As much as I dislike Rooney, it is still a fact that he is the only available striker for England team right now unless Defoe shows otherwise this Saturday.
Then came England's bid to host the FIFA World Cup in London, the place is still in consideration, but, Old Trafford, Stamford Bridge, Anfield, Emirate? If England host the FIFA in 2018 is must be in London, it just has to be. But as much a Chelsea fan I am, and as much as I want it to be in Stamford Bridge, it can not. It just has to be in Wembley Stadium. If it's not Wembley, I would say there is no significant in hosting the FIFA at all. (I have no idea why but that's just how I feel)
But the main point is when does England stand the most chance to win the FIFA World Cup itself? Is it next year 2010 in South Africa or 2018 when the game could be host in England the homeland.
Rooney talked about the home land advantage when fans cheers can boost your spirit and on the other hand also pressure. I have experience this from competitions I played in, it helps... We see South Korea finishing 4th in the World Cup when they played at home, but we also seen Germany crushed out of the competition when they had it at home.
2010 is the time where England has almost everything they need, a good team that get's along well, a good manager and a high spirit. With John Terry, Ferdinand and Ashley Cole at the back, it is almost like placing a wall in front of the goal. With Lampard, Gerrard in the middle, things can get going well and Rooney up front to net those balls, England has a powerful team this year but they would not have this players in 2018, yes there are younger ones but are they as good? (I never really agree that J Cole was good to be there, but there is just no replacement)
With Spain and Italy looking old and out of breath, England's chance to win the FIFA World Cup should be focused on 2010 istead of 2018. Hosting it i important but winning it is the most important of all.
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!