Liverpool FC Forum

[stmichael]

I understand, formations and tactics are irrelevant to my point for the time being as all I wanted to do was stress the important of having an equal balance in key areas, if this can be achieved than half the battle is won IMO.

If I was a manager I’d play a standard 4-4-2 with 5 outfield defensive players and 5 attacking minded players. I’ve not said that the defenders cannot get forward, ideally this will be the case, but you want your defenders to do their job, defend anything else is a great asset; again it’s the same with the midfield and forward areas.

If you look at it, our strength is the ball retention that Rafa likes to see his teams play. The emphasis will be on not giving the ball away and our overiding style this season will probably be one of continually re-cycling the ball with complex pass-and-move triangles in and around the box being a keynote factor. All in all,  Benitez's style has always been fairly rigid, relying on weight of possession being the key to success. This is what Valencia used to do - starve the opposition of the ball, winning it as high up the pitch and then pressing them relentlessly.

This is how we've played for the last two seasons. This can be a great strength but also a weakness as it can become predictable. That's when you need players who can turn a game. Last season the only players of that type which we had were Gerrard, Garcia and Kewell - the later two missing large parts of the season through injury.

The arrival of the new players, Babel, Benayoun and Torres gives us more options in that regard which will hopefully enhance our strength. It does rely greatly though on those three players contributing from the off.

[YAWL]

I always find rotation a funny subject.  It only seems to become an issue when we lose.  If we win a game, people won't praise rotation, they'll merely use it against Rafa when we lose.

In the past I think we didn't have the squad to make rotation work.  For example changing Finnan and Riise for Josemi and Traore would make the team far weaker.

However now, I'm not sure.  If Finnan was changed for Arbeloa I don't think it would reduce our chances of winning.  Same for various other positions.

Man U had a settled team last season and it certainly helped their campaign.  However I don't think that means rotation can't work.  It worked at Valencia with Rafa and I think it could here.

Last season we rotated through out all the games we won.  Swapping Alonso for Mascherano isn't going to hinder the team's performance really, for example.

I think it's hard to argue with Benitez's methods of rotation as he's won so much with us and Valencia, so it shows it works.  Personally I'd like to see two or three changes to line up, rather than 7 or 8.  Two or three changes can ensure the team is fresh as well as keeping the cohesion.  7 or 8 is too many at times and can result in the team losing it's balance.

It's a tricky subject, but personally not a massive issue in my opinion.  Far more concerned with the players form for starters.

[scouser 'til I die]

TOMKINS: STOP THIS ROTATION 'ROT'
Paul Tomkins 08 August 2007

Rather than rotation being the rot that eats away at the core of Liverpool's title challenges, it's the criticism that's rotten.
paul tomkins

You don't believe me? Read on ...

In his new role as Setanta Sports' analyst, ex-Red Steve McManaman stated a few weeks ago that Benítez needed to rotate less to win the league. He was far from alone in expressing that belief; I don't mean to single him out, but he was just the first to mention it this pre-season.

I can barely turn on a sports channel or read a newspaper opinion piece without hearing it trotted out like some brainwashing mantra. No wonder people believe it. I even stopped reading the Premier League previews, and just searched for the word 'rotation' within. A couple of times it didn't appear in a piece; upon further investigation, another phrase had been chosen to explain Benitez's 'folly'. Same accusations, different wording.

It's become received wisdom, passed on in acts of laziness that pass as analysis.

Rotation is by its nature difficult to assess, as often you cannot say for sure if players were rested, suspended, injured, or left out for essential tactical purposes. Only the management know why team selections are made, as well as how the players were looking in training in the build up. Long gone are the days of settled sides and 14 players featuring all season long. For Benitez, any team change is labelled 'rotation'.

And of course, rotation is only mentioned after defeats, never after long runs of victories. Benitez was criticised during 2006/07 for having named his 99th consecutive altered line-up, but none of the critics bothered to check that he'd actually won a stunning percentage of those 99 games.

Obviously everyone knows Benitez rotates more than anyone else? (Ergo: way too much.) It's a known fact, right?

Except, of course, it's not true.

Manchester United won last season's league title with Alex Ferguson having made a total of 118 changes to his Premiership line-ups throughout the campaign, at an average of 3.11 changes per game. The season before that, Chelsea won the league with Mourinho also having made 118 changes to his Premiership line-ups throughout the campaign, again (obviously) at an average of 3.11 changes per game.

So how many changes did Benitez make in 2006/07?

You guessed it, 118 changes to his Premiership line-ups throughout the campaign, at what the eagle-eyed among you will know recognise as an average of 3.11 changes per game.

Ah, but in 2005/06, Benitez must of gone crazy with the rotation? Indeed he did, with an outrageous and outlandish 119 changes, at an average of 3.13 changes per game: a miniscule 0.02 more than the last two title-winning teams.

So why is there this unerring torrent of punditry telling us Benitez rotates so much more than his rivals? As an example, in the pre-season friendly against Shanghai Shenhua last Friday, experts Trevor Francis and Gary McAllister (who can be partially excused on account of being a hugely likeable Liverpool demi-legend, and also for being a fellow member of the bald community) both noted that Benitez rotated too often. So did the game's commentator.

Of course, the above figures don't take into account rotation that occurs in other competitions, in games played between Premiership matches. In that sense, it is indeed true that Benitez changes his team fractionally more than Mourinho and Ferguson, freshening things up for the cups.

And, the Spaniard could argue, with some justification, given the Reds' record in Europe and the FA Cup in that time.

But the fact remains that Benitez has kept his Premier League team selections as consistent as Ferguson and Mourinho. In terms of rotation, there's been nothing to separate them.

Yes, Benitez's line-ups are often difficult to predict. But there is far more consistency to his league selections than he is given credit for. This is proof that rotation has not been what has cost Liverpool the league title.

The fact that Ferguson named an unchanged team in the league four times last season - something Benitez never did - suggests the United man's ability to keep a settled side at least on the odd occasion.

But in those four games United's results were well below their overall season average, and way below the ultra-high average racked up on the nine times he made three changes.

So for Ferguson, three changes were far better than none. Indeed, it's worth pointing out that Liverpool's best points average came when Benitez made four changes from the previous league match: at an average of 2.5 points in those six games, it shows a rate consistent with a final total of 95 points. That doesn't mean he should make four changes every game, just for the sake of it, but it does highlight that for him, making the right changes worked.

So perhaps Benitez's fault is that he rotates his key players more often? Or switches his strikers around more than anyone else? Surely this has to be the case? As Gary McAllister said on Sky, Ferguson keeps a core of his players in the team at all times, something Benítez never did.

Well, the truth is very different.

It's clear that whenever Jamie Carragher, Pepe Reina and Steven Gerrard were fit, they were almost always selected, at least up until the April/May 'ease off'. As his three most indispensable players, they were never rotated, just rested on occasion or absent through injury. Finnan, Alonso, Riise and Kuyt also started the vast majority of games.

Indeed, Gerrard started a whopping 92 per cent of Liverpool's league matches, and was on for a 100 per cent attendance record until Benítez rested him on the 35th, 36th and 37th games of the season, with Athens looming. Pepe Reina also started 92 per cent of the matches.

Neither Manchester United or Liverpool had a player with a 100 per cent league-starts rating during last season, but out of United and Liverpool's squads, Gerrard and Reina came closest, with the Reds' Carragher next in line, with an 89 per cent start rate. United had no one who started more than 87 cent of league games. So it was Benitez who had a more settled core of indispensable players.

Overall, both teams had six 'ultra-key' players who started in the vast majority (76-99 per cent) of league games; Chelsea, by contrast, had only four (injuries to Petr Cech and John Terry lowered this from the expected six).

Then come the fairly indispensable players: those who started 50-75 per cent of matches.

Again Liverpool had six players in this category, but United only had four (Chelsea had six). So, while Chelsea and Manchester United only had ten players who started the majority of league matches, Liverpool had 12. (As an example, centre-backs Agger and Hyypia both started 23 league games, but Carragher was the main man with 34. Agger and Hyypia tended to be rotated, but on four occasions all three started.)

This can be looked at in one of two ways: Ferguson had a slightly smaller core of key players he would always call on; while Benitez had two more 'important' players who featured very heavily.

While Benitez used 26 players in total, Ferguson used 25, so there's little difference there. Even looking at those who were little more than bit-part players, it's virtually identical; both had 10 players who started less than 25 per cent of Premiership games, many of these in the dead rubbers in late April and early May.

As for strikers, Benitez only really rotated between three - Kuyt, Crouch and Bellamy - until the final three games of the season; before then, the fourth striker, Robbie Fowler, started only three times, and only once between the fourth and 35th matches; as such, for the league he was hardly considered until there was nothing left to play for.

By contrast, Ferguson rotated between four strikers. Rooney (like Kuyt at Liverpool) started the majority of matches, but Saha, Solskjaer and Larsson were switched and swapped regularly, particularly over the winter (Larsson's only time at the club). Alan Smith, returning from injury, also started the last six games of the season, to add a fifth name to Ferguson's rotation roster. (Both teams occasionally used midfielders as second-strikers.)

None of this is to say that Benitez picked the perfect team every game (no manager does). Or that rotating is perfect, and leads to success all the time, or that alternating strikers doesn't run the risk of them losing confidence, but it's such a difficult thing to judge.

It requires a long-term overview, rather than a knee-jerk response after any given defeat. And it also requires a proper assessment, rather than merely regurgitating misconceptions based on Benitez's reputation from Spain.

Let me repeat: Liverpool have not lost the league title under Benitez due to rotation. While I always suspected this, even I was surprised at what I found when looking through all the top teams' line-ups, and at how identical they were in terms of changes made.

The league was lost last year largely because of inconsistent finishing, particularly away from Anfield, from all areas of the team.

There was also the defensive uncertainty at the start of the season, where ring-rustiness and injuries occurred when an unprecedented fixture list that sent the Reds to Everton, Chelsea, Arsenal, Manchester United and Bolton (where a terrible decision cost the Reds) in the first six away games, as well as the up-and-at-'em approach of a fired-up, newly-promoted Sheffield United.

Liverpool's key players had not had a summer off for three seasons, and had played more games than any of United's players in that time. Gerrard and Carragher spoke of not being anywhere near as fresh as they now feel, which bodes so much better for this campaign.

Also missing was that complete centre-forward, like Fernando Torres, who could combine lethal pace with all-round ability. Someone who could really stretch defences and create chances out of nothing.

Of course, as Chelsea's squad cost three times as much as Liverpool's, and United's almost twice as much, the odds were stacked in the favour of those two teams contesting the title.

Those clubs still have far more expensive squads, but Benitez has been able to bring in some top-class players this summer. This suggests that when Benitez rotates this season, he will always be introducing quality into the line-up. So perhaps rotating less is not the key –– given Benitez rotates to an identical level of his rivals –– just having a better squad to rotate with. And that certainly appears to be the case now.

So - will this article, and the facts within, stop the deluge of inaccuracies? I doubt it.

But it would be nice to see at least one sports writer or pundit pause before trotting out the same old cliches.

Of course, even better would be a 19th league title come May.

Source

Another great article by Tomkins, clearly shows it's just the quality in our squad that's to blame, not Rafa's rotation policy which has been blown out of proportion

[bigmick]

Feck me that Tompkins fella does talk out of his erse sometimes. He puts together a nice article and all that, but his interpretation of everything into a happy clappy standpoint is laughable TBH.

I haven't really got time to go into it now, but his figures (or the interpretation of them at least) are pure unadultatarated tosh. If we are talking about rotation purely in "numbers of rotations", does this include positional changes, ie Gerrard on the left, shuffling of the back four, Garcia playing everywhichwaybutwhere, Bellamy/Cisse being asked to play wide right? Apparently it doesn't include games in other competitions? Well I guess that's handy if you want to forget about Burnley, about the two games against Arsenal last season, the pre-season Champions League qualifier last season against Haifa at Home where we had Bellamy on his own up front and which subsequently derailed our whole campaign. I suppose timing of rotations is irrelevent as well. My guess is that Man Utd rotated less at the start of the season and more as the campaign went on, unlike ourselves but that's by the by too I suppose. I would also suppose that who you rotate and when doesn't matter either. It is purely a numbers game after all, so sitting one of your strikers on the bench while he is in the richest scoring veign of his life is OK, it's only one rotation after all.

This is an old argument and Rafa will prove those of us who claim he has made a nonsense of it right this season in my view. Yes he will rotate, and so he should. I'll repeat that, yes he will rotate and so he should. We will though see a much more settled team than last season. The team will be allowed to develop momentum before too much tinkering, there's even been more settled selections in the pre-season it seems to me.

If we are serious about winning the title, he is going to need to feck around with the team less than he has so far in his Liverpool tenure. I am absolutely convinced of that fact, and it is not listening to "pundits" which has cionvinced me. What has convinced me is watching too many Liverpool games where the fluency, the understanding and the togetherness which comes from playing a largely settled team is lacking due to unfamiliarity. It's not about numbers at the end of the day, it's about players. Sure ferguson rotates, but Neville and Beckham played together for years, Scholes and Carrick last season, Yorke and Cole, Pallister and Bruce, Ferdinand and Vidic. Rotate yes, feck around no. It is not the case that Tompkins is right and all the pros are wrong. He should know better.

[Sabre]

Well I've read your post Bigmick and I must agree most of that, so we don't disagree anymore on this it seems 

I agree most of the first paragraph, and I agree aswell that this season the team will be more settled. IMHO if he rotated too much at the start of the season it was because of injuries and because of players not coming so well from the world cup. He had a less deep squad aswell. With new guys on the wings.

This season though, both Pennant and Kewell will start the season and they know the business. When you don't want the winger role, you look the squad and there's more answers than Gerrard. You can pick Benayoun. You have a deeper squad, a decent group of players who already have played together for a while, and thus he won't need to fill the gaps with versatile players like Gerrard or Luis Garcia. He'll have Gerrard doing what he does best, he won't have -hopefully- to deal with the Kewell traditional injury with new guys, and when he rotates, he'll rotate with men of more quality (Mascherano vs Zenden, BellamyvsTorres).

So call me happy clappy but everything will go better rotation wise. It will be natural rotation, not rotation conditioned by negative factors (unexperience,injuries,not deep squad).

who knows, maybe even we can have good old Bigmick singing praises about rotation at the end of this season. 

[redtrader74]

Sorry but Mick you have had a problem with rotation as far as i've been on here, and have said we won't win the league if we rotate as much as we have, and the facts at least show that Rafa is not an extraordinary culprit in that. In the League, where all the talk regarding rotation on here has been about, the facts prove others have rotatated as much and won the title.

Now when it comes to playing players out of position, well that is a totally different stick to beat Rafa with, and i am with you there, and i don't like it, eg. Gerrard out on LW, but again, there must be a reason for it, and the sad realisation at a Club like Liverpool, that Gerrard would have offered more there than the alternative left footer.

[roberto green]

i think with gerrard in midfield liverpool will keep a more settled team in the league this year with just a rotation evey game of strikers:p

[Wilhelmsson]

Sorry but Mick you have had a problem with rotation as far as i've been on here, and have said we won't win the league if we rotate as much as we have, and the facts at least show that Rafa is not an extraordinary culprit in that. In the League, where all the talk regarding rotation on here has been about, the facts prove others have rotatated as much and won the title.

Yes this is true; however you fail to acknowledge the several small facts:

1) Ferguson and Mourinho tend to leave their key areas untouched unless their star players are injured, displaying traits of fatigue or are suspended.

2) Mourinho and Ferguson rarely change their tactics and formations to accommodate/cancel out an opposition team. Rafa likes to choose his squad which he feels has the qualities to dispossess an opponent in question. Mourinho and Ferguson tend to play their ‘strongest’ possible teams (despite a few changes) to bring their opponents in submission. I.E Mourinho would never drop Gerrard and play Zenden against a team with the amount of quality as Arsenal.

3) Mourinho and Ferguson will always play their most inform players, for example, Drogba was red hot last season and participated in a vast majority of Chelsea’s matches. Ferguson played Ronaldo for much of last season too. Benitez, choose a relatively unsettled Kuyt over an inform Peter Crouch, time after time.

Mick is right, rotation is always needed, but your inform players should always be played unless reasons (see point #1) prevent them from doing so and the base of the team should not radically change from one match to the next.

There needs to be continuity with change, Mourinho and Ferguson have been successful with this ‘moderate’ approach to rotation, Benitez needs to follow suit.

[LFC #1]

I haven't really got time to go into it now, but his figures (or the interpretation of them at least) are pure unadultatarated tosh. If we are talking about rotation purely in "numbers of rotations", does this include positional changes, ie Gerrard on the left, shuffling of the back four, Garcia playing everywhichwaybutwhere, Bellamy/Cisse being asked to play wide right? Apparently it doesn't include games in other competitions? Well I guess that's handy if you want to forget about Burnley, about the two games against Arsenal last season, the pre-season Champions League qualifier last season against Haifa at Home where we had Bellamy on his own up front and which subsequently derailed our whole campaign. I suppose timing of rotations is irrelevent as well. My guess is that Man Utd rotated less at the start of the season and more as the campaign went on, unlike ourselves but that's by the by too I suppose. I would also suppose that who you rotate and when doesn't matter either. It is purely a numbers game after all, so sitting one of your strikers on the bench while he is in the richest scoring veign of his life is OK, it's only one rotation after all.

Excellent points Big mick, and conveniently overlooked by Tompkins.

Another thing I picked up on was how he mentioned that Agger and Hyypia were rotated quite regularly, yet he didn't analyse that at all. Rotating centre halfs is one of the positions on the pitch that you should rarely rotate IMO. Centre halves like central midfielders and strikers need time to devolop an understanding and partnership together. Rotation hinders that somewhat.

[The_Rock]

Tomkins didn't include this in his stats ......  ::)

Fergie and mourinho rotate more as the season progresses.... (ie......they keep a settled squad at the beginning of the season)....due to injuries and suspensions....

While rafa rotates at the beginning....realises that he is somewhat wrong to do so 10 games in...and then tries to keep a somewhat settled squad (ie......he rotates more at the beginning and less in the 2nd half when we are out of the title race).

........ I can also manipulate stats and come up with 100 reasons why baros is our best striker ever....  ;D


Goodness Grief...who the hell is Tomkins in the 1st place ? I mean does his comments warrant more importance than Alan Hansen or Gary Mac ?

Give me a break......

IF RAFA MASS ROTATES AGAIN THIS SEASON.....IT WILL BE ANOTHER LEAGUELESS CAMPAIGN...

[Espionage]

Everyone seems to be pointing out the fact that Tomkins left out the changes of personal within the same line up (Gerrard shifting from right to centre is still a change after all), but that would require a hell of a lot of research.  If this is the only thing wrong with the research that he did then I applaud him that he has stats to support almost every claim that he made

Tomkins speaks about the fact that people often bring up rotation is over-used by Benitez and is a source of under-achievement.  He dispels some of the assumptions with sound statistical proof (with few and weak limitations), and still people are not convinced (or even slightly). 
The only evidence real statistical information that I see to support the other side of the story are:

                           - "99 games without the same line up"
                           - "Liverpool get 3rd once again"

This is not a basis of a strong conclusion.  People refer to logic that is peddled by mediocre bloggers that dont even watch Liverpool which is regurgitated by a few footy commentators who seam to say whatever is in the news on places like newnow.co.uk (if you havent been there it is quite entertaining if you dont mind wading through pages and pages of ).

The stats that Tomkins brought to light in his article are definitely supporting material against the theory that we over-rotate.  Some of pointed out that his conclusions are slightly biased (as are mine), but you still have to acknowledge that a few assumptions that people rely on have been dispelled.

This is what journalism should be about - an analytical search for truth - regardless of whether the conclusions are biased, it is not hearsay and has been thought out and supported with relevant information.

[redtrader74]

Sorry but Mick you have had a problem with rotation as far as i've been on here, and have said we won't win the league if we rotate as much as we have, and the facts at least show that Rafa is not an extraordinary culprit in that. In the League, where all the talk regarding rotation on here has been about, the facts prove others have rotatated as much and won the title.

Yes this is true; however you fail to acknowledge the several small facts:

1) Ferguson and Mourinho tend to leave their key areas untouched unless their star players are injured, displaying traits of fatigue or are suspended.

2) Mourinho and Ferguson rarely change their tactics and formations to accommodate/cancel out an opposition team. Rafa likes to choose his squad which he feels has the qualities to dispossess an opponent in question. Mourinho and Ferguson tend to play their ‘strongest’ possible teams (despite a few changes) to bring their opponents in submission. I.E Mourinho would never drop Gerrard and play Zenden against a team with the amount of quality as Arsenal.

3) Mourinho and Ferguson will always play their most inform players, for example, Drogba was red hot last season and participated in a vast majority of Chelsea’s matches. Ferguson played Ronaldo for much of last season too. Benitez, choose a relatively unsettled Kuyt over an inform Peter Crouch, time after time.

Mick is right, rotation is always needed, but your inform players should always be played unless reasons (see point #1) prevent them from doing so and the base of the team should not radically change from one match to the next.

There needs to be continuity with change, Mourinho and Ferguson have been successful with this ‘moderate’ approach to rotation, Benitez needs to follow suit.

Point 1, i don't know why Fergie and Mourinho rotate, and neither do you, and the reason given by them do not necessarily have to be true. Also you assume that Rafas reasons for rotation are different, which again we do not know.

Point 2, we are, and the article was, talking about rotation, not formations, i have acknowledged that playing a player out of position is something i don't necessarily like, but it may be the best option for our team.
The point that Mourinho/Fergie don't change formations/tactics to counteract opponents is laughable, what top manager does not take into account the oppositions strengths and weaknesses when planning for a match?? for example, sometime Chelsea played with 2 up front, sometimes with 1, or sometimes with one wide player, or two, all that happened, but we don't know why.

Point 3, same as point 2, the article, and much of the criticism against Rafas has been about rotation, and the facts show that Rafa has not rotated any more than his main 2 rivals. Whether you agree or not about the reason for a rotation is not what we are discussing. As for Crouch, there is only one occassion i can remember where he scored in the previous game and was dropped next one, ( maybe you can tell me about another), but maybe, just maybe there was something in training that the managemant saw which told them he was either fatigued, or carrying a slight injury that precluded him from starting.

Unfortunatly Crouch is not a complete striker/ player when compared to Drogba and Ronaldo, these two can play and cause problems against anyone, where IMO Crouch has many limitations and although we may not like it, he may not have the tools to play well against certain teams.

The point is that when we win, we have rotated aswell, we rotated all through our best runs, and record points totals, but whenever we fail the lazy argument is that rotation was the cause, even though the reason for the rotation is unknown. Fergie has built his sqaud over 21 years at the club, and Mourinho with the biggest budget in history, so they might just have a better level of player to come in to the team when players are rotated, than Rafa has had at his disposal.

[stmichael]

Unfortunately we just have to accept that the media explain things in retrospect and are therefore never wrong. 'Zonal marking' is another example. Best in the league at defending set plays - concede one and it's because zonal marking is flawed.

Rafa will be a genius when he wins the title regardless of how he achieves it and will always be criticised until he does.

The facts are completely misguided though as you only need to change 1 player to affect the stats. It's like saying JAR is right footed because he kicks the ball with his right foot every game (not mentioning he only does it once a game)

People also need to be realistic. If, like Mourinho and Ferguson, you have five or six £20m+ players each, plus your one or two home-grown players, you're going to have more quality to call on. Or at least more chance of buying quality. Paying £20m doesn't guarantee quality, but Drogba, Essien and Carvalho all showed their quality. F#ck, Chelsea even have £20m reserves.

[bigmick]

Quite simply the comparison between Ferguson and Mourinho doesn't stand up. Neither would have played Bolo Zenden in central midfiled at Highbury, with the inevitable consequences.

No doubt someone will point out that as they've both got better squads to deal with, they wouldn't NEED to play Bolo Zenden in central midfield. While that is true, it's also worth considering that steven Gerrard played wide right that day, so I would contest we didn't need to play Zenden in central midfield either. It's this type of slaveish addiction to the mantra "you've got to use the whole squad" which does my head in, it's just plain silly.

Similarly neither Mourinho nor Ferguson would have played Gerrard wide-left against Chelsea. People need to realise that football in real life is not like Championship Manager, you can't draw pretty patterns on the pitch with arcs and dotted lines telling each player where to run. Similarly, frustrate and p!ss off your best player by playing him in the one position on a football pitch to which he is most unsuited (I suppose in goal might be even more unsuitable) and it carries forward to the next game.

We've seen it every season in Rafa's reign so far. Silliness at the start of the season ("maybe the players will have got their heads around the system this time") reulting in the inevitable poor results, followed by selectorial stability and a steady climb up the table. Hopefully this year we'll give ourselves at least a chance of winning the thing.

I wonder, if Ferguson and Mourinho really did decide to rotate and tinker Rafa style at the start of this season would we be worried or glad? Would we be thinking "oh no, that means they'll be fresher at the end of the season and that they're going to use the full squad", or would we be thinking "that's handy we've got a bit of a chance now"?

Tompkins can do he likes with figures, but Rafa needs to bugger about with the team much less this season than he has in his Liverpool career so far. Forget about all this nonsense as well that as the players are better this season, he'll be able to rotate without affecting the rhythm of the team so much as there'll be like for like rotations. No team, ever, will win the English Premier League with mass rotation of formation, position and personel. If Tompkins thinks that last years top three all messed around with their team to an equal extent he's a mug.

[maypaxvobiscum]

rotation should only be done provided you have quality throughout the squad. when you can replace one class act with another. otherwise keep to the best performers. more ruthless play with a cutting edge.

Destroy!