Should Rooney be picked for Euro 2012?

MrStuffins

There seems to be a debate brewing as to whether Wayne Rooney should be picked by Fabio Capello to go to Euro 2012. From the looks of things, there seems to be a lot more talking heads saying he SHOULD be picked.

Now, I can understand why England feel they will get through to the Knock-Out stages, but right now Rooney is banned for all scheduled games. Anything after the group stages is just hypothesis and England might not even get out of the group.

In my opinion, although Rooney is possibly England's best player, he needs to stay at home and his place given to another striker, be it a proven England goalscorer like Crouch or a young striker like Danny Wellbeck or Daniel Sturridge etc.

I know it will all depend on his and others' fitness and form etc, but right now what do you think? SHould he stay or should he go?

massdebater

Definitely take him. Assuming they qualified from their group, a fully rested Rooney would frighten the crap out of any team they face.

Kiwi_knock

I would still bring him, England will need him for the Quarter Final. At the moment no English striker is capable of replacing him.

MrStuffins

Perhaps, but isn't it true that Rooney has failed to perform at the big tournies anyway?

I think it would be terrible to leave a fully fit firing (presumably at the time) at home to have Rooney in the squad and banned for the majority of the games (presuming they don't reach the final, in which case it'd be half of the games)

Boskowski

I'd drop him but England won't.
My reasoning would be that the things that hold England back most of all are the hype, the unreasonable expectations, the delusions about their 'world class quality', the cut-throat atmosphere and from there then lack of unity and team effort. The last thing you want hanging over your squad right of the start is rewarding your undisciplined petulant player when he might not even feature or maybe just get one game while taking a spot from someone who fought real hard for it.
But England being England theres going to be a big saga over this and he'll be there 'for support' and of course for the later stages when England is going 'all the way'.
They never disappoint with regards to their ability of sabotaging themselves. They're a great soap every time. They're not going to change that all of a sudden are they? The Rooney thing is too good an opportunity for it.

adox

They'd be a laughing stock if they didnt bring him.

MrStuffins

adox wrote: »

They'd be a laughing stock if they didnt bring him.

Please explain

Crazy Horse 6

The advertisers will demand he's there if England make the next round of matches and Capello would be roundly slated if he did'nt bring him. Imo he'd be better off staying away.

DirtyLeeds

I wonder what odds his dad and uncle got on that?

It's a long way away in fairness.

There may be 2/3 other strikers in top form that warrent a place instead.

However, if Rooney is fit and in-form, they should take him, he's their best player.

I'd say Fergie is praying they don't !

Giggsy11

1. Take Rooney and lose in Group stage: Blame Capello for selecting player who can't play in the group stage

2. Take Rooney and play him in KO and lose: Blame Capello for changing winning team.

3. Dont play him in KO and lose: Blame Capello for not playing their star player

4. Leave Rooney and lose: Blame Capello for not selecting their star player.

Whatever happens Capello will be the scape goat.


On topic, Yes he should be selected. England should qualify with or without Rooney and once they reach KO stage they need their best players to perform.

Le King

No he should not be picked nor should he be let near any England training sessions. He should retire from International football immediately.







Please?

Mitch Connor

If I thought there was someone they should bring instead of him I would perhaps be more likely to say he should be left behind, but I just don't see the point in not bringing him.

On the assumption that, had Rooney not been banned, England would have planned to play 442 with Rooney off the leading striker, while bringing 4 strikers, I would still do just that.

The four strikers could be, for example; Rooney, Bent, Welbeck (Sturidge), Carrol.

You could play Welbeck off the leading striker (as he has done for Sunderland, and done well) and you could also play Sturidge in this role. Ashley Young played there, off Bent, a good bit for Aston Villa and he has done well in that role for England on occasion too. Gerrard is another that has previously thrived in the support striker role, for Liverpool with Torres, so would be another option for the Rooney role while Rooney is suspended.

You also have a player in Walcott, who will likely go, that can be played up top as well.

England have enough versatile players that mean leaving Rooney behind in order to bring another option, is not required imo.

The only issue is what message bringing him at the expense of someone else sends out - but with Capello gone after the championships are over, what does he care? The new manager coming in can distance himself from the decision so the long lasting effects on a player like Sturidge or Welbeck (who could be snubbed in favour of bringing Rooney) should be minimal.

If it turned out Redknap was in charge for the finals, which is something that has been rumoured, and it was the first big decision of what could be a long enough stint as England manager, then it would be a different situation - mainly due to the message it would send.

MagicMarker

It would be absolutely ridiculous not to bring him.

What would dropping him say about Capello's faith in England's chances to get past the group stages?

Liam O

MagicMarker wrote: »

It would be absolutely ridiculous not to bring him.

What would dropping him say about Capello's faith in England's chances to get past the group stages?

yeah if they actually have ambitions of winning a tournament and they don't take him it reeks of no confidence. You think Portugal or Argentina wouldn't take Ronaldo or Messi respectively to a big tournament if they were banned for the group stages? Like hell they wouldn't!

MrStuffins

MagicMarker wrote: »

It would be absolutely ridiculous not to bring him.

What would dropping him say about Capello's faith in England's chances to get past the group stages?

Nothing. I don't think leaving it at home necessarily says Capello doesn't think they will get past the group stages at all. That would be an English Tabloid argument IMO.

Mr Alan

It would depend on the toughness of their group for the Championships & Rooney's form in the run up to the tournament, however, it's unlikely there would be a scenario when I would think he shouldn't be brought. He's a good enough player to overlook the negatives of him missing the first 3 matches.

_blank_

it should be up to him

LuckyLloyd

Liam Brady wasn't brought to Euro 88, and he was only suspended for two games.

adox

MrStuffins wrote: »

Please explain

Hes their best player. Who in their right mind leaves their best player behind, even with the ban?

Mr Alan

Des wrote: »

it should be up to him

To Rooney?

Stop **** talking. No it shouldn't.

~Rebel~

If England had, say, Argentina's riches up front, then it would be understandable to not take him. They don't. He has to go. The allowed squad size is big enough to accommodate him. How many minutes does the last choice striker usually get anyway?

_blank_

Of course they'll bring him, it's not really in question.

There'11 be ridiculous hype though, for the quarter finals.

England play three turgid matches in the groups, two 1-0 wins, one of them a last ten minutes OG or penalty, and a draw or something. Anyway, they gret out of the group, unconvincingly.

Then the "saviour" is arriving on the scene, they are down to play Portugal or Italy in the quarter, a team they, on paper, should probably beat. The stupid hype surrounding the return of Rooney for that game, to "lift" England and propel them to the semifinal and final will be awful.

Then he'll get sent off again, due to the pressure and expectation on him, they are 0-1 down late in the game and he kicks out at someone, off he goes and he becomes Public Enemy #1

Boskowski

He should not bring him for the fact alone that he's after creating a possibly unsettling debate out of sheer petulance. No brainer IMO.
Not talking even about the pressure he created for himself. It's just such a stupid to bring onto your manager and the team.

LondonIrish90

Take him, along with Sturridge, Welbeck and Bent up front (and Adam Johnson, Ashley Young, Theo Walcott and Lennon if you consider your wingers to be forwards). If those boys can't get England through to the knock outs then it didn't matter, if they can, then the injection of Rooney will be a massive boost to the squad. England have a massive lack of quality at the moment, he simply must be there for the knock outs for England to have any chance whatsoever.

L'prof

England will qualify from their group, unless he's injured they should bring their best player.

Le King

L'prof wrote: »

England will qualify from their group, unless he's injured they should bring their best player.

It really is as simple as that.

Beefy78

L'prof wrote: »

England will qualify from their group, unless he's injured they should bring their best player.

Absolutely. We'll only use 15 players at most in the Group stages so there's it's not like he'd be taking a space in the squad which someone else needs. I'd sacrifice the 8th choice midfielder and take Rooney plus four strikers.

mike65

Having Rooney knocking about the camp with nothing to focus on sounds like a recipe for disaster, his presence will also have a detrimental effect on every other striker - they will fear that even if they score 3 hat-tricks they'll get dropped for Rooney in the quarter final.

None of Sturridge, Welbeck, Carroll, Defoe, Bent are as good as Rooney but they might just be better for England in the tournament - no hissy fits, no glowering, they'll actually be glad to be there!

Benimar

L'prof wrote: »

England will qualify from their group, unless he's injured they should bring their best player.

Should we not wait to see who is in the group before deciding that they have already qualified from it?

Blackhorse Slim

It's far too early to decide. Rooney should not be in the squad for any friendlies between now and the start of the tournament - we know what Rooney brings, both good and bad. Other players should be given a chance to prove that they can perform better without Rooney. If they succeed, then Rooney stays at home. If not, then Rooney will be needed.

Of course Rooney's form for United between now and then will be a factor too.

Beefy78

mike65 wrote: »

Having Rooney knocking about the camp with nothing to focus on sounds like a recipe for disaster, his presence will also have a detrimental effect on every other striker - they will fear that even if they score 3 hat-tricks they'll get dropped for Rooney in the quarter final.

None of Sturridge, Welbeck, Carroll, Defoe, Bent are as good as Rooney but they might just be better for England in the tournament - no hissy fits, no glowering, they'll actually be glad to be there!

I hardly think that Andy Carroll should be held up as a more positive influence than Wayne Rooney.

Soby

Crazy not to bring him.If he can even get them 1 goal he's worth it.Yes they cant use him till the play offs (if they get here) but he will be vital to have.

Mitch Connor

mike65 wrote: »

Having Rooney knocking about the camp with nothing to focus on sounds like a recipe for disaster, his presence will also have a detrimental effect on every other striker - they will fear that even if they score 3 hat-tricks they'll get dropped for Rooney in the quarter final.

None of Sturridge, Welbeck, Carroll, Defoe, Bent are as good as Rooney but they might just be better for England in the tournament - no hissy fits, no glowering, they'll actually be glad to be there!

So when a Liverpool player is suspended for a few games does Daglish bannish him from the 1st team squad cause of the effect it would have on oter 1st teamers to have him around? Do the other players perform badly because of the suspended guy training with them?

Twaddle.

In the training games, when they play the starting 11 together practicing, do you not think the first choice defenders having to deal with playing against Rooney would be decent prep?

And what the hell is your last line about? What hissy fits or glowering are you talking about? You think Rooney will be disappointed to be there?

Some amount of crap in your post.

_blank_

Soby wrote: »

Crazy not to bring him.If he can even get them 1 goal he's worth it.That last group game could be very important to have him for .

lol

there's only 3 group games :rolleyes:

K-9

Beefy78 wrote: »

I hardly think that Andy Carroll should be held up as a more positive influence than Wayne Rooney.

He doesn't have any on field issues as far as I know, which is what he was getting at.

Paparazzo

I'd definitely bring him. For the first 3 games he can do the same thing Walcott did when Sven brought him to the world cup in 2006.

parker kent

Almost every squad brings a player that ends up getting no game time. You may as well risk Rooney instead of a Zamora (or whoever) that probably won't play anyway.

Optimalprimerib

It is an absolute hoot how everytime England make it into the finals, they immediately shoot themselves in the foot, and create a ready made excuse for their failure, the media did it last time digging up dirt on Terry, now Rooney does what he does best, when he is finally beginning to look like the worlds greatest player ever ever ever, he let's his stupidity get in the way.

Bring him, don't bring him, the result will remain the same.

Boskowski

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

...when he is finally beginning to look like the worlds greatest player ever ever ever...

You really like his new hair do you?

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Liam Brady wasn't brought to Euro 88, and he was only suspended for two games.

Brady was ruled out of the competition through injury before the 'should he be selected despite his suspension?' debate had reached a conclusion.

Paul Tergat

not bringing him would be insane. by far our most important player!

Mezcita

England's worst enemy is their own media. Has been for years.

Any time one of their players messes up the media comes down on them like a tonne of bricks (Beckham red card against Argentina, various players missing pennos etc). To such an extent that they seem to be under a lot more pressure to succeed than other countries.

With the Rooney example I doubt Capello even considered not bringing him before this story appeared. He's their best player. Of course he'll go.

aidan24326

Mezcita wrote: »

England's worst enemy is their own media. Has been for years.

Totally agree. Rags like The Sun do more harm to England's chances than the opposing teams. It's almost like they want England to fail, and can't wait for the next fiasco/disastrous result/sex scandal or whatever else.

Rooney should go for the simple reason that they don't have anyone even near good enough to replace him. There's no way youi could find 4 strikers good enough to justify leaving Rooney at home. No way. Assuming they make the 1/4 finals he'd be a nice option to have, and from Capello's perspective if the strikers in the team are playing so well that Rooney can't get back in then all the better. He'd still be a hell of a sub to have in reserve.

homerjay2005

MrStuffins wrote: »

Perhaps, but isn't it true that Rooney has failed to perform at the big tournies anyway?

he carried them on his own in 2004, he was sensational, so already you are wrong, they didnt qualify in 2008.

in 06 he was ok, 10 he was poor, down to not being anyway near fully fit and the media trying to ruin his life.

Hulk Hands

MrStuffins wrote: »

Perhaps, but isn't it true that Rooney has failed to perform at the big tournies anyway?

No. He had a brilliant Euro 2004 and a poor WC 2010. He was injured in WC 2006 and only played 2 games

Pro. F

No matter how tough the draw for England's group might turn out to be, the KO stages will be harder. Rooney is their best player by a distance so they are going to need him if they wan't to win the tournament.

They have plenty of options to cover his role in the group stages. If the team can't adopt to the slight alteration when he returns then they were never going to be good enough to win anyway. Or course the English press will describe it differently.

The last thing to consider is the effect all this will have on morale. Meh, it can just be looked at that the players filling in while he's not their are competing for their place. When Rooney comes back in if they have done well enough the manager will make accommodations to keep them in the side.

Beefy78

It's not guaranteed that Rooney gets straight back in the team anyway. If, for example, England play a front four of Bent, Gerrard, Young and Walcott and things go well then maybe Rooney has to stay on the bench. What an option to bring on if needed.

I don't know if you guys know this ( ) but we once won a World Cup with a hat-trick scored in the final by someone was was seen as being Jimmy Greaves' understudy in the build-up. You never know what's going to happen if Bent/Carroll/Zamora/whoever takes their chance.

mackg

I look at this as a similar situation to Russia at the last Euro's where Arshavin was suspended going in, albeit only for the first 2 games, they brought him and they were repaid with his performances once the suspension was over. If they drop him and bring in a different striker that player will be well down the pecking order so fairly unlikely to even get much game time. Rooney dropped from the squad or there suspended the front line will be the same more than likely for the the first 3 games, so with or without him it will be the same team that has to qualify from the groups.

PHB

Does anyone honestly think England have a chance at winning the Euros without him in the knockout stages?

The squad is going to have 4 strikers, one of whom probably wouldn't have played much. Now, he'll just be playing in the knockouts.

He's going, Capello's not an idiot. The real question is, how do you prepare you team and strategy for the group stages and the knockout stages, with the knockout stages needing to be utilising your best player to his potential?

flahavaj

Hope they don'tbring Rooney but they'd be stupid not to. The only world class player they have. Welbeck aside, the likes of Bent, Defoe, Carroll, Zamora, Crouch et all look decidedly mediocre.