Wayne Rooney

[tom yum goong]

to be honest it didn't look like England could score. the free kick was the first Beckham has scored for England in 3 years, which hasn't been through lack of attempts.

oh well, bring on the Portuguese! Even though they could be missing 3 or 4 key players (Deco, Costinha, Figo ?, Ronaldo ?) England will have to play a lot better to get through. Our record against Portugal, and indeed Scolari, in recent tournaments (Euro 2000, WC 2002, Euro 2004) doesn't inspire confidence.

[nev]

rooney at united plays just behind the striker not up front as a out and out striker,i thought he did ok for someone who has just come back from injury and is not fully match fit and not playing in his best position.

he will be better for the run and you will see against portugal he will score i am sure.

he is only 20 what will he be like in the next world cup.

[Bull]

ummmmm..............fatter???

Bull

[Backpack_thailand]

Another barrel chested footballer is Diego Maradonna, one of the greatest footballers ever.

Add Gazza to that list, he was a bit of a "porker" but probably in the top 3 of all time England players!!!

Maybe we shouldn't call these guys "fat". We should call them "Phat"...

Wicked, bitchin' - narter meen?

[mrbojangles]

Ecuador played better and had the most chances?

Huh?

With all due respect, stick to making chocolate, cuckoo clocks and sitting on the fence when the s**t hits the fan.

Your reading of a game of football leave a bit to be desired.

they did. its quite obvious after you've watched the game. even the fifa matchcast facts prove that. england had 8 shots, 5 corners and 49% ball possession. ecuador had 9 shots, 7 corners and 51% ball possession.

It depends on which match facts you look at. Sky Sports (which i would trust more than FIFA) paint a different picture http://home.skysports.com/worldcup/matchre...d=298193&CPID=4

However, we didn't play as well as we can and all i hope is that we will peak at the right time.

[thankuverybig]

paul gascoine was one of the greats.unfortunately the press seemed to be more interested in his exploits off the pitch & that he was a bit of a porker.

maybe rooney is one of those freak atheletes like lomu,the rugby player, when he was playing.

[chonabot]

you've got to admit that ecuador had the most chances and played much better football.

This is the most revealing statement of football ignorance I have seen in a few days.

I believe we had 3 times as many chances, i.e shots at goal, agreed they were squandered yet if you believe the opposite it beggars the question, "What game were you watching?"

Made me laugh today , thanks for that gift.

[rainman]

This is the most revealing statement of football ignorance I have seen in a few days.

I believe we had 3 times as many chances, i.e shots at goal, agreed they were squandered yet if you believe the opposite it beggars the question, "What game were you watching?"

Made me laugh today , thanks for that gift.

what do you call ignorance? not to be rude but the only ignorance i see is when someone states they had 3 times as many shots on goal when the official FIFA report states they actually had *one* shot more on goal than the opposing team, but one less total (off target).

unless you mean 3x3=4

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/w/matc...onth=6&day=&day

Edited June 26, 2006 by rainman

[rainman]

Maybe we shouldn't call these guys "fat".

well ronaldo is being called fat by the press. he's 1.83 tall and 82kg. rooney is 1.78 and 78kg. not much difference except 5 centimeters and 4 kilos.

[chonabot]

Did you see the bit on the stats where they ( Ecu ) fouled 24 times compared to 13? I believe the possession was 51% in England's favour as well. Unfortunately these stats do not have a quality of pass or quality of movement option. They are better suited to people who thrive on such analysis as opposed to those who watch the sport everyday of the week. I have never seen a side get away with as many handballs in a World cup match game either , where's the stats for that ?

Edited June 26, 2006 by chonabot

[rainman]

sure ecuador made more fouls than england, i never questioned that. but saying england had 3x as many shots as ecuador when the official match report states they had only one shot more on goal. england also had 49% possession according to the match report, maybe other people saw more, who knows.

what i'm trying to say throughout my posts is that england have a good team, but they need to work a lot harder if they want to beat good teams and become world champions. in their current form, they won't do that. will they improve? we'll see. if you only barely beat teams like paraguay (ranked 33), trinidad&tobago (ranked 47) and ecuador (ranked 39) and manage to hang on for a draw with sweden ..how can you win the big games against teams like portugal, argentina, germany or spain?

what i see in these posts is england being hailed as the world's best playing team and they're really not (and my team, at least one; i hold dual nationality, isn't either).

a bit of constructive criticism doesn't hurt

[chonabot]

I agree that our performance prior to this game was sub-par. However I think the Ecuador game was a substantial improvement. I have seen nothing in the other 2 nd round matches so far that raises any major concern. Portugal will be the toughest game so far, but I believe they flatter to decieve, and if not underestimated, they will be beatable. I wish we had 2 strikers up front though.

Rainman, good luck against Ukraine tonight!

[warriors]

Last nights game was another run out for Rooney adding to his fitness level.

I will be very supprised if he does not score in the next game. England will pick it up they are also getting the luck with hit cross bars againt them. So they will roll on hold on to your seats. Here we come

[rainman]

Rainman, good luck against Ukraine tonight!

i see a 10% chance of switzerland beating ukraine, especially with senderos out for the rest of the tournament. and having a lone 27-year old striker barely ever scores goals (Alex Frei) doesn't help either.

[OneeyedJohn]

..how can you win the big games against teams like portugal, argentina, germany or spain?

The Beckham post game interview woz interesting, saying how Ecuador were difficult in part, and also how the lads were happy with progressing, but they were also aware that as a team they have not performed to the best of their ability. Nonetheless we have lined ourselves up against Portugal and have a fantatstic chance to reach the semis.

The simple answer to ur quote above is HEART & PASSION. I played football all my young life, only Surrey Senior level but ( and Rugby no different) throw a little bit of ability in and the combination can be unbeatable...IMHO

[dantilley]

I agree that our performance prior to this game was sub-par. However I think the Ecuador game was a substantial improvement. I have seen nothing in the other 2 nd round matches so far that raises any major concern. Portugal will be the toughest game so far, but I believe they flatter to decieve, and if not underestimated, they will be beatable. I wish we had 2 strikers up front though.

You really think the Ecuador match was an improvement? To coin a phrase you used earlier "what game were you watching???!!!"

That was probably the worst performance I've seen from England in this world cup, and that's pretty bad given the other three games we've bundled our way through. Our game consisted of hoofing the ball up-field all game in the vain hope that Rooney might somehow grow an extra foot and latch onto some of the wild punts. It was reminiscient of the first game of the last world cup where we drew 1-1 with Sweden and treated the world to a spectacle of terrible long ball football.

The only positives from this Ecuador match are the great goal from Beckham and the fact that Rooney lasted the full 90 minutes, and looked reasonably decent out there.

The best England have played so far was late in the first half against Sweden and early in the second half when Joe Cole was on fire and lifted the rest of the team. That's the only time we've seen free flowing attacks, crisp passing and attractive football from England in this tournament. If we can recapture that form against Portugal we have a chance, if not we're going home.

[tom yum goong]

i dont think Ukraine look too hot at the moment, so i would say Switzerland have a decent chance to get through.

Hope to see a good game.

[lampard10]

. That's the only time we've seen free flowing attacks, crisp passing and attractive football from England in this tournament. If we can recapture that form against Portugal we have a chance, if not we're going home.

Havn't you noticed...................................most of the teams that play, crisp, free flowing football are on the plane home already. There's only us grafters left.

[chonabot]

I agree that our performance prior to this game was sub-par. However I think the Ecuador game was a substantial improvement. I have seen nothing in the other 2 nd round matches so far that raises any major concern. Portugal will be the toughest game so far, but I believe they flatter to decieve, and if not underestimated, they will be beatable. I wish we had 2 strikers up front though.

You really think the Ecuador match was an improvement? To coin a phrase you used earlier "what game were you watching???!!!"

That was probably the worst performance I've seen from England in this world cup, and that's pretty bad given the other three games we've bundled our way through. Our game consisted of hoofing the ball up-field all game in the vain hope that Rooney might somehow grow an extra foot and latch onto some of the wild punts. It was reminiscient of the first game of the last world cup where we drew 1-1 with Sweden and treated the world to a spectacle of terrible long ball football.

The only positives from this Ecuador match are the great goal from Beckham and the fact that Rooney lasted the full 90 minutes, and looked reasonably decent out there.

The best England have played so far was late in the first half against Sweden and early in the second half when Joe Cole was on fire and lifted the rest of the team. That's the only time we've seen free flowing attacks, crisp passing and attractive football from England in this tournament. If we can recapture that form against Portugal we have a chance, if not we're going home.

How about the passing and vision of Carrick? The (albeit time limited) runs and pace of Lennon?

Carrick's passing allowed Lampard quite a few shots on goal, had he converted half of them it would have been 4 nil. The work and efficiency of both the Coles was outstanding.

Defensively our errors were less than in previous games.

Most of the pundits agreed that this was a vast improvement, including neutrals such as Alan Hansen.

Try watching the match again.

[dantilley]

Actually, I don't really agree with most of that. Carrick was OK, but as you pointed out there were the usual bucket-load of wayward shots from Lampard. Ashley Cole, yes, was good but Joe Cole was a shadow of his electric performance against Sweden

Less defensive errors? How about the almost hugely embarassing mistake by Terry early on which, if it wasn't for a brilliant recovery by Ashley Cole, would have resulted in a goal? Terry generally looked very unsure of himself at the back.

We were playing a mostly long-ball game, and mostly to frustratingly little effect. That was my take on iit anyway. But I do think we can do well in the quarters and I'm optimistic about the improving Rooney and the fact that we have a habit of putting all our fans through the mill like this in major tournaments. Also, that spell against Sweden, for me, showed that we have the potential to play well.

Here's a summary of some BBC pundits about the Ecuador game, not exactly glowing in compliments, including from Hansen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/w...and/5115124.stm

And one more from ex-England player Terry Butcher:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/w...and/5115940.stm

Lampard10 - most crisp-passing free-flowing teams have gone home have they? I think the Czech Republic are the only team like that who are out. Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ghana (against the US) can all knock the ball around quite nicely and are all still in it. And would all give England a sound thrashing if we played like we did against Ecuador, with the exception of Ghana maybe.

[chonabot]

Oh well , I was happy with the performance, as I'm going to be taking over as Manager in a few weeks (13 days to be precise ) I couldn't give a rats arse what anyone else says.

Steve.

[English Noodles]

glad to see you're open to opinions other than your own. to be honest, i really didn't see much action from rooney for the money he's supposed to be worth. and i didn't see much action from england until they scored the goal. you've got to admit that ecuador had the most chances and played much better football.

i have nothing against england, even my brother in law is english but i got to tell you the truth where its due, england played some of the worst football so far in these past 4 games. an own goal victory against paraguay, a last-minute 2-0 win against trinidad&tobago and a 2-2 draw against sweden where they sat back and tried to ride out the match every time they were in front. now against ecuador, i didn't see a good game until that free kick that ended up in the goal. i'll give you credit on that, but after that, they sat back again trying to defend it ..and that for the last what, 20 minutes? don't get me wrong, i do think england has one of the best star teams in the whole tournament, they just can't seem to use that to their advantage, though.

here's some post match comments from english players:

Joe COLE (ENG)

We should have got more goals in the second half. We can pack our bags tomorrow if we don’t pay attention and for me personally it was a tough match playing in this position.

Paul ROBINSON (ENG)

We were very pleased with the result. The victory was a struggle. I wouldn’t say we were particularly pleased with how we played.

you're slamming me for saying the team didn't play well? your own team is saying they didn't play well!

and you're saying i'm jealous of rooney? how could i be jealous of an overweight striker that really hasn't played well these past few games? come on, be honest

If you could just spell England with an 'E' that would be enough for me rainman

[rainman]

If you could just spell England with an 'E' that would be enough for me rainman

if you noticed i didn't write a single word in my posts capitalized, so why should i capitalize the 'e' in england? i write all day long in 3 different languages, each with different capitalization rules and that's why i write everything in small letters for the forum 'small talk'. lets just call it free time lazyness.

thanks for the attempt to teach a lesson.

[bendix]

i have nothing more to add to this thread.

This post is an experiment to see if, as i suspect, rainman will reply in his obsessive quest to have the last word.

[Tarragona]

rooney at united plays just behind the striker not up front as a out and out striker,i thought he did ok for someone who has just come back from injury and is not fully match fit and not playing in his best position.

I don't think Rooney's going to score very many playing up there on his own. Rooney and Crouch might not be such a bad partnership. There is no need for hoofball either as Crouch is much better on the deck than in the air.

[lampard10]

rooney at united plays just behind the striker not up front as a out and out striker,i thought he did ok for someone who has just come back from injury and is not fully match fit and not playing in his best position.

I don't think Rooney's going to score very many playing up there on his own. Rooney and Crouch might not be such a bad partnership. There is no need for hoofball either as Crouch is much better on the deck than in the air.

I think we'll have our goals when Lampard and Gerrard hit a little form. Hope it's not too late though.

[Tarragona]

rooney at united plays just behind the striker not up front as a out and out striker,i thought he did ok for someone who has just come back from injury and is not fully match fit and not playing in his best position.

I don't think Rooney's going to score very many playing up there on his own. Rooney and Crouch might not be such a bad partnership. There is no need for hoofball either as Crouch is much better on the deck than in the air.

I think we'll have our goals when Lampard and Gerrard hit a little form. Hope it's not too late though.

I really think having 2 up front and playing a midfield 4 of Gerrard, Lampard, Hargreaves and Cole would be effective. I haven't really got anything against Beckham - he's having a decent enough tournament. It's just that there may now be better options. As Lampard / Gerrard in the middle doesn't seem to work, I think playing Gerrard on the right and letting him roam would help things. No chance though.

[rainman]

i have nothing more to add to this thread.

This post is an experiment to see if, as i suspect, rainman will reply in his obsessive quest to have the last word.

what do you mean "obsessive quest to have the last word"? if you want to make a statement without a response, make another thread and have it locked so nobody can respond to it. people can respond whenever they want to a thread, its called a discussion, that's why you're in a forum. give your next post a little more thought please.

[bendix]

[opothai]

as for rooney being fat, he usually carries 12% body fat which equates to being super fit and in top condition for a sports person.

source tv programme ' inside rooney'

rooney is indeed one of englands best players still at a very young age,

we should be encouraging the lad and not picking faults with him.

the normal british thing to do is build him up then try to destroy him on one bad performance.

without rooney and his presence on the pitch england are not at full strength. omho