Good article/blog by Gabriele Marcotti. I like his dissection of the attacking options RvP/Rooney/Falcoa/DiMaria/Janujaz once one understands L vG's philosopheee
Making the case for Wayne Rooney's place at Manchester United
Some players loom larger than others. When it comes to Manchester United, Wayne Rooney looms largest of all.
That's for better or worse. In good times and bad, like the horrid ones United find themselves in now.
It's the only real explanation I can think of for why he's once again getting slaughtered, with some suggesting that Louis van Gaal should relegate him to the bench.
In the hours following United's 5-3 defeat at Leicester I watched a Vine that showed him shouting and haranguing his defenders, accompanied by criticism arguing that, as captain, he wasn't helping things. That he was -- a familiar turn of phrase when it comes to Rooney -- "running around like a headless chicken." That United have won just once this season with Rooney as captain.
I don't believe there is a vast media conspiracy against him. But when it comes to the punditocracy, he's low-hanging fruit -- an easy target.
Those are foolish reasons to drop Rooney. Are there valid ones?
There are if you think United are better without him. Being "better" is predicated on a combination of two factors. One, that the guy who comes in -- Juan Mata? Adnan Januzaj? Darren Fletcher with a rejigger of Angel Di Maria's position? -- is better than Rooney. And two, that the system would somehow flow better without Rooney and with whoever his replacement is on the pitch.
Everybody has their own opinion. Are any of the alternatives to Rooney "better" than he is in absolute, individual terms? I don't think so, although I can see the case for Mata and, sure, maybe one day Januzaj will surpass Rooney.
But there's a very obvious cost to dropping Rooney. Last February, he signed a contract through 2019. The size of the deal is fuzzy because it's laden with performance-related bonuses and because clubs and agents regularly give out bogus information. But whatever that number is -- reports range from $16 million a season to $24.5 million -- it's huge. Let's split the difference and call it $20 million. That means United have to pay him close to $100 million between now and when he's 34 years old.
That's a lot of money for a guy on the bench. And while I appreciate that United are a profitable club, it doesn't mean they can simply burn money forever. Not after their spending spree this past summer.
Nor is it as easy as saying that they could simply sell him. Rooney turns 29 next month. There are no more than a handful of clubs who could afford his wages, and most of them are either nonstarters for obvious reasons or, frankly, are unlikely to show any interest. Paris Saint-Germain, who were linked with him in the past -- as far as I can tell, it's a link that only existed in the minds of Rooney's people -- are now subject to transfer restrictions.
Bear in mind, this "interest" was when Rooney was playing and being productive. Shifting a bench-riding, unhappy 29-year-old on monster wages is extremely tough. Just ask Chelsea about Fernando Torres.
Then there's the fact that right now, Rooney is still United's most marketable star. Maybe that will change now that Di Maria and Radamel Falcao are on board. Maybe Phil Jones will turn into a northern Bobby Moore and Januzaj a latter-day Cristiano Ronaldo. But we're not there yet. A benched Rooney is a Rooney with a damaged brand. And while this sort of stuff shouldn't matter in the world of purists, in the Glazer world, it matters.
What about the other criteria? Fluidity and tactical balance and chemistry and all that?
Before we get into this, we need to throw out a caveat. Van Gaal is United's manager. He has his own vision of the game; it can be idiosyncratic at times, but it has served him well throughout his career. So unless your given names are Aloysius Paulus Maria and you have an office in Carrington, whatever conclusions you draw about how United should line up and with what personnel necessarily need to be modulated against Van Gaal's philosophy.
So whether it's three or four at the back, United will have some version of a front three and Di Maria will be there in some form. Plus, the approach will be possession- and movement-based.
Once you establish this, your options narrow a bit. If you put Di Maria in the front three, two out of Falcao, Rooney, Mata, Januzaj and Robin van Persie lose out. Plus, you'll need to find one more central midfielder (two more if it's a back three) to join Ander Herrera and Daley Blind. Your options there are Marouane Fellaini, Michael Carrick -- both of whom have been injured -- and Fletcher. Slim pickings all around, in my opinion, which is why you keep Di Maria in midfield.
And then a Rooney-less front three, to most, becomes either Van Persie-Falcao-Mata or Van Persie-Falcao-Januzaj. Now, you're most likely not going to ask Van Persie or Falcao to play wide, so that means either putting Mata or Januzaj in the hole or going with some kind of 4-3-2-1 Christmas tree, with Falcao or Van Persie as a second striker.
This is where, I think, you get to the crux of the issue. Falcao has played on his own up front for much of his career. Van Persie has played in a two-man strike force but has been most productive as the main centre-forward, sometimes with a second striker -- Rooney, since arriving at Old Trafford -- alongside. Neither has played in a front two with a man in the hole and no wingers, which is what a 4-3-1-2 (or, if Van Gaal reverts to the back three, 3-4-1-2) amounts to. Nor has either played in a 4-3-2-1 (or 3-4-2-1).
Sure, guys can adapt to different situations. You can work on it in training and, goodness knows, without Champions League or League Cup football, United have more time to spend on the training pitch than most. But Falcao is 28, coming off a serious knee injury and already adapting to life in a new country. And Van Persie is 31 and started less than half of United's league games last season. Are you sure it's wise to invest time and energy into reinventing these two veterans? Particularly when Van Persie will have one year left on his deal come June, and Falcao, technically, is on loan?
That doesn't mean the status quo -- Van Persie, Falcao and Rooney up front with Di Maria in midfield -- necessarily works or will work in the long term. But give Van Gaal a chance to work on it, will you?
And if you need to make a change, maybe the one who needs to be dropped isn't Rooney, but one of the two centre-forwards. Maybe alternating Van Persie or Falcao is the answer. Let them play their own game in the way they are comfortable, as the main man up front, and find some combination of Rooney, Mata and Januzaj -- or Di Maria, if you want to stiffen up the midfield and move him further up -- behind.
The fact of the matter is that Rooney is more versatile and adaptable than any other United forward. For all the criticism he took on Sunday, he still set up a goal. And he was still the guy busting a lung to get back on Leicester's fourth goal. (Watch the highlight again, if you can. Mata gives the ball away, Rooney sprints back full tilt, actually outrunning two of his teammates in the process.)
When you're a veteran star on a club of United's magnitude and when you have a huge contract, you get to be in the spotlight more than most. And you have more responsibility than most. That's just the nature of the beast, particularly when you also happen to be English and the most recognisable player on the England national team.
That's why so much of the focus is on him and why he endures so much scrutiny. But make no mistake about it, Rooney has to be part of the solution at United. Not part of the problem.
On a different club, one where different choices were made in the past 12 months, one with a different manager -- and a different chief executive -- it might well be different. But not right now and not on this United team. Van Gaal knows this, which is why, barring a sudden change in circumstances, he'll sink or swim with Rooney.
