If Roy is not going to play him in his natural position, I do think he should be dropped, yes.

I know that, on paper at least, he's one of our best players, but his recent performances for England have been dire. You can't ignore so many poor performances and keep playing someone purely because of who they are.

The fact that Hodgson isn't even playing him in his natural role suggests that he doesn't really know what to do with him. As a result, we've got someone in poor form who is also playing out of position and, frankly, that makes him a liability.

Our squad is not short of players who can play effectively out wide, so why play Rooney over them? Sterling, Welbeck and Lallana can all play out there and do a decent job. It makes no sense to keep persisting with Rooney when he is either struggling for form or simply cannot handle the pressure of international tournaments.

He either has to play as the main striker or in behind Sturridge, but even then his form has been so bad that you have to ask how many chances he deserves. After losing to Italy last night, we need 3 points against Uruguay and playing Rooney is a risk. I just don't think this is the time to be taking any more risks on a player who is not playing well.

You've offered a criticism, but what would your solution be?
You don't play Rooney, but who would you replace him with?

and there you have it, I have long believed that the media has always influenced team selection.

That's the problem. I would still back Rooney over Sterling, Lallana or Welbeck to get us a vital goal. Sterling has to play, he will cause problems running at the Uruguayan defence. Welbeck works really hard, I know United fans have mixed feelings about him but he rarely puts a foot wrong for England. Lallana or Barkley would still be a bit of a gamble in a game we have to win.
It's a tough one, if Rooney had been truly awful I would say leave him out. But you have to be certain about who you want to bring in before discarding one of our top players after a mediocre performance.

Am I misreading the stats because I thought he scored 2 in the 2006 finals

Rooney has been average ever since his injury in the Euro's all them years ago.

Time to give somebody else a chance, somebody with a bit of skill and guile, somebody like Adam Llanna or Ross Barkley.

If Rooney is picked as a forward why does he have to spend most of the game as a defender ?

Absolutely crazy .

No wonder he didn't have the best of games .

He never scored any in that one.

Missed the first game, came on late on against T & T where Crouch and Gerrard scored, subbed in the Sweden game (and had a hissy fit over) and the goals came from Gerrard and Cole (beauty from Cole iirc). Beckham got the only goal against Ecuador and the Portugal game was goalless.

If they are going to pick Rooney, then they should obviously play to his strengths! I don't think he should be dropped, he should be playing where he belongs.

I agree, its the same thing that happened with Gerrard and Lampard a few years ago, both play in the same position, both great players but you can't play both. The mistake they keep making is playing both and putting one in a different position thinking it will work out better than playing someone who actually plays in that position or is better suited to play in that position.

Rooney offers very little out left, leave him on the bench for the next match.

Been thinking about this more and I think I'd drop Rooney for the Uruguay game then bring him back in against Costa Rica if he responds professionally to the snub. This depends upon Sturridge being fit though. He looked pretty done in the other night at the end and I think he took a knock too.

Then again, both Costa Rica and Uruguay looked susceptible to crosses in their game so Lambert is due a look in too at some point.

Rooney's cross led directly to our single goal, though he himself missed some chances and did not play well apart from that cross; but I would still start him, but if he did not deliver, I might substitute him in the second half after about 15 minutes.

Yeah. It's clear what we're lacking are incisive passers to give us a cutting edge. At this level only Gerrard and Rooney can do this (on a good day) so they must play.

Rooney would have been better off not going to the World Cup.

Gareth Bale was be paid £2.5m to spend a week in Asia doing a promotional tour at the end of May. The Welshman visited Indonesia and Singapore, attending a football festival, a charity event and a coaching clinic. Which sounds like a fairly easy way to earn over half a million dollars a day.

Suddenly, being the only Real Madrid player not going to Brazil doesn't seem so bad.

Yes wud give lallana the start

No, he should start but if he's not making any impact on the game I'd substitute him around the 60 mins mark or even a little earlier if Uruguay are leading.

One thing is certain - Wayne Rooney is not England's saviour (as proven by his performances in the last two WCs). If we're going to do well in Brazil 2014 it's going to be a team effort, not just one guy up front hoping to hit some decent form and score a few goals!

So let me get this right....it would take you a total of 60 minutes to decide that Rooney isn't delivering so you are going to pull him off

Flipping heck.....the game's nearly over by then

Don't worry.

If Rooney plays Roy needs to put him in the number 10 role.

Switch Sterling our right, and have Welbeck on the left.

He may well do that for the Uruguay game. Don't forget that there was a big focus on Pirlo against Italy, and that dictated that Welbeck came in centrally. I don't see that being the case against Uruguay.

Deffo - get rid of Hodge and get the Tard to manage England.