No, because it's not the standing record that will be remembered, it's 'How he got there'. That, unlike past records (thanks to our techno-enabled world), will mean his legacy will not grow or be forgotten. If anything, it will highlight the myth.
Also, don't displace name recognition & Popularity for credibility. Nor the sparse amount of players to choose from as 'national heroes'.
I genuinely believe the masses will say 'What could have been?', rather than immediately say he's been England's best player.
In the past - 60's and 70's, it was very rare for England to play *buffet* teams, I can remember three, Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg, and even so on good days they could give anyone a game. Also a number of "friendlies" were, actually, the Home Internationals, so three games per season - every season - were against opposition that were put in more than a shift and three-quarters.
So, really, it's impossible to compare one generation from another. You can only play what's in front of you, and maybe the comparisons should be like to like ie. success in World Cup/Euro quarters/semi's, and these days you have to play more games to get there.
And we're always playing San Marino, it's non-stop. Every modern England player needs a special San Marino asterisk next to their record considering how many caps we can disregard.
In the past - 60's and 70's, it was very rare for England to play *buffet* teams, I can remember three, Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg, and even so on good days they could give anyone a game. Also a number of "friendlies" were, actually, the Home Internationals, so three games per season - every season - were against opposition that were put in more than a shift and three-quarters.
So, really, it's impossible to compare one generation from another. You can only play what's in front of you, and maybe the comparisons should be like to like ie. success in World Cup/Euro quarters/semi's, and these days you have to play more games to get there.
It's a valid point as you say. There are quite a number of smaller European nations competing now than there were years ago.
I don't think too many conclusions can really be made from the overall appearances a player makes either. A player could be around at a time when there's little in the way of rivals for his position, as opposed to another who has much stronger competition. Injuries too are another possible factor.
Appearance and goal tallies are a very simplistic way of comparing players from different generations, but don't really provide the whole picture.
And we're always playing San Marino, it's non-stop. Every modern England player needs a special San Marino asterisk next to their record considering how many caps we can disregard.
As has been pointed out (and I'm sure you are just pretending not to understand ) "San Marino" is a general reference to all the weaker opposition England has played and is not confined to the one game England played against San Marino. The poster below has done a great job in outlining some of the goals Rooney has scored and most of them were in unimportant games against weak opposition. I would also add Iceland and Norway to the list. It was hardly a winning goal in a World Cup final.
He doesn't tend to score against top sides in competitive matches when it matters though - yes he has 41 England goals, 29 of which were in competitive matches (either qualifiers or tournaments), but most have come against who most people would class as weak sides (quite a few didn't even exist/compete when Charlton, Lineker etc were playing) like Macedonia (1), Liechtenstein (1), Switzerland (3), Croatia (4), Estonia (1), Russia (1), Kazakhstan (3), Belarus (2), Andorra (2), Bulgaria (2), Ukraine (1), San Marino (3), Poland (2), Montenegro (2), Uruguay (1).
No he's not England's greatest ever player. He doesn't even make the top ten in my book.
Top has to be a close call between Bobby Moore and Bobby Charlton. Stanley Matthews and Tom Finney also deserve a strong mention - as does Gordon Banks.
Members of 1966 team will always be considered as the greatest ever (until England win something again), but in modern times Paul Gascoigne was the most skilful English footballer I have ever seen. When I first saw him play in the 1990 World Cup I was absolutely shocked. He looked like a candidate for best player in the world - and that was next to Maradona and Matthaeus. Absolutely unique exceptional footballer. England hasn't produced anything even close to that in 25 years.
I'm not sure if we play more International football nowadays? Maybe we do, but a lot of our players (recently retired) seem to have reached the 100 cap mark, Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard, Ashley Cole and Beckham spring to mind. All will go down as decent players, but as others have said, it will always be the 66 squad that are remembered more because they won it.
As has been pointed out (and I'm sure you are just pretending not to understand ) "San Marino" is a general reference to all the weaker opposition England has played and is not confined to the one game England played against San Marino. .
As was I. England don't play whipping boys anywhere near enough to be counted as a 'yeah but' for people who want to pretend a good player is a flukey chancer. Football doesn't have enough whipping boys for that kind of shit.
Members of 1966 team will always be considered as the greatest ever (until England win something again), but in modern times Paul Gascoigne was the most skilful English footballer I have ever seen. When I first saw him play in the 1990 World Cup I was absolutely shocked. He looked like a candidate for best player in the world - and that was next to Maradona and Matthaeus. Absolutely unique exceptional footballer. England hasn't produced anything even close to that in 25 years.
Have to agree. He really was an exceptional talent.
It's a real shame the way things have gone for him in life.
I'm not sure if we play more International football nowadays? Maybe we do, but a lot of our players (recently retired) seem to have reached the 100 cap mark, Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard, Ashley Cole and Beckham spring to mind. All will go down as decent players, but as others have said, it will always be the 66 squad that are remembered more because they won it.
Disregarding whether Home Internationals should be classified as competitive or not - I would imagine that the number of competitive internationals has increased massively - there are now far more teams in qualifying groups + getting to the finals means more games in the finals if you progress (World Cup used to be 16 teams, now 32, Euros was (I think) just 4 *finallists* once and now it's 16 and rising. In the 70's I think England played far fewer qualifying games (around the time of THAT Poland game :D
But in those days the number of internationals would have been increased by playing more friendlies and the Home Internationals every season.
In a way that's a good thing as I rarely find anyone interested in friendlies!!
Rooney isn't allowed anywhere near the discussion of greatest ever England player IMO. for someone so gifted, he's simply not done anywhere near enough. the goals and appearances may look good on paper, but he's done very little of note for the team when it really matters.
He's set for his 100th cap this and both Lineker and Shearer both think he should go down as an England legend. Not quite the same as the greatest, but getting there.
I don't want to debate this endlessly but I do think he by (probably) surpassing Bobby Charltons goalscoring record and Peter Shilton's caps record he can't be ignored now and this conservation will inevitably come up frequently over the next couple of years. I mean how many caps will he finish with? 150 at least? He deserves some recognition surely for that.
Is he the best player this countries had since the 1966 team?
He's set for his 100th cap this and both Lineker and Shearer both think he should go down as an England legend. Not quite the same as the greatest, but getting there.
I don't want to debate this endlessly but I do think he by (probably) surpassing Bobby Charltons goalscoring record and Peter Shilton's caps record he can't be ignored now and this conservation will inevitably come up frequently over the next couple of years. I mean how many caps will he finish with? 150 at least? He deserves some recognition surely for that.
Is he the best player this countries had since the 1966 team?
Long service does not equate to greatness. Output and achievement is a far better measure, particularly if on a personal and not team level.
Similarly, racking up the goals doesn't if without context or comparison.
It's inevitable that if a striker is deemed worthy of playing for England a hundred times he will have an impressive goals tally.
He's certainly good. He's not great and to elevate that even further to greatest is not even worth defending.
Other players who've played less games for England have a better goals-per-game ratio. A lot of other players have scored more key goals at tournaments. Many players have better disciplinary records. ALL these things have to be factored in to form a proper judgement of greatness.
Pretty sure he will break all records but although on paper he would be, clearly he isn't.
One of the 1966 team must get that accolade.
Rooney has done ok. Let's be fair to him, some of the players alongside him have not been very good over the years. With better players maybe he would of done better.
Ask Man Utd fans, they must know him best. I doubt the majority would say that Rooney is the greatest English player to ever pull on a United shirt, so that must indicate something ?
Ask Man Utd fans, they must know him best. I doubt the majority would say that Rooney is the greatest English player to ever pull on a United shirt, so that must indicate something ?
They're the worst fans to ask - until he leaves the club of course. It's a question for England fans and neutrals. And there are better United England players in terms of tournament impact anyway.
They're the worst fans to ask - until he leaves the club of course. It's a question for England fans and neutrals. And there are better United England players in terms of tournament impact anyway.
Of course, because United fans are completely unable to give an unbiased appraisal of a player that they watch more frequently than other fans. And United fans obviously can't be England fans as well, can they?
In fact, as a Liverpool fan, how exactly are you 'neutral'?
For what it's worth, the best player to play both for United and England is, unquestionably, Mr. Thomas Cleverley.
Of course, because United fans are completely unable to give an unbiased appraisal of a player that they watch more frequently than other fans. And United fans obviously can't be England fans as well, can they?
In fact, as a Liverpool fan, how exactly are you 'neutral'?
For what it's worth, the best player to play both for United and England is, unquestionably, Mr. Thomas Cleverley.
The key word there was unbiased. However Rooney slays for United is no measure of his England worth. I've expressed my views on Rooney as a Liverpool fan, yes, but I've hardly slated the guy - simply stated like many, many others that he isn't the greatest ever and backed that up with some sound logic.
And this isn't the 1970s - many non-United dans will see more than enough of Rooney to build an informed opinion.
If you ask opinion about any player or position, a player's own fans will always give unequal bias. The various 'who's the best...' threads in here demonstrated that as do many an enthused phone-in caller.
Nothing there to get defensive or precious about, surely?
It's true of all clubs' fans, not just United fans.
A club that had Paul Scoles playing for them won't regard Rooney as the best English player since '66. I don't think anyone genuinely believes that he is the best English player since '66.
Comments
In his dreams maybe.
Also, don't displace name recognition & Popularity for credibility. Nor the sparse amount of players to choose from as 'national heroes'.
I genuinely believe the masses will say 'What could have been?', rather than immediately say he's been England's best player.
There's much more to it than that: Charlton is probably the top choice as England's best player of all time but not because he's the top goal scorer!
Rooney is somewhere down the list and will remain so whatever his final appearance and goals record, though he's in the top ten, IMO.
In the past - 60's and 70's, it was very rare for England to play *buffet* teams, I can remember three, Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg, and even so on good days they could give anyone a game. Also a number of "friendlies" were, actually, the Home Internationals, so three games per season - every season - were against opposition that were put in more than a shift and three-quarters.
So, really, it's impossible to compare one generation from another. You can only play what's in front of you, and maybe the comparisons should be like to like ie. success in World Cup/Euro quarters/semi's, and these days you have to play more games to get there.
It's a valid point as you say. There are quite a number of smaller European nations competing now than there were years ago.
I don't think too many conclusions can really be made from the overall appearances a player makes either. A player could be around at a time when there's little in the way of rivals for his position, as opposed to another who has much stronger competition. Injuries too are another possible factor.
Appearance and goal tallies are a very simplistic way of comparing players from different generations, but don't really provide the whole picture.
As has been pointed out (and I'm sure you are just pretending not to understand
Top has to be a close call between Bobby Moore and Bobby Charlton. Stanley Matthews and Tom Finney also deserve a strong mention - as does Gordon Banks.
As was I. England don't play whipping boys anywhere near enough to be counted as a 'yeah but' for people who want to pretend a good player is a flukey chancer. Football doesn't have enough whipping boys for that kind of shit.
Have to agree. He really was an exceptional talent.
It's a real shame the way things have gone for him in life.
Disregarding whether Home Internationals should be classified as competitive or not - I would imagine that the number of competitive internationals has increased massively - there are now far more teams in qualifying groups + getting to the finals means more games in the finals if you progress (World Cup used to be 16 teams, now 32, Euros was (I think) just 4 *finallists* once and now it's 16 and rising. In the 70's I think England played far fewer qualifying games (around the time of THAT Poland game
But in those days the number of internationals would have been increased by playing more friendlies and the Home Internationals every season.
In a way that's a good thing as I rarely find anyone interested in friendlies!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29998263
I don't want to debate this endlessly but I do think he by (probably) surpassing Bobby Charltons goalscoring record and Peter Shilton's caps record he can't be ignored now and this conservation will inevitably come up frequently over the next couple of years. I mean how many caps will he finish with? 150 at least? He deserves some recognition surely for that.
Is he the best player this countries had since the 1966 team?
NO! Gazza, Lineker, Scoles, Owen, Shearer, even Terry among many others all played better for England than Rooney.
Long service does not equate to greatness. Output and achievement is a far better measure, particularly if on a personal and not team level.
Similarly, racking up the goals doesn't if without context or comparison.
It's inevitable that if a striker is deemed worthy of playing for England a hundred times he will have an impressive goals tally.
He's certainly good. He's not great and to elevate that even further to greatest is not even worth defending.
Other players who've played less games for England have a better goals-per-game ratio. A lot of other players have scored more key goals at tournaments. Many players have better disciplinary records. ALL these things have to be factored in to form a proper judgement of greatness.
One of the 1966 team must get that accolade.
Rooney has done ok. Let's be fair to him, some of the players alongside him have not been very good over the years. With better players maybe he would of done better.
They're the worst fans to ask - until he leaves the club of course. It's a question for England fans and neutrals. And there are better United England players in terms of tournament impact anyway.
Of course, because United fans are completely unable to give an unbiased appraisal of a player that they watch more frequently than other fans. And United fans obviously can't be England fans as well, can they?
In fact, as a Liverpool fan, how exactly are you 'neutral'?
For what it's worth, the best player to play both for United and England is, unquestionably, Mr. Thomas Cleverley.
The key word there was unbiased. However Rooney slays for United is no measure of his England worth. I've expressed my views on Rooney as a Liverpool fan, yes, but I've hardly slated the guy - simply stated like many, many others that he isn't the greatest ever and backed that up with some sound logic.
And this isn't the 1970s - many non-United dans will see more than enough of Rooney to build an informed opinion.
If you ask opinion about any player or position, a player's own fans will always give unequal bias. The various 'who's the best...' threads in here demonstrated that as do many an enthused phone-in caller.
Nothing there to get defensive or precious about, surely?
It's true of all clubs' fans, not just United fans.