2014 World Cup Group D: Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy

[War]

BBC Sport - World Cup 2014: England one of the best - Cesare Prandelli

 

[shravi]

speaks to unfortunate held general perception by many football fans worldwide regarding the importance of players like Rooney etc scoring many goals/being dominant in world cups.

Well, he's a forward, isn't he? Scoring goals is his job. I'm sure the fans aren't expecting a goal a game, but zero in nine is pretty mediocre. Even in the absence of a single goal though, his all-round performances have also been shit.

Yesterday, there was less responsibility on him to score a goal as he wasn't playing centrally, but as has been discussed, he failed to perform that role too.

 

[War]

Well, he's a forward, isn't he? Scoring goals is his job. I'm sure the fans aren't expecting a goal a game, but zero in nine is pretty mediocre. Even in the absence of a single goal though, his all-round performances have also been shit.

Yesterday, there was less responsibility on him to score a goal as he wasn't playing centrally, but as has been discussed, he failed to perform that role too.

Ha man i just say I ain't arguing this, so why you waste your energy to say all this my firend

Aite will since you wanna start, let me pose some general questions with regards to Rooney & the general "performing in world cups argument" with regards to many top players around the world - that are still swirling around, that I have never heard a logical answer for.

- Is the world cup a more difficult/more prestigious/more competitive tournament than the Champions League?

- How do you assess the careers of George Best, Giggs, Alfred Di Stefano, George Weah, Bern Schuster, Bale (potentially) - who had legendary club careers - but never got to play in world cup due to a combination of circumstances?

- How do you rate a man like Klose who is one of leading world cup goal -scorers, but has struggled to make an impact at all big clubs he has played for?

- Lets say Rooney never scores a goal in this tournament/or just a few & ENG get knocked out a whatever stage.Then later in his career he becomes the all-time leading scored for England & United. Would he be considered great, or would lack of a "dominant" world cup performance, be on his back still - despite scoring the "goal"?

- If Messi or Ronaldo don't do like Pele/Maradona don't win this world cup for their teams, does this mean they can never be mentioned in the same sentence. Even if, they continue to break every record in club football?

 

[shravi]

Is the world cup a more difficult/more prestigious/more competitive tournament than the Champions League?

Irrevelant. We are talking about the World Cup in isolation here.

How do you assess the careers of George Best, Giggs, Alfred Di Stefano, George Weah, Bern Schuster, Bale (potentially) - who had legendary club careers - but never got to play in world cup due to a combination of circumstances?

Unfortunate, but still great players.

How do you rate a man like Klose who is one of leading world cup goal -scorers, but has struggled to make an impact at all big clubs he has played for?

Once again, we are talking about national team performances in isolation here. Klose has been a standout player for Germany and done what was asked of him and more.

Lets say Rooney never scores a goal in this tournament/or just a few & ENG get knocked out a whatever stage.Then later in his career he becomes the all-time leading scored for England & United. Would he be considered great, or would lack of a "dominant" world cup performance, be on his back still - despite scoring the "goal"?

Yes, he would still be considered a great player. For United. For England, he has done nothing apart from Euro 2004. So even if he ends up as highest all-time scorer for England, his international career will still have been crap. Of course, there is still time to turn it around, but purely going off how he has done so far, I don't hold much hope.

If Messi or Ronaldo don't do like Pele/Maradona don't win this world cup for their teams, does this mean they can never be mentioned in the same sentence. Even if, they continue to break every record in club football?

No, they can be mentioned in the same sentence. It just has to be conceded that Pele and Maradona had better International careers.

Just to be clear, I am not saying Rooney is an awful player. I am just saying Rooney in an England shirt has been an awful player. He has not performed for England as he has shown he can for United, or even for England in Euro 2004.

 

[War]

Irrevelant. We are talking about the World Cup in isolation here.

I don't think its irrelevant, cause inventively if Rooney does not score in the world cup, people will bring up the assertion he is a "club player" as if to suggest - club football is some ugly stepchild of football ha.

When we all know club football has pretty much become the pinnacle of the game in last 25-30 years.

The EURO club football scene was not as big as it was in Pele/Maradona's time nor was world cup qualifying.

Unfortunate, but still great players.

Exactly. But yet the "unfortunate but still great" tag hasn't been afforded to Rooney, Messi, Ronaldo also for not scoring/not scoring much in cups like these guys who never played.

Once again, we are talking about national team performances in isolation here. Klose has been a standout player for Germany and done what was asked of him and more.

So Klose not being able to replicate his Germany form at club football at those big clubs - isn't a similar black mark as other star strikers not scoring in world cups?

Yes, he would still be considered a great player. For United. For England, he has done nothing apart from Euro 2004. So even if he ends up as highest all-time scorer for England, his international career will still have been crap. Of course, there is still time to turn it around, but purely going off how he has done so far, I don't hold much hope.

Just to be clear, I am not saying Rooney is an awful player. I am just saying Rooney in an England shirt has been an awful player. He has not performed for England as he has shown he can for United, or even for England in Euro 2004.

When you say he has done nothing beside EURO 2004 is generally the strangest critique point people make towards Rooney. International football is not just the tournaments. Tournament qualifiers are quite big too, many countries greatest international results have been in qualifiers. Are we saying qualifiers for tournaments are irrelevant?

If it wasn't for Rooney goals in 2010 & 2014 qualifiers when he was the leading scorer, England would not have even qualified for these tournaments.

A man who is the 5th highest scoring in England history & on the verge off being the countries greatest scorer, has by no means an awful career internationally.

No, they can be mentioned in the same sentence. It just has to be conceded that Pele and Maradona had better International careers.

Ye agreed. But as i mentioned above, how do we balance out the fact that in Pele/Maradona time, they never had deal with a similar hectic & competitive world of club football in Europe & world cup qualifying - that Messi & Ronaldo has encountered.

 

[Haarithan]

Disappointing from Paletta to produce such an awful performance having 100% merited his callup. Was a beast for Parma this season. Nerves I guess..

Hope De Sciglio is fit for Costa Rica and Chiellini returns to play alongside Barzagli at CB.

The man in my avi though...

 

[El Loco]

Bottom line is, if England want to qualify, they have to improve their final ball, it was infuriating at times against Italy. They must also play Rooney in his preferred position as a No. 9 or not at all. Another issue is that the two centre-halves didn't seem to be defending as a unit. Two talented players they are, but games are not won by individuals.
The fearlessness that Sterling played with in his stride defo must be commended. Want to see more of Barkley as well, has the potential to be a match-winner.

 

[SpitfiresKent]

Was listening to the game on the radio at work but watched the whole of it after i'd finished.

Obviously disappointed to have lost the game but after the performance the players gave I have no doubt that we will qualify (Unless Suarez players an absolute blinder).

Watching Sterling play was so refreshing, the way he just ghosts past players was great to watch. Apart from the cross for the Sturridge goal Rooney had a poor game, he should've scored the equalizer but pulled it wide (Got to take those kind of chances).

I agree with Lee, i'd like to see Barkley start from the off but who do you drop in place for him? Rooney? Welbeck? Henderson maybe? It's a tough one.

 

[shravi]

When we all know club football has pretty much become the pinnacle of the game in last 25-30 years.

The EURO club football scene was not as big as it was in Pele/Maradona's time nor was world cup qualifying.

Point taken. I believe that winning the Champions League is harder than winning the World Cup, just like you.

So Klose not being able to replicate his Germany form at club football at those big clubs - isn't a similar black mark as other star strikers not scoring in world cups?

Of course it is.

When you say he has done nothing beside EURO 2004 is generally the strangest critique point people make towards Rooney. International football is not just the tournaments. Tournament qualifiers are quite big too, many countries greatest international results have been in qualifiers. Are we saying qualifiers for tournaments are irrelevant?

That's a good point, and I suppose I must dial down my criticism of Rooney to say he has been an awful tournament player for England. That being said, those are the most important matches, and he has failed to perform for England on the biggest stages, which is unfortunate because over the last 10 years, the only 2 worthy England tournament performances I have seen have been Rooney at Euro 2004 and Gerrard at Euro 2012. I think, or I hope, we'll see something similar from Sturridge and Sterling here.

Ye agreed. But as i mentioned above, how do we balance out the fact that in Pele/Maradona time, they never had deal with a similar hectic & competitive world of club football in Europe & world cup qualifying - that Messi & Ronaldo has encountered.

That is a great challenge, and greater minds than me have had troubles making that comparison. As you say, European football is far more competitive these days, and the pinnacle of football, which Rooney has reached. However, it's not fair to say that Pele/Maradona did not reach those heights, because they did not have that opportunity. However, the pinnacle of football at their time of playing was the World Cup, and they shone on that stage.

I think, ultimately, we agree on most points about Rooney. He has shown in qualifiers that he is worth his place in the squad. However, when the actual tournaments start, he is not the same player. He is not influencing the game enough, whether that be through goals, or otherwise. At that point, it becomes difficult to justify his selection in the XI. However, the fact that that justification is difficult is in itself an acknowledgement of Rooney's capability. It makes it that much more difficult to drop a player when you know that he can be better than what he's showing. But hasn't England been patient enough with Wayne Rooney, with little to no reward? That being said, he still has games left in this tournament to turn it around, and I hope he can, because I want to see England advance, and an in-form Wayne Rooney gives them a better chance of doing that.

 

[Epic]

Was listening to the game on the radio at work but watched the whole of it after i'd finished.

Obviously disappointed to have lost the game but after the performance the players gave I have no doubt that we will qualify (Unless Suarez players an absolute blinder).

Watching Sterling play was so refreshing, the way he just ghosts past players was great to watch. Apart from the cross for the Sturridge goal Rooney had a poor game, he should've scored the equalizer but pulled it wide (Got to take those kind of chances).

I agree with Lee, i'd like to see Barkley start from the off but who do you drop in place for him? Rooney? Welbeck? Henderson maybe? It's a tough one.

If you're going to play Rooney behind Sturridge, and play the 4-2-3-1, then Henderson has to start next to Gerrard for me, just think that would be too deep a role for Barkley to play, but if Roy opts for the 4-1-2-1-2, Barkley along with Henderson just ahead of Gerrard is a good shout in central midfield. I personally don't see Roy tweaking with the system and the only hope of Barkley starting is in place of Welbeck either on the left or as the 10 (this is his best position anyway).

 

[ste_mc_efc]

Point taken. I believe that winning the Champions League is harder than winning the World Cup, just like you.

I don't think it is.

A top player will likely have at least 8 champions league campaigns. often a lot more. A lot of players will have only 2 shots at the world cup, often 3, very rarely 4.

Two legged ties means it's harder for inferior sides to cause an upset, so the results are slightly less random. Again 6 matches in group stage mean it's hard for contenders to go out at that point, especially with the seedings meaning groups of death are kinder than the World cup versions.

It may be tougher to win the Champions league in a given year than a given world cup, but over a career it's far easier to pick up a champions league medal.

 

[shravi]

It may be tougher to win the Champions league in a given year than a given world cup, but over a career it's far easier to pick up a champions league medal.

That's what I meant to say. Clearly not as articulate as you haha.

The quality of the opposition is higher in the Champions League, but like you said, you get 2 shots at advancing to the next stage until the final, and it happens every year, unlike the World Cup.

Would you start Barkley or bring him off the bench, ste? I feel like he could win you a game with a moment of brilliance, but could just as easily single-handedly lose it for you by trying something extravagant and losing the ball in a dangerous area. For that reason, I would start him rather than use him as a sub as there is potentially still enough time to recover from something silly he does.

 

[ste_mc_efc]

I'd have him on the bench. I think you have to look at this world cup as a 13/14 man game with subs being vital. whether to start him or not seems really close. Not a lot between him and his rivals, however I think fresh off the bench he'd have a much bigger impact than those he's competing with for a starting place would

Similarly that's why i think it was wrong to start sterling (although he played well) ahead of lallana. who do you think the italians would have preferred coming off the bench after playing for an hour in a sauna? whereas they wouldn't really have cared who started.

I'd have had 1 out of sterling/chamberlain/barkley starting v italy and two off the bench, of course the injury hampered that, but i'd have had the other two off the bench still anyway.

i don't think he's that likely to doing something stupid in a bad area, but he is a little raw and I think that's more likely to be an issue starting than off the bench.

 

[War]

Think starting Sterling vs Italy was a smart tactic, because his pace through the center along with Henderson was key to keeping Pirlo & co a bit more honest with their passing than the EURO 2012 fixture.

Rooney would have struggled in that role.

Versus Uruguay, it should just be a simple switch of position between Rooney & Sterling. But if the Ox is fit, i'd also start him, especially with their main right-back Maxi Perreria out with a red card.

 

[War]