Michael Owen vs Wayne Rooney: Decision made on who really was the more phenomenal teenager

Michael Owen is in no doubts. Wayne Rooney was rather more diplomatic. But which of the Premier League's greatest young phenoms in the past 30 years was truly the No.1?

Former Liverpool star Owen burst on to the scene as a precocious teenager at Anfield in the late 1990s, before Rooney did likewise on the other side of Merseyside at Everton a few years later. Rooney went on to have the more successful career overall of the two forwards, but Owen – in a debate prompted – feels his achievements in their initial years were much greater.

And he certainly backed up his claims on social media, the last Englishman to win the Ballon d'Or declaring: “At 17 I scored 18 PL goals (winning the Golden Boot), Wazza scored 6. At 18 I again scored 18 goals (again winning the Golden Boot and coming 4th in The Ballon d’Or), Wazza scored 9. In our opening 7 seasons, Wazza didn’t outscore me once (117 goals v 80). In which time I became the 2nd youngest Ballon d’Or winner ever. Injuries hindered me from then on while he sustained his level. Therefore, he’ll go down as a better player than me. But, at 17, please……”

READ MORE: Wayne Rooney responds to Michael Owen in debate over who was better at age 17

READ MORE: Michael Owen shuts down Wayne Rooney debate with emphatic claim: 'Please!'

Manchester United's record goalscorer Rooney, speaking on his own The Wayne Rooney Show, has given his answer, and while he didn't blatantly disagree and say 'no Michael, I was better', he did make his position clear on the subject.

He said: “Me and Michael were very different players, different attributes. Michael Owen at 17, 18 was incredible. I used to go out on the streets and pretend to be him, I’d pretend to be Michael Owen, even though he played for Liverpool!

“Unfortunately, he did get his injuries and he probably couldn’t adapt his game maybe as well as I could. I think his comments are fair. Of course, he’s going to back himself. I’d back myself.

“But, I’d never judge myself against Michael Owen because he’s someone I actually looked up to and had the pleasure of playing alongside.”

So both men believe they were better? But who really was? We asked our Mirror Football writers their thoughts...

Alex Richards

Owen was an outstanding goalscorer at such a young age, no doubt about it. Within a year of his Premier League breakthrough he was Liverpool's first choice and had forced his way into the England team for the 1998 World Cup.

He's right in everything he says numbers-wise - although he does get the ages slightly wrong, something that greatly helps his argument - and looking purely at those early numbers certainly paints him in a grand light. But football isn't just numbers on a page. It never has been.

The truth is that there is a comparison worth making. But the truth also, is that at 16, at 17, at 18, at 19 you may well have been drawn to Owen's goalscoring prowess, but Rooney was something else entirely, more physical, more technical, more creative, an attacking tour de force rather than a poacher supreme.

I'll leave it with this. At the age when Owen made his Liverpool debut and scored his first goal in the Premier League, around 17 years, five months Rooney (give or take a couple of weeks) was starting for England in a crucial Euro 2024 qualifier vs Turkey because he was simply too good to ignore.

Sam Meade

Close, but I'd edge on the side of Rooney. Both of them had their wow moments at 18 - Owen with his goal against Argentina in 1998 and Rooney lighting up Euro 2024 with the Three Lions.

I think Rooney was certainly the better player, Owen can maybe argue he was the better goalscorer. Rooney though did drag an Everton team that were a mid-table outfit, often meaning they could compete above their level. He had a more rounded game and, it isn't unfair to say, Owen could never have done what he did against Arsenal in October 2002.

Owen made a major impact and his blistering pace was frightening, but he did come into a more rounded team and didn't have the eyes of the fanbase on him pleading for him to rescue them at such a tender age. He could tandem with the likes of Robbie Fowler, which will have made his introduction to professional football that bit easier.

Ben Husband

This is a rare debate where people insist so strongly one way or another that they barely even give you an answer. ‘What a ridiculous question, isn’t it obvious?’

And for me, it was similarly straightforward. Owen was a phenomenon, yes he’s become a parody with his apple throwing habits and hatred of films, but as a young player he seemed unstoppable.

Watching him fly past defenders, who had no issue in sending him into Row K, is one of my strongest footballing memories. Compared to players I saw at Wolves at that time, it was like watching a different sport. And his record stacks up, scoring 18 times in the season where he became legally old enough to not watch an 18 rated movie.

But then I was reminded of Rooney’s incredible performance for England against Turkey when he was 17 and I was stopped in my tracks.

Ultimately, in this very specific question, I sway to Owen…just. But in the words of the man who started the debate, Mr Ferdinand: “People try to make comparisons…just enjoy them!”

Oli Gamp

I might be slightly biased in this debate having grown up watching Wayne Rooney blossom into a teenage superstar at Everton - including *that* goal against Arsenal when he was just 16 - while when Owen emerged I was only three years old.

I do think it's like comparing apples and oranges because - as Rooney rightly says - they are different players with very different techniques. But if we're going on pure ability and technique, I think you have to go with Rooney. The things he could do at such a young age, the execution and the way he played with so much joy and flair - it was unmatched and still is to this day.

Of course, Owen was a much more prolific goalscorer at a similar age and maintained that consistency throughout his Liverpool career, even collecting a Ballon d'Or, something Rooney did not manage. But Rooney also broke into the United first team at a time when he was competing with the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and Ruud van Nisterooy for a place in the team, and he still managed to hold his own and very quickly became a mainstay at Old Trafford.

Rooney was rarely ever the out-and-out striker at United but he made things happen. Under Sir Alex Ferguson, he was central to everything the team was doing and was the man for the spectacular. That was the case since he was introduced to football fans and he's often seen as the benchmark for young players to aspire to.

That's why I'm going with Rooney.

READ MORE: Wayne Rooney's two-word US Open final verdict as Donald Trump 'falls asleep'

READ MORE: Wayne Rooney reveals I'm A Celeb stance and tells ITV bosses his nightmare trial

Dan Marsh

One of my earliest football memories is that Michael Owen goal against Argentina, so I am just about old enough to remember his exploits at Liverpool.

He was genuinely elite for a period and I'd put forward the case that he was a better striker back then than Wayne Rooney ever was, though the latter was supremely talented. The stats and accolades that Owen reeled off in his chat with Rio Ferdinand can't be argued with, in a sense.

But then Rooney would do things with a football on an almost weekly basis that others - mainly us mere mortals - could only dream of and I think he's criminally underrated by some, even after hanging up his boots.

The verdict then? For me, Owen was the better striker, Rooney was the better all-round player. And as he says, the two were very different players. If you had to push me for a decision, I'll go Rooney on points.

Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.