Rooney vs Shearer

[SEMTEX]

Gullit is never right.

[Dinho lad]

@Big Geordie

 

I'd say Shearer did have moments of off form which have been forgotten.

 

His record for us suggests otherwise, apart from when returning from a bad injury or towards the latter end of his career.

 

There was a period where Kluivert and Bellamy were clearly the best strikeforce we had. Then despite them being a revelation up front together, sentimentally prevailed and Kluivert was dumped for Shearer. From that moment on, Kluivert didn't give a f*ck cause he knew if Shearer was fit he'd never play.

 

Gullit was right.

 

About?

[chapdelaine]

shearer scored volleys,headers,near post finishes,tap ins,freekicks and penaltys.The greatest centreforward England have ever had.Rooney is without doubt the best we have at the moment.Sir Bobby wanted both.What a LEGEND

[Keefaz]

Other than when he was crippled Shearer never played as poorly as did Rooney in the World Cup.

[Sifu]

Rooney definitely has a chance of breaking Shearer's record tbh. Just have to wait and see.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

It staggers me just how underrated Shearer is or has become. As an all-round centre-forward he had no equal for my money during his era. Yeah there were more skilful strikers, more quicker strikers, but no-one with his all-round game and I include Rooney in that who I rate highly, very highly, someone who is a better footballer than Shearer but not a better striker, goalscorer or centre-forward. That said, they are two very different players, Rooney is more of a Sheringham type than a Shearer type, a number 10 to a number 9 if you like. I must admit, I wrote Rooney off last season, I didn't think he had it in him to reproduce his very best form and that he was perhaps finished as a genuine world-class player but right now he's probably playing better than ever. His hair-loss probably effected him badly and I reckon he lost a lot of confidence from that.

[Guest north shields lad]

Shearer never played at the same level as Rooney much, by that i mean every season in the latter stages of the CL.

[Keefaz]

Pele never played in the CL at all. Useless fucker.

[teohgk]

Pele never played in the CL at all. Useless f***er.

 

:mike:

[Colocho]

Shearer was a better 'striker', Rooney is a more complete player, imo.

[Guest north shields lad]

Pele never played in the CL at all. Useless f***er.

 

Didnt even play in europe which is why he can not be classed with maradona and Best

[Keefaz]

Pele never played in the CL at all. Useless f***er.

 

Didnt even play in europe which is why he can not be classed with maradona and Best

 

True enough. In fact, can we even say, really, that he was any better than, say, Massimo Maccarone?

[Tooj]

Pele never played in the CL at all. Useless f***er.

 

Didnt even play in europe which is why he can not be classed with maradona and Best

 

Are you being serious?

[Tooj]

*edit*

 

Actually, I know you are, as I remember your post before the home drubbing to Liverpool the year that we got relegated.

[Hanshithispantz]

Isn't NSL the invalid who posted some xenophobic shite like "There's too many foreign cunts on here" and then went on some big rant about keeping Newcastle to the North East or something?

[Ronaldo]

Harsh on Shearer to compare him with Rooney. Rooney's in a different league as a footballer.

[mrmojorisin75]

Harsh on Shearer to compare him with Rooney. Rooney's in a different league as a footballer.

 

 

pitiful

[Hughesy]

Harsh on Shearer to compare him with Rooney. Rooney's in a different league as a footballer.

 

That just isn't even close to true.

[henke]

As good as Rooney is he'll be absolute dogshit again by February, mark my words. He'll get to 30 goals in all competitions then do nothing for 4 months, ensuring a pathetic European Championships. Shearer had peaks and troughs, like every player, but Rooney has major lows.

 

[tmonkey]

Shearer is being a tad overrated on here imo. For example, whilst Shearer had a very solid/consistent first touch, Kluivert in the little time he had here showed a much better one. It was silky smooth and could even create chances for teammates or turn players with it, he had that much control. Shame he was such a lazy fat sod when we had him.

 

Big Al's crossing ability was excellent, but more so for a striker (it's not like he had Beckham-esque crossing ability, capable of hitting it from near the half way line for example). What's more relevant though is that he showed it very rarely imo. There's a handful over the SAS years, a handful in Euro '96, a handful in his first season with us, then nothing after that injury. The dribbling was also a tad comincal imo, most of the time he'd use his experience/intelligence to win a throw in but the few times he did get away it was like watching a penguin making a mad dash for the sea before the stunned lion wakes up and catches him (yeah, my natural world knowledge sucks).

 

He was no Batistuta either. By that I mean that although he had the ability to score thunderous goals/volleys, they were usually out of the blue and only a handful a season. A compilation video won't show that. The point I'm trying to make here is that Shearer wasn't a genuine threat from outside the box game-in game-out. I realise this sounds daft looking back now, especially with some of the goals he did score, but at the time he wasn't trying them constantly or threatening to (usually because he was too closely marked), so in any one game for Blackburn or us I never really thought "go on, give it to Shearer" or "oh s***, Shearer has it" when he was in the positions. So the second point I'm trying to make here is that Shearer was more reliant on service than some of the other strikers mentioned here (including Rooney).

 

A good arguement (to me anyway) I'd put forward is this: after he slowed down for us due to that horrific knee injury and turned into a good target man flicking balls on for Bellamy and scoring here and there (with a handful of amazing volleys), I'd argue that he showed next to nothing on the ball other than an ability to hold it up well. If he genuinely had top class ability on the ball outside of his predatory instincts, he'd have shown alot more in that role during those years for us.

 

So for me, he was an exceptionally lethal poacher, one of the most lethal of his generation, with solid, consistent, no-nonsense target-man play topped up with the ability to score the occassional thumper or put in the odd sweet cross. He lacked flair, dribbling, creativity, the ability to turn players, could definitely be marked out of a game, and ovreall was very reliant on good service. In the context of the thread, as most posters have stated, Rooney is the much better all-round footballer whilst Shearer was a better out-and-out striker.

 

Flame away.

[Dinho lad]

Shearer is being a tad overrated on here imo. For example, whilst Shearer had a very solid/consistent first touch, Kluivert in the little time he had here showed a much better one. It was silky smooth and could even create chances for teammates or turn players with it, he had that much control. Shame he was such a lazy fat sod when we had him.

 

Big Al's crossing ability was excellent, but more so for a striker (it's not like he had Beckham-esque crossing ability, capable of hitting it from near the half way line for example). What's more relevant though is that he showed it very rarely imo. There's a handful over the SAS years, a handful in Euro '96, a handful in his first season with us, then nothing after that injury. The dribbling was also a tad comincal imo, most of the time he'd use his experience/intelligence to win a throw in but the few times he did get away it was like watching a penguin making a mad dash for the sea before the stunned lion wakes up and catches him (yeah, my natural world knowledge sucks).

 

He was no Batistuta either. By that I mean that although he had the ability to score thunderous goals/volleys, they were usually out of the blue and only a handful a season. A compilation video won't show that. The point I'm trying to make here is that Shearer wasn't a genuine threat from outside the box game-in game-out. I realise this sounds daft looking back now, especially with some of the goals he did score, but at the time he wasn't trying them constantly or threatening to (usually because he was too closely marked), so in any one game for Blackburn or us I never really thought "go on, give it to Shearer" or "oh s***, Shearer has it" when he was in the positions. So the second point I'm trying to make here is that Shearer was more reliant on service than some of the other strikers mentioned here (including Rooney).

 

A good arguement (to me anyway) I'd put forward is this: after he slowed down for us due to that horrific knee injury and turned into a good target man flicking balls on for Bellamy and scoring here and there (with a handful of amazing volleys), I'd argue that he showed next to nothing on the ball other than an ability to hold it up well. If he genuinely had top class ability on the ball outside of his predatory instincts, he'd have shown alot more in that role during those years for us.

 

So for me, he was an exceptionally lethal poacher, one of the most lethal of his generation, with solid, consistent, no-nonsense target-man play topped up with the ability to score the occassional thumper or put in the odd sweet cross. He lacked flair, dribbling, creativity, the ability to turn players, could definitely be marked out of a game, and ovreall was very reliant on good service. In the context of the thread, as most posters have stated, Rooney is the much better all-round footballer whilst Shearer was a better out-and-out striker.

 

Flame away.

 

That's your problem though, isn't it? You always seem to rate players with those attributes above the players of the attributes of the likes of Shearer, Batistuta, etc. You seem to prefer the likes of Bergkamps, Zolas, etc over the likes of Shearer's, etc...... it's just your personal choice, it doesn't necessarily mean that a player with flair is better than a "workman like" player.

 

I even remember you once claiming that Batistuta and Shearer never troubled defenders in the same way as Bergkamp, Zola, Ronaldinho, etc. (Some long post your wrote about this subject years back.)  Completely not true, imo.

[M4]

but the few times he did get away it was like watching a penguin making a mad dash for the sea before the stunned lion wakes up and catches him (yeah, my natural world knowledge sucks).

 

Again that's more of a post 97 description, a Blackburn Shearer would make it to the sea.

 

One of the reasons I enjoyed seeing Shearer play was because he didn't have all the silky flair yet still came up with the numbers. Interesting you bring up Batigol, I always felt they were pretty much made from a very similar mould.

 

In those 3 full seasons Bellamy was at Newcastle, Shearer averaged 20 goals that weren't pens. Harsh to say it was just "here and there".

[maze]

This is a stupid comparison tbh.

[Mr. Snrub]

Shearer a poacher?  Fucking hell.

[CaliMag]

Shearer was carrying the team (above their potential) most of his time here and made Sutton look like a world beater at B'burn when in fact Sutton wasn't even good enough for the SPL.

 

That is the major difference between the two.