I'll hazard a guess that if you think Rooney did, you think Cesc did, too. If it's a no for you for Rooney, it's also most likely a no for you for Cesc.
For me, neither of them did.
Accolades were a given for both of them, it's not really the point. The concept of exponential growth from a starting point way, way up in the clouds, which both of them had, lends itself to them being compared to all-time greats in terms of trajectory from the outset. They are never seen as normal players nor is a good or great career for a normal player in keeping with what a good or great career is for them, which is where accolades fall short somewhat when they assessed by those generic markers.
The reality is, Cesc was a genuine marvel at 16, in a position where it's rare and pretty much unheard of for a child to come into the adult game and not only start, but be a key player. Throughout his earlier years, nobody would have been surprised if he went on to be an all-time great who could keep company with any midfielder of his type who had played the game. He didn't meet those standards, ultimately, and ended up falling back in with the pack. That's not to say he had a bad career, obviously. Same as Rooney - by the metric of normal players, not pre-destined for greatness, it'd be an amazing career, but for the both of them, irrespective of trophy cabinets, there will always be the: 'what could have been' question, and rightfully so, imo.
It's easy to acknowledge the duality or dichotomy in young prodigies: some were never destined to be anything but good pros once the rest caught up with them physically, but in others, the need to analyse what 'went wrong' is pretty much intrinsic. It doesn't mean you can't still appreciate what they did manage to do in the game, however.