Liverpool FC Forum

[account deleted by request]

I think the two sides of the rotation argument are a lot closer to agreement than you might imagine. Apart from one or two extremists who seem to muddy the waters, use other more reasonable views to add weight to their argument and condemn anyone who doesn't agree with their view to the pits of hell, I think the majority of posters while having a view would be quite happy with a middle ground of sensible rotation. I dont consider Bigmick or Redtrader extremist posters btw just persistant buggers.

I think most people would agree that 60+ changes and over 30 substitutions in 12 games seems at first glance a little excessive, especially as we made only 118 changes last season (same as Chelsea BTW).

I also believe that no-one expects us to play the same 11 players in all 60+ games this season.

So the problem rather than being pro or anti rotation is really just a question of what is sensible rotation. We all have our own view of what sensible rotation is, but rather than being in seperate camps of "happy clappers" and "fickle fukers" its just a matter of degree.

Who for example thinks we don't rotate enough? That if we rotated more our success would be assured.

[Wilhelmsson]

1) 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.

2) 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. 

3) 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.


4) 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?)

5) 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. 

You’ve raised some very good points in this post, Bob. I would like to address a few:

1) I can’t speak for everyone here, but from what I have read on this forum, only a small percentage of people believe rotation is solely to blame for some of our woes this season.

I, myself believe that 67 changes in 12 matches and over thirty substitutions has had negative repercussions on our recent form. Surely people who support the notion of rotation (I’m included in this) will be able to see that such mass changes effects the coherence, continuity, balance and rhythm of the players?

The poor form lies at the manager’s door and at the player’s door, the players need to be performing on the pitch and getting the results consistently. The manager needs to make life a little easier for the players and benching a player who is on top form does little to aid this player’s continuing form and does little in the way of getting the best out of his team.

I’m all for rotation, Bob, providing it is needed, in terms of fatigue, injury and suspension. IMO Benitez focuses too much on the opposition and selects his team based on the opposition’s strengths and weaknesses, instead of his own team’s strengths. IMO this is just as much a problem as his mass rotation policy and the player’s poor form as of late.

It will also be a happier place if a few members kept their language at a reasonable level instead of constantly using profanities at people who do not share their view. They belong in the ‘In Rafa We Trust’ Camp.

2) The second paragraph I have been reading makes for an interesting read, Bob, it would seem from your own individual research that most members who contributed to your topic are in agreement about the spine of the team and the fact it should not be altered with.

From my own research, I remember there being disagreements about the spine of the team and some believed that it was perfectly acceptable to leave Torres on the bench and Gerrard on the bench for certain matches, whilst others (including myself) had contrasting opinions.

The Portsmouth and Birmingham topics highlight this and more importantly the discussion you and I had with regards to the Portsmouth match where I raised the point that Babel, Gerrard and Torres did not show any signs of fatigue from their International travels and should have started.

You disagreed with me and your opinion IIRC was something along the lines of ‘Gerrard is just recovering from an broken metatarsal (I hope that’s the correct injury or I’ll look like an absolute fool), Torres was tired from flying out to Albania and was carrying a knock and Babel isn’t critical enough to cement a first team place within the squad.  It was hardly an agreement of opinions on the spine of the team. I wanted to see a full strength team playing against Portsmouth as Fratton Park is a fortress in its own right and you wanted the players to be rotated and rested. I would have been in sole agreement with you, had Torres, Gerrard and Babel should signs of fatigue and injury both in their International fixtures and their club fixture with Portsmouth.

3) You use the word tinker, correct if I’m wrong, but didn’t you screw at someone for using the word tinker or was it someone else? I don’t want to come across as pedantic, but for someone who supporters rotation (as you seem to, of course I could be wrong) than isn’t tinkering the wrong phrase to use? IMO Rafa has been tinkering with the striker force and this has caused the most upset, because the team has gone from scoring a brace to struggling to find the net. 0-0 with Portsmouth, 1-1 with Porto, 1-0 Wigan and 0-1 Marseille such scorelines do not warrant the constant chop and changing which has gone into the strike force. 

The most notable high scoring result was against Reading when surprise, surprise Torres played, that’s not to say that Torres should be relied on as our main source of goals, but the lad is clearly our main goal threat this season, so to play the likes of Voronin and Kuyt together whilst leaving Torres on the bench does not make sense IMO.

Rafa should have weighed up his options in July/August, during pre-season. If he is weighing his options up as the team enters October than I for one am slightly concerned.

4) He has made 67 changes in 12 matches and over 30 substitutions, so whilst Rafa has been chopping and changing in cup competitions he has yet to play an unnamed side, when that side had played excellently the match before? There is too much change and not enough continuity IMO. There needs to be a balance between the two. I can see the logic behind rotation, but IMO Rafa is showing little or no logic behind his rotation, other than selecting his team solely on the opposition’s strengths and weaknesses.

5) Rotating between competitions is fine as long as it’s sensible rotation for example if the team drew Preston North End, then I wouldn’t advocate the need of a full strength starting eleven. For example when Porto comes to Anfield, I would expect the starting eleven to be strong, but not necessarily the strongest starting eleven. This of course is valid if the team is destined for the knock out stages.

You raise a good point, perhaps such significant changes do have an adverse effect on the side, and I haven’t given this enough thought, so thanks for opening my eyes to this Bob, it’s much appreciated. IMO, a strong squad is needed for both the Champions League and the league. Of course it depends who the team faces, for example if the team was to draw Rosenborg in R16 and the team won 3-1 away, then I would advocate a weakened side for the home leg, as the team is more than likely going to go through to the next round.

In the Premiership, if a struggling relegation battlers came to town for the afternoon, than a slightly weakened squad is more than acceptable. What’s not acceptable IMO is making mass changes away from home or making mass changes so early into the season. When mass rotation works, it works, when it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work and so far this season, the fans have seen both sides of the coin. Is it worth the risk? I don’t believe so, I’m all for slight changes, such as Benayoun for Pennant etc, but I don’t like seeing six or seven changes a match.

As for the last paragraph or your post, rotation is needed, but not on the sheer scale that Benitez uses it. Rotation is a necessity, I’ve never disputed this point, but continuity is also a necessity and there needs to be a balance. IMO the balance is not there and the team is not reaping the rewards of rotation. Every manager and team rotates, Arsenal rotate, MU rotate, Chelsea rotate, yet much of the changes these teams make are at home against weaker opposition. Ferguson and Wenger for the most part play a strong squad during away matches; they don’t make seven changes a match or 67 changes in 12 matches.

Rotation is useful and IMO needed, but like everything if it’s not used in moderation it more often than not becomes fatal, and fatal in terms of the teams league and European aspirations.

(Sorry for such a long winded post)

[Anfield rapper]

I just can't accept this "its early" argument any more. It was early on in the season 3 years ago, 2 years ago and last season when it started going wrong and we just don't seem to be learning as a result of it. After the first few results we looked good then at Pompey Porto and against Brum we looked absolutely cr*p and were very lucky to get draws out of 2 of them.

[Smeg]

and ability to make our best player feel unwanted back that up.

Who would that be? And please don't say Peter Crouch.

Steven Gerrard lad.

Why dya think he nearly left?

[Sabre]

and ability to make our best player feel unwanted back that up.

Who would that be? And please don't say Peter Crouch.

Steven Gerrard lad.

Why dya think he nearly left?

I don't know. But I remember all the doubts about his future were dispelled after the champions league victory, so, back then I thought (interperetation again) he realised that he needed go nowhere to win titles, that he could do so in his beloved club.

I think that's the reason, because another scouser said here something similar, he came to Spain in order to win titles despite he loved his former club so much. He made a bad move.

We can try to interpret players faces, or gestures, or try to understand what's inside their minds, but at the end of the day the facts are the contracts, and all the important players are stamping their sign in lenghty contracts. It doesn't seem to me players that are not comfortable do that, especially when half europe would wish to sign them up.

Smeg, it's a fact that Barcelona knocked the door of Arsenal and Henry left. It's a fact that Cesc didn't leave the club because he didn't want to let down the manager who asked him personally to stay. But he will come back to Spain in the near future (there are quotes). In our club instead, we didn't lose any of our key players when Real Madrid and Barcelona knocked their doors. Surely, that's a point for Rafa's management?



P.S. On the rotation thing, I was a bit surprised when I saw a bit more tension (not much) than usual in this thread. I thought the debate we were reading this days was intense, but never realised it might be offending people.

During a discussion, one side can bring a football authority to back his points, for instance by saying "McMahon says rotations are cráp". But I didn't take that as "you're a fool for thinking otherwise", it's just elements that are brought to a discussion, just the same way the other camp brought Rafa's awards. We simply must not forget we're fans, we like the same club, and we agree more than we disagree often.

Maybe, instead of discussing the rotation in multiple threads, we could discuss it in a separate thread? that way, the people that want to comment other things wouldn't find the eternal debate in multiple threads, and the "debationist" can discuss it in a single thread.

[Bad Bob]

Okay, the dialogue is getting better now but there's still a few things I need to clarify.  So, I'll go point by point.

1) I can’t speak for everyone here, but from what I have read on this forum, only a small percentage of people believe rotation is solely to blame for some of our woes this season.

Fair enough.  It's more of a reaction to some of the posts that appear in match threads immediately after a poor performance that run along the lines of "FFS, Rafa this rotation stuff is killing us!!!"  It gives the impression that rotation is the only thing that  did us in and that Rafa is solely to blame for every poor match but it's probably just a heat of the moment reaction so I'll let it go.

I, myself believe that 67 changes in 12 matches and over thirty substitutions has had negative repercussions on our recent form. Surely people who support the notion of rotation (I’m included in this) will be able to see that such mass changes effects the coherence, continuity, balance and rhythm of the players?

You know, I'd still need to calculate this number myself to be fully convinced but, assuming it's right for a second, than yes I would say that that's a bit high for my liking.  Having said that, I also think it's important to recognize that the number reflects changes from one match to the next which, at this point in the season, means changes from one competition to the next (from the Prem to the Champions League or Carling Cup etc.).  This gets at the heart of my question about Rafa's rotation policy which I asked last night: does Rafa's strategy of rotating for cup competitions have merit or does it hurt our league form?  More on that below...

The poor form lies at the manager’s door and at the player’s door, the players need to be performing on the pitch and getting the results consistently. The manager needs to make life a little easier for the players and benching a player who is on top form does little to aid this player’s continuing form and does little in the way of getting the best out of his team.

I Absolutely agree with that--both sides need to share the blame.

I’m all for rotation, Bob, providing it is needed, in terms of fatigue, injury and suspension. IMO Benitez focuses too much on the opposition and selects his team based on the opposition’s strengths and weaknesses, instead of his own team’s strengths. IMO this is just as much a problem as his mass rotation policy and the player’s poor form as of late.

I'd also agree with that.  As I've said many times now, I was match more content to see Torres rested against Portsmouth than not played against Birmingham.  Why?  Because there was a fitness issue against Portsmouth due to the internationals while the tactical decision not to play Torres against Birmingham--if we take the gaffer's explanation at face value--gives them way too much respect.

It will also be a happier place if a few members kept their language at a reasonable level instead of constantly using profanities at people who do not share their view. They belong in the ‘In Rafa We Trust’ Camp.

I agree.  There's been far too much abusive posting and flame wars of late.

2) The second paragraph I have been reading makes for an interesting read, Bob, it would seem from your own individual research that most members who contributed to your topic are in agreement about the spine of the team and the fact it should not be altered with.

From my own research, I remember there being disagreements about the spine of the team and some believed that it was perfectly acceptable to leave Torres on the bench and Gerrard on the bench for certain matches, whilst others (including myself) had contrasting opinions.

The Portsmouth and Birmingham topics highlight this and more importantly the discussion you and I had with regards to the Portsmouth match where I raised the point that Babel, Gerrard and Torres did not show any signs of fatigue from their International travels and should have started.

You disagreed with me and your opinion IIRC was something along the lines of ‘Gerrard is just recovering from an broken metatarsal (I hope that’s the correct injury or I’ll look like an absolute fool), Torres was tired from flying out to Albania and was carrying a knock and Babel isn’t critical enough to cement a first team place within the squad.  It was hardly an agreement of opinions on the spine of the team. I wanted to see a full strength team playing against Portsmouth as Fratton Park is a fortress in its own right and you wanted the players to be rotated and rested. I would have been in sole agreement with you, had Torres, Gerrard and Babel should signs of fatigue and injury both in their International fixtures and their club fixture with Portsmouth.

Okay, here's where clarification is needed.  I, like most, would say without hesitation that Gerrard and Torres are part of the spine of our team and that they should start every match if fit, unless their form drops to huge degree (which it hasn't in either case).  So, the key is fitness and this brings us back to the Portsmouth match.  I simply disagree that Gerrard was fit enough to play in that match given the broken toe and the exertions for England over the preceeding two weeks.  Interestingly enough, some of the people who questioned his absence that day but watched his performance against Porto a few days later agreed with me.  More compelling, I think, is the fact that the player himself has admitted that the toe was bothering him after the international games and that this was hindering his performances for the club (read in the Echo, in case you were wondering).  Now, I recognize it was a tough away game but you just can't afford to monkey around with the fitness of your best player.  I'd rather Gerrard missed a match or two getting properly fit than have him carry an injury for months and play below par as a result.  So, I don't agree with your assessment that Gerrard showed no signs of injury or fatigue.

As for Torres, again I've said this many times but, in hindsight, I would have played him.  At the time, I thought it made sense to rest him, as he had played a lot for Spain and was apparently carrying a slight knock.  There were fitter strikers available and Rafa played them to protect Torres' fitness, which is the prime aspect of the rotation policy I support.  After all, everyone agrees with rotation when players aren't fit, we just don't always agree on when someone is not fit.  I know it's cliche and some hate to hear this but Rafa really is in a much better position to judge fitness than you or I, so I figured that there was a sound reason for not starting Torres that match.  So, why have I reconsidered?  Well, Saint put it quite well at the time: when other key players are definitely not fit, you sometimes have to gamble with a key player that's borderline fit.  Since Torres has shown no subsequent signs of being unfit I think he probably could have started the match, now that I look back on it.  No guarantee that we would have got a better result, though: as the Wigan and Marseilles games have shown, we can also play poorly with Torres (and Gerrard, for that matter) in the line-up.

As for Babel, there's nothing to show that he should be considered part of the "spine" of the team just yet.  The Best 11 thread underscores that as does Rafa's decision not to use him for the last few matches.  His absence, IMO, was neither here nor there when it came to explaining our performance against Portsmouth.  So, I still contend that Rafa called it right in resting Gerrard and not playing Babel, whereas he may have wanted to start Torres and see how things went at Fratton Park.

3) You use the word tinker, correct if I’m wrong, but didn’t you screw at someone for using the word tinker or was it someone else? I don’t want to come across as pedantic, but for someone who supporters rotation (as you seem to, of course I could be wrong) than isn’t tinkering the wrong phrase to use?

It's called an olive branch, mate!  I used that word that I loath, as well as "chopping and changing" as a sign to show the anti camp that there were no hard feelings.  It was a bit tongue in cheek but you can still be assured that I do not consider anything that Rafa does to be "tinkering" because it implies a level of glibness that I don't think the boss has.  Stop being so da.mn pedantic!

IMO Rafa has been tinkering with the striker force and this has caused the most upset, because the team has gone from scoring a brace to struggling to find the net. 0-0 with Portsmouth, 1-1 with Porto, 1-0 Wigan and 0-1 Marseille such scorelines do not warrant the constant chop and changing which has gone into the strike force.  The most notable high scoring result was against Reading when surprise, surprise Torres played, that’s not to say that Torres should be relied on as our main source of goals, but the lad is clearly our main goal threat this season, so to play the likes of Voronin and Kuyt together whilst leaving Torres on the bench does not make sense IMO.

Now, this is an interesting point that I forgot to raise.  So, my research has revealed that Rafa has played both Torres and Kuyt in 5 of 7 league matches, but not always together (I don't have the numbers right in front of me).  It is certainly conceivable that strike partnerships are more important than individual starts and that Rafa should be in the business of selecting pairs of strikers and rotating the pairs.  I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on that.

Rafa should have weighed up his options in July/August, during pre-season. If he is weighing his options up as the team enters October than I for one am slightly concerned.

I don't quite get this comment, TBH.  Sure, the pre-season is an important time to evaluate the squad but it can't just stop there.  Those aren't real competitive matches, after all, and it's early days at that point.  Plus, players like Aurelio have been injured and missed all of pre-season, while Masch was given the pre-season off.  Squad evaluation is an on-going process, as the season gets tougher, as the competition for places gets more intense and as fitness levels change.  How you quite expect Rafa to have it all sorted out by opening day is a bit of a puzzle to me.

4) He has made 67 changes in 12 matches and over 30 substitutions, so whilst Rafa has been chopping and changing in cup competitions he has yet to play an unnamed side, when that side had played excellently the match before? There is too much change and not enough continuity IMO. There needs to be a balance between the two. I can see the logic behind rotation, but IMO Rafa is showing little or no logic behind his rotation, other than selecting his team solely on the opposition’s strengths and weaknesses.

I don't think it's solely due to tactics (opposition strengths and weaknesses) at all when Rafa rotates.  I think his primary consideration is the long-term fitness of the squad.  I think he feels that it's a long season with a lot of matches spread across the league and 3 cup competitions.  I think he feels that to play basically the same team (with maybe a change or two) in each successive game--be they in the league, or Champions League or a domestic cup--will burn the players out and lead to severe problems during the run in.  So, he's adopted a philosophy of rotating the squad between midweek matches and weekend matches.  So this really is the crux of the debate: if you agree that player burn-out is a real concern, you support (or at least tolerate) Rafa's degree of rotation.  If you think that the disruption to team fluidity is far worse than the risk of player burn-out, you oppose rotation.  Whatever your views on rotation, what I hope both sides can agree on is that Rafa is definitely prioritizing the league this season by playing stronger teams on the weekends.

5) Rotating between competitions is fine as long as it’s sensible rotation for example if the team drew Preston North End, then I wouldn’t advocate the need of a full strength starting eleven. For example when Porto comes to Anfield, I would expect the starting eleven to be strong, but not necessarily the strongest starting eleven. This of course is valid if the team is destined for the knock out stages.

What happens when the 17th place in the French league comes to Anfield with two of their best players injured?  It seems like a sensible enough time to play a weakened team, no?


Okay, I've got to stop it there as the missus is shooting me daggers to get off the computer so we can get out the door.  I hope that's clarified my position a bit.

[Bad Bob]

DOuble post

[maguskwt]

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?

excellent post bad bob. I, too, have noticed that rafa has put some emphasis on the league this season and thought (IMO) that he's fielded more or less a consistently strong side for the league games.

I've also felt that because he's been rotating for the cup games alot of tv personnel or the so called experts has been abit too quick to blame on his rotation to the extent that it becomes boring.

If you name 'team A' for a league game and then you make 4-5 changes for a cup game, let's say 'team B', and then you revert back to 'team A' again for the league (meaning you have to make the 4-5 changes again) then all of a sudden you're making 8-10 changes and you're not fielding the same team for 3 consecutive games. That's the impression i got from alot of tv and media pundits and I think it's all a bit getting too carried away.

[dawson99]

but i think there should be no team b. its all about sonsistency, if it aint broke dont fix it... a winning player is not a tired player. just the way i see it

[tubby]

I havent started a topic for a long time but I feel compelled to after reading some of the topics on here.  Now I dont want this to be a "Taff is in the glass half full camp" but lets just relax and look at the "season" so far

We havent lost in the league.  With the new signings etc and we havent particularly set the world on fire so far but the fact remains that we havent lost.  After Derby the league was a certainty, Man Utd terrible start, Chelsea hitting the self destruct button and Arsenal without that Mr Henry guy.  Now its a different story, a crazy Spaniard rotating too much and its all over.  ITS ONLY JUST OCTOBER. 

The CL, well we were bad no excuses.  What else can I say to be honest.  Just hope we get the points in the rest of the games and other results go our way.

I have genuine optimism this season as we have a strong squad and the old cliche of it being a marathon not a sprint.  Take the genius of Sven, will he be competing for CL place next April,  while people will ridicule that statement why then do we doubt Liverpools longevity for the season.

I am not happy with everything and some players do get on my nerves but Ive seen enough seasons now to know not to get wound up before xmas, and this year I will put money on us being in the race come the new year.

Dont fall for the media hype as it changes daily.  Imagine the headlines next May if we are top with calls for Ferguson etc to rotate more and stop being naive that you need a squad and rotation etc etc etc.   

I trust Rafa of course but he will make mistakes.  We sometimes get rose tinted about the past.  I recommend you look at previous seasons in detail, Liverpool and other clubs who won the league and look at how tight it generally is and the mini slumps etc that EVERYBODY goes through.  Paisley, genius that he was also had little slumps and mini crisis times but a season summary showing goals will not paint that picture.

To summarise:  If I am either right or wrong bring this post up around April, I stand by my belief that we will be there.

Thats just it mate "imagine". Thats all we can do now - imagine. Its all well and god to talk hypothetically but the reality is that whilst we made an ok start we still dropped points in the last few games which could have seen us sitting top or at least second still with these game(s) in hand over the mancs. I said it before and ill say it again, the league is gone mate, for this year anyway.

I dont mean to sound like such a defeatest but I reckon you will be eating your words by xmas.

[kalos]

The real sickener whilst we're discussing the niceties of where we'll be in a few months time is that the Mancs are now sitting pretty at the top of the table (albeit temporarily if Arsenal win).

For me the most worrying thing about our current ineptitude is that our proud record is under serious threat in the next couple of seasons .

Do we really have another season or two to get it irght if it means the Mancs have caught us up in terms of titles won..? To me the thought is pretty unbearable.

Surely that fact alone should motivate the team to fighting displays at the very least..?

[Smeg]

Ok, I can't really be arsed reading most of these posts... if I'm perfectly honest, the happy clappy attitude of some posters winds me up.

All I will say on the rotation issue... is yes its needed, you simply have to rest players to keep the fresh. But Rafa does it far to much. Simple as that, he often rotates for no reason and not sensibley either. Sometimes he thinks he can get away with it, ala Portsmouth and we end up with a bad result.

When under Houllier, we got to the quarters of the CL and finished second in the same season, the starting line up was the same nearly all the way through the season, with very few players rested, it happened, but not alot. The end of that sesaon I think we won 10 out of 11 in the league... with minimal rotation, playing around 50 games or so.

So what is the point in excessive rafatation?

[The Grudge]

Ok, I can't really be arsed reading most of these posts... if I'm perfectly honest, the happy clappy attitude of some posters winds me up.

All I will say on the rotation issue... is yes its needed, you simply have to rest players to keep the fresh. But Rafa does it far to much. Simple as that, he often rotates for no reason and not sensibley either. Sometimes he thinks he can get away with it, ala Portsmouth and we end up with a bad result.

When under Houllier, we got to the quarters of the CL and finished second in the same season, the starting line up was the same nearly all the way through the season, with very few players rested, it happened, but not alot. The end of that sesaon I think we won 10 out of 11 in the league... with minimal rotation, playing around 50 games or so.

So what is the point in excessive rafatation?

Your like a broken record Stu..Houllier,Anelka,Ashton...blah blah blah!!Snooooze!

Same shi'te,different day should be your username!

[LFC2007]

Ok, I can't really be arsed reading most of these posts... if I'm perfectly honest, the happy clappy attitude of some posters winds me up.

All I will say on the rotation issue... is yes its needed, you simply have to rest players to keep the fresh. But Rafa does it far to much. Simple as that, he often rotates for no reason and not sensibley either. Sometimes he thinks he can get away with it, ala Portsmouth and we end up with a bad result.

When under Houllier, we got to the quarters of the CL and finished second in the same season, the starting line up was the same nearly all the way through the season, with very few players rested, it happened, but not alot. The end of that sesaon I think we won 10 out of 11 in the league... with minimal rotation, playing around 50 games or so.

So what is the point in excessive rafatation?

Your like a broken record Stu..Houllier,Anelka,Ashton...blah blah blah!!Snooooze!

Same shi'te,different day should be your username!

Barry Belfast 

[The Grudge]

Ok, I can't really be arsed reading most of these posts... if I'm perfectly honest, the happy clappy attitude of some posters winds me up.

All I will say on the rotation issue... is yes its needed, you simply have to rest players to keep the fresh. But Rafa does it far to much. Simple as that, he often rotates for no reason and not sensibley either. Sometimes he thinks he can get away with it, ala Portsmouth and we end up with a bad result.

When under Houllier, we got to the quarters of the CL and finished second in the same season, the starting line up was the same nearly all the way through the season, with very few players rested, it happened, but not alot. The end of that sesaon I think we won 10 out of 11 in the league... with minimal rotation, playing around 50 games or so.

So what is the point in excessive rafatation?

Your like a broken record Stu..Houllier,Anelka,Ashton...blah blah blah!!Snooooze!

Same shi'te,different day should be your username!

Barry Belfast 

Pleased to meet you! You must be Sherlock Holmes!