Rooney

[Old Shuck 183]

Isn''t it as easy as saying you choose the club you support, where-as your national team support comes through default?

Having said that, if the ROI get through to the finals-and they should against Estonia over two legs-the coverage here will back and support them as if they were a "second England" again.

You do choose your team-if you adopted your local side by the same principle, then there would be far fewer Chelsea and Man Utd shirts being worn in Norwich and Norfolk as a whole-and they''re not all people that have "moved here to work from London/Manchester"!

This will sound like heresy to most but, given the choice of us staying in the Prem this season or England winning Euro 2012, I''d have us staying put, 100 times out of 100, no contest.

You choose to support your club, you''re expected to support your country. I am Norfolk, not British or even English!!

[kick it off 1,948]

This debate is ridiculous.

He has not been hard done by, nor has he been punished punitively for "being English". It''s violent conduct, a 3 match ban in the Prem and deservedly so, and the same applies here.

UEFA have actually got something right for once. He is a petty moronic thug, and he has got what he deserved for behaving like a knob. Don''t blame UEFa for punishing the country and it''s fans, blame Rooney for being a violent little tosser.

It was pointless, and unneccessary and any other player would have been punished in the same way, although Ronaldo may have got away with a 2 game ban - why? Because UEFA review all cases like this individually and the player''s history is taken into account, Rooney has form for it so it is right he should be punished more harshly than someone who has had a one off mental lapse.

I honestly can''t understand how people think he has been hard done by here. He got what he deserves.

[Old Shuck 183]

Amen to that, kick it off.

The hype for all of our games will not be about who is playing on the day but about "when Rooney returns" -and, when he does come back, assuming we qualify, and assuming Capello drops someone who has been part of the XI that got us through the group stages in the first place...

...then he''ll probably be so hyped up (a''la Gascoigne in the 1991 FA Cup Final) he''ll end up getting sent off again!

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Old Shuck"]Defoe should go-and start-and we should stick to the 4-2-3-1 that seems to be the formation of choice these days. Neither Smalling or Jones are right backs (but Jones can also play in midfield) so I''d go with, providing everyone is fit... Hart Richards Smalling Cahill Cole Barry Jones Young Gerrard Downing Defoe Probably no Terry because I don''t like him, but there you go! So no to Rooney.[/quote]

Why should Defoe go? His club form hasn''t been particularly good for a while now.

 

Unless he hits and maintains excellent form between now and next summer he should only be considered if the likes of Bent, Welbeck and Sturridge are unavailable.

 

If Defoe isn''t scoring goals he doesn''t contribute much else to the cause.

[Old Shuck 183]

For reasons that I don''t understand, Redknapp doesn''t seem to fancy Defoe and he isn''t an auto pick for Tottenham.

But, if he gets game, he scores goals-he isn''t the all round player Rooney can be, but he''s a good a finisher as anyone in the English game, and, in a 4-2-3-1 formation, thats all he needs to do, given the right three behind him.

You could argue that, if available, Rooney could be the central player in that 3.

Rate Defoe above Bent certainly but yes, Sturridge is coming up on the rails and should get a chance soon-but he needs to be playing regularly as well.

[Sing up the river end 0]

So Rooney is to miss the group games for the euros,thats nothing the whole team missed the world cup.

[Old Shuck 183]

[quote user="Sing up the river end "]So Rooney is to miss the group games for the euros,thats nothing the whole team missed the world cup.[/quote]

 

Ba-dom TISH!!

[ricky knight 0]

Dont see all the love for Rooney with the pundits etc, he has never produced on the big stage in Euro finals for Man U he has gone missing and for England in Finals has done nout. In 66 when we won the World cup nobody thought we would win it with out Jimmy Greaves but a winning team was found in his absence. IMO Rooney is not the be all and end all.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Old Shuck"]For reasons that I don''t understand, Redknapp doesn''t seem to fancy Defoe and he isn''t an auto pick for Tottenham. But, if he gets game, he scores goals-he isn''t the all round player Rooney can be, but he''s a good a finisher as anyone in the English game, and, in a 4-2-3-1 formation, thats all he needs to do, given the right three behind him. You could argue that, if available, Rooney could be the central player in that 3. Rate Defoe above Bent certainly but yes, Sturridge is coming up on the rails and should get a chance soon-but he needs to be playing regularly as well.[/quote]

Well the reason Defoe hasn''t been playing as much for Spurs was because his form wasn''t good enough. Though he might do a bit better this season playing alongside Adebayor.

In the last 2 and a bit seasons Defoe has scored 24 Premier League goals. Darren Bent has scored 43.

 

Moreover, Bent has been on good goalscoring form for England. He''s also physically bigger and stronger than Defoe which gives him another advantage when playing as a lone striker.

 

 

[GJP 79]

[quote user="ricky knight"] for Man U he has gone missing [/quote]

Well apart from in the CL final against Barca when he actually had a good game and took his goal very well.

[Sing up the river end 0]

Since joining Manure in tournaments hes

Played 8,scored 0 ,assists 0

[Jacko 0]

Rooney may be banned for 3 games but he still has to go, simple as that. If he doesn''t go someone average like Crouch will end up going instead. He isn''t going to provide that extra quality that might somehow take us far into a tournament for a change. Whereas Rooney is more likely than anyone to do that. The England squad has some versatile players as well meaning that you could justify taking 5 strikers. I would personally take 7 defenders on the basis that someone like Chris Smalling can fill in at either right back or centre back if required. It would be ridiculous to leave out our only genuine world class player regardless of his temprament. How people can suggest otherwise is beyond me.

[ricky knight 0]

I think you will find Crouches goal return for england per game is as good as most and most people would have called Hurst and Hunt average before 66 world cup, The best players do not always make the best team as has been proved by our failures since 66.

["""""""""Ben """"""""""" 0]

Lambert said that we should take Rooney. End of discussion ;)

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Jacko"]Rooney may be banned for 3 games but he still has to go, simple as that. If he doesn''t go someone average like Crouch will end up going instead. He isn''t going to provide that extra quality that might somehow take us far into a tournament for a change. Whereas Rooney is more likely than anyone to do that. The England squad has some versatile players as well meaning that you could justify taking 5 strikers. I would personally take 7 defenders on the basis that someone like Chris Smalling can fill in at either right back or centre back if required. It would be ridiculous to leave out our only genuine world class player regardless of his temprament. How people can suggest otherwise is beyond me.[/quote]

 

I agree. I''d rather have Rooney in the squad than a defender or midfielder simply simply their to provide cover if the 2 or 3 players ahead of them in their position get injured.

 

I''m also a fan of taking 5 strikers (or more) in general. I think there is a stat somewhere that supports that squads that take at least 5 strikers rather than 4 tend to be more successful at the major tournaments.

 

However, Capello is not an attack minded manager.

 

 

[GJP 79]

[quote user="GJP"]

simply simply their

[/quote]

*simply there

 

 

[Yellowbeagle 0]

I dont see the point in taking Rooney unless the ban is reduced or he''s willing to be sub. If we get through the group stages that team will deserve to stay together on merit, it''d be a slap in the face for the players who have performed to be dropped. But if he''s going to be sub does he even have the right attitude  if he''s frustrated at not starting, or will he just come on and get himself sent off. He has liability written all over him and imo i''ve never seen him truely run the show against the very best like real great players can.

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="ricky knight"]I think you will find Crouches goal return for england per game is as good as most and most people would have called Hurst and Hunt average before 66 world cup, The best players do not always make the best team as has been proved by our failures since 66.[/quote]

Its a valid but to use the cricketing analogy I would call him a bit of a flat track bully. I think he has filled his boots against the likes of Jamaica, Andorra and Belarus which has swelled that goal return a fair bit. While he hasn''t let England down, would you honestly prefer him to Rooney in the England squad? I also think if you wanted a physical prescene to unsettle defenders at the end of a game Andy Carroll would represent a better option.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="Jacko"]

[quote user="ricky knight"]I think you will find Crouches goal return for england per game is as good as most and most people would have called Hurst and Hunt average before 66 world cup, The best players do not always make the best team as has been proved by our failures since 66.[/quote]

Its a valid but to use the cricketing analogy I would call him a bit of a flat track bully. I think he has filled his boots against the likes of Jamaica, Andorra and Belarus which has swelled that goal return a fair bit. While he hasn''t let England down, would you honestly prefer him to Rooney in the England squad? I also think if you wanted a physical prescene to unsettle defenders at the end of a game Andy Carroll would represent a better option.

[/quote]

I''d take Crouch over Carroll at this momment in time, Crouch''s technique is alot better than Carrolls who has looked absolutely shocking for alot of the games i''ve seen him in. Of course Carroll is alot younger and might improve, but definetley not impressed with what i''ve seen so far.

As for the crouch only scores against poor opposition rubbish, it''s abit stato but you might want to take alook at this guys analysis (although i think it may be Abi Clancy paying the guy), http://ongoalsscored.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/the-peter-crouch-myth/

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Yellowbeagle"][quote user="Jacko"]

[quote user="ricky knight"]I think you will find Crouches goal return for england per game is as good as most and most people would have called Hurst and Hunt average before 66 world cup, The best players do not always make the best team as has been proved by our failures since 66.[/quote]

Its a valid but to use the cricketing analogy I would call him a bit of a flat track bully. I think he has filled his boots against the likes of Jamaica, Andorra and Belarus which has swelled that goal return a fair bit. While he hasn''t let England down, would you honestly prefer him to Rooney in the England squad? I also think if you wanted a physical prescene to unsettle defenders at the end of a game Andy Carroll would represent a better option.

[/quote]

I''d take Crouch over Carroll at this momment in time, Crouch''s technique is alot better than Carrolls who has looked absolutely shocking for alot of the games i''ve seen him in. Of course Carroll is alot younger and might improve, but definetley not impressed with what i''ve seen so far.

As for the crouch only scores against poor opposition rubbish, it''s abit stato but you might want to take alook at this guys analysis (although i think it may be Abi Clancy paying the guy), http://ongoalsscored.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/the-peter-crouch-myth/

[/quote]

Whereas I am impressed with Carroll - though I appreciate he''s yet to show his best form since his move to Liverpool.

 

Disagree about Crouch having better technique too. Carroll has actually got some brilliant and sometimes superbly subtle touches on the ball. He''s considerably better in the air that Crouch is and he strikes the ball better. He''s also a stronger and faster runner.

 

Whether his price tag of £35m was justified is up for debate but I don''t think you''ll find anyone who would be willing to spend £35m on Crouch.

 

As long as Carroll gets properly fit and works hard then, ability wise, it''ll become plainly obvious that he''s the superior player.

[ZLF 271]

The problem is that Rooney simply disappears in the most important games, no goals or assists in 8 internationals as well as the invisible man in CLs big games for seasons tells us that he is THE main man for flattering against poor quality opposition, it is that fact, not opinion, that means he can not be ranked as world class. Messi is a star because he performs THAT well against the best teams as well as less able sides.

The piece on Crouch is interesting; simply highlights what good strikers Owen & Lineker were - a class above the reast, including the over vaunted shearer and rooney. Like Ian Wright fab club players but not world class, however much the media money/coverage insists they are.

On that basis I would leave Rooney behind; he does not perform in tournaments; and his influence on a game diminishes in direct inverse proportion as the quality of opponents increases, so his best games will be during the group stages - becoming more peripheral as we play better games - ie in the QF if we make it that far.

World class? In recent years only Ferdinand and Cole have hit that consistent capability against the very best players in the world. They would have made a world squad of 22. Currently England have only one borderline player of that calibre, which remains the odious but talented and consistent Ashley Cole

Introducing the youngs and smallings of this world has re-vitalised England; drop rooney and show faith in the rest.

As for replacements Wellbeck Bent & strurridge are a yes. Carroll? He has been woeful this year but if he cant motivate himself to make the squad then he is not good enough, that place his his to earn or lose; crouch would be a better option than the simply not good enough Defoe

[smooth 114]

God he may even be injured in 8 months time.

So it is only a debate when the squads have to be announced, meantime we can blood in some other forwards who are impressing on the pitch, those that don''t have a reputation.

Really don''t care about England, glad he got the ban, absolute idiot. He should not be held in the regard he is and this act proves what a idiot he is. Certainly no role model.

But play a different team in these friendlies. We all know the players he would take anyway and that will include Rooney. So time to blood in some new guys and make this a non debate.

See who is performing when the squad needs to be announced and injuries are current. Hopefully an NCFC player may get a chance

[ricky knight 0]

Imo Carrol is a waste of money he only scored about 8 goals in the championship season and his replacement Best has more goals in the prem than him, looks clumsey and awkward to me best strength is in the air and thats it, Crouch far better option than him has been there dunnit and has never let England down, where as a certain Rooney has.

[kick it off 1,948]

Left on the bench vs Liverpool. WOW big call from Sir Alex!

[ZLF 271]

Shows how petulant and immature he is;    he was sent off for violent conduct and got a suspension that fits the crime and his past record; 

grow some and accept your punishment like a man.    I cant imagine that Fergie is best pleased that a players attitude prevents him from playing.   

[Harry 0]

He did send UEFA a nice letter:[IMG]http://i530.photobucket.com/albums/dd347/barclayendchoir/296364_10150424000399180_611039179_.jpg[/IMG]

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="Harry"]He did send UEFA a nice letter:

[IMG]http://i530.photobucket.com/albums/dd347/barclayendchoir/296364_10150424000399180_611039179_.jpg[/IMG]
[/quote]

That is blatently a forgery, the english is far too impressive.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="ricky knight"]Imo Carrol is a waste of money he only scored about 8 goals in the championship season  [/quote]

He scored 17 league goals in the Championship season.

 

He''s since scored 14 league goals in 33 Premier League apps and is yet to fire on all cylinders.

 

I''m confident Andy Carroll is a far better player than you''re giving him credit for and I''m even more confident that Kenny Dalglish is a far better judge than you.