Liverpool FC Forum

[Bad Bob]

Right.  With apologies to Red Trader, who apparently likes to skin cats  in his spare time , I've had a look at the other Big Four line-ups so far this season.  Now, I won't bore you with the exact names and figures--you'll either have to trust me or go and look it all up yourself!    What I will offer is the general impression I got from taking this look.

First off, I looked at Man U and found that, like many predicted, Ferguson has not rotated his squad very much at all.  Despite the necessary changes due to injury, a settled side of Van Der Sar, Brown, Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra, Ronaldo, Carrick, Scholes, Giggs, Rooney and Tevez have played most matches in both the league and the Champions League.  Every so often he's used Nani to give Giggs a rest and he's opted to go 4-5-1 in several matches given that Rooney and Saha have both been out with injury, but, otherwise, it's a pretty settled side.  The only interesting caveat is that their current list of injured players is staggering (Van Der Sar, Neville, Hargreaves, Carrick, Fletcher, Park, Silvestre, Vidic, O'Shea, Saha), which might lead some to wonder whether resting some players might have kept them fitter.

Turning to Arsenal, we see a similar pattern.  Wenger has pretty much stuck with a settled side wherever fitness has allowed: Almunia, Sagna, Gallas (replaced by Senderos once injured), Toure, Clichy, Rosicky (replaced by Diaby once injured), Flamini, Fabregas, Hleb, Adebayour and RVP.  This has been the case in both the Prem and the CL--a very few tactical/formation changes here and there (e.g. playing Eduardo and Walcott up top with RVP) but nothing anywhere near the scale that we see with Rafa.  The big exceptions are the second CL qualifier against Sparta Prague at Emirates (dead rubber) and the Carling Cup match against Newcastle (11 kids played).

Finally, when we look at Chelsea, we see a team that has chopped and changed a bit more, sometimes approaching Rafa-esque numbers like 4 or 5 changes from game to game.  They are a tough case, though, as there have been a lot of injuries to the established back four, which seems to have led Mourinho to experiment quite a bit (Alex v. Ben Haim v. Essien at CB, for instance).  In addition injuries to Lampard and Drogba have led to more experimentation in central midfield and up top (in terms of personnel and formation).  What can be said with certainty is that their line-ups for their CL matches do not differ appreciably from their premier league line-ups, unlike we see with Liverpool.

So, what conclusions might we draw from all of this?:

1) All of the Big Four share a penchant for rotating when it comes to the Carling Cup.  (Interestingly, where Arsenal and Man U opted to play virtually 11 reserve teamers, us and Chelsea played a team that blended est. stars with reserves)

2) All of the Big Four tend to play a fairly settled side in the Prem--Yes, even us (our changes from league match to league match are comparable to those made by our rivals)!

3) The big difference seems to be when going from the league to the Champions League.  Whereas the other members of the Big Four tend to select a comparable team to those selected in the Prem, Rafa prefers to ring the changes.

BUT!!!!

There is an important caveat to this: Man U and Chelsea did not have to play two qualifying matches in the Champions League.  That means that they've had fewer midweek disruptions during the start of the season and that they did not have to "switch gears" between competitions until they'd played six league games. 

So, let's leave them aside and compare our situation with Arsenal, who also had to qualify for the CL proper.  Like us with Toulouse, Arsenal had to travel away to Prague in the opening leg of the qualifier, having played only one Premier League match as warm-up.  Unlike us, however, Arsenal played the exact same line-up in Prague that they had fielded three days earlier at home to Fulham.  In case you were wondering, they won 2-1 against Fulham and 2-0 against Sparta Prague.  We, on the other hand, made six changes to the team that beat Villa when we took to the pitch in Toulouse (in the sweltering mid-afternoon French summer sun, it's worth adding).  It may also be worth pointing out that Arsenal did not have to face Chelsea four days later, although they did have to travel to Blackburn, who are no soft touch at home.  To complete the story, both ourselves and Arsenal rang the changes for the return ties of the CL qualifiers (we made 6, they made 5), correctly confident of getting a result at home. 

Moving into the group stages, we have mirrored the other Big Four teams by putting out stronger teams on the road (Porto) and weaker teams at home (Marseilles).  In fact, our team against Porto was arguably the strongest possible team we could play.  Against Marseilles, Rafa clearly banked on the fact that we were playing a struggling French outfit at home on a European night and that even a weakened team could turn them over.  If it's any consolation, Chelsea fielded a very strong team against Rosenberg at Stamford Bridge and still only managed a draw.  In contrast, the Mancs played Roma at home while Arsenal hosted Sevilla, two teams that I think even Rafa would field a very strong 11 against.

Okay...went on a bit of a ramble there but the overall picture is clear: we rotate more than our top competitors when it comes to the Champions League and that's the difference at the end of the day.  Whether you think that's responsible--in whole or in part--for our current dip in form I leave up to you, but that's been the situation so far this season.

[Paul C]

I think if we don't win anything and Real come knocking again at the end of the season Rafa will leave, which would cause Liverpool some problems with a lot of Spanish players in the squad

I really do hope that he stops rotating so much and cuts it down to a few players every game rather than 6 or 7, I know Rafa is an awesome manager but sometimes he really does test my patience

[roberto green]

I kinda of agree with what Rafa does rotation wise and i dont if you know what i mean.

Example:we will always be a slow starter to the campaign under rafa because he chops and changes to keep everyones fitness levels the same so at each stage of the season most players  in the squad are at the same match fitness levels preventing players playing excesively and in turn making them more injury prone.

For example:Look at Man u Coming up to the back end of last season they had nearly tied up the league playting the same players every game and this paid off winning them the league but when they got to the semis in the champions league their fitness levels started to show plus a lot of players were getting injured i.e Vidic and Ferdinand and their other players were looking jaded  due to constant playing and the same could be said with Chelsea.

Coming back to us you look at us since Rafa took over and we normally start off really poor then from Novemberish onwards we go on a great run then we drop a few later in the season so in my eyes if this pattern is to improve he just needs to get it going a bit ealier in the season i remember us being 9 points or something behind Chelsea at about this stage last season.

I will reserve my judgement for the end of the season and not jump the gun like alot of us on here we have come so far under Rafa so i think he needs the upmost respect from us, I know he makes mistakes but i think he gets better and better from each one he makes.......

Cos I know in Rafa we can trust

[LFC2007]

1. You accept it as "one of those things", come to the conclusion that the team is only currently that good, the "table doesn't lie" etc etc. Perhaps you reason that the team will gel better with another season under their belts and show some patience. Ferguson, as the "don't criticise Rafa" camp have pointed out took seven years to deliver the ittle to Old Trafford, Rafa has only (or will only have had) four. That said, the team isn't getting any younger, Wenger and Mourinho didn't take quite so long, and would such a result represent enough progress to keep people happy?

2. As the "stop criticising Rafa" camp tell us, it's the players. If we underachieve by common concensus, then perhaps some of the players need shipping out. Perhaps you blame it on the plyers, in which case you've got change the players. This of course is assuming that as they have failed to be motivated sufficiently during the course of a whole season, it is unlikely the same management style is going to propel them to greater hieghts the following season. Failing that you accept that they simply aren't good enough, and go and buy some more that are.

3. You come to the conclusion that the manager isn't extracting the most out of the players which are available to him. Whether it's rotation, aloofness or whatever theory you have, you change the manager.

That seems to me to the options if we were to underachieve. You do nothing, change the players or change the manager.

The 'do nothing' option isn't really an option, we will always be seeking to recruit new players, I'd call it the 'keep Rafa' option that includes recruitment (the 2nd option), essentially there are two options - keep Rafa or find a new manager. If we underperform you can be sure that one or two new recruits, of first team quality, will be brought in. Rafa and the players take responsibility for how we perform, along with backroom staff - of which some are partly responsible for recruitment.The quality of the squad however, will always need revising.


Given that we don't yet know the level of consistency the current squad can reach in the league, it would be hard to say whether such a position was a result of poor management, poor recruitment, or poor acclimatisation. However, this is my point: Since we haven't yet sustained a league challenge under Rafa's tenure, the prejudgement concerning our ability to win the league is one made without great conviction, but rather, a combination of factors that include a trust in Rafa, spells of consistency in the league that imply an ability to win the league, a trust in the quality of the squad, and a trust that our new recruits are of more than sufficient quality and will settle in.

If the team doesn't achieve a position/points total/results etc which is roughly equal to the potential sum of its parts what do you do

IF we have a season without major injuries at key times, a point which could be debated at this moment in time, then in my view a successful season would be one where we head to the Emirates on April 5th whilst being within 6 or 7 points of the leaders, assuming it's not us.

Should we have key injuries at key times, then I may consider this a mitigating factor and lessen my expectation. Should any of the other contending sides also have key injuries at key times, then this mitigating factor becomes irrelevant.

If, in your scenario, we are 15 points off the top and lying third come May, I would consider it an average to poor season given my expectation that this squad is perhaps capable of making a sustained challenge. It's very difficult however, to make a speculative judgement so early on. Feelings and opinions change with circumstance.

Point number two:
Can we be 15 points off the top and at the same time demonstrate a significantly improved level of consistency in the league, enough to suggest we may be capable of winning the league the following season?

I don't know, it may be the case that we draw a few more matches, lose just two or three, appearing consistent and solid but not quite managing to breach the top echelon.

It may be the case that we're in hunt right up until April, then have one very poor result that knocks confidence and derails us  - leading to an ultimate deficit of 15 points. Say, for example, if we go to the Emirates and get comprehensively beaten- this could be one such catalyst for failure. In the short term my view of a successful season is to maintain a challenge up until April, if we're in it at that point I'll view it as a reasonable measure of improved consistency (and hence a reason to keep Rafa) - from this point onwards, whether we can sustain it until the end or not is a test of character and belief above all else.

[bigmick]

Bob's post is brilliant, not because it particularly favours one or other sides of the argument, but because it at least tries to make sense of some of the stats in a sensible way.

The key when comparing the way the other teams appraoch it, is not necessarily in the numbers it's in the like for like comparison. Most people would probably accept that "resting" Arbeloa isn't necessarily the same as if it was Torres sitting on his erse. My feeling is (and we'll never ever know this one way or another) that none of Wenger, Ferguson or Mourinho would have put out a team like Rafa did at Pompey given our squad/situation/start. None of them would even have considered "resting" Torres for that League game AND the next one against Birmingham, before playing him in the next game midweek away to Reading in the Carling Cup. None of them would have done that and I'd be interested if anybody could find an example in any of those managers past records, where they have done such a thing under comparable circumstances.

Bizarrely (and this is of course why ramblings of the type which Tompkins comes out with on the subject from time to time are utter nonsense) we will probably find over the next seven or eight games, that the gap we have opened up over our rivals in terms of numbner of rotations will narrow. Why? Well precisely because of the reasons Bob has mapped out in his post. Man Utd and Arsenal have now established momentum, have come through some difficult fixtures and have a cohesion and fluency about their play. Some of their players will be finding by now that being brought off after an hour perhaps, or maybe even being rested very occasionally will help with their fitness and freshness. You can expect to see Man Utd and Arsenal having a wee bit more of a tinker here and there than they have thus far. Both teams for instance have started well in the Champions League, so they will no doubt be extremely confident of qualification from the group stages and as such will be able to rest players going forward.

And what of us? Well it's my hunch that "resting" as we know it will be a thing of the past for the next few weeks. If our bad spell continues for four or five more matches we'll be out of the title race, and we are now bang under pressure in Europe as well. Don't be surprised to see us fielding practically the same team in every single game as we try and re-establish some momentum, fluency and cohesion.

If (and it's a huge IF lets be totally honest here) we can get the wheels back into motion again, getting ourselves within five or six points of the top of the Premiership by the turn of the year (you don't want to be much further away that that) and qualifying out of the Champions League group I have two questions. Firstly, will the players who have been successful in digging us out of this hole be any the less tired than they would otherwise have been without the rotation after five or six games? And secondly, will it be the result of a fantastically successful piece of planning and management?

[Smeg]

:laugh:   

I don't know what ya laughing at really...

That posts not even funny, its just a damn right disgrace.

He should be banned for that. Just like Welsh Wizzard should for the he always spout. Some people just need a punch.

Seriously.

Knew it wouldnt take long for you to start again Stu, I was laughing at the fuckin pathetic post but once again, you have to be a funny @rse.

And asking for someone to be banned is a bit rich coming from someone who has been banned umpteen times and is now masquerading under another users ID isnt it?

Even though he should be banned because he is obviously a WUM.[/quote]
No no, you're misunderstanding the area in which I'm coming from.... (the explanation is as such coz am drunk... )

I'm very now... Which is a good thing... I wasn't having a go, "starting again". I was simply saying that I think the poster in question needs to erm... well.... whatever... I've had a beverage so won't be to graphic.



Ahh it al explain tomorra!!

[bigmick]

LFC's post is an interesting one and a very good one too, and I'll come to that in a sec. Just a couple more points though on the rotation thing before I leave it (yet again ) I can't have (I'm sorry) this thing about Man Utd losing the semi in Europe being down to tireness caused by lack of rotation. For a start, the "pro's" are busy telling us that man Utd actually rotate the same amount as we do so we can't just conveniently forget that to make the argument work. Secondly, in the first leg of that semi, they came from behind to get two late goals (as they do) to take a lead over to Italy. They certainly didn't look fatigued to me that night. That they got done in the San Siro by a fantastic Milan peformance was in my view just a question of meeting a good team on a very good night. They still managed to win week after week under extreme pressure from Chelsea, to take the Premiership crown before getting beaten in the FA Cup final and narrowly missing out on the double. If that's what tiredness brought about by lack of sufficient rotation does for you then bring it on I say.

The other point is the one about rotating reducing injuries. I don't think it holds water to be honest. Why? well I can't be bothered to debate it too much but it just doesn't make any sense. If they are playing together in training every week to get some fluency, some cohesion etc because we change the team every game, surely they can get injured there just the same. Or are we now saying that training is totally different to a match situation (it is of course) and is therefore irrelevent? Feck me it gets confusing this rotation debate sometimes.

[bigmick]

LFC is correct in that we haven't sustained a title challenge under Rafa. We haven't of course ever started one until arguably this season so we certainly haven't sustained anything. I do accept his point as well that doing "nothing" is not an option in that if we decided to keep Rafa and the majority of the players then we certainly would be looking to add to the squad.

I guess my point is though that if you finish fifteen or twenty points behind then you are a mile away in my view. That would mean that the fairly significant changes to the squad we made this summer (and most would agree we improved it) would have brought us less than ten points closer. At that stage, what do you do? Go out and spend another wedge of cash in the belief that the management will eventually deliver the title going about things "their" way, or do you reconsider and maybe think about going for a more conventional method?

[LFC2007]

I guess my point is though that if you finish fifteen or twenty points behind then you are a mile away in my view. That would mean that the fairly significant changes to the squad we made this summer (and most would agree we improved it) would have brought us less than ten points closer. At that stage, what do you do? Go out and spend another wedge of cash in the belief that the management will eventually deliver the title going about things "their" way, or do you reconsider and maybe think about going for a more conventional method?

It's partly down to how and when that deficit is amounted. Should we finish between 10 and 15 points off the top at the end, having sustained the challenge until April 5th when we play Arsenal away (assume we are 5 points off the top for arguments sake) and lose - the deficit would then be 8 points, such a result may act as a catalyst that propels us to a 15 point deficit, it's easy for a beaten horse to haemorrhage points. For example, after the Arsenal match, should we then lose one of our away matches vs Fulham or Birmingham or draw twice, the deficit could be extended to 11 or 12 points. It could then easily go to 14 or 15 with a defeat at Spurs, by the time the Fulham/Birmingham games come around we would effectively be beaten horses. This assumes Arsenal win their games, which is definitely not a given, they play the Mancs away after us. It's just an example.

Anyway, the point is, to at least be in with a shout around about that time, be it 5,6 or 7 points off the top.

From then on, it's mainly a test of character and belief as we will have already demonstrated a significant improvement in our consistency.

A 5 point deficit can become a 15 point deficit in the space of 6 or 7 poor games.

If we demonstrate no improvement in our consistency, generally being adrift by 15-20 points all the way through until April, then I will be very disappointed.

I would still not advocate a change in manager however.

[maypaxvobiscum]

'Manchester United are a wonderful side ... I like Arsenal too.

'As for Chelsea and Liverpool, they are more tactically-oriented; they base themselves on solidity and organisation. They are maybe less creative, but they have good managers. I especially admire (Rafael) Benitez.'


http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=471426&cc=9999

[bigmick]

This is all very speculative, I

Feck me I think I've won. I think I've eventually bored the poor fecker into submission    Probably what's happened is that he's dropped off mid type and his hooter hit the send button as he made himself comfy on the keyboard   

EDIT: Sheesh he's woken up and changed it. Thought I had him there 

[LFC2007]

[Bad Bob]

I guess my point is though that if you finish fifteen or twenty points behind then you are a mile away in my view. That would mean that the fairly significant changes to the squad we made this summer (and most would agree we improved it) would have brought us less than ten points closer. At that stage, what do you do? Go out and spend another wedge of cash in the belief that the management will eventually deliver the title going about things "their" way, or do you reconsider and maybe think about going for a more conventional method?

It's partly down to how and when that deficit is amounted. Should we finish between 10 and 15 points off the top at the end, having sustained the challenge until April 5th when we play Arsenal away (assume we are 5 points off the top for arguments sake) and lose - the deficit would then be 8 points, such a result may act as a catalyst that propels us to a 15 point deficit, it's easy for a beaten horse to haemorrhage points. For example, after the Arsenal match, should we then lose one of our away matches vs Fulham or Birmingham or draw twice, the deficit could be extended to 11 or 12 points. It could then easily go to 14 or 15 with a defeat at Spurs, by the Fulham/Birmingham games we would effectively be beaten horses. This assumes Arsenal win their games, which is definitely not a given, they play the Mancs away after us.

Anyway, the point is, to at least be in with a shout around about that time, be it 5,6 or 7 points off the top.

From then on, it's mainly a test of character and belief as we will have already demonstrated a significant improvement in our consistency.

A 5 point deficit can become a 15 point deficit in the space of 6 or 7 poor games.

If we demonstrate no improvement in our consistency, generally being adrift by 15-20 points all the way through until April, then I will be very disappointed.

I would still not advocate a change in manager however.

I'd broadly agree that it depends on the nature of how we ended up fifteen points behind, although I won't be a happy chappy if we're that far off the pace when it is all done and dusted in May.  Basically, I agree with Sabre's approach of evaluating everything at the end of the season and then passing judgment on Rafa and the team.  My gut tells me that if we are well off the pace in the league again come May, with no other silverware to soften the blow and with no glaring injury crisis to point to, than, yes, it will be time to sit down and ask the hard questions about Rafa's future at the club.  To play the "what if" game now, though, (what if we're 18 points back but have won the Carling Cup and the FA Cup? ) just doesn't feel right to me, as there are too many possible scenarios to weigh up and I just can't be a.rsed clarifying all of the permutations that would allow me to distinguish a good season from a disappointing one.

[LFC2007]

To play the "what if" game now, though, (what if we're 18 points back but have won the Carling Cup and the FA Cup? ) just doesn't feel right to me, as there are too many possible scenarios to weigh up and I just can't be a.rsed clarifying all of the permutations that would allow me to distinguish a good season from a disappointing one.

I agree, that's why I nearly fell asleep. 

[Smeg]

We need to strengthen the first team. Then play the players we've bought to do this.

Simple.

We've arguabley strengthed the first team by about four or five players in four years, which isn't the best record in all reality.