Get rooney out.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I'm with TMT on this one.

Rooney's goal was a sheer fluke. Apart from that, and the save from Cashley towards the end, their goalie did very little all match. Rooney was, by and large, ineffective. I was saying to my pals in the pub that we should have introduced Oxo or Walnut to exploit the wings, taking off Milner and Rooney, and pushing Young up front, but we all knew that Golden Bollocks Rooney would never be taken off.

Let's all be honest about this, any forward on our bench could have put in at least the same shift that Rooney did, last night. It wasn't anything special. He isn't England's best player. Sorry, but I simply do not buy into all that hype.

He (and England) got lucky last night, that is the start and finish of it. If the goalie hadn't fumbled the ball, and if the line-official had done his job and spotted the Ukrainian goal, Rooney and his dickish hairdoo would be back on the plane to Salford.
 
The Ukranian "goal" was miles off-side. So justice was done imo. I don't feel that england were lucky there, the right outcome occurred.

Edit - i may be thinking of a completely different move. I was drunk. Can someone correct me?
 
Well, if the Ukrainian goal was offside, the linesman certainly wasn't flagging for it, and it would/should have been given.
 
by that argument, the goal line ref didn't flag for the goal being over the line, so it shouldn't have been given either.
 
But, the Ukrainian goal was a goal, and it wasn't offside <ok>

And our goal was a complete fluke.
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
But, the Ukrainian goal was a goal, and it wasn't offside <ok>
Click to expand...
The Ukranian goal wasn't a goal and was offside.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. You've either got to go with ALL the decisions of the officials or you have to go with ALL the decisions of the replays. You can't mix and match the decisions.

If you go with the officials, it wasn't a goal, as they didn't give it.
If you go with the replays then it still wasn't a goal as it was offside in the build up.

And our goal was a complete fluke.
Click to expand...

Given <ok>
 
the goal line refs.....shoot the basterds...it would make for great half time entertainment..as they have no other use.
 
spurfectionist said:
The Ukranian goal wasn't a goal and was offside.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. You've either got to go with ALL the decisions of the officials or you have to go with ALL the decisions of the replays. You can't mix and match the decisions.

If you go with the officials, it wasn't a goal, as they didn't give it.
If you go with the replays then it still wasn't a goal as it was offside in the build up.
Click to expand...


it wasnt given not because it was offside but it was deemed to have not crossed the line..that makes a diffrence of intent...anyway we are talking about refs here...i dont expect too much from them.
 
Spurlock said:
it wasnt given not because it was offside but it was deemed to have not crossed the line..that makes a diffrence of intent...anyway we are talking about refs here...i dont expect too much from them.
Click to expand...

Yes, i know that.
My point is that you can't say England were lucky because the ref on the line was **** and then not say they were unlucky that the linesman was ****.
If goal line tech had been in play that goal would have INCORRECTLY stood. It wasn't and shouldn't have been a goal. The same as any other offside "goal" shouldn't be a goal
 
WTF was the goal line official doing? You'd have thought that as the ball approached the goal he would have took it upon himself to mosey along to the goal and see if the ball crosses the line. It can't be that fcuking difficult, 1 second work in 90 fcuking minutes. Unless of coarse Septic Bladder and his sidekick Prattini have decided that there is one thing worse than England proceeding into the quarters, a Balotelli v Ukrainian fans confrontation, firecrackers and all.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Rooney is rusty and he has yet to show his club form for his country consistently. But he gets into the right areas, he links attack and midfield, he can give England a threat on the counterattack with his pace and ability to run with the ball. If he gives a 7/10 performance, then he makes England far moe effective up front. If it's 10/10, he can win a game singlehandedly as he has done for Utd.
Click to expand...

i've been saying that ldis,to have any chance you have to use your best players,and a fit Rooney is one of them
 
I was against Rooney being picked or playing. I also think he was crap overall. Yes, he does deserve credit for being in the right place for the goal. But he missed a sitter and lost the ball constantly. He only completed three quarters of his passes, compared to near 90 % for many of the players. Him going one on four and losing the ball at one point summed up his game, for me.

But: my main worry was that he'd ruin the team's spirit, and he didn't do that. He tried and worked. And he is England's most talented player, and they'll need all the talent they can get against Italy, plus three Man U players across the front should help, so I'm in favor of him playing. Rooney having a great game is one of the significant chances England have in that game.

But please play Walcott instead of Milner.
 
Milner is having a crap tournament at the moment,doing a lot of running,but no end product,his crosses are awfull to high, and to long
 
Rooney struggled for a number of reasons, balls by Young and Milner pinged at him under pressure was one, they could have passed to a better positioned option. Another was lack of options when he did get it, with Young and Milner not pressing forward enough, I saw Johnson further forward than Milner most of the time! The rest of the team needs to know what its doing for any player to excel, its very disjointed up front. You might see better from Rooney when the rest are playing well, might help don't you think!
 
Surely people aren't suggesting Walcott and Johnson on the same side? Don't you think it would make us quite vulnerable down that side? Don't you think the Italians will notice?
 
vimhawk said:
Surely people aren't suggesting Walcott and Johnson on the same side? Don't you think it would make us quite vulnerable down that side? Don't you think the Italians will notice?
Click to expand...


and this is why Milner and his industrious workrate is being preffered...by adding Walcott wont make us that much more of a threat going forward but adding Milner is making us hard to beat.
 
Yes Spurlock, Milners inclusion does make us hard to beat, Italy are also hard to beat, so I look forward to one of the dullest QF's ever, but with our luck at present, we may just do something really incredible and actually win a penalty shootout! :)
 
notso,I don't know whether you've noticed with these competitions that teams play differently and different scores come after the qualifying stages. For instance us in the CL our scoring dried up in the later stages. I've noticed it's the same with the European championship. So far this has been the highest scoring competition of all of them and I'm expecting a change in the quarter finals and I don't think England V Italy will be dull. It rarely is between the two teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back