Wayne Rooney's gone from prodigy to problem – England’s next manager should ditch him

It had a symbolic feel. Wayne Rooney trudged off to be replaced by Marcus Rashford, thirty-something making way for a teenager. Rashford had already supplanted Rooney as Manchester United’s main striker. With England requiring a goal to avert embarrassment against Iceland and salvage their faltering Euro 2016 campaign, exit the older man. Roy Hodgson, one of Rooney’s greatest champions, had lost faith in his ally after a half of astonishingly poor passing.

Half an hour later, Hodgson was announcing his resignation. The ignominy against Iceland should mark the end for Rooney, too. It has been a time for leaders in British public life to vacate the stage. Rooney has been less devious and less deluded than many of his counterparts in other walks of life. Indeed, his honesty and his willingness to assume responsibility make him stand out. He has completed the transformation from enfant terrible to role model. The problem is the contrasting and footballing journey he has made from prodigy to problem.

England’s fondness for the famous has been one cause of their failings this millennium and consigning a history-maker to England’s past would be controversial. The simpler decision for Hodgson’s successor would be to avoid a backlash by maintaining continuity and enabling Rooney to claim Peter Shilton’s caps record. There was a time when new brooms automatically indicated change. Bobby Moore’s England career ended with Sir Alf Ramsey’s. Bobby Robson did not pick Kevin Keegan when he took over. Terry Venables never chose Des Walker, a virtual ever-present for Graham Taylor. After Keegan’s resignation as manager, Sven-Goran Eriksson did not select Tony Adams or Graeme Le Saux.

Now the decision to ditch Rooney should not be made as a statement or an empty attempt to look tough, as it was when Steve McClaren dropped David Beckham, only to recall him out of desperation, but as the result of the answers to a series of questions.

So, given the two-year tournament cycles bring a focus on the future, is he the man for 2018? He will only be 32, which is scarcely pensionable, but his decline in the last two years has been marked. It is entirely reasonable to assume that will continue, that the dynamism which rendered him a driving force will be drained from a body that has already been subjected to 712 games for club and country.

In the more immediate term, is he the player to help take England to Russia? This is perhaps his strongest case to keep Rooney. One who seemed destined to be crowned at a major tournament instead became the king of qualifiers. Rooney has scored 30 times in them, with seven apiece in the successful campaigns to book a place at the 2014 World Cup and Euro 2016. He has become England’s man for the medium-sized occasion. Yet those goals came as a striker, which leads to the positional issues.

Does Rooney deserve a place in attack? Hodgson and Louis van Gaal, two men who handed him the armband for club and country, came to the same conclusion, aided by Rashford’s dramatic emergence. He is not. Factor in the presence of Harry Kane, Jamie Vardy and Daniel Sturridge and he does not merit a place in the squad as a specialist centre-forward.

So what about as a No. 10? Again, no. Dele Alli is much England’s most compelling option while when – rather than if – Ross Barkley returns to the form he illustrated in the first half of last season, he is the best alternative. In any case, Jose Mourinho’s move for Henrikh Mkhitaryan signifies that, whatever his shirt number, he will not be United’s No. 10, just as Zlatan Ibrahimovic is likely to lead the line.

But can he complete his reinvention as a central midfielder? Rooney’s cheerleaders would suggest so. Yet now he is pitted against specialists in the position. He is not, and is never likely to be a holding player, Eric Dier-style. As a box-to-box runner, he lacks the stamina of Jordan Henderson or James Milner. As a passer, he does not have the deftness Jack Wilshere demonstrates at the top of his game. Rooney has long been likened to Paul Scholes, a comparison that fails on several fronts. The older man was technically perfect whereas the younger’s touch can be strangely awful, as it was against Iceland. Scholes could raise or slow the tempo of a game at will and, while some of Rooney’s diagonal passes are eye-catching, more of his were genuinely penetrative. Plus there is a difference in pass completion rates: Scholes rarely wasted a ball. Rooney has never been as immaculate.

So does Rooney deserve preferential treatment? Van Gaal stated that his skipper had “privileges” when it came to selection and, without being as open, Hodgson seemed to suggest as much. And with neither Gary Cahill nor Joe Hart an automatic pick, England look short of leaders. Yet perhaps Rooney has been admired more for his captaincy than his performances on the pitch of late and his influence, while beneficial, has not taken either England or United where they wanted to go and his profile means that he would be a distraction if he was demoted to the ranks of a fringe figure.

The other reason to persevere would be a pedigree in tournaments which, since 2004, Rooney sadly lacks. He has been better in the last two than in the 2006 and 2010 World Cups and Euro 2012, but that is not saying much. Like the other attack-minded members of the supposedly golden generation, he has disappointed more often than he has delighted against the best.

His England career is undoubtedly a statistical success. Fifty-three goals is more than anyone else has managed. One-hundred-and-fifteen caps is a joint record for an outfield player. But now the baton should passed on, to Rashford and others, from a player on the wane to those on the up.