Is Emile Heskey England's kingpin?

Battering ram, workhorse, old-fashioned - call him what you like but Emile Heskey is more important to Fabio Capello for tomorrow's match with Kazakhstan than his captain, John Terry.

Martin Samuel points out today that the England coach perceived the Wigan striker's injury scare as a bigger blow than the absence of the Chelsea defender.

His reasons? England's back four should be able to cope with the minimal threat of the Kazakh strikers, but Heskey's involvement up front is vital to the usage of Wayne Rooney.

This is the same Emile Heskey who has scored five goals in 48 appearances for his country since he made his international debut nine years ago. The same player who has netted just once this season in 12 games. The same forward who has taken an average of almost four games to score throughout his entire league career.

Managers within the game have always backed him with their cash, though. His transfers from Leicester to Liverpool, then onto Birmingham and now Wigan have totalled £22.75million. Tony Cascarino even claimed that he is the player Sir Alex Ferguson should be looking to to complete his Manchester United jigsaw puzzle.

So is Capello correct to use one player to bring the best out of another? Has Heskey's performance against Croatia made him indispensable within the England side? Should we have permanently employed him and kept Michael Owen on the sidelines years ago?

Or at this level should we expect our strikers to be able to score? Is Heskey's form too patchy to deserve a place? Do defenders easily adapt to his one-dimensional technique of brute strength? Did Croatia - and Germany in 2001 - just have an off-day?

Is Emile Heskey England's kingpin? Let us know below.

Comments

[GM]

Tonight's game once again showed Heskey's importance to the team. One of the few players in the team with the willpower and motivation to stick to the role he is given for 90 minutes, with no desire to be the big-star, like so many of his "Roy of the Rovers" team mates like Rooney, Gerrard and Lampard.

[Rina]

Capello has recognized that a happy, settled and confident Rooney is the key to England scoring more goals. For a striker, Rooney is very unselfish, and in Man U he would almost be better deployed as an attacking mid supporting Berbatov and CRonaldo. He just does not do well as the last man up. But in England, with someone even more unselfish like Heskey playing above him, holding the ball, putting it into the space, all of a sudden Rooney takes it upon himself to score more. It's all to do with how certain players understand each other.

Crouch could fill the Heskey role with Rooney, if given those instructions. It is all about trust among players and what they are expected to do, and when I see Owen play, he seems very isolated from the rest. He is a born poacher and will pounce on balls and score, but Capello is all about building up to the goal instead of a lucky ball into the space.

I always read analysis regarding ability and positioning but not enough on the kind of chemistry that's based on hierarchy in personality. So much success depends on how players recognize who are the leaders among them in any given team and how this affects their play.

In club level, players more readily accept hierarchies among each other. In Liverpool, Gerrard is top dog but in England, this role simply does not work for him. When playing for country, it is imperative that each player feels there is an equality among them, that no one is assuming the leadership mantle. There needs to be that underlying feeling. Spain won Euro2008 in this way. Although you had Torres, David Villa, Fabregas, Iniesta etc, not to mention Casillas in nets, you never had a feeling that any of these players was assuming that role of leader, although in each of their clubs they might be. You just had the feeling there was a mutual feeling of respect, everyone in it together, no one above anyone else.

With England, it might be that guys like Owen or Gerrard are just too used to their roles at club level. Owen the isolated striker waiting for service, Gerrard in the midfield telling everyone what to do.

For all their skills, players like Joe Cole and Rooney do not expect the others to defer to them. There is a mutual appreciation of what each is bringing to the table, and this is why they play well together. Same with Lampard. And especially with someone like Beckham who led by example and was maybe too democratic when he was captain. But Capello recognizes this kind of evenness and lack of ego in Beckham which may be why he brought him back to the fold. Beckham is the biggest superstar among them yet even his critics will say he is free of ego and treats everyone in the same manner.

I think right now the main issue is not Owen (whom I believe Capello has decided is not right for the kind of feeling he's trying to build in the team and has turned the page on him) but Gerrard. We've all played on a team with someone like him. A natural leader, skilled and passionate and aggressive, with the ability to will the team to win. But what happens when you get two of them on the same team? Who assumes that mantle of leader and who defers? The problem is not between Gerrard and Lampard, it's about Gerrard bringing his Liverpool mentality to his England teammates and this just not sitting well with the rest of them. And yet if Gerrard were to stifle his natural leadership skills and aggression, this can't be a good thing either. This is Capello's dilemna.

[Taymur Peracha]

I agree with the idea of a target man and i think Emile is superb at this role.... (crouchy aint bad too but different). Emile's bad luck is that Capello came so late in his career.

I think Emile's goals to game ratio has been hampered by three things i) his lack of belief in himself ii) his lack of aggression iii) his un-selfishness. At liverpool and for England, game after game Emile worked his socks off for Owen to score. He was responsible for a lot of goals either through his movement or through flick-ons. Whenever Owen was injured you used to see a whole new level of play from Emile and he would look far more dangerous. But he was too willing to allow others to take the spotlight and Owen (although a great striker) never really returned the favour to heskey in terms of assists. (you kind of always think of the team in tandem)

I remember his England game against Argentina where he scared the living daylights out of the Argentinian defence. He was very strong and very quick, but he never added that aggressiveness to his game which would make him run at defenders. He was always cautious of taking his man on and was usually found with his back to goal. This is what has always stopped him being prolific.

I feel Heskey has always been a very underrated player and i am glad to see him do well and be valued because he such a modest down to earth guy who was under appreciated at Pool. Here's to hoping Capello can get the best out of his last few years

[Mohamad]

The game is not between England and Kazakh but between Lampard and Gerard.

[Colin Blues]

Essential you must be joking. Heskey is good player when playing well, but far too often for an international player has poor games. It just shows England's lack of quality since Shearer retired in the centre forward position. Goal Scorers like Owen and Defoe are good players, class forwards like Rooney are great to have, but England need a good centre forward and right now they do not have one. Heskey can play a great game one in five 2/3 ok ones but often throws in a howler against the top sides, how can such a player be so important to a supposed top national side????

[Peter Leong]

I think Heskey is essential to England setup but not the most effective or dangerous. Capello needs to think about Plan B when Rooney is not on form who will score for England. I suspect England is doing so well now is more attributed to the pace of Walcott and the striking prowess of England midfielders. Heskey is not new to England and England has not gone beyond Quarter-finals in the last few outings. His goal rate is really pathetic and England need a different setup against the likes of Brazil and Argentina.

[Bryan]

Heskey is an important piece in the jigsaw, but that importance is only effective for Rooney if he has a Tevez/Scholes supplying the through balls and a Ronaldo providing pace out wide and into the box. Against Croatia both Lampard and Walcott began to provide those ingredients and Rooney flourished in an England shirt for the first time in many games.

Yes, I think Mr Capello knows what he is doing.

[Barrie Collins]

The main knock against Heskey is his lack of goals. People assume that scoring is a striker's main stock in trade, and cannot see Heskey's real value because of this.

Heskey's talent though is in putting himself about a bit, and above all his ability to hold onto the ball until the cavalry arrives, and then set up one of his teammates. The opposition cannot ignore him, as he is quite capable of putting the ball in the net if given space.

I've always thought he was a valuable asset to England, and they suffered when he wasn't selected. Definitely somone to build the team around.

[jim]

For now Heskey is the man. But I've got high hopes that Harry Redknapp will work to make sure in the future it's Crouch. If Crouch develops his physical side (though admitedly he's a bit on the light side), he should be able to dominate upfront like Heskey while also providing his better technical skill and goal scoring instinct.

[Jon M]

"So is Capello correct to use one player to bring the best out of another?
That's always been Heskey's job - first Owen, now Rooney"
In club football he's also kept that trick going for throughout his career e.g. Zaki undoubtedly looks a decent player but without Heskey would he currently be looking such a shrewd signing? Going back to his Leicester days he kept a couple of old warhorses banging them in alongside him (Think it was Steve Claridge and a player I have forgot he was that good).

[Joe]

Emile Heskey has always come in for unfair criticism in my opinion. He has always worked hard off the ball for the team, drawing defenders and generally being a real handful. I am sure these are the qualities Capello sees in him. True over the years he has probably underachieved in the goal scoring stakes, but in the modern game with goals coming from all over the team (look at the top English clubs in recent years no out and out stiker bags 30+ in a season anymore) the need for a super striker has diminished. Give the boy a chance, think of him as a vital component within the team rather than expecting him to score a hattrick everytime he puts on an England shirt.

[Grant]

Our striking options are very poor but as long as we have a target man up front to hold the ball up and bring other players into play, the quality of our midfield will carry us forward.
Heskey can not do this. He's such a big lad and yet falls over with the slightest hint of physical contact. He's also awfull in the air for his size.
The only thing I do agree with is that his work rate causes the oposition problems, but you don't need to be a profesional footballer to run around a lot.
Crouch would do a better job than him because although he's not world class, he can hold the ball up and he scores goals.

[Bill]

So is Capello correct to use one player to bring the best out of another?

That's always been Heskey's job - first Owen, now Rooney. No one seemed to complain when he did it for the former what's the beef with him doing it for the latter?

Has Heskey's performance against Croatia made him indispensable within the England side?

No! Capello has proved with his treatment of Owen that's not true of anyone anymore.

Should we have permanently employed him and kept Michael Owen on the sidelines years ago?

You need to ask the lawyer bloke whose name escapes. You know, the one who can look back and accurately predict the outcome of games already played if someone else had played. In fact give him a ring - if he can bung Sheff United 30m for being useless maybe he can get us a back-dated world cup for the same reason.

Or at this level should we expect our strikers to be able to score?

In a nutshell Martin, no. We should expect our team to score. Who through or by what means is irrelevant, so long as they do score - and preferably more than the other lot. If Heskey helps them do that I can't really see any controversy personally.

The trick is that by supporting Rooney instead of Owen; Heskey not only brings the best out of Rooney but also Lampard and the wide-men, and possible Gerrard if he stops whinging long enough to make the bus. Personally I’m really encouraged – I think for the first time since El Tel, we’ve got a manager that’s hell-bent on picking the best team, rather than the simply trying to shoe-horn in the best players.

[Mark]

This point has been discussed many times. The guy does a job, he causes defenders problems and creates space for the more able and creative players around him to score goals. No, he dosn't score many himself but his overall contribution to the team warrant his starting place. This is why he has been and will continue to be picked. Yes, if Owen was in instead he may grab a goal or two but the team's perfromance would be reminiscent of pre-Capello times, disjointed, awkward and unconvincing, as his overall contribution to the team effort is much less.