2006 World Cup-no goals, didn't have a great tournament. 2008 Euros-didn't qualify. 2010 World Cup-Not fully fit and off form. 2012 Euros-scored a goal, but was rusty and only played two games. So basically, I think that you can only say that he's had one tournament in which he was fully prepared for (excluding 2004 Euros) and he happened to not get on the scoresheet. If you go back a couple of years to the 2004 Euros, you will find him getting on the score sheet four times. Baros with 5 and Van Nistelrooy with four both played a game extra respectively and one of the games Rooney did play he got injured in very early on.
OK, let's go back up the thread a little. You suggested Mr.GR didn't know the difference between form and ability. I took it upon myself that posters in a football forum wouldn't be confused with the difference between the terms, form and ability. That's all. I'm glad I brought some humour to your day.
To pick someone based on what they did 8 years ago is ridiculous. What Rooney did in 2004 has no bearing on what he'll do now. People (rightly) complain about players being picked on reputation, this is exactly the same thing. You cannot ignore form when selecting players as that is one of the key factors which determines how a player performs and how a player fits in to the team as a whole. A less skilled player in great form is far more useful than a skilled player in awful form.
What he did 8 years ago and what he has done on a regular basis for his club since then. He's not picked on reputation, he's picked because his record is outstanding. No professional manager is thick enough to pick based on reputation.
Forget 2004, England played Ukraine two weeks ago and were unconvincing. For that reason I think Rooney will return if fit.
Rickie deserves the the call up, but selfishly I'm with CBK, England didn't want him in the last match when they needed him, so they can go whistle as far as I'm concerned.
His record for England is rubbish and that's the only record that counts. If something isn't working, then you try a different option rather than persist with the same thing that doesn't work. There's plenty of other strikers who have done a lot at club level but aren't picked. Why should Rooney be an automatic cert when he's done bugger all for England in recent years? You play players based on realities, not myths.
What's your point? Crouch has 0.91 goals per 90 minutes of international football. Rooney has played at least 90 minutes in most of those 73 appearances. Crouch's goals were scored against better quality opponents if you go by average world ranking. Internationals are completely different from the Premier league. As is Europe Crouch should be an auto pick and should have been for a long time. It is a disgrace he hasn't been. What more could he have done? His record is phenomenal. Foreign sides can't deal with Crouch in the air either, they are scared of him and put 2 or 3 markers on him half the game creating space for others
How can you expect any English striker to have a good record against the top teams? There's a reason they're the top teams!
Well people always say Crouch's scoring record is meaningless because they're against supposedly rubbish teams, so what makes Rooney any different?
Never a fan of Terry the man, at least as far as he comes across in the press, but did think he was one of those few highly paid England footballers who did play with 100% commitment when in an England shirt.
What about the 30 odd goals he scores for United each season? No other English striker came anywhere close to him last season. He's earnt his reputation by being a prolific goalscorer and a talented footballer. It's a good reason to choose him.
