Rooney. For all the reasons that have already been said.
Both are massive campaigners though. Absolutely world class campaigners.
Both are massive campaigners though. Absolutely world class campaigners.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
RvP only hit the top class level in 2011 (i.e. top 5 strikers in the league).
Rooney has been at that level since 07. No contest really.
Van Persie only has 3 seasons that matched his potential - 10/11 11/12 and 12/13
When you think that [Rooney] probably end up being only the second player ever to break 200 Premier league goals (181 now @ 29), Probably break England's goal scoring record (48 to 46) and the huge amount of titles hes won that's a pretty high standard he's being held to.
Being played in midfield/bad attitude hasn't helped him but he's easily been the better player/better career than Van Persie.
30 Million bargain.
It's interesting that Rooney has been elite for 4-5 more seasons and is easily the better striker yet van Persie scores and assists more regularly (in poorer teams) over their entire careers - that doesn't add up.
Good points. Don't forget that van Persie is also in the top 10 PL scorers of all time and 2nd behind Henry for non English players (relevent because they start in other leagues whereas Rooney was in PL from 17). RvP will still be around top 5 despite playing 120 less matches than Rooney.
Also, RvP is already the Netherlands all time record scorer with more goals from less games and better competition for his position.
As a team sport, titles don't make a player better IMO.
With the above, I don't think the answer is that Rooney is easily the better player (he is English though). Better, sure - but the gap is small.
Roondog had to compete with Van Nistelrooy and Ronaldo and was often shunted to the wing to accomodate Ronny (yes i know RVP started as winger). After Henry left, RVP was the main man for Arsenal which may explain more goals and assists. On the international records, i'd strongly argue that England have been s**t for ages and led by incompetent managers. Rooney needs someone to give him the ball to score and yet gets blamed for every bad England performance. RVP has benefited from far better service and management at international level.
Disagree on this mate, that Fabregas guy was alright, as was Terry Henry, Pires and all 45 attacking midfielders in Arsenals squad. At international level he had guys like Schneider, Robben and van der Vaart playing him in. Rooney has had sfa for England in midfield outside of Becks who was ageing when Rooney hit his prime. Don't bring up other england midfielders as the whole golden generation were largely s**t at international level.Similarly, the gap in service between the Netherlands and England would be similar to Man Utd and Arsenal (probably less) so again it doesn't work both ways.
RvP only hit the top class level in 2011 (i.e. top 5 strikers in the league).
Rooney has been at that level since 07. No contest really.
I really like RVP but he only came good for Arsenal on a consistent basis around 2010/11.
He's certainly had a better international career but i don't think that's entirely wayne's fault despite what the Daily Mail will have you believe.
He was the great white hope who didn't reach his immense potential and they've been hammering him for years despite the rest of the england team being s**t.Absolutely - very little to do with Rooney who is a quality player.
English media are responsible for an unfair view of Rooney at inetrnational level but equally for an unfair view in the opposite direction at domestic level (i.e. over the top praise for years because he's English as the above stats highlight). Same goes for the English midfielders you were referring to.
Was this thread made in the premise that either
a) You wanted people to say RvP so they would agree with you
b) They say Rooney and you try and prove them otherwise?
The way you initially had titled the thread, Rooney was the clear winner.
Now, that you've changed that, it's not so clearcut, but I think Rooney still comes out on top.
FWIW, Van Persie scored more prolifically than Rooney in:
'06-'07, '07-'08,'09-'10 and '10-'11. In '08-'09 it is pretty much dead even: 0.4 goals/game to 0.393.
So wait ... playing less games is a positive now? His chronic injuries are a major reason why you'd prefer Rooney.
In those seasons you referenced ...
RvP: 74 goals in 150 matches
Rooney: 111 goals in 231 matches
RvP would score 3 more goals than Rooney if you extrapolate his (skewed) ratio over 231 games. Hardly more prolific.
Not to mention you are getting almost two season's worth more matches from Rooney.
This is not even considering the fact that RvP only had to compete with Adebayor for goals in that time while Rooney had Ronaldo/Berba/Tevez/etc.
...if you extrapolate his (skewed) ratio over 231 games...
I dont think that holds any weight. Plenty of strikers have over 200 league goals in England. It was just before it was called the Premier League. A lot of people always say stuff like most PL goals or most PL appearances or most PL clean sheets etc and just disregard the English top flight before the name change. It's bizarre.Van Persie only has 3 seasons that matched his potential - 10/11 11/12 and 12/13
The biggest criticism of Rooney is that he hasn't lived up to his potential. There's just this feeling that he should have been someone on Messi/Ronaldo level....
When you think that he'll probably end up being only the second player ever to break 200 Premier league goals (181 now @ 29), Probably break England's goal scoring record (48 to 46) and the huge amount of titles hes won that's a pretty high standard he's being held to.
Being played in midfield/bad attitude hasn't helped him but he's easily been the better player/better career than Van Persie.
30 Million bargain.
I dont think that holds any weight. Plenty of strikers have over 200 league goals in England. It was just before it was called the Premier League. A lot of people always say stuff like most PL goals or most PL appearances or most PL clean sheets etc and just disregard the English top flight before the name change. It's bizarre.
On the topic though, it's Rooney. RVP is a better finisher but that's about it. Rooney has him covered everywhere else. Both twats though of the highest order.
I can see why a Liverpool supporter would want to class the PL era together with the First Division.Umm what? The English First Division is separate from the English Premier league.
It wasn't a name change, it was a created top tier to sit above the First Division, hence why there was still an English First Division from 1888 - 2004 (until it was renamed.)
The clubs that joined the Premier League in 1992 all resigned from The English Football League at the end of the 1991 season and joined the FA Premier League.
All statistics from 1992 onwards are separate from pre-1992 because it is a completely different competition.
Alan Shearer is the record goal scorer for the English Premier League with 260 league goals.
Man United have 13 Premier league titles
etc etc etc
I dont think that holds any weight. Plenty of strikers have over 200 league goals in England. It was just before it was called the Premier League. A lot of people always say stuff like most PL goals or most PL appearances or most PL clean sheets etc and just disregard the English top flight before the name change. It's bizarre.
On the topic though, it's Rooney. RVP is a better finisher but that's about it. Rooney has him covered everywhere else. Both twats though of the highest order.
Umm what? The English First Division is separate from the English Premier league.
It wasn't a name change, it was a created top tier to sit above the First Division, hence why there was still an English First Division from 1888 - 2004 (until it was renamed.)
The clubs that joined the Premier League in 1992 all resigned from The English Football League at the end of the 1991 season and joined the FA Premier League.
All statistics from 1992 onwards are separate from pre-1992 because it is a completely different competition.
Alan Shearer is the record goal scorer for the English Premier League with 260 league goals.
Man United have 13 Premier league titles
etc etc etc
Im aware as to how the Premier League was formed but it was still the top tier of English football. In 1991 the top tier was the First Division, in 1992, the top tier was the Premier League.Umm what? The English First Division is separate from the English Premier league.
It wasn't a name change, it was a created top tier to sit above the First Division, hence why there was still an English First Division from 1888 - 2004 (until it was renamed.)
The clubs that joined the Premier League in 1992 all resigned from The English Football League at the end of the 1991 season and joined the FA Premier League.
All statistics from 1992 onwards are separate from pre-1992 because it is a completely different competition.
Alan Shearer is the record goal scorer for the English Premier League with 260 league goals.
Man United have 13 Premier league titles
etc etc etc
Exactly. It's crazy how many people just like to wipe away any football that was played before 1992? Particularly one set of supporters.Sorry, but... no. Just... no.
It may be a separate division, even it's own separate company, the only thing that separates the PL and the FL is the commercial deal. It still maintained its history and the relegation system as per the FA agreement, which is that the FA recognises the Premier League as the top league of the English Football Pyramid along with its history, or else the Premier League wouldn't have exactly lasted very long if it didn't get backing by the nation's own FA.
Yes, the Premier League does promote stats relevant to it post-1992, so you have stats like QPR apparently going 2 whole years without winning an away game, or Leicester haven't scored a goal since 2004 (Well no crap, if we were in the league, maybe we could.) But overall, in terms of stats, anything accomplished in the 1st division prior to 1992 is also recognised.)
Basically, the PL is its own company, and it likes to promote its own stats (as it would obviously do), but as per the agreement, it is part of the FA footballing structure, with all of its history recognised. Jod is correct on this one, it's bizzare how people use the stats produced by the PL to make a point, ignoring all else before that. It seems to be very 'Anti-Scouser' (Both Liverpool and Everton).