Rooney Banned For Three Euro 2012 Games

BBC has broken the news that Rooney is banned for three games at Euro 2012. Should this affect Capello's squad? Given that England could be out by then or only have a maximum of three games remaining would you take him or not? Surely his absence would affect squad preparation beforehand...

On reserve, he won't get to be a captain if he continues with crap like this.

I would say definitely take him, but if the ones on the pitch play well in the group then he doesn't start in the QF...

I think he has to be on the squad, but his inclusion into the quarter final (if we get to it) has to be based on how well his replacements have played.

Capello will take him and rightly so. He's by far the best forward we have in this country and provided we get out of our group then he'll probably walk into the quarter final starting line up.

Agreed he has to cut out these stupid acts of petulance but this could possibly be the kick up the backside he needs.

FreekShow wrote:Capello will take him and rightly so. He's by far the best forward we have in this country and provided we get out of our group then he'll probably walk into the quarter final starting line up.

Agreed he has to cut out these stupid acts of petulance but this could possibly be the kick up the backside he needs.

I see what you mean Freek, but frankly stamping Riccy Carvalho's nuts off should have been the wake up call he needs. He has a nasty thuggish streak in him that will always be there I fear.

Keane had that too. So he can learn from it.

http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Rooney.jpg

Rooney's apology letter.

Thomond wrote:http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Rooney.jpg

Rooney's apology letter.

Fantastic.................

All depends on the group draw, I think the stat is only 2/7 times we've made it out of the group stages. If we get drawn in an easy group (Poland/Ukraine as Pot 1 places) and a couple of easier teams then I'd put him in the squad. However, if we get drawn a horrible group- say Spain, France/Portugal & Denmark then I'd leave him at home. If we can get through a 'Group of Death' without Rooney then the team will be high on confidence and will have evidently played well. That team would be the one that deserves to try to go past the quarters.

Id be shocked if Capello took him.

If I were Capello I would certainly not take him he needs to learn his leason now of else he never will and will possible see himself as undropable.

What kind of message would that send to the rest of the squad if he was picked despite the fact he might not even play at all?

Who would you take instead? Whoever replaces him probably won't play either. He's one of the best England have, as much as I hate to admit it, and I think it would always be used as the excuse if we were to go out after the group stage.

Capello will take him (probably under pressure)

I'd leave him at home

It could well be the best thing to happen to England.
They've been a one man team for a while, so his forced absence might actually lead to that rare thing in England circles. Team work.
Of course they'll take him, because like most football managers/associations they don't have the balls not to.

At this moment in time 53% of you either wouldn't take him or wouldn't have him as first choice when he is eligable. Now come on peeps......we've been through this before but as ever you tend to learn the fact then instantly forget it as "it never happened"..........Now I'm going to say this one last time for you so try and let it sink in........You are nowhere near as good as you think you are......Rooney is head and shoulders better than anyone else you have. As Sven once said "England needs Wayne Rooney".

super_realist wrote:
Of course they'll take him, because like most football managers/associations they don't have the balls not to.

I don't think it has anything to do with having the 'balls' to leave him at home. The fact remains that he is THE best player England have at their disposal and it would be, in my opinion, daft to leave him at home. Zinedine Zidane's career was littered with Rooney-esque man sausage ups but France wouldn't cut off their nose to spite their face and neither will Capello. I'd much rather see Wayne Rooney leading the line than Jermain Defoe or Darren Bent every day of the week.

You can't compare Zidane with Rooney, Zidane was a truly world class player and Zidane had only a couple of blots on his career, Rooney has had at least a handful already.
He's a good player, but simply because he's England's "best" doesn't necessarily mean he fits into the way a team needs to play to be successful. England are a pretty poor team but making room for Rooney might not be making them any better.

super_realist wrote:You can't compare Zidane with Rooney, Zidane was a truly world class player and Zidane had only a couple of blots on his career, Rooney has had at least a handful already.
He's a good player, but simply because he's England's "best" doesn't necessarily mean he fits into the way a team needs to play to be successful. England are a pretty poor team but making room for Rooney might not be making them any better.

Hoof ball to Crouch it is then LOL, I hear Neil Warnock is up for that style of play so no need to look for another manager.

Surely you have to take Rooney. As mentioned if the other players play well in getting to the quarter final then dont start him, but what an option to have if your 1 down with 30 mins to go.

super_realist wrote:You can't compare Zidane with Rooney, Zidane was a truly world class player and Zidane had only a couple of blots on his career, Rooney has had at least a handful already.
He's a good player, but simply because he's England's "best" doesn't necessarily mean he fits into the way a team needs to play to be successful. England are a pretty poor team but making room for Rooney might not be making them any better.

Zidane had more than a couple of blotches on his career Super and I'd also add that Rooney is a better player at 25 than Zidane was. Rooney's inclusion in the England team does nothing to disjoint the style of the play or the chances of success. Our problem (for the past decade) is finding a proper balance in the midfield area. Rooney goes!!!

By saying that Rooney's inclusion doesn't diminish the chance of success just mean that England have no chance with or without him?

In that case it doesn't matter if Postman Pat does or doesn't take him to Euro 2012 then. QF exit as usual.

Strikers aren't England's problem, there are plenty alternatives to Rooney, but a geriatric defence whose pace is measured on a calander and who live on reputation and a disjointed headless midfield are.

England should be able to get through 3 group games without Rooney , he is Englands best striker so should still be picked .

I think England will appeal
if ban comes down to 2 games he will go if it is increased to 4 as some have suggested then leave Rooney at home

I reckon it'll boil down to how Rooney plays this season.

If he struggles with injuries and form and finishes with 10 goals (unlikely - i know) then there is no point in taking an out of touch Rooney in case we make the knockouts.

If he bangs in 30 goals this year, how can you possibly talk about leaving him at home?!

I know you can't compare the two players directly, but could you imagine Portugal not taking Ronaldo??

No, so why wouldn't England take Rooney?

France took Zidane to WC 2002 knowing full well he wasn't fit, and although they went out in the group stages, I think it's a good example of a similar situation.

We should be able to get through the group just fine without him but after that he has the versatility and quality to be straight back in the side for me.

It may even be a confidence boost to the squad, knowing they will have their best player back to help fire them through the knockout rounds.

Looking at the teams who have qualified for the tournament there is no guarantee England will even get through their group.

All depends on the luck of the draw. I'd love to see the odds for England not getting past the group stage, seeing as some bookies have us as around 4th favourites for the entire competition. But I think if we get a tough group then we'll struggle.

Even in an easy group England could struggle. Remember Trinidad in 2006 and Algeria in 2010?

I think that the bookies have them there to protect against patriotic betting in the very unlikely event that England do well. It's a bit like they do with Tiger Woods, unlikely to win, but if he did it would cost them a fortune, hence unrealistically short odds,

England are closer to being around 8th favourites than 4th in reality.

Thomond wrote:Keane had that too. So he can learn from it.

Didn't Roy Keane get sent home from his last tournament after a row with Mick McCarthy?


I'd put Rooney on the reserve list - and thats being generous. We don't want or need petulant, overgrown schoolkids in the squad.

At least when Beckham got himself sent off it was for retaliating to being fouled. Rooney just has a go if he's in a bad mood. It could have cost us automatic qualification and we sure as hell can't afford to be a man short against the best teams in Europe.

As for the tournament, given how strong the usual favourites are looking right now, I'd be satisfied if England made the quarter finals. Any further would be a very pleasant surprise.

We ain't got a chance of winning this thing, from what I've seen Spain, Holland and Germany are way ahead of the rest.

With or without Rooney we should qualify from the group then lose in the Qtrs or Semi's, that's about our level.

I think you have to take Rooney cause if he ain't there as soon as we lose the press and fans will turn on Capello and the F.A saying if Rooney was here we could have won that match.

Wayne Rooney may be let off, after his letter to uefa.

https://2img.net/h/oi56.tinypic.com/e5ocqd.png

Can anyone explain why/how people are actually claiming the ban is excessive, it clearly caused no injury but it was a malicious challenge, a lash out that seemed to be a pointless attack on an opponent, just the sort of challenge that will ALWAYS get a 3 match ban, whatever level you're playing at and in just about every country on earth?

Didn't see the tackle, just curious why everyone has started a "hate Rooney" witchhunt type thing..?

Do people actually expect Bent, Carroll, Defoe et Al to actually do something for England?

At the end of the day Capello will take a 23 man squad and will probably end up using 16/17 players maximum anyway meaning 6 or 7 of the squad won't see any action. Why would Capello take, lets say, Danny Wellbeck in place of Rooney when he's probably not going to get any game time anyway? It makes no sense to leave your best player at home whatever way you look at it.

Also Capello won't care one iota about bedding players in for the future because as soon as this tournament is done and dusted he'll never set foot in this country again.

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:Who would you take instead? Whoever replaces him probably won't play either. He's one of the best England have, as much as I hate to admit it, and I think it would always be used as the excuse if we were to go out after the group stage.

why not bent, defoe, wellbeck, sturridge, carroll?

what about these strikers?

jro786 wrote:

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:Who would you take instead? Whoever replaces him probably won't play either. He's one of the best England have, as much as I hate to admit it, and I think it would always be used as the excuse if we were to go out after the group stage.

why not bent, defoe, wellbeck, sturridge, carroll?

what about these strikers?

Combined these four wouldn't get near Rooneys transfer value which says it all really. Defoe is too hit 'n' miss, Wellbeck is still unproven, Sturridge needs a long run of games at Chelsea to really show his worth which he may not get and Carroll has been totally out of sorts since his move to Liverpool.

Then there's Darren Bent who has a habit of finding the net at Premier League level but whether he's international class is yet to be determined. We will see what all the above names have to offer in the build up matches but I wouldn't hold my breath.

jro786 wrote:

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:Who would you take instead? Whoever replaces him probably won't play either. He's one of the best England have, as much as I hate to admit it, and I think it would always be used as the excuse if we were to go out after the group stage.

why not bent, defoe, wellbeck, sturridge, carroll?

what about these strikers?

Not all of those are going to play, may as well not take on of them and take Rooney as he is somebody I would rather be able to call on than any of those.

Wasn't expecting this level of debate to be caused! I would say on the issue of other strikers that Welbeck is probably going to play a big role for Man Utd this season and Danny Sturridge is a first choice for Chelsea as it looks firmly like Nico is the backup.

In terms of playing style these two are maybe the most similar to Wayne so if they both have big seasons there could be a tough decision to be made...

Would have to take him, but would consider him not starting the next games depending on how England are playing and the individuals are playing.

Put it lke this whatever Capello does if the Euros are not a success he's going to get the brunt of it and will take a hammering, with everyone saying he was clearly wrong no matter which choice he makes.

Interesting point raised on another forum. Apparently a Leeds player (Back in the day) got given a three match suspension in the Champions League, so they didn't register him for the first half of the season. However, when they tried registering him for the second stage, they were told that because he hadn't been selected then he hadn't missed any matches.

I'm not sure if this still applies today, but if Capello didn't take Rooney then he risks the next manager missing him for the first 3 WC qualifiers. I'd take him, but I'm not sure whether he'd get the chance to start. As I said before, all depends on other performances.

Wayne Rooney is England's best player when on form. In a squad of 22, to not take him would be a stupid decision in my opinion.

A squad of 21 with Rooney watching for the 3 group games should be enough to finish at least 2nd out of 4 teams when you consider England are likely to be one of the top seeds.

Likely seeds:
Pot 1: Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Holland
Pot 2: England, Germany, Italy, Portual (If they make it)
Pot 3: France, Greece, Russia, Croatia (If they make it)
Pot 4: Denmark, Sweden, Ireland/Estonia, Czech/Montenegro

Perhaps this is where not being one of the top 2 teams pays off. If England were lucky enoguhto get Poland/Ukraine from Pot 1 then I'd expect us to qualify, even if we did end up with France or Russia. But if we end up with Holland/Spain and France/Russia in our group then it becomes very tough to qualify.

Lets face it with or without Rooney we're considerate outsiders to win Euro 2012. If we got a group of Spain, England, France, Denmark then in my realistic opinion we are struggling without Rooney to qualify. Remember we have struggled to even beat Montenegro or Ghana recently. If we got a group consisting of Poland, England, Greece, Czech Republic the I would predict we would qualify. Rooney must then come straight back into the team regardless of how the strikers have performed in the group stages. You are not going to win Euro 2012 with Danny Welbeck or Darren Bent up front. Period.

That's their excuse ready for when they exit the tournament.

he's potentially missing the whole group stage, so nope

Mad for Chelsea wrote:he's potentially missing the whole group stage, so nope

Imagine though if we did qualify.

I wouldn't start him in the QF but we would have the best bench warmer in the Euro's and we may well need him.

I would take him.

i wouldnt take him, if it was anyone else he wouldnt get taken, and to be honest, we will probably be out by then anyway lol.