Neither of them make any sense to me. The second half suggests that "he" beat us even though he could have beaten us more easily. However, the first half suggests that he didn't play in the game at all. If he didn't play, he can't have beaten us. I can't think of a single context in which those could work. Something like this would work:
"If Rooney had played in that match, Spurs could have beaten us more easily".
However, if you apply that information to the original sentences, you get "If Rooney had played in that match, Rooney could have beaten us more easily", which makes no sense.