It's this idea that Rooney is "world class" so he must be in the team. And when he performs, which he will do from time to time, everyone decides they were right all along. But how many games does he have to play, how many games does he have to be useless, before a good game comes along? Even if he plays well this time his past performances for England do not justify selection. If you put it in numbers, say Rooney at his best can provide 100 "units of value" to the team, which he does 1 in 10 games, but the rest of the time he is only giving 50 or something. Yet another player at their best, being not "world class" could never even hope to get to 100 at their best. Lets say they can only reach 80... but they do that every game. So who would you rather have in the team? Personally I'd rather have a player that gave their all and did that consistently. With only three games guaranteed, most observers say we must play our best performers to have any chance of progressing. I say you need your most *consistent* performers, who may not be the best on paper. People's memory is too often skewed by a spectacular goal etc. I also say we should stop trying to pretend to be a poor version of another team and play to our strengths.
