Hive Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I just feel that if he were Spanish, cynics would be pissing their pants about Rooney. Hopefully, you aren't claiming that Rooney is as good as Fernando Torres or David Villa...? If Rooney were Spanish, he would be a national sub at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Jim Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Rooney is a different type of player to Torres and Villa. They are far superior at what they do, but he is far superior at what he does. And as far as his scoring record goes, it is made even more impressive when you look at where he was playing and his role within the team for a lot of his games, especially with Utd. I really can't see how people can say he isn't world class when he is one of the best, if not THE best player at one of the biggest teams in the world, if not the biggest. And one of the star players for one of the best national teams in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 He's not a world class striker. He may be a world class offensive midfielder, but in no way is he a world class striker. And that's what England needs: a proper striker with goals in his boots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedew Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Hopefully, you aren't claiming that Rooney is as good as Fernando Torres or David Villa...? If Rooney were Spanish, he would be a national sub at best. Perhaps not as good as those 2, but certainly better than Guiza, Negredo or Llorente - he'd be 3rd choice for Spain, and in a team that plays 2 up front that's hardly a sub at best - he'd play a fair few games. I could've said Argentinian - I believe Rooney is better than Higuain, Tevez, Palermo or Lavezzi and around about the level of Aguero. As an aside here, i'd compare Lavezzi to Darren Bent - not at the biggest team in the league, but pacey and steady-scoring nonetheless. The difference is Bent has more quality ahead of him. Brazillian - i'd put Fabiano above Rooney, but Amauri? Adriano? Pato? Not in my eyes. I could go on, but he'd walk into Italy, France or The Netherlands sides. He's underrated because he's English! (Which, let's face it, he's not. He's Irish!) It's the new 'in-thing' to think everyone who's got an uncle from Barcelona is the best player in the world. Are they the best team right now? Yes. But are Man Utd the next best? Yes. That's what the Champion's League decided last year, and i'd say that's the best litmus test. Is Drogba world class? Henry? Fabiano? I'd put him on that level, and i'd say he is. Rooney is a different type of player to Torres and Villa. They are far superior at what they do, but he is far superior at what he does. And as far as his scoring record goes, it is made even more impressive when you look at where he was playing and his role within the team for a lot of his games, especially with Utd. I really can't see how people can say he isn't world class when he is one of the best, if not THE best player at one of the biggest teams in the world, if not the biggest. And one of the star players for one of the best national teams in the world. This, word for word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedew Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 He's not a world class striker. He may be a world class offensive midfielder, but in no way is he a world class striker. And that's what England needs: a proper striker with goals in his boots. He's scored 46% goals-to-games with England, and that's including the dry-spell he went through, and after that being stuck with McClaren as manager. If 50% is the holy grail, he's bloody close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Rooney is a different type of player to Torres and Villa. They are far superior at what they do, but he is far superior at what he does. And as far as his scoring record goes, it is made even more impressive when you look at where he was playing and his role within the team for a lot of his games, especially with Utd. I really can't see how people can say he isn't world class when he is one of the best, if not THE best player at one of the biggest teams in the world, if not the biggest. And one of the star players for one of the best national teams in the world. I don't think being the best at a given club, no matter how big or successful the club is, makes a player "world class". As for England being "one of the best national teams in the world", I think you would have to say that "on paper" they arguably are. However, over the past decade, they have hardly produced in a manner to suppor that claim. Which is one of the main reasons a lot of fans feel that English NT is overrated. For fans and media claiming them to the best or one of the best sides in the world, filled with "world class" players, they do not produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 In no particular order, players I think are better than Rooney: Torres, Villa, Drogba, Eto'o, Ibrahimovic, Benzema, Aguero, Forlan, Henry, Adebayor, Luis Fabiano, Arshavin (not exactly a pure striker, but neither is Rooney), Kaka (same story as Arshavin), Trezeguet (overlooked and underrated imo), Milito... and I've probably forgotten someone. This just off the top of my head. I could mention countless others I feel are at the same level as Rooney. He's not among the very best in the world. But of course, such a thing is always a subjective opinion. I'll agree that he's a very good player, certainly a much better player than anyone on my own national team (Denmark). Just not among the very best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Jim Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I don't think being the best at a given club, no matter how big or successful the club is, makes a player "world class". As for England being "one of the best national teams in the world", I think you would have to say that "on paper" they arguably are. However, over the past decade, they have hardly produced in a manner to suppor that claim. Which is one of the main reasons a lot of fans feel that English NT is overrated. For fans and media claiming them to the best or one of the best sides in the world, filled with "world class" players, they do not produce. How can the best player [or second when Ronaldo was there] at one of the top three teams in the world NOT be world class? You don't get to that high a level without any world class players. Right now, I'd say Utd have two world class players: Vidic and Rooney. Ferdinand comes close, Berbatov comes close, maybe one or two others. And England are the 7th best team in the world on merit. That makes them one of the best. That much can't even be questioned, much like the stature of Man Utd. In no particular order, players I think are better than Rooney: Torres, Villa, Drogba, Eto'o, Ibrahimovic, Benzema, Aguero, Forlan, Henry, Adebayor, Luis Fabiano, Arshavin (not exactly a pure striker, but neither is Rooney), Kaka (same story as Arshavin), Trezeguet (overlooked and underrated imo), Milito... and I've probably forgotten someone. This just off the top of my head. Most of those players play a different role to Rooney. If you're going that route, you can throw Ronaldo and Messi ahead of him too. He isn't the best player in the world, clearly, but he is world class. I'd say he's better than at least half that list. Not as an out-and-out striker because that isn't what he is, but comparing how effective they are in their best positions. He's not among the very best in the world. But of course, such a thing is always a subjective opinion. It's only subjective to a point. If you are the best player in one of the best teams in the world and one of the best national teams in the world, consistently performing at the highest level, how can you not consider him to be among the very best in the world? I honestly can't see how that follows. The very fact that he has been nominated for the Ballon d'Or award this year, the most prestigious award for a player, shows his quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 PS he wouldn't be a lock for the dutch squad as his playing style doesn't fit us plus we have Huntelaar and Kuyt and a possible return of Van the Man. OK Huntelaar is on a dry spell atm with AC Milan but italian football doesn't really fit him and the whole of AC Milan is in the slumps atm he is still way better then Rooney though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigpapa42 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 How can the best player [or second when Ronaldo was there] at one of the top three teams in the world NOT be world class? You don't get to that high a level without any world class players. Right now, I'd say Utd have two world class players: Vidic and Rooney. Ferdinand comes close, Berbatov comes close, maybe one or two others. And England are the 7th best team in the world on merit. That makes them one of the best. That much can't even be questioned, much like the stature of Man Utd. So the logic is that because a squad of players, collectively, form one of the best sides in the world, therefore they best of the group must be world class? While I think that may often be the case, I don't think its necessarily an absolute. Also bear in mind that United's success over the past few seasons was when Rooney was clearly not the best player in the squad. As for the FIFA rankings, those are not exactly the most accurate reflection. If the caliber of a national side is measured that way, could England have had any World Class players in September 2008 when they were ranked 15th? Or does that logic only work the other way. Hyde and Newdew are correct in that its a matter of perception. I hope you are correct - that Rooney is world class and leads England to glory next summer. I guess I'm a cynic because I'm just not expecting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Jim Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 To be clear, I'm not saying I think England will win the World Cup, though I think we have a better chance than most, obviously. A team with world class players can falter and go through a bad run, due to their manager, the players not gelling together, or whatever, so yes a team with more than one world class player can slip down the rankings. I don't think, though, that a team without at least one stand out player can get that high. And then if that stand out player is also one of the key men in the best team in the world [as Rooney was, behind Ronaldo, when Utd won the Champion's League and Club World Championship, as well as two Premier League titles] AND is being nominated for the most prestigious award in football... well, I don't see how that player can be classed as anything but world class. If only one of those things were true, then it would be more debatable but when you look at all the facts and what Rooney has achieved and how he has performed, I really, really struggle to see it as something that is subjective. I get that everyone has their opinions on different players but there are limits to that. And Hyde, Rooney can play the role Kuyt plays for Holland [and has in the past for Utd] far better than he does. Kuyt doesn't even begin to measure up to Rooney. As for Huntelaar... that's much closer but I'd still go with Rooney because he's done so much more, at a higher level, for longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Lol you are seriously underestimating Kuyt then hehe. And I am not saying he is better then Rooney just that he fits the Dutch play style way better so if as Nedew hypothesized Rooney was Dutch he would not be a lock for the first team, all I was trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 So the logic is that because a squad of players, collectively, form one of the best sides in the world, therefore they best of the group must be world class? Yeah, I have a problem with this logic as well. Not so many years ago, Greece won the European Championship - which is arguably harder to win than the World Cup. Does that mean that Greece is the best team in the world and that their best players are world class? Hardly. It was the collective and at the time clever tactics that won the tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Lol you are seriously underestimating Kuyt then hehe. And I am not saying he is better then Rooney just that he fits the Dutch play style way better so if as Nedew hypothesized Rooney was Dutch he would not be a lock for the first team, all I was trying to say. The Dutch team has plenty of awesome wingers/offensive midfielders - Kuyt just certainly isn't one of them. He's hugely overrated imo, and I have to agree that Rooney would be able to play the position better than him. Hell, most people would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I am talking about the striker position not offensive midfield or wing Rooney has no chance there for the Dutch squad with Robben and Van Persie being our wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Jim Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Yeah, I have a problem with this logic as well. Not so many years ago, Greece won the European Championship - which is arguably harder to win than the World Cup. Does that mean that Greece is the best team in the world and that their best players are world class? Hardly. It was the collective and at the time clever tactics that won the tournament. The early stage of the final tournament in the Euros is harder, the latter stages of the World Cup is more difficult. And sure, they won, but how high did they get in the FIFA rankings [which measure performance over a much longer period]? They got up to 14th shortly after that. Last year they managed to peak at 8th but it was very much a straight up, straight down rise. Perhaps I should have worded it better to say that for a team to consistently be that high, they can't be without at least one world class player. England have been a ten top side for a couple of decades, with the exception of the months following our failure to qualify for Euro 2008 and the months after the main tournament because of other teams getting points from competing in it. In that period, Rooney played 7 out of 18 matches [inc. friendlies]. Less than half of the games, in the period that resulted in England dropping out of the top ten. No other major players missed even half the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capelli King Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 Yeah, I have a problem with this logic as well. Not so many years ago, Greece won the European Championship - which is arguably harder to win than the World Cup. Does that mean that Greece is the best team in the world and that their best players are world class? Hardly. It was the collective and at the time clever tactics that won the tournament. Everyone knew that Greece did not have the best team in 2004 (i happen to be Greek decent, so watching those matches was fantastic) Greece had the right tactics for the matches, were very motivated, had plenty of support in the crowds and believed they could do it. As far as class though, they were way below other teams such as Portugal (which we beat twice in the tournament) France, Czech Republic (they were very strong back then with Nedved, Barros and Koller) and Spain (which we drew with and kept them out of the next round). I sure believe we deserved the cup though, none of the wins were flukes and although they did not control the pace in any of those games, they defended very well and were never pushed. Football is the only game where lesser teams "REGULARLY" win or draw against much stronger teams Barca lost at home to Rubin of Kazan 2 days ago, is Barca a weaker team? Nope, they just underestimated the opponent, did not play to their potential and did not dictate the pace of the game. In a cup style format anyone can win, England have been very unlucky i think, they always seem to get knocked out on penalties or extra time, seems the Cup style does not fit our mentality or something, if it was a marathon league, i am sure England would have had more than 1 World cup and 0 European cups by now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.