Rooney is not a number 10. Never was. He is a forward, a second striker. As a forward and second striker it is EXPECTED of Rooney to play off centre or off the shoulder from the 9, like Suarez oftentimes plays for us and many others for other teams. Obviously, not too wide, as he doesn't have a winger's upbringing like a Robben or CR7. Thing is Ferguson loved to play with width at the expense of CAM creativity. He hardly had any use for the Kagawas of the world. So, Rooney may be forgiven for thinking he's a 10 in a 10-less system, as that space was often available to him to explore. But anyone who understands football shouldn't be fooled by that particular. England has been a body-cast to Manchester United in the last 2 decades. Hodgson obviously does not have the courage of thought or the brilliance of mind to wean England clean off that soured teat. A new system is required. A system where pace and physicality are harnessed most effectively in the current decade. That, my dear friends, is the 433 system.
Rooney had more PL assists that Ozil, Mata, Coutinho et al last season. Only Gerrard and Suarez surpassed him. Of course he's capable of playing as a 10, he's got the vision, passing range and technical ability to do so. Btw Ferguson played with Scholes in CM for a generation There's a lot of utter ****e spoken about systems. A good side is fluid and alters it's shape dependant on circumstances. What you need is a side full of quality professionals who have the mental and physical capacities to deliver the managers tactics on the pitch. Not some bullshit 'philosophy' about a 'new' system.
As far as I can see, there are 2 basic ways (with many subtle variations) a manager can go about his job. He can either have a system he wants to play, and try and make the players available to him play to that system, or he can look at the strengths and weaknesses of the players he has, and devise a system to suit them. The former works if you have smart, flexible players- the latter needs a wise, flexible manager. England players may not be the best in the world, but they're not crap either. Imo, Hodgson only has variations on a theme in his repertoire, and that's not good enough.
Late to vote on this. Club rivalry aside, this is about getting balance in the team. On form, Rooney is a great player. Play him centrally. This would be my attacking four. Perfect balance and players in positions that is naturally suited to them. Why is Woy finding this so hard? For the record, Wellbeck played well the other day but chose Lallana over him for reasons already mentioned. ----------Studge----------- Lallana---Rooney---Sterling
Yep, this is the way to go. Then you have options on the bench to replace tired starters. Wellbeck for Sturridge, Barkley for Rooney, Ox for Lallana/Sterling.
I think that's the way he'll start tbh. With Barkley and the Ox to come off the bench for Lallana and Rooney if it's not going to plan / tiredness.
I actually thought Welbeck was really good against Italy. He put in a great shift, was up for every tackle, available for every pass and gave energy. Like Kuyt for us. He was also the one attacking the crosses (it should have been Sturridge and Rooney).
I agree he played well mate, but as a forward the best thing anyone could say about him was that defensively he was brilliant. I'd rather see Lallana tbh as I think he'll work better with Baines down the left in an attacking sense, but will also cover him, as he plays there every week. It might be a tad harsh on Welbeck, but if he's going to play Rooney centrally, Sterling has to play right, which only leaves the left side available and Welbeck isn't a specialist in that position and has never linked with Baines down that flank for England, whereas Lallana has at least some game time under his belt
This is my viewpoint too. Wellbeck didn't play that well there in the friendlies before the tournament. Give Lallana a chance in his favoured position I say. If any of them start to flag, there are ready made replacements. I also fancy that Lambert against this lot. I wouldn't be surprised if he got a run out. The Uruguay defence is suspect. With the right balance, we can make hay. Critical though that we don't give their front two the space we gave Italy. They don't have a Pirlo...but they do have Luis. Hope Suarez stays injury free but is a bit unfit for this game!
I would certainly agree with every point made here. I'd only add lallana only plays for southampton so ox is more likely to come in which is perverse IMO. I do think considering who comes on is a wise move also. in the end uraguay are likely to finish the game stronger than england so barkely, et al will be important
Are these two CAMs? Should we make Gerrard or Suarez a 10 now that we've established they know how to assist? Was he a number 10? It is bitter old minds like these that prevent England from making tactical progress throughout the years. I'm sure that the opinion in continental Europe about the English is that their coziness in tradition, inertia and squareness makes them blunt and predictable. Roy unfortunately just fits the bill.
We weren't talking about either, but seeing as you've brought it up....Gerrard's assists tally last season was primarily from his dead ball delivery, but are you saying that in his prime he couldn't have played 10? Same goes for Suarez, he's a fantastic footballer and he could easily play that role, and often does....as did Gerrard, as did Scholes... Only Champ manager 'experts' like you can't appreciate that they were / are all round footballers and can adapt to various postions / roles during a game, but due to your lack of understanding you have to pigeon hole them into defined roles and rigid formations
Scoles often played as a CAM which is a number 10 essentially so yes, yes he did. He was great at it along with many other roles. He wasnt great out left though, where england stuck him, leading to us losing the best midfielder we have had in decades to fit in a dreadful CM pairing. Gerrard played more as a second striker for Liverpool, especially with Torres in the side.pretty sure he could have played the 10 role. As tobes pointed out, hes your dead ball specialist so its expected he gets a few assists.
Scholes wasn't a 10, just like Pirlo, Xavi, Modric, Zidane aren't/weren't one. Coutinho, Iniesta, Ozil, Lallana, Mata, Silva are. Ronaldinho, Rivaldo, Kaka, Deco, Savicevic, Rui Costa, Sneijder were. Current Gerrard as number 10 - disaster. Nimbleness of feet is required besides vision, and he'd get stripped left and right. Rooney to a great extent too.
juan veron failed experiment led to utd playing 4-5-1 with scholes pushed up there... scholes very best position was in front of back 4 linking everything up. I don't think calling gerrad second striker is quite accurate as benitez actually wanted a 4-5-1 when defending especially in europe so it depends how you view it. gerrard had liense to play anyhwere he wanted in short but if thats no 10 fine, if not fine but second striker is a wee bit strong. in my mind he didn't play like say bergkamp with henry but was far advanced... more like fabregas ended up in last year at arsenal... utterly indulged and free. anyway..... rooney should play centrally thats what everynoe is saying mostly. if that means when hodgosn wants 30% possession he's playing cm in effect fine.. whatever. i'd rather he pass it to sterling and sturridge who've got the pace than him play wide.
You're talking absolute toilet. Zidane was the one of the most gifted footballers of his generation, he could have played anywhere on the pitch. As it was he played attacking midfield for most of his career, which is what exactly? Oh yeah a number ****ing 10
Gerrard played just off torres. Essentially a SS. Scholes also played as a second striker for us on many occasions. He was brilliant anywhere in the middle. Deep lying playmaker? great, CAM? Great, Second striker? great, central midfielder? Great. My god Paul Scholes was great. What couldnt he do...... besides tackle
