match."

Yet Defoe looks like he's going to score every time he touches the ball,makes great runs,and gets a hat trick...and it's barely acknowledged.

Rooney only has to have a few good touches and the foaming starts...any team that he's in gets overshadowed and it becomes all about the "one we can't play without"

It's always happenened in my lifetime with England...we couldn't play without Keegan..we couldn't play without Robson....we couldn't play without Gascgoine....we couldn't play without Shearer..we couldn't play without Beckham.and now we simply can't play without Rooney...why do we always seem to need an on-pitch "messiah"...a player that we may aswell not bother going to a tournament without?

It does my head in.

I saw three lads tonight in Defoe,Milner and Hart who had at least as much influence on the match in their own way as Rooney.We played like a team,rather than "give it to bloody Gordon."

But I can pretty much say with confidence that a striker playing in midfield will get the majority of the praise and column inches tomorrow.

Because,as usual "England can't play without him."

I agree with everything. Imagine if the boot was on the other foot, and it was Rooney who scored the hattrick, and Defoe was the one who supplied the passes. It will be like the return of the king for the english media, and Defoe wouldn't even be mentioned, let alone considered for man of the match, it would be unthinkable. The whole "England can't play without Rooney/Beckham", mentality is everything thats wrong with this country.

Spot on. I'm still staggered that Rooney played every last minute of every match in the WC. His form showed that a below par Rooney is NOT still an automatic choice. We'd have been better off having just Defoe up front with Gerrard in "The Hole" as has been mentioned.

 

[manchester blue]

They can play without him, they have proved that. You should not concern yourself with what Clive Tyldsley and The Sun come out with. Most people on here have been honest in their assessment and stated he is good but overhyped.

Sorry mate,don't agree.
Every England manager I can think of would play Rooney with one leg,regardless of form or fitness-on the "off chance" that he might come up with the goods.
Beckham was the same.
Bent could score 100 goals and you know that Rooney would still get in the team in front of him-every time.

England teams traditionally have been picked on personalities and parent clubs,rather than performances...and if they weren't,like Heskey for instance-it was becasue they were the "perfect foil" for wheover the star man was this week.

And we all know what happened there.

So credit to Capello for at least having the balls to do something different than the same old faces.

I don't disagree with any of that. They [managers] do pick personalities, you're right. What I was saying is don't believe the [over] hype the press give. England looked very good in their last friendly when Rooney went off and a much younger staff took over. They also looked much better without Lampard tonight and that further backs up your case.

 

[Garry.Cook]

It's all about opinions but it amazes me that Rooney can have a half-decent game,basically playing in midfield-and still be called "man of the match."

Yet Defoe looks like he's going to score every time he touches the ball,makes great runs,and gets a hat trick...and it's barely acknowledged.

Rooney only has to have a few good touches and the foaming starts...any team that he's in gets overshadowed and it becomes all about the "one we can't play without"

It's always happenened in my lifetime with England...we couldn't play without Keegan..we couldn't play without Robson....we couldn't play without Gascgoine....we couldn't play without Shearer..we couldn't play without Beckham.and now we simply can't play without Rooney...why do we always seem to need an on-pitch "messiah"...a player that we may aswell not bother going to a tournament without?

It does my head in.

I saw three lads tonight in Defoe,Milner and Hart who had at least as much influence on the match in their own way as Rooney.We played like a team,rather than "give it to bloody Gordon."

But I can pretty much say with confidence that a striker playing in midfield will get the majority of the praise and column inches tomorrow.

Because,as usual "England can't play without him."

This 100%.

There's no denying that an in-form Rooney is top class but insisting he is first on the team sheet whether in-form or not stinks of desperation from Capello.

It's an absolute joke that our national team is selected on a name rather than being an in-form English player. Tonight sums it up for me. We cling on to the 'name' player and dismiss the player who scored a hat-trick.

Sort it out.