Liverpool FC Forum

[Kharhaz]

Rafas quotes of english managers sitting in an office rather than be out on the pitch baffles me. How many managers do that nowadays?
Also how many games do the top clubs play per week? 2? 3 at the most. If there were 3 games a week then yes rotation would be necessary but his quote of his players getting tired, if this really is the case then why doesnt he just lower what is expected of them in training so there not as tired come match days?

EDITED ! why did I put rather be sat in an office rather than be sat in an office ? I need help

[redtrader74]

But if he wasnt a stubborn old goat and swallowed his pride now and again holds his hands up and says Hey I got it wrong.
Maybe a lot of people in their critisim's would be a lot kinder and say fair play.

Sorry Ciggy, but if he were to say that the media would run riot, and then if he repeated the same thing later, for reasons unknown to the world, they and the fans would rip into him even more.

No top class manager would do this. I read somewhere that whenever Shankly lost a game it was never his or the teams fault, always bad decisions by the ref, poor pitch or the opposition cheated.

[account deleted by request]

No top class manager would do this. I read somewhere that whenever Shankly lost a game it was never his or the teams fault, always bad decisions by the ref, poor pitch or the opposition cheated.

I think Shankly said that to help the moral of the team not to hide his mistakes. He told them they were the best team in the world and they believed him, and then went out and played as if they were.

Today I agree for a manager to say he got it wrong to that extent, would almost certainly finish him. The media would have a field day if Rafa turned round and said rotation doesn't work.

[bigmick]

I might just be me, but over the last few days you have gone from reasoned poster, to talking utter sarcastic BO77@cks. Nobody has said anything like this post.

I don't do internet firewars and I'm not going to start with you Red.

The summary of the "pro rotationalists" stance was meant to be a slightly tongue in cheek appraisal of all their views. I agree that nobody has claimed all of these things.

I actually agree that all our problems are not down to one thing, although it is the main contributory factor in my opinion. I've lost count of the number of occasions that I've said that a football team is made up of lots of little things, parts which work together and the smallest little thing alters the balance. That "thing" can be the tiniest little occurance so it therefore stands to reason that I think wholesale alterations to the starting line up aren't going to help in the quest for balance and fluidity.

You also seem to be determined to bring a changing with the tides element into my stance. I can assure there isn't one. I simply try my best to conduct a reasoned argument whereby other peoples points of view are at least given consideration. I accepted that we took our foot off the peddle in the league last season. I accepted it because it was obvious and denying it would be silly. Clearly we would have finsihed closer had our lives depended it, I accepted this as well. I did as I remember ask the question of how close exactly on another thread where I theoritically whittled the lead down to 12 points and asked if people agreed with this and thought it was a fair reflection of our capabilities last season. I don't really see there is an inconsistency with what I'm saying now.

The original post was all about the various slurs which people who want to support the rotation Rafa style thing have resorted to in their desperation to maintain some sort of footballing moral high ground. People are perfectly entitled to be in favour of  the way Rafa is going about things (as they are very fond of telling us, perfectly correctly I might add, he knows more about football than any of us) but I wish they wouldn't constantly seek to belittle and pigeon hole those of us who think it is a nonsense.

If it's not tabloid reading Andy Gray followers, it's "but you can't play the same team every week". If it's not those, it's the stoic refusal to engage in any kind of sensible debate (can anybody in all seriousness, hand on heart, really believe that when you alter the starting line-up like we have it has absolutely no effect on fluency, cohesion and rhythm whatsoever?).

Sooner or later we will all have to accept that we were right/wrong about the whole Rafastyle rotation debate. Now I know you'll jump on that "ah you're covering your erse again Mick, all this rafastyle rotation. Ha ha a couple of weeks ago you were saying no to any kind of rotation". But you see, it's not a back track at all. I'm advocating playing your best team in every game bar the Carling Cup wherever possible. As injuries come, as players get tired, as players play sh!te and get dropped (jeez there's a concept which has gone out of fashion eh?) then you alter the team. Only by a maximum, an absolute maximum of a couple of players per match though if possible.

If you drag up the "time for some rotation thread" I'm sure I almost certainly talked about rafa getting rotation out of his system against Birmingham. I actually do/did think it was an ideal game to try out a couple of things. Trouble is/was that as we had messed around in earlier games and lost our momentum somewhat, we got a bit unhinged. My suspicion is that the concept of each game leading into another and momentum being crucial is another where I would differ with most of the people on your side of the fence. It's fair enough though, we're allowed to disagree and it doesn't mean either of us are idiots.

If only those who fully support rafa and the way he changes the team would at least accept that it is completely at odds with accepted wisdom, what has gone before and what is going on now at every other club in England the debate would be a better one. At least accept that those who do doubt the mantra have at least the right to do so, that it doesn't instantly render them completely clueless, and we are half way there to not having to insult each other.

Like I said earlier, if Rafa doesn't change his method then we will be seeing before long who is calling it right. At least accept that if he does succeed with this level of altering the team it will be a first in England.

[Kharhaz]

I don't do internet firewars and I'm not going to start with you Red.

Top attitude. I also give my arguments and receive my fair share of critics. If someone starts an argument I tend to leave this site and do something else unlike you who gives a great response to the argument.
Hats off to ya.

[112-1077774096]

well if only it was a 'blip' as taff suggests, it just seems to be a recurring blip a few times every season, and i know why, other know why, now its up to the stubborn people to realise why and we can move forward

[redtrader74]

I was not intending on starting a firewar, just pointing out that you seem to be putting all blame on 'R' when before you were willing to explore other factors.

The summary of the "pro rotationalists" stance was meant to be a slightly tongue in cheek appraisal of all their views.

Is that not exactly what my mildest of 'abuse' just said? Apologies if it offended.

I accepted that we took our foot off the peddle in the league last season. I accepted it because it was obvious and denying it would be silly. Clearly we would have finsihed closer had our lives depended it, I accepted this as well. I did as I remember ask the question of how close exactly on another thread where I theoritically whittled the lead down to 12 points and asked if people agreed with this and thought it was a fair reflection of our capabilities last season. I don't really see there is an inconsistency with what I'm saying now

You accept it, understand it, and then still chose to use it as a stick to beat Rafa with in that post. That is the inconsistency imo. Tongue in cheek or not.

but I wish they wouldn't constantly seek to belittle and pigeon hole those of us who think it is a nonsense.

You mean by calling anyone who suggests another possible reason for our failings 'happy clappy', 'rose tinted', 'in Rafa we trust brigade', 'Blind faith Rafa is God followers'

Or if there is there is the slightest defence of R then you must be pro 7 change rotationalists. Yeah you're right this pidgeon holed belittling is cr@p.

can anybody in all seriousness, hand on heart, really believe that when you alter the starting line-up like we have it has absolutely no effect on fluency, cohesion and rhythm whatsoever?).

Another example of misrepresentation, nobody has said otherwise, at least i have not read it. There may be disagreements as to the degree of the effect, and whether the actual  benefit of a change in selection may off-set it, but that exaggerated point has not been used imo. The argument as i understand it has been that during training and match play they will have built up a bank of knowledge on each other and a few changes should not have disrupted the team to the level you believe. Or i suppose you could read that as 'there will be no effect at all' if you like.

im advocating playing your best team in every game bar the Carling Cup 

against Birmingham. I actually do/did think it was an ideal game to try out a couple of things.

Which is it? I suppose its not quite that simple after all. My gripe is that imho a lot of posters fall in between the two stools (although i suppose it's all sh!t), but to put all reason for the recent performances on rotation ( I had said before that you were willing to consider others) is simplistic, and without evidence, just anecdotal. Yes one day or another we will have to accept Rafa was right or wrong, again not necessarily that Rotation failed, but that either Rafas methods, of which rotation is only part of, succeeded or failed.

[Kharhaz]

Looking at all the comments in all the topics raised post OM I look at it in my own attitude. My attitude is simple. If I was payed £1 to play for Liverpool in any match I would play and give it my all. Rafa wasnt to blame the other night in my opinion, the players were. Maybe, just maybe, by giving the key players improved contracts after the ones they recently signed have elevated them to "God" status.

[bigmick]

Ah Red we are going to have to agree to differ I think. Not only do we disagree on the way Rafa is carrying on, but our individual interpretions on how the debate is being conducted on the forum is different also. I'm not going to go over every point with quotes because I don't know how to do it, but here goes.

I accept the fact that we took our foot off the pedal, but think the fact that we were out of the League title race after probably six games is a legitimate thing to complain about IMO. It's not about beating Rafa with a stick, but I do have a desire this season to finish as close as we can. 
Happy Clappy is not one of mine though I have used it a couple of times. I don't think I've ever used any of the others though of course I may well be wrong. I'm not sure I've ever read the term "pro 7 change rotationalist" but agian I may be wrong.
The bit about rotation on the scale we practice having no effect on fluency whatsoever is not a figment of my imagination. I have asked the question of the pro's on a number of occasions to what extent they feel the cohesion of the team is effected, and the only one I can recall accepted "to a small extent" there was an effect was Sabre. If, as you appear to be now accepting (and if you accepted it earlier but forgive me I didn't see it) there is a disruption to cohesion caused by changes to the team, the obvious question is by how much but I guess that is for another thread.
The last two points don't in my view represent a contradiction, (although taken literally they obviously do). FWIW I wouldn't have a huge problem with rotating against Derby Away, or Sunderland at Home either. Fair enough though, if you take the two statements literally there is a contradiction there.

One thing I have tried to do as the debate has developed is to constantly define my position as new arguments come into the mix. Rather than get involved in petty squabbles with the pro's like yourself Red, I'd be interested to know where you guys stand currrently.

Do you think that the extent we have changed the team has had a detrimental effect on the way the team is playing, if so how much? If not, why not?
Do you think that there will be gains to be had at the end of the season due to the players getting some rest right now, or do you think that the gains could be more short term? Are we paying a price for the gains right now, and if we are is it a price worth paying?
Do you have an idea of where you would consider the team finishing in the League to be a decent effort? Are there any concieveable occurances (being absolutely ridiculous about it, say we got relegated    ) whereby you would reconsider your stance?
Do you think the number of changes we have made so far is about right, or maybe a bit OTT?

Now I've made my stance fairly clear on all of the above. I've done (as you are no doubt painfully aware) tonnes of posts on the subject so if you look ghard enough you'll find a contradiction or two on the subject. My suspicion is though that if you do read through you'll find that in the main, over the last couple of years I've been a fairly consistent opponent of changing the team too much.

[muzodziwa]

Finishing 2nd is satisfactory and looking at the competitiveness of the league this term, i do not see a 15 point margin between finishing first and second.There is a lot that is coming this term, having watched the likes of Man City, Everton, Aston Villa, Portsmouth, Blackburn, and a Spurs that is capable of defending, West Ham and Newcastle; and it does not come any better than this Sunday to start to make realistic predictions of where and what we will become in the league this season.

Fact: We have had one bad result in the league so far, Birmingham; simply because its one of the lower tier teams who are content in having a point against the top six teams. It is understandable for their sole purpose is to survive relegation. Against such a team we should have won and won convincingly. Many people have alluded to the exclusion of Torres as the major cause of our downfall against such a side as Birmingham, I differ, any team that Liverpool puts out at Anfield should beat Birmingham; if Torres is excluded in a game like Portsmouth then all the criticism on selection is valid but against birmingham in all honest we should have won comfortably but we didnt, hence our major problem of the season. It is not determinant solely to influence our position in the league but it is a huge dent to our title aspirations and indeed for now it is still a dent.

We have to be honest here, it is only a dent because of the indifferent start Chelsea and Man U have had this season and where it Man U who had started like Arsenal we would be talking of a write off instead of a dent. IMO Arsenal do not have the depth to survive the marathon considering they have the African Nations Cup unlike Chelsea who can afford another first team in the January transfer window.

So, we have messed up once, thank God Chelsea and Man U have messed up as well hence we are still competing. No matter how hopeful we have been a point at Fratton Park is not something we can take foregranted, despite the fact that Pompey were awful that day, a point a Fratton Park is what matters, other teams will struggle there and if they dont villa park will be waiting and we have already passed the hurdle. With this in mind, im optimistic, a good solid start though it could have been better. 

Our camp needs sorting out and fast for that matter; I am not going to blame Rafa's coaching method for i believe 100% that he is the gaffer but Rafa needs to sort out this mess asap. It will be naive for me to rumble about rotation especially after reading posts on this forum so i will leave that but what i know and that is FACT the buck stops with Rafa. Great men have always stood up in adversity and history remembers them, and for Mr Benitez this is your time to shine starting this Sunday.

[redtrader74]

First of all i have accepted that there COULD be disruption to the team with lots of changes, and that Rafa must know that too, but the extent to which it does is where we differ. I have before today also said that the manager may be willing to take an educated gamble when doing so, and might believe that the qualities of the change in personnel may off-set the effect of change in selection, but don't expect anyone to read my rambling let alone remember them.  Maybe its the supporter in me that responds, i don't like my team and manager being harshly criticised, and it clears that others don't either, as we have all witnessed when another teams wum turns up on the forum.

The belittling terms were not directed at you, it was just a case of showing that it goes both ways, and once you(generic) argue a point/offer another angle, then you are put into a camp, as you have by calling me a pro, and something i have also fallen into. To argue the merits of rotation or to suggest, god forbid, some other or additional reason other than rotation, is to put yourself up for be pro-rotation and therefore you automatically agree with 11 changes a game (my turn for tongue in cheek, well at least 5-6-7).

Do you think that the extent we have changed the team has had a detrimental effect on the way the team is playing, if so how much? If not, why not?

I have already said that any changes will have an effect to the way the team performs, some will be positive others negative.If the temperature drops massively on Sunday it will have an effect on the way the team plays, and whether i sing as much, thereby reducing crowd noise and atmosphere. I believe all things count, to a greater or lesser extent. The heavy changes from the Chelsea game to the CL qualifier didn't seem to have a detrimental effect, nor the changes for the Derby game, Or maybe they did and we would have won by far more.

Do you think that there will be gains to be had at the end of the season due to the players getting some rest right now, or do you think that the gains could be more short term? Are we paying a price for the gains right now, and if we are is it a price worth paying?

I think it is quite clear that by resting players there will be gains to have at the end of the season, as they should be physically and mentally less fatigued than teams that choose not to rotate. Whether they actually have a trophy to play for....we will have to see. We could be paying for those gains right now, ALTHOUGH its not set in stone that had Torres played against Brum, or Pompey that we would have won, as has been indicated to often. The price of losing points is never worth paying, whatever the reason for it. It has to be conceded that the teams sent out should have been good enough to win the last few games, and that is the informed gamble each manager takes when resting/ rotating players, but again i will say that it is too simplistic (and impossible) to say that the rotation policy is ENTIRELY at fault. Some you win....

Do you have an idea of where you would consider the team finishing in the League to be a decent effort? Are there any concieveable occurances (being absolutely ridiculous about it, say we got relegated    ) whereby you would reconsider your stance?

TOP TWO, i think atm the sqaud is strong enough to expect that.
The second part i don't get...my stance, what to look at all feasible explainations for results? To think that rotation is a helpful tool? Nothing would alter that. If we finished outside the top four, i guess i would have to look at Rafa.... and then managerial style will have failed, of which ONE part is rotation. I guess in that instance you could consider that he failed to motivate, wasn't approachable, bought poorly, failed tactically, rotated too much etc.etc.etc. AS YOU SAID THERE ARE MANY VARIABLES THAT GO TOWARDS DETERMINING A RESULT OF A FOOTBALL MATCH.

Do you think the number of changes we have made so far is about right, or maybe a bit OTT?

Personally i think that when you have injuries, and especially to players that you do not have like for like replacements, Alonso, Gerrard, Agger, that it is not a good idea to exaccerbate any effect  by making additional changes. When you look at the figures the number of changes so far does seem excessive. the thing to note is that in the league we have generally played our strongest available team. Bar Torres starting against Pompy and Brum.( Gerrard was carrying an injury at Pompey so i will excuse him not starting).

Couple of question for you MIck if you haven't dozed off!

As it was we rotated all through our Champoins league winning season, FA cup season, CL final(2007)...do you think that rotation of players helped in any way to getting us to the final and that it proved useful at least then....or was it a waste of time?

The game against Marseille, i don't know if you've seen it, but ignoring my opinion, the consensus was that there was a lack of effort, that the players (in particular Sissoko, Crouch) couldn't trap the ball, that our passing was abysmal, even with clear ground and a player to look at. So i would ask, as this is not a lack of fluency or cohesion why would rotation have caused this?

Anyway i'm off to bed, my brain is frazzled having spent the whole day trying to avoid capital gains tax, and having had a few beers earlier.

[LFC2007]

That was a nail on the head post red.

[Bad Bob]

First of all i have accepted that there COULD be disruption to the team with lots of changes, and that Rafa must know that too, but the extent to which it does is where we differ. I have before today also said that the manager may be willing to take an educated gamble when doing so, and might believe that the qualities of the change in personnel may off-set the effect of change in selection, but don't expect anyone to read my rambling let alone remember them.  Maybe its the supporter in me that responds, i don't like my team and manager being harshly criticised, and it clears that others don't either, as we have all witnessed when another teams wum turns up on the forum.

The belittling terms were not directed at you, it was just a case of showing that it goes both ways, and once you(generic) argue a point/offer another angle, then you are put into a camp, as you have by calling me a pro, and something i have also fallen into. To argue the merits of rotation or to suggest, god forbid, some other or additional reason other than rotation, is to put yourself up for be pro-rotation and therefore you automatically agree with 11 changes a game (my turn for tongue in cheek, well at least 5-6-7).

Do you think that the extent we have changed the team has had a detrimental effect on the way the team is playing, if so how much? If not, why not?

I have already said that any changes will have an effect to the way the team performs, some will be positive others negative.If the temperature drops massively on Sunday it will have an effect on the way the team plays, and whether i sing as much, thereby reducing crowd noise and atmosphere. I believe all things count, to a greater or lesser extent. The heavy changes from the Chelsea game to the CL qualifier didn't seem to have a detrimental effect, nor the changes for the Derby game, Or maybe they did and we would have won by far more.

Do you think that there will be gains to be had at the end of the season due to the players getting some rest right now, or do you think that the gains could be more short term? Are we paying a price for the gains right now, and if we are is it a price worth paying?

I think it is quite clear that by resting players there will be gains to have at the end of the season, as they should be physically and mentally less fatigued than teams that choose not to rotate. Whether they actually have a trophy to play for....we will have to see. We could be paying for those gains right now, ALTHOUGH its not set in stone that had Torres played against Brum, or Pompey that we would have won, as has been indicated to often. The price of losing points is never worth paying, whatever the reason for it. It has to be conceded that the teams sent out should have been good enough to win the last few games, and that is the informed gamble each manager takes when resting/ rotating players, but again i will say that it is too simplistic (and impossible) to say that the rotation policy is ENTIRELY at fault. Some you win....

Do you have an idea of where you would consider the team finishing in the League to be a decent effort? Are there any concieveable occurances (being absolutely ridiculous about it, say we got relegated    ) whereby you would reconsider your stance?

TOP TWO, i think atm the sqaud is strong enough to expect that.
The second part i don't get...my stance, what to look at all feasible explainations for results? To think that rotation is a helpful tool? Nothing would alter that. If we finished outside the top four, i guess i would have to look at Rafa.... and then managerial style will have failed, of which ONE part is rotation. I guess in that instance you could consider that he failed to motivate, wasn't approachable, bought poorly, failed tactically, rotated too much etc.etc.etc. AS YOU SAID THERE ARE MANY VARIABLES THAT GO TOWARDS DETERMINING A RESULT OF A FOOTBALL MATCH.

Do you think the number of changes we have made so far is about right, or maybe a bit OTT?

Personally i think that when you have injuries, and especially to players that you do not have like for like replacements, Alonso, Gerrard, Agger, that it is not a good idea to exaccerbate any effect  by making additional changes. When you look at the figures the number of changes so far does seem excessive. the thing to note is that in the league we have generally played our strongest available team. Bar Torres starting against Pompy and Brum.( Gerrard was carrying an injury at Pompey so i will excuse him not starting).

Couple of question for you MIck if you haven't dozed off!

As it was we rotated all through our Champoins league winning season, FA cup season, CL final(2007)...do you think that rotation of players helped in any way to getting us to the final and that it proved useful at least then....or was it a waste of time?

The game against Marseille, i don't know if you've seen it, but ignoring my opinion, the consensus was that there was a lack of effort, that the players (in particular Sissoko, Crouch) couldn't trap the ball, that our passing was abysmal, even with clear ground and a player to look at. So i would ask, as this is not a lack of fluency or cohesion why would rotation have caused this?

Anyway i'm off to bed, my brain is frazzled having spent the whole day trying to avoid capital gains tax, and having had a few beers earlier.

Absolutely spot on explanation (and a very reasoned and calm one, I might add) of my feelings on the subject as well, mate.  Well done.

With regard to the earlier exchange between yourself and Big Mick, I would suggest that it illustrates how personal this whole discussion has gotten.  We're all invested in the camps we find ourselves in and both sides feel that the other side is being, at best, a bit flippant and, at worst, downright dismissive and insulting.  I know I've felt that indignation when reading some views from across the divide and I'm sure I've caused a similar response with some smug comments of my own.  For that I apologize.  It's not big and it's not clever and it does nothing for the debate.

So, with that said.  I wonder if we can pick this up a different way by looking for the middle ground which, in truth, I think more of us occupy than we all realize.  As Red has said, most of us don't love rotation and hope that we swap 6 players or so each match.  We see it as a tool that Rafa employs to get results.  When it works, as it was doing earlier in the season, we don't worry about it...just like most of the folks on the other side.  When we hit a bad patch, we wonder about it too and ask whether this change or that change really did make sense and whether there is something to this whole thing about fluidity.  But, the absolute key for us "pro" types (at least for me, and by the looks of things, Red) is that it never is the whole reason why we do well or do poorly.  It may hinder more than help sometimes but it's never just rotation alone that brings about poor form.  If we can at least all agree on that, this forum will be a happier place.

Now, on to that middle ground I was speaking of earlier.  In another thread, I urged people to pick their best 11--not as some dig at the anti-rotation camp but as a way of learning just how much consensus there is amongst on with regard to team selection.  I was frankly surprised by the level of agreement, and I think it's fair to say that we had a strong sampling from both sides of the divide.  What it means, I think, is that virtually all of us can identify a strong spine to the team that should not be tinkered with: Reina, Finnan, Carra, Agger, Gerrard and Torres.  Add to that core group a few players that, at the moment, are on almost everyone's ideal teamsheet--Arbeloa, Pennant, Alonso/Mascherano, Kuyt--and you see the nucleus of a side that I think we could all be satisfied with if selected virtually every week.  There is, of course, still the problem area of LM and there may be tactical or other reasons to, say, play Benayoun ahead of Pennant, Aurelio rather than Arbeloa or Crouch and not Kuyt but, the point is, we've identified a strong team.

Now, interestingly, when you look at the teams picked for our seven league matches to date, Rafa's been on the same page.  Reina, Finnan, Carra, Agger, Arbeloa, Pennant, Gerrard, Alonso, Kuyt and Torres have played the vast majority of our league games.  He's pretty much restricted his tinkering to the LM position (each game), the strike partnership (each game) and one fullback position (occasionally).  To me, that's largely sensible since--Torres aside--none of our left midfielders and strikers have been especially convincing yet.  I think Rafa's weighing up his options.

Ahh, but here's the rub--interspersed with all of these league games have been the Champions League and Carling Cup games.  Now, before the season--I would like to remind people--the general feeling on here was that, if Rafa simply had to rotate, that he should do so for the cup competitions...including the CL.  Well, guess what?  He's done just that.  He's chopped and changed the line up with abandon for each cup match--sometimes with great results (Toulouse, Reading) and sometimes with poor results (Porto, Marseilles).  (Incidentally, the team he put out to face Marseilles at home was virtually identical to the one that faced Reading away, except that Gerrard played instead of Leiva...I suppose Rafa did consider Marseilles to be the equivalent of a mid-table English club?)

So, this brings me to the real question for the anti-rotationists.  Is this rotating in the Champions League (I think we all are fine with it for the Carling Cup) acceptable?  On the one hand, Rafa seems to be prioritizing the league just like so many supporters demanded before the season.  On the other hand, these significant changes to the team from league match to CL match might just be hampering the fluidity of the team, compounding other problems and leading to poor performances.  I guess, it all comes down to whether you believe that we need to rotate players when moving from the league to the CL in order to keep some gas in the tank for later in the season.  I would have thought that our inability to compete meaningfully on both fronts for each of the last 3 seasons would make chopping and changing in the CL an absolute necessity if we want to focus on the league but perhaps the 'anti' folks feel differently?

[bigmick]

Two absolutely excellent posts from Bob and Red, (both a load of old b0ll0cks obviously ) but good posts nonetheless. I'm at work now so I'm going to consider my response before adding my ten penneth. I like Bob's middle ground idea on first read, I propose we go for two changes evey game then we can all be friends again    No but seriously, it's nice to read some reasoned argument that I can get me teeth into.

[66-1112520797]

That was a good read Redtrader 74.

But I dont neccesarily agree with your justification in defending it mate. Well not quite to the extent you have.

You said it could be "ONE" part of Rafa's failing in the league if it turned out we finnished out of the top four. Look, to be totally honest with you I can see it being the main reason of our failing in the league.

My point is I dont think Rafa has got many flaws in his managerial skills, apart from what is obvious to me, his eagerness to chop and change his teams around. In that lies the character of the man who appears to continue his own methods despite the early alarm bells ringing this season, but not only this season though. So in saying that in some way it goes to show he's not interested in learning IMO from his mistakes I feel. As I remember this time last season alot of us agreed that his rotations of the sides he was sending out week after week were having a detremental effect on the teams results aswell as performances.

Once bitten twice shy would be MY own personal way to try and test things as a manager. For instance, you dont have the time as a football manager at a club like this to try something new, and when its not working persist with it. It didnt work last season, and if the only advantage we got from "rotating" our players last year was the fact we finnished strongly, well TBH with you I cannot see the point considering. We all know we were well and truly out of the title race anyway. And nobody can sit there and say the likes of Rooney and Ronaldo were fatigue as the title season grew into a close, with the trophy in their sight, surely not.

So here we are now, and during the summer we were all asking the question " Will Rafa have learnt from last year with his rotations " Myself thought, yep I cant see him taking that risk again as it didnt work last season, and that the only time we did pick up points and go on a decent run was when he played more or less the same side.

So he started this season I think with two similar sides in the opening fixtures, I thought to myself he is going to settle for a cohesive unit from now on. The international's took place, just as it seemed we'd found a rythmn to our play. The football was slick, and the goals were going in. But like I said international duty possibly disrupted that (but I think theres much more to it than that) Gerrard broke a toe, Torres took a knock. Then heavens forbid when we came back to the bread and butter stuff we looked woeful, and have done since.

Excuses after excuse's too Alonso's injured (do me a favour) Agger's out, f.ucking internatonal's were all banded about. For me its closer to home than that, team selections and rotations IMO underneath all that stuff mentioned before is IMO the main culprit we're finding it hard to get going again.

Now I wasnt bothered believe me about the team selection against Marseillle, I'm happy for him to chop and change in that particular cup. But that game just highlighted for me the negative effect rotation can have on in a team. There was only Aurelio, Leto and Momo I think unforcably brought into the team, and then Beneyoun because Pennant was out. You did say Red I think there was hardly any effort put in amongst those players, didnt you. Which seemed to of higlighted for you the dour performance.
Maybe, isnt it possible to consider the fact they seemed to lack effort is because the players could easily think to themselves, it doesnt matter how bad they play, or how well they play they could easily get rotated. Its like you dont even need to earn the desire in training these days to put on a Red shirt, and IMO none's more evident in the way Crouch comes on for us a sub, miserable looking, dejected and at times not giving his all for the team.

I really do believe rotation has a lot to answer for, because I think it could and possibly would be playing havoc with the players mentality when not being picked, or being picked one week then not. Its interesting as for the world today that we live in and  have all this sports science stuff, could it not be remotely considered a negative side effect that Rotation has on a players mind ? I mean thats the player himself, thats not including the throwing of a bunch of players into a team to go out there and do their stuff.

For me though the attention Rafa recieves about his selections is in my opinion warranted. Even the critisim at times, which is a shame, because I think all the boss needs to do is pull his head in, bite his lip and go with a settled side from now on. Then and only then can I see us honestly challenging for the title, its frustrating because apart from rotation, (and I think it honestly has a bigger effect on the players themselves than most of us seem to think) there isnt too much wrong with the side or the manager and we'd be a lot closer to getting the holy grail.