Wayne Rooney | 2012-14 Performances

[Theon]

He's a great number 9 and a great number 10.

When he plays deeper it's easier for him to have a bad game if he's not in form as he's more involved in the game, so those bad touches he can be guilty off have more of an impact. When he plays upfront it isn't as important, for example in 09/10 I don't think his general play was anything like his best football but it will go down as one of his best seasons at the club. Overall if he's fit and in form then he's best as a number 10 IMO, virtually everything good about our play goes through him.

 

[Annahnomoss]

I said as a striker, or as a number 10. One way or another, he'd definitely start for both. Also, since when are the likes of Schurrle, Reus, Muller, Thiago, Isco and Silva better then Rooney as a number 10?
Isco can become better yeah but he's had what, 2 full seasons of first team football? A few of those are wingers, and Thiago is still a young player who isn't even close to that level yet. Anyways, Rooney as a number 10 is completely different to traditional number 10's, because he plays as a second striker, not attacking midfielders. He's always played in a front two, he just goes deep to pick up the ball a lot.

You misread what I said mate, I never said the entire list was better I just stated "some are better and some are similar".

I agree though that Rooney is a striker not a number 10, but a lot of people on here believe he is actually what is called "a number 10". My point was just to prove that as a striker he is absolute world-class, but as any sort of midfielder he isn't really.

 

[Mad Winger]

I think it's rather obvious that Rooney would have played in the main striker position, had he played for the likes of Spain or Germany. Any top team that values tidiness on the ball would want Rooney to be in charge of scoring goals, rather than being an offensive playmaker.

Rooney has only played in the "no.10" position(second striker is a better description) for so long, because of lack of top CAMs and/or because of too many striker options.

 

[bosnian_red]

You misread what I said mate, I never said the entire list was better I just stated "some are better and some are similar".

I agree though that Rooney is a striker not a number 10, but a lot of people on here believe he is actually what is called "a number 10". My point was just to prove that as a striker he is absolute world-class, but as any sort of midfielder he isn't really.

Oh okay fair enough, I agree with you then. Always been mainly a striker, but one who can roam around and isn't limited to stay up top as a poacher.

 

[MoneyMay]

He's a great number 9 and a great number 10.

When he plays deeper it's easier for him to have a bad game if he's not in form as he's more involved in the game, so those bad touches he can be guilty off have more of an impact. When he plays upfront it isn't as important, for example in 09/10 I don't think his general play was anything like his best football but it will go down as one of his best seasons at the club. Overall if he's fit and in form then he's best as a number 10 IMO, virtually everything good about our play goes through him.

I'd say 9.5 or SS are the best terms to describe Rooney's role.

 

[Theon]

I'd say 9.5 or SS are the best terms to describe Rooney's role.

Not sure on 9.5, but support striker is a good description. He operates in that area in front of the opposition defence and provides a link between the midfield and attack - which is the basic role of a number 10.

He does play it differently to someone like Ozil/Mata though, despite them both being the number 10's in the team. I think if you wanted to be more accurate you could sub categorise and call Rooney a support striker.

 

[Bebe]

I honestly think he's one of those players you can't really call a 9, 10, 9.5, support striker, poacher, deep lying striker, attacking mid, or anything else.

This might sound simple to the point of stupidity, but imo he's at his best when he can just run around all over the place. Even when he played as a straight #9 in 09/10 he would drop back to half to pick the ball up off Carrick or the CBs. Imo the more freedom you give Wayne Rooney, the better he plays.

The negative to that is of course that it can leave the team's shape disrupted.

 

[ricky-romeo]

You'd think Hodgson would want to protect his established players who are definitely going to Brazil.

hodgson is an idiot. why bother playing rooney for 90 minutes against chile when you can have a look at other strikers in the squad.

playing rooney is fine, he always need games, but does not necessarily have to be the whole game of a meaningless friendly.

 

[MoneyMay]

Not sure on 9.5, but support striker is a good description. He operates in that area in front of the opposition defence and provides a link between the midfield and attack - which is the basic role of a number 10.

He does play it differently to someone like Ozil/Mata though, despite them both being the number 10's in the team. I think if you wanted to be more accurate you could sub categorise and call Rooney a support striker.

I was discussing this with a friend earlier and I think it's easier to understand. Second striker is a much better term because it describes his general play better than a number 10 would. Yes, a second striker does operate in a similar area, however, there's a subtle difference between the two. A number 10 has the job to act as a play maker. Rooney's best play usually comes as a result of a vertical (diagonal) ball. Subsequently, he charges into the box, looking to connect with a successful cross. A number 10 has the job of creating chances and is not confined to switching the ball and running forward into the box. Ozil, for example, looks for more through balls down the centre of the field - there's more variation to his game.

Rooney has the skill set to play as a number 10 regularly, but I don't think it's in his interest do so right now. I'm sure he's played some games for us as a number 10 - no debate in that - but in the last three seasons, his role hasn't been that of a number 10's, hence you can differentiate between Rooney and Ozil/Mata.

 

[thepolice123]

Exactly. His best position is as an out and out striker. Most underrated finisher across Europe. Feed him chances and he's deadly. A "top, top" #10 or a central midfielder he is not.

Most underrated finisher across Europe?

 

[Treble]

Rooney's at his best as a striker. He doesn't have the technique to be a great playmaker.

 

[Brightonian]

All this talk of what his exact best role is is misguided, because his 'best' role is very clearly a free one, where he moves all over the pitch as he pleases. Yes, he's a great #9, but if that was all he was he'd be a far less exceptional and influential player than he is. And no, he's not a specialised #10 like Kagawa or Oscar, but he does a huge amount of his best work there anyway. He also has a deeper average position than a lot of players who would be described as 'midfielders', and does more defensive work than them too.

The way he plays football transcends any one position, that's why he's so versatile.

 

[Theon]

I was discussing this with a friend earlier and I think it's easier to understand. Second striker is a much better term because it describes his general play better than a number 10 would. Yes, a second striker does operate in a similar area, however, there's a subtle difference between the two. A number 10 has the job to act as a play maker. Rooney's best play usually comes as a result of a vertical (diagonal) ball. Subsequently, he charges into the box, looking to connect with a successful cross. A number 10 has the job of creating chances and is not confined to switching the ball and running forward into the box. Ozil, for example, looks for more through balls down the centre of the field - there's more variation to his game.

Rooney has the skill set to play as a number 10 regularly, but I don't think it's in his interest do so right now. I'm sure he's played some games for us as a number 10 - no debate in that - but in the last three seasons, his role hasn't been that of a number 10's, hence you can differentiate between Rooney and Ozil/Mata.

It depends what you mean by a number 10, I gave my description above which was someone who plays in the position between the opposition midfield and defence, providing his team with a link between midfield and attack. Rooney plays that position for us, so he's a number 10 in my mind.

Most players who play that position on the field are more technical and focused on passing rather than scoring, but that doesn't alter the fact that Rooney is still playing the same position. He is just doing it in a different way.

It's like saying someone who leads the line is a number 9, that doesn't mean all number 9's play the same way. Van Persie and Hernandez are both number 9's for us and they play the role completely differently.

 

[paceme]

So he isn't a number ten because he passes diagonally? Is that the criteria? who gives a shit.

 

[Adzzz]

So he isn't a number ten because he passes diagonally? Is that the criteria? who gives a shit.

Footy manager bollocks, so I reckon.

 

[MoneyMay]

It depends what you mean by a number 10, I gave my description above which was someone who plays in the position between the opposition midfield and defence, providing his team with a link between midfield and attack. Rooney plays that position for us, so he's a number 10 in my mind.

Most players who play that position on the field are more technical and focused on passing rather than scoring, but that doesn't alter the fact that Rooney is still playing the same position. He is just doing it in a different way.

It's like saying someone who leads the line is a number 9, that doesn't mean all number 9's play the same way. Van Persie and Hernandez are both number 9's for us and they play the role completely differently.

And that's the problem with your viewpoint, I believe. Just because you link midfield and attack, doesn't mean you're a number 10. Your definition limits the role purely to positioning, but doesn't take into account that the position . Your second paragraph is spot on and acts against your argument of him being as a number ten - him doing it a different way implies that he's not one.

I disagree with your analogy, too. You get different sub-positions (I made that up) of a position. For a striker, you get poacher and second striker for example. For a winger, you get inverted winger, central winger, and so on. For a number ten, you get the traditional version and modern-day version. It's a different argument altogether.

So he isn't a number ten because he passes diagonally? Is that the criteria? who gives a shit.

You clearly didn't read my post properly. And a few people care actually. This is what I did say:

Subsequently, he charges into the box, looking to connect with a successful cross. A number 10 has the job of creating chances and is not confined to switching the ball and running forward into the box

 

[paceme]

Loads of players charge into the box late to grab a goal. Considering a number ten is an attacking player their ability to score goals is pretty important. There is no real difference, you're just rambling for the sake of it now.

 

[MoneyMay]

Loads of players charge into the box late to grab a goal. Considering a number ten is an attacking player their ability to score goals is pretty important. There is no real difference, you're just rambling for the sake of it now.

That's not the point I made, again you're twisting words. I said that he's confined to switching the ball and not playing intelligent passes in more central areas as much, hence calling him a number 10, especially this season, doesn't make any sense. There is a subtle difference, you're choosing to ignore it.

 

[Feed Me]

Rooney's not world class in any one position, for me. It's his flexibility to perform very well in a multitude of positions that elevates him.

Play him up front, he gets 30 goals. Play him as a number 10, he gets 15 goals and the same assists. Have a midfield crisis and he bails you out there. He'll even put in solid performances from the flanks.

I can't think of one other player at the top level who comes close to giving you that level of adaptability, whilst retaining his quality.

 

[Theon]

And that's the problem with your viewpoint, I believe. Just because you link midfield and attack, doesn't mean you're a number 10. Your definition limits the role purely to positioning, but doesn't take into account that the position . Your second paragraph is spot on and acts against your argument of him being as a number ten - him doing it a different way implies that he's not one.

I disagree with your analogy, too. You get different sub-positions (I made that up) of a position. For a striker, you get poacher and second striker for example. For a winger, you get inverted winger, central winger, and so on. For a number ten, you get the traditional version and modern-day version. It's a different argument altogether.

Christ, this is a lot more than I can be arsed with. I'm fairly interested in tactics but this is really over the top.

I think he's a number 10 because he plays in the position a number 10 does and has the general role of a number 10 - drifting across the line, getting on the ball as much as possible, linking midfield and attack etc. The fact that he's a bit less technical than many number 10's doesn't change that IMO.

No idea on the second paragraph at all, and I've read it three or four times. You get different types of numbers 10's and you get different types of number 9's. I agree you can subcategorise but it doesn't change the overall label of being a number 10 or a number 9.

So for a number 9 you could have a traditional British centre forward or a quick poacher, both are still number 9's. For number 10 I guess you could subcategorise in the same way, which I why I don't mind saying Rooney is a support striker. It's a more accurate description but he's still a number 10.

Also this whole thing is just bollocks and there is no right way of talking about it IMO, depends on your definitions and what makes sense to you. It's also not important, so just letting people call him a number 10 seems easy to me and its not even wrong.

 

[MoneyMay]

Christ, this is a lot more than I can be arsed with. I'm fairly interested in tactics but this is really over the top.

I think he's a number 10 because he plays in the position a number 10 does and has the general role of a number 10 - drifting across the line, getting on the ball as much as possible, linking midfield and attack etc. The fact that he's a bit less technical than many number 10's doesn't change that IMO.

No idea on the second paragraph at all, and I've read it three or four times. You get different types of numbers 10's and you get different types of number 9's. I agree you can subcategorise but it doesn't change the overall label of being a number 10 or a number 9.

So for a number 9 you could have a traditional British centre forward or a quick poacher, both are still number 9's. For number 10 I guess you could subcategorise in the same way, which I why I don't mind saying Rooney is a support striker. It's a more accurate description but he's still a number 10.

Also this whole thing is just bollocks and there is no right way of talking about it IMO, depends on your definitions and what makes sense to you. It's also not important, so just letting people call him a number 10 seems easy to me and its not even wrong.

Why are you getting wound up? I've offered my viewpoints fairly, without insulting you.

This is why I don't get about your argument. Playing in the same position or similar positions doesn't make you that type of player. Linking midfield and attack also doesn't make you a number 10. A number 10 is the play maker of the team, he is responsible for this, whereas with Rooney it's much more different. This season, the closest we have seen Rooney play as a number 10 was against West Brom. Watch that game again - though his touch and passing were poor, he displayed the intricacy of the role well.

I don't think it's "bollocks" discussing this at all. If you don't want to discuss it, then feel free to not debate. I'd rather trust what Van Persie says about the partnership than anything else. I think Van Persie described his partnership with Rooney well: he plays as a nine-a-half. It's a mixture of the two. It's disingenuous saying he's great number 10 though.

 

[Theon]

Why are you getting wound up? I've offered my viewpoints fairly, without insulting you.

This is why I don't get about your argument. Playing in the same position or similar positions doesn't make you that type of player. Linking midfield and attack also doesn't make you a number 10. A number 10 is the play maker of the team, he is responsible for this, whereas with Rooney it's much more different. This season, the closest we have seen Rooney play as a number 10 was against West Brom. Watch that game again - though his touch and passing were poor, he displayed the intricacy of the role well.

I don't think it's "bollocks" discussing this at all. If you don't want to discuss it, then feel free to not debate. I'd rather trust what Van Persie says about the partnership than anything else. I think Van Persie described his partnership with Rooney well: he plays as a nine-a-half. It's a mixture of the two. It's disingenuous saying he's great number 10 though.

Saying it was over the top is not insulting you, stop being so sensitive.

I think you're making it a lot more complicated than it needs to be with your 'intricacies of the role'. It's just not that complicated.

Playing in the right area of the pitch is a huge indicator or what number the player is, what are you talking about? It's more about that than anything else. Number 9's are normally great goalscorers but despite Ronaldo being the best goalscorer on the planet you wouldn't call him a number 9, because he isn't playing in the right area of the pitch. It's obviously more than just being in the right position, but its a huge factor and you're really underplaying it.

A number 10 doesn't need to be the playmaker of the team either, they can be but they don't need to be. Quite often you'll have a much deeper playmaker with the number 10 drifting around providing killer passes and assists. You have this idea than a number 10 needs to play the very specific way that you think they should, and if they don't then they cease to be a number 10. It's strange IMO and doesn't need to be that complicated.

Rooney also is the person responsible for the playmaking in attack, the way that more traditional number 10's are. That's the main reason people call him one. He's getting on the ball and making as many passes as number 10's like Oscar, Mata and Cazorla, so unless you think none of those are number 10's you can't claim Rooney isn't one on the basis of not being the 'playmaker'. He is doing it as much as those players.


On the Van Persie quote, he says that they both play as a 9 and a half, because both him and Rooney play both roles.

'I call it a nine and a half because you have two positions, the nine and the 10, and we are both nine and a half.
'We are just helping each other out. We both play behind and a bit higher up.'

He says that they are both 9 and a half's as they both play as the 9 and the 10, or in his words 'we both play behind and higher up.'

That isn't true anymore (if it ever was, I cant remember the start of last season). That article was published last season when they had played two months of football together. If it was true then, it isn't now.

They most definitely don't play the same role, they aren't both 9 and a half's. Van Persie is quite clearly more advanced playing as the 9, with Rooney deeper playing as the 10, or whatever it is you call him. That's not really debateable and you can see it in every game.

It's also backed up by stats with Rooney making around twice the number of passes, and consistently being much deeper on an average position graph. So unless you disagree with me here and think that Rooney and Van Persie are both 9 and a half's I'm not sure why you posted the article.

 

[Fergus' son]

So he isn't a number ten because he passes diagonally? Is that the criteria? who gives a shit.

Footy manager bollocks, so I reckon.

Indeed, such tedious shit.

 

[MoneyMay]

Saying it was over the top is not insulting you, stop being so sensitive.

I think you're making it a lot more complicated than it needs to be with your 'intricacies of the role'. It's just not that complicated.

Playing in the right area of the pitch is a huge indicator or what number the player is, what are you talking about? It's more about that than anything else. Number 9's are normally great goalscorers but despite Ronaldo being the best goalscorer on the planet you wouldn't call him a number 9, because he isn't playing in the right area of the pitch. It's obviously more than just being in the right position, but its a huge factor and you're really underplaying it.

A number 10 doesn't need to be the playmaker of the team either, they can be but they don't need to be. Quite often you'll have a much deeper playmaker with the number 10 drifting around providing killer passes and assists. You have this idea than a number 10 needs to play the very specific way that you think they should, and if they don't then they cease to be a number 10. It's strange IMO and doesn't need to be that complicated.

Rooney also is the person responsible for the playmaking in attack, the way that more traditional number 10's are. That's the main reason people call him one. He's getting on the ball and making as many passes as number 10's like Oscar, Mata and Cazorla, so unless you think none of those are number 10's you can't claim Rooney isn't one on the basis of not being the 'playmaker'. He is doing it as much as those players.


On the Van Persie quote, he says that they both play as a 9 and a half, because both him and Rooney play both roles.

'I call it a nine and a half because you have two positions, the nine and the 10, and we are both nine and a half.
'We are just helping each other out. We both play behind and a bit higher up.'

He says that they are both 9 and a half's as they both play as the 9 and the 10, or in his words 'we both play behind and higher up.'

That isn't true anymore (if it ever was, I cant remember the start of last season). That article was published last season when they had played two months of football together. If it was true then, it isn't now.

They most definitely don't play the same role, they aren't both 9 and a half's. Van Persie is quite clearly more advanced playing as the 9, with Rooney deeper playing as the 10, or whatever it is you call him. That's not really debateable and you can see it in every game.

It's also backed up by stats with Rooney making around twice the number of passes, and consistently being much deeper on an average position graph. So unless you disagree with me here and think that Rooney and Van Persie are both 9 and a half's I'm not sure why you posted the article.

What are you on about? I never said you insulted me. Calm down.

It usually does indicate the role, but in this case it clearly isn't. Your argument is flawed, when you consider that SS and #10s operate in similar positions. Also playing on the wing, for example, doesn't mean you're a winger. You could be playing as an interior, so that's where your argument about positioning is flawed. I'm not going to debate this point again, as it's pretty clear.

A #10 is a play maker. You can have other play makers, such as one of your central midfielders, but that's not the point. Whereas Rooney isn't a true play maker, he has the ability to create chances, but his role isn't as intense as a #10s in terms of creating chances. Matter of fact, your stat about him making similar amount of passes as Ozil, Oscar, and Cazorla is exactly why passing charts are important. Looking at his passing chart for most of the games this season shows you that he is a SS and it actually shows the subtle difference.

I posted the article to show you what Van Persie thinks of Rooney's role. Forget Van Persie's role (yes, he's been pushed up higher), but that's irrelevant in this discussion. It applied throughout last season - and it applies to this season. My point is that Rooney hasn't played as a #10 regularly since, maybe, 10/11. Rooney is one of the few forwards in the world who can create and score goals. Limiting his role to a #10 does him a lot of disservice. And shown through his positional change this season in a few games and his role, it's hard to argue how he's a #10. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. Thanks for the responses.

 

[OGkush]

Rooney's not world class in any one position, for me. It's his flexibility to perform very well in a multitude of positions that elevates him.

Play him up front, he gets 30 goals. Play him as a number 10, he gets 15 goals and the same assists. Have a midfield crisis and he bails you out there. He'll even put in solid performances from the flanks.

I can't think of one other player at the top level who comes close to giving you that level of adaptability, whilst retaining his quality.

sorry but how does scoring 30+ goals in the 2 seasons played as a "pure-ish striker" not put you in the world class category?
I generaly agree with your sentence, but in my honest opinion it's Rooney's versatility that can at times cloud people's judgment about his qualities. He's so good at so many things that there isn't a single thing in his arsenal that "stands out" as much, while the attributes in which he's not exactly at the top (short-range passing, dribbling/getting past a man) get all the attention per say.

 

[Theon]

What are you on about? I never said you insulted me. Calm down.

It usually does indicate the role, but in this case it clearly isn't. Your argument is flawed, when you consider that SS and #10s operate in similar positions. Also playing on the wing, for example, doesn't mean you're a winger. You could be playing as an interior, so that's where your argument about positioning is flawed. I'm not going to debate this point again, as it's pretty clear.

A #10 is a play maker. You can have other play makers, such as one of your central midfielders, but that's not the point. Whereas Rooney isn't a true play maker, he has the ability to create chances, but his role isn't as intense as a #10s in terms of creating chances. Matter of fact, your stat about him making similar amount of passes as Ozil, Oscar, and Cazorla is exactly why passing charts are important. Looking at his passing chart for most of the games this season shows you that he is a SS and it actually shows the subtle difference.

I posted the article to show you what Van Persie thinks of Rooney's role. Forget Van Persie's role (yes, he's been pushed up higher), but that's irrelevant in this discussion. It applied throughout last season - and it applies to this season. My point is that Rooney hasn't played as a #10 regularly since, maybe, 10/11. Rooney is one of the few forwards in the world who can create and score goals. Limiting his role to a #10 does him a lot of disservice. And shown through his positional change this season in a few games and his role, it's hard to argue how he's a #10. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. Thanks for the responses.

Positioning can give an indication of the role and in this case it clearly does, he plays where a number 10 does and is responsible for the areas of United's play that a number 10 usually is - things like drifting across the line, getting on the ball as much as possible, linking the team together, providing assists and creative passes.. And yes, he acts as a playmaker. Hence why he has twice the assists of anyone else in the team and gets on the ball more than twice as much as someone like Van Persie.

The fact that he's not technical enough for you doesn't change that. That is what he does on the pitch.

Not sure what you're talking about with the passing stats. You said that he doesn't 'play make' and so isn't a number 10. So I compared his passing stats to other number 10's and he's making the same amount of passes, or more. So either Mata isn't a number 10 or your point about playmaking is a load of bollocks.

On the article - what Van Persie actually said is relevant because you were using the article to try and make a point. What he said doesn't agree with you, his comment was that him and Rooney share the role of a number 10 and a number 9, so they are both 9 and a half's and they take turns coming deep and leading the line. That quite clearly doesn't happen anymore and Van Persie is always played as the number 9 and Rooney is always played as the number 10.

 

[Ash_G]

I still think for me the issue with Rooney, or rather Rooney and RVP as the main combo is that neither of them provide much central creativity, both are neat with the ball, I'd say RVP carries it better, Rooney probably has a wider range, but both will mainly get it and knock it wider. Combined with a lack of creativity deeper than we really lose a lot of thrust centrally, and that's been our issue for years. It's funny when you watch England and you see the same problems, it's worse with England but it's the point that coming through the middle there is little cutting edge.

Hopefully we can get our wide players back on track and if we ever answer the central midfield issue and sign a creative player there, then maybe it won't be an issue, but sometimes I feel that maybe someone who isn't as individually as good as RVP/Rooney, but better able to use the ball to bring others in to play, or play in tighter areas centrally be it dribbling, movement or passing, might just give us that bit more creativity centrally and get more out of the team even if they themselves don't get the same return. That said both are top players so would rather try and sort out midfield and wide areas first.

 

[Feed Me]

sorry but how does scoring 30+ goals in the 2 seasons played as a "pure-ish striker" not put you in the world class category?
I generaly agree with your sentence, but in my honest opinion it's Rooney's versatility that can at times cloud people's judgment about his qualities. He's so good at so many things that there isn't a single thing in his arsenal that "stands out" as much, while the attributes in which he's not exactly at the top (short-range passing, dribbling/getting past a man) get all the attention per say.

Is 30 goals *that* good anymore?

 

[OGkush]

Is 30 goals *that* good anymore?

34 but ok...please don't let the demigods that are Ronaldo and Messi cloud your judgment.
When Falcao, Lewandowski, Van Persie, Ibrahimovič, even Cavani for example reached that tally last year would you say they've been anything but worldclass that season? I wouldn't.

 

[Ole'sbodyguard]

Is 30 goals *that* good anymore?

Yes. If 30 goals is not good enough then RVP is not world class.

 

[MoneyMay]

Theon, you have a habit of adding in things that are not mentioned in my posts. Debate properly, man. This is definitely my final response because this is getting tedious (have to respond because of the fabrications).

1. I never said Rooney wasn't technical enough. I praised Rooney's skill set.

2. You're telling me Rooney and Mata, or whoever, have similar passing stats, which means Rooney operates as a #10. Juvenile argument. Why? Because you haven't even had a look at Rooney's passing chart and where his passes are directed. You also fail to take into account that some games he's played in midfield, or that the pass total is that high because of him slowing down play to help us out.

3. Again, you're twisting things. I said forget Van Persie's role, not "forget Van Persie". Yet you mention Van Persie's role, which isn't important because we're discussing Rooney. What he said agrees with me with regard to last season, the role never changed for Rooney last season when he played with Van Persie (and it's not changed this season, bar a few games). The role changed for Van Persie. Back to Rooney last season, look at the Manchester City game, Norwich, etc. To play as a 9.5, you don't need Van Persie to play as one too. You have also failed to grasp Rooney's positional change this season, playing higher than last season, but ignore that too.

 

[Feed Me]

34 but ok...please don't let the demigods that are Ronaldo and Messi cloud your judgment.
When Falcao, Lewandowski, Van Persie, Ibrahimovič, even Cavani for example reached that tally last year would you say they've been anything but worldclass that season? I wouldn't.

I think, overall, Rooney is in the WC bracket. But, even discounting Messi and Ronaldo, 30 goals isn't that remarkable anymore. It should be the standard for a top club's main striker.

 

[Feed Me]

Yes. If 30 goals is not good enough then RVP is not world class.

Not sure why you're arguing this point. I never associated the 30 goal mark with being world class. It's just, IMO, 30 goals isn't such a special landmark anymore.

 

[OGkush]

I think, overall, Rooney is in the WC bracket. But, even discounting Messi and Ronaldo, 30 goals isn't that remarkable anymore. It should be the standard for a top club's main striker.

See, I think it's exactly because of those 2 that 30 goals isn't considered such a great achievement as it would otherwise be.
While I agree that the really top clubs should all have a player scoring around 30 goals, and I'm not saying a player is godlike if he gets to that figure, but for me it's still pretty much a landmark for world class players/strikers. Ofcourse there are other parts of the game that you have to account for, however when a certain player scores 30+ goals in a season it's really hard to argue about his world-class status, I mean he'd have to be really, really poor at pretty much every other part of his game not to be thrown into that bracket.
You might not agree by default, but take a look at some of the players scoring 30+ goals in a season and tell me which of those you don't deem to be world-class. (atleast for the season in which they have achieved that)

 

[Theon]

Theon, you have a habit of adding in things that are not mentioned in my posts. Debate properly, man. This is definitely my final response because this is getting tedious (have to respond because of the fabrications).

1. I never said Rooney wasn't technical enough. I praised Rooney's skill set.

2. You're telling me Rooney and Mata, or whoever, have similar passing stats, which means Rooney operates as a #10. Juvenile argument. Why? Because you haven't even had a look at Rooney's passing chart and where his passes are directed. You also fail to take into account that some games he's played in midfield, or that the pass total is that high because of him slowing down play to help us out.

3. Again, you're twisting things. I said forget Van Persie's role, not "forget Van Persie". Yet you mention Van Persie's role, which isn't important because we're discussing Rooney. What he said agrees with me with regard to last season, the role never changed for Rooney last season when he played with Van Persie (and it's not changed this season, bar a few games). The role changed for Van Persie. Back to Rooney last season, look at the Manchester City game, Norwich, etc. To play as a 9.5, you don't need Van Persie to play as one too. You have also failed to grasp Rooney's positional change this season, playing higher than last season, but ignore that too.

You really need to chill out, I told you I wanted to end this nonsense after the first post but you just wouldn't let it go and started resorting to really complex/subtle arguments to try and be right.

You can call the passing stats I mentioned juvenile, but they were in response to you saying he needed to be a playmaker to be a number 10.

A number 10 is the play maker of the team, he is responsible for this, whereas with Rooney it's much more different.

A #10 is a play maker. You can have other play makers, such as one of your central midfielders, but that's not the point.

Ignoring the stats, I think Rooney is a playmaker. It seems quite clear that he is the one who makes things happen in the final third, hence having the most assists and setting up the most chances for the team.

But even putting that to the side, your argument doesn't make any sense as he actually makes more passes and assists than players who you would call a number 10. How can you say Rooney needs to be more of a playmaker to be a number 10, and then call Mata/whoever a number 10 when he does less of it than Rooney? That is a real juvenile argument, and it makes no sense.

Almost as juvenile as this one,

A number 10 has the job to act as a play maker. Rooney's best play usually comes as a result of a vertical (diagonal) ball.

Rooney isn't a number 10 because he switches the play across the flanks. Top stuff.

The third point doesn't make any sense to me. You've accused both me and paceme in this thread of misrepresenting your arguments, but maybe you just aren't expressing them very well. My point about Van Persie is that he wasn't saying Rooney is a 9.5. He was saying "Me and Rooney take turns as the number 9 and turns as the number 10, so we are two 9.5's". That isn't what happens now as Rooney is never the number 9, they don't take turns. Rooney is the deep one and Van Persie is the advanced one.

 

[Rowem]

If Rooney had been Spanish or Italian I think he would have played as an inside forward when he was younger.

 

[MoneyMay]

Theon.

Rooney needs 3 more goals to get into double figures: 7 goals; 10 assists this season.

 

[gooDevil]

Been while since he kicked out...will he ever get past that nasty habit?

 

[Man-United]

Martin Tyler is so bitter

 

[ha_rooney]

Since he was booked, I guess the FA can't take any more action against him?