source: 123football.com

Recent suggestions of a rift (strenuously denied of course) between Wayne Rooney and Michael Owen over Rooney's alleged 700,000 pound gambling debt got me thinking. If there was a real rift, and the two refused to play together, who would you choose?

Before Soccer-Weblog is flooded with complaints let me stress this is 100% hypothetical, just an easy excuse to compare England's two main strikers.

Owen offers pace, an innate ability to score, experience of 2 World Cups and is vice-captain. On the down-side he's injury prone (don't argue, he is and you know it!) and has no left foot (well he does but he doesn't use it). The biggest criticism of Owen is the same as always: he doesn't contribute enough outside of the box.

Owen's alleged debtor offers less pace but more skill and less of a goal-poaching threat but the ability to score those magical long range efforts. He's also fantastic at dropping further back than Owen to get the ball and create something for others. The downside is his temperament. Rooney still has a propensity for rash decisions, his (allegedly) sizeable debt to Owen being a good example.

But it seems to me that Rooney's rashness comes from the same unpredictability that makes him special, and if it's Owen or Rooney it has to be Rooney because he has that extra something that not only turns games, but can dominate them.

Is there anyone out there willing to argue for Owen?