Liverpool FC Forum

[bigmick]

Well thanks to ace and Sabre for reassuring me. I kept reading through my posts as I couldn't understand for the life of me how anybody could not understand my position.Disagree with it by all means, argue withit even better, but not understand it?

I don't like rotation. I don't particularly care what team he picks (as long as there are the obvious inclusions), as long as he sticks with it. I think it's fairly staightforward. LFC did succeed there for a fleeting second lin making me think that perhaps I had gone completely mad, so it's kind of nice to realise that it is of course him who is off his rocker   

[bigmick]

So, why is it, when a game comes around he agrees with the team?

You can't have it both ways IMO.

I know you are the past master at re-quoting old posts LFC so I enter this minefield with extreme trepidation but here goes. I think at the time fo the Birmingham game I talked of Rafa "getting the rotation out of his system". I think I advocated a line-up which was far more of an experiment than the one he actually put out. Why? Well firstly I thought we would still beat Birmingham (jeez how did I know they were going to defend deep the cheeky feckers  ) and secondly like I said I hoped we could then return to a measure of sensibility.

That I was wrong on both counts is neither unusual nor relevant. Now like I say, given your propensity for the killer quote LFC I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that you will trawl through my thousands of posts on the subject and find an instance or two where what I am saying now directly contradicts what I appeared to be saying then. No matter, and I have absolutely no intention of sifting through hundreds of my posts (jeez you wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy) to disprove anything.

I feel I have been fairly consistent for about three years. Pick your strongest team, and until a very good reason comes up, stick to it. I don't like it when you rotate the team. I don't particularly care what you change it from, or what you change it into, I don't like the changes. Pick a team and broadly stick with it.

[Ciggy]

The Portsmouth and Birmingham games fucked us up big time by 6 changes for one 7 for the other there was no need for it.

It was unecessary IMO thats where we lost ground we could be 6 points better off had it not been for the amount of players being changed.

Now there was quite a few changes for the game against besiktas and they done brilliant but when that same team played against Fulham it didnt look right?

I cant really explain what I mean whether we are that used to rotation and it looked odd?

That was not our best team but the team that ended the game should have started it.

[Owzat]

The problem for me is Rafa, a number of fans and myself at times BELIEVE that a second string should beat the likes of brum. Perhaps it is an overestimation of our squad strength or an underestimation of the opposition. We have one quality striker and three probably fit only for a club fighting for the UEFA spots. We have decent midfielders in the middle, but noone has made the wide positions there own yet and the defence is thin after you take out Carra, Agger, Finnan and Arbeloa. So is the squad that strong? Is it good enough to be SURE of beating the likes of brum? Or are we still half a dozen or more players short of being able to make rotation work?

I say the latter

[LFC2007]

So, why is it, when a game comes around he agrees with the team?

You can't have it both ways IMO.

I know you are the past master at re-quoting old posts LFC so I enter this minefield with extreme trepidation but here goes. I think at the time fo the Birmingham game I talked of Rafa "getting the rotation out of his system". I think I advocated a line-up which was far more of an experiment than the one he actually put out. Why? Well firstly I thought we would still beat Birmingham (jeez how did I know they were going to defend deep the cheeky feckers  ) and secondly like I said I hoped we could then return to a measure of sensibility.

That I was wrong on both counts is neither unusual nor relevant. Now like I say, given your propensity for the killer quote LFC I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that you will trawl through my thousands of posts on the subject and find an instance or two where what I am saying now directly contradicts what I appeared to be saying then. No matter, and I have absolutely no intention of sifting through hundreds of my posts (jeez you wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy) to disprove anything.

I feel I have been fairly consistent for about three years. Pick your strongest team, and until a very good reason comes up, stick to it. I don't like it when you rotate the team. I don't particularly care what you change it from, or what you change it into, I don't like the changes. Pick a team and broadly stick with it.

On the one hand, you agree with virtually every side picked since the Portsmouth game, and on the other you kick up a fuss about how we've overrotated since then.

You've invariably accepted most of our line-ups since Pompey. Either, you disagree with the individual line-ups for games in this period on the basis that we have 'unnecessarily' rotated from our previous EPL matches, or you agree with the line-ups generally speaking. You've been doing the latter. Doing the latter, whilst also moaning about how we've made 'unnecessary' rotations and screaming about how massively detrimental they are to our form, is an inconsistent position. You don't mind reasonable rotation, and you accept a little bit of 'silly rotation' for cup matches, so please tell me where the probem is, where has the 'silly rotation' been of late? Can you please clarify your position on this point?

All I want is an answer, not one of your many hunches, and not another 'I detect' just....'This is my answer to your question'. In summary, please answer the bloody question(s) - and the many I have put to you before that have yet to be answered!

Thank you.

[Sabre]

MOst of the times I can see the footie points you're making LFC but not this time.

It would be inconsistent if he was criticising the team selections. But from HIS point of view it's much more important to give a continuous run to a certain starting eleven, and from his point of view we haven't seen the benefits of sticking to a squad. And in the latter I agree, we haven't seen checked his model, although I disagree it would be beneficial in the long term.

So even if he takes individual line-ups and say "well not a bad option", he's just missing some continuity because he thinks that would benefit the team. In his opinion, we struggling against certain teams is due to the uncontinuous line-ups in an important degree.

As you know, I disagree this, but bearing in mind what he believes to be true, I cannot see the inconsistency. He's just basing his opinions in some premises. I am basing my opinion in my premises. If some of the premises are wrong, then our logic can be wrong, but I cannot see inconsistency in the contruction of his logic.

[Ace Ventura]

So, why is it, when a game comes around he agrees with the team?

You can't have it both ways IMO.

I know you are the past master at re-quoting old posts LFC so I enter this minefield with extreme trepidation but here goes. I think at the time fo the Birmingham game I talked of Rafa "getting the rotation out of his system". I think I advocated a line-up which was far more of an experiment than the one he actually put out. Why? Well firstly I thought we would still beat Birmingham (jeez how did I know they were going to defend deep the cheeky feckers  ) and secondly like I said I hoped we could then return to a measure of sensibility.

That I was wrong on both counts is neither unusual nor relevant. Now like I say, given your propensity for the killer quote LFC I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that you will trawl through my thousands of posts on the subject and find an instance or two where what I am saying now directly contradicts what I appeared to be saying then. No matter, and I have absolutely no intention of sifting through hundreds of my posts (jeez you wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy) to disprove anything.

I feel I have been fairly consistent for about three years. Pick your strongest team, and until a very good reason comes up, stick to it. I don't like it when you rotate the team. I don't particularly care what you change it from, or what you change it into, I don't like the changes. Pick a team and broadly stick with it.

On the one hand, you agree with virtually every side picked since the Portsmouth game, and on the other you kick up a fuss about how we've overrotated since then.

You've invariably accepted most of our line-ups since Pompey. Either, you disagree with the individual line-ups for games in this period on the basis that we have 'unnecessarily' rotated from our previous EPL matches, or you agree with the line-ups generally speaking. You've been doing the latter. Doing the latter, whilst also moaning about how we've made 'unnecessary' rotations and screaming about how massively detrimental they are to our form, is an inconsistent position. You don't mind reasonable rotation, and you accept a little bit of 'silly rotation' for cup matches, so please tell me where the probem is, where has the 'silly rotation' been of late? Can you please clarify your position on this point?

All I want is an answer, not one of your many hunches, and not another 'I detect' just....'This is my answer to your question'. In summary, please answer the bloody question(s) - and the many I have put to you before that have yet to be answered!

Thank you.

Right i'll have another go 

I sort of see what your saying about mick contradicting himself if he is one minute agreeing with a line-up then the next saying that Rafa shouldnt of made uneccessary changes.

But imo your being a bit picky...trying to be a bit clever.
Mick has cleary stated above that looking at each team selection at the time and even looking back now it would appear that the side selected should be strong enough. So AT THAT TIME he might of looked at the side and thought...yeah that looks a decent side we should beat them.

But when you look at the bigger picture, if that side had 4 key changes from the side that played the previous game then obviously that could majorly effect the performance and more importantly the result.
Its easy to say we should beat this or that team no matter what players selected etc, but what mick and alot of others are saying is lets just play the strongest side we have and change it only if needed as it is far more likely that players will start playing as a team, get to know each others movements strengths and weaknesses etc.
The fact that at that time he agreed the team selection was ok is missing half the point imho.

[JoeTerp]

If all games existed in a vaccum, then we could sit here and critisize individual team selections until we were blue in the face.  But, both rotationalist, and anti-roationalists know that this isn't true, and that it would be petty to argue about specific games. Both mindsets RELY on a very long run of games to prove their point.  Because we are not in Rafa's head and we do not know they exact story of players training performances or small knocks that they might pick up, it would be impossible for us to know which selections were specificly Rotation selections and which ones would have been picked differently had Rafa had an anti-rotationalist mentality.  It is kind of an impossible thing to measure anyway, but certainly it could only be looked at over the long term.  If Rafa was sacked and we brought in a hardcore anti-rotationalist and then won the league, (that would be awseome, but I would feel sad for Rafa) but even THAT would NOT be PROOF that rotation was what made the difference. (although it would be the strongest possible arguement that could be made)

I think the debate is going on so long because it is similar to proving the existence or non existence of God.  Both sides are very strong in their beliefs, use the same arguements over and over again, nobody can PROVE anything either way, AND Nobody ever changes their mind at a debate.

[bigmick]

On the one hand, you agree with virtually every side picked since the Portsmouth game, and on the other you kick up a fuss about how we've overrotated since then.

You've invariably accepted most of our line-ups since Pompey. Either, you disagree with the individual line-ups for games in this period on the basis that we have 'unnecessarily' rotated from our previous EPL matches, or you agree with the line-ups generally speaking. You've been doing the latter. Doing the latter, whilst also moaning about how we've made 'unnecessary' rotations and screaming about how massively detrimental they are to our form, is an inconsistent position. You don't mind reasonable rotation, and you accept a little bit of 'silly rotation' for cup matches, so please tell me where the probem is, where has the 'silly rotation' been of late? Can you please clarify your position on this point?

All I want is an answer, not one of your many hunches, and not another 'I detect' just....'This is my answer to your question'. In summary, please answer the bloody question(s) - and the many I have put to you before that have yet to be answered!

Thank you.

Hmmm. "Kicking up a fuss", "screaming" ? I've a hunch here that somebody is unnecessarily trying to drag me into an argument for no real reason.

Now I know LFC that you aren't a stupid person, I've summised that from your many posts, it is obvious. Therefore, the notion which I have explained on a number of occasions now, and which everybody else seems to understand without any problem whatsoever, namely that I haven't got a particular issue with the team selection for any particular game (barring the Portsmouth one obviously) but that my issue is the fact that invariably it wasn't the same selection as in the previous or the subsequent games. I think it is quite straightforward and I suspect you understand it perfectly well, but are choosing not to for reasons best known to yourself.

The "silly rotation of late" has been the number of changes we have made to the team since the season started. It really is perfectly straightforward and I will try for one final time.

I think we should broadly pick a team and stick with it.

There. Now instead of being silly, why don't you engage in the debate sensibly? If you disagree with my position (and please don't say you don't understand it because I know you do), if you agree with the levels of rotation we have seen since the start of the season, if you would be happy to see similar levels of rotation used for the remainder of this season and into next season, if you think we are going to launch a sustained challenge for the league, if you think that in rotating the team to the level which Rafa does helps in terms of fluency and rhythm, if you think it means we will be fitter and fresher come the end of the season compared to other teams, if you think it reduces the risks of injuries, if you think piking a settled team would have no effect on the success of the team, then say so.

As for this "specifically" which line up did you disagree with? You agree with rotation in cups, so therefore which rotations are silly stuff, I'm done with it thanks. It's been enjoyable and all that, but if I haven't answered your questions to your liking I'm afraid its because I don't for the life of me know the answers. There, next.

[account deleted by request]

While I hopefully understand your position on rotation (without fully agreeing), I am still not sure how you would answer the charge that its the team thats not got enough matchwinners rather than rotation thats our main problem.

We both thought the team was strong enough to win the league (and I still do) BUT I am now coming to accept that in certain games we havent got enough players who can grab a goal out of the blue and change the game, we only have Gerrard and Torres.

We have had a few players injured, a few more who's form has been less than inspiring (Kuyt, Sissoko,Riise) add a few more who may never be of the required standard, while Babel and Lucas look promising but are not quite ready yet.

Surely even if we played our best team most of the time and reduced rotation to a minimum, the lack of matchwinners would still cost us points, maybe even against the likes of Birmingham and Spurs.

One other point I would like to make is that 3 times at HOME we have taken the lead in games only to pulled back to draws. So our problems arn't simply about getting the first goal either.

For us to still win the league either our top players have to play out of their skin every week or we need to buy at Christmas. Get the right players and Rafa can rotate to his hearts content for me.

[bigmick]

I read your post on us being a few players short Saint and it was the latest in a long line of very interesting takes from your good self. There is a distinct possibility (in fact it's probably a certainty) you might be right that we haven't got the same matchwinner mix as Man Utd certainly, and Arsenal probably, but I'm not totally convinced that that alone means we can't win the League.

I would certainly agree that for us to mount a sustained and ultimately successful title tilt, we need our best players to be playing at somewhere near their best, to be playing at somewhere near their potential in every match, and at the very least, to be playing. It's certainly handy when you've got a Drogba, a Torres, a Gerrard, a Fabregas etc who can score you a goal out of nothing, but it's not the be all and end all. 95% of any teams goals will come through good team play, pressing, passing, movement, anticipation, vision, awareness etc so I think at the very least you have to give yourself the chance to perform to your maximum in these elements. We certainly wouldn't be the first team to win the league who didn't have as many matchwinners as some of the clubs below them.

It's a debate that I'm certain will gather more legs as the season progresses, and I'm not really sure to be perfectly honest where I sit at the moment. I definately thought that last season we were good enough to launch a title challenge, and the main reason we didn't in my opinion is that we put ourselves out of the race very early on with mass rotation. I based that opinion on our performances against the top teams as the season progressed and particularly our performances in the Champions League. This season I thought we were good enough to challenge, and I'm fairly sure now that we won't. Whether it's because we've over-rotated (which we obviously have IMHO) or whether it's because we simply aren't good enough is an interesting question. It's definately the case in my view that both Arsenal by a distance and Manchester United marginally are better teams than they were last season. I think we have improved too, with the aquisition of Torres being the mosat obvious reason. Perhaps though you and Bob will be proven correct and we simply weren't good enough at the end of the day.

I would recommned a new thread on the debate. Particularly if as I suspect, we don't actually participate in the title race then the whole question of why not will no doubt be the dominant factor. I'm absolutely certain we haven't given ourselves the best chance with our over-rotation of the team, but ultimately whether or not we were good enough anyway remains to be seen for me. If of course we simply aren't good enough and don't have sufficient quality players, then I suppose there will be some who will question how we have spent our money over the last few seasons.

[LFC2007]

Sabre, Ace, you unequivocally and comprehensively miss the point. Mick, I'll reply later, I can't be fecked right now tbh. You really are missing the point I am making (You'd get an A* with distinction for not answering the question), and I'll explain why in conspicuous detail just for you later on, and no, I am not arguing for argument's sake.

[Kharhaz]

Sabre, Ace, you unequivocally and comprehensively miss the point. Mick, I'll reply later, I can't be fecked right now tbh. You really are missing the point I am making also (You'd get an A* with distinction for not answering the question), and I'll explain why in conspicuous detail just for you later on, and no, I am not arguing for argument's sake.

Please for the love of all that is holy DONT !

[LFC2007]

Flip.

[Kharhaz]

Grow up little boy.