Liverpool FC Forum

[Bad Bob]

funny how rotation hasn't even been mentioned after the game on saturday as we won isn't it?

rotation was more in evidence in that game than most of the recent games.

Very true.  A central midfield of Sissoko and (first-time starter) Lucas?  In an away match?  At a ground where we've had problems in the past? With Kewell starting his first club match in 18 months?  And Gerrard in a free role?  That's about as radical a rotation as we've seen from Rafa all year (but, of course, we did have the dynamic duo of Gerrard and Torres on the pitch, which, in some circles, seems to be considered the antidote to rotation's fluency-sapping properties). 

That team selection, IMHO, completely belies the suggestion that Rafa is now rotating less because he's come to the conclusion that he can't afford to.  If this week's taught us nothing else, it's that Rafa is one stubborn sod, whether it be with a microphone in his face or a teamsheet in his hand.

Well I thought he rotated very sensibly against Newcastle. Lets take a look, Mascherano came back from South America, so he felt jet-lagged and needed a rest. Plus, Lucas, Sissoko, Torres, Carragher, Arbeloa were all fresh to start because they didn't have any international matches.

I thought Benitez was spot on against Newcastle, not only he rotated sensibly, he also did not bench Gerrard and Torres, who are world class players that need to start every premiership game.

IMO, Benitez will stick with playing Torres, Gerrard, Carragher and Reina every game, but may rotate our squad players.

I wasn't criticizing the wisdom of the selections, mate--simply (and, yes, somewhat sarcastically) pointing out that the anti-rotation brigade's blood should have been boiling when they saw that teamsheet.  It was, after all, a significant departure from the last two teamsheets and the lineup did have a strong whiff of experimentation to it.  Given that Rafa has been vilified for much more "sensible" rotations already this season, I was surprised at the non-reaction--especially because the team selection proves (to my mind, anyway) that Rafa has decidedly not tempered his rotation policy in light of recent performances.

To me, it just goes to show that, with the notable exception of Big Mick, complaints about rotation only seem to crop up when results don't go our way.  It also, I think, might suggest that some of the rotation complaints in the past had much more to do with whether Torres and Gerrard were selected or not.  There's no question in my mind, for instance, that the team selection that Rafa made in Newcastle on Saturday was much, much more risky than the team we put out at home to Birmingham (when people heavily criticized Rafa for leaving Torres out of an otherwise strong and, for him, quite orthodox side).  I guess I've grown a little bemused by when and how enthusiastically people criticize rotation.  It stills strikes me as a convenient excuse for criticizing poor results--especially when Torres, Gerrard or both aren't involved (because no one seems to care that much when, say, Riise is dropped for Aurelio). 

So, I'll say it again: if we are so dependent on Torres and Gerrard to get results then rotation isn't really our problem at all--a lack of quality attacking players is (because no title winning team simply relies on two star players to get results week in, week out).  Could it be that people have been misdiagnosing the "problem" all along?

[burjennio]

(because no title winning team simply relies on two star players to get results week in, week out). 

Utd didnt have Ronaldo or Rooney at the weekend, what happened?

[Sabre]

Sensible rotation: When the team wins even if there are 6 changes.

Madness rotation: When the team loses, sorry, draws.

It will be interesting the Manchester United game. They lost at Bolton, so it's not in the realms of impossible that they lose aswell in Anfield. So it might just happen that with rotation and everything we have 19 teams below us very soon.

Of course that's the best case scenario, but it's not an impossible scenario.

[metalhead]

Actually, I wasn't criticizing you BadBob, merely backing you up 

To answer your question, Yes, to win the premiership is needing quality players who are good enough to win it. Torres, Gerrard, Alonso, Reina, Mascherano and Carragher are players who must be deemed "untouchables" or because they have quality and they are players that we need to win the League. I'm not against rotation, I'm with rotating sensibly, like switching between squad players while keeping our key players on the pitch every time. Yes, we do lack some quality, with 2 or 3 more excellent players ( a striker and a center half) then we can win the title.

[Bad Bob]

funny how rotation hasn't even been mentioned after the game on saturday as we won isn't it?

rotation was more in evidence in that game than most of the recent games.

Very true.  A central midfield of Sissoko and (first-time starter) Lucas?  In an away match?  At a ground where we've had problems in the past? With Kewell starting his first club match in 18 months?  And Gerrard in a free role?  That's about as radical a rotation as we've seen from Rafa all year (but, of course, we did have the dynamic duo of Gerrard and Torres on the pitch, which, in some circles, seems to be considered the antidote to rotation's fluency-sapping properties). 

That team selection, IMHO, completely belies the suggestion that Rafa is now rotating less because he's come to the conclusion that he can't afford to.  If this week's taught us nothing else, it's that Rafa is one stubborn sod, whether it be with a microphone in his face or a teamsheet in his hand.

although it is true that it was a pretty radical line-up against Newcastle, you have said earlier that you can't really count post international break changes as rotation.  I am guessing that Momo and Lucas were the only CMs to stay at Melwood, and maybe Rafa really liked what he saw.  And it wasn't like Kewell was declared fit on Friday and played Saturday.  His comeback in the reserves match was a month ago and he played 90 minutes for his country the week before.  And where his put Gerrard can be seen as a "Forced" rotation with Yossi and Pennant out injured

I forgot my sarcasm smiley I see. 

Joe, as you've pointed out, I've been a staunch advocate all season that these international breaks make a huge difference to what kind of team we could select the first game back.  I've been met with a fair degree of skepticism on that score and I still read many, many posts that talk about the faulty team selection against Portsmouth as though we should forget that the players had just spent the preceeding two weeks traveling all over Europe (and in some cases the world) with their countries.  And, that Torres should have absolutely started that game no matter what and that that result (a draw!) cost us our title challenge for this season (a pronounced over-exaggeration, IMO).

So, when it came time to assess the team we put out against Newcastle on Saturday, you can imagine my surprise to find no one frothing at the mouth with rage because Rafa decided to select a team based on who was fresh and available for training in the build up.  I suspect the fact that Torres was one of those who stayed back at Melwood to train with the team, has had a lot to do with that non-reaction.  To be absolutely blunt, what I'm saying is that, for many people, rotation only seems to be an issue when Torres doesn't play.  If that's true, than people should probably stop talking about the problems of rotation and start talking about how dependent we are on Torres (and Gerrard too, of course).

[Bad Bob]

(because no title winning team simply relies on two star players to get results week in, week out). 

Utd didnt have Ronaldo or Rooney at the weekend, what happened?

A blip because their other top players--the kind that can change a game (Scholes, Giggs, Tevez, Saha, Nani, Vidic)--were either missing or didn't perform.  Rest assured, they have the quality to challenge for the title even without Rooney and Ronaldo on the pitch for one match.

[LFC2007]

So, I'll say it again: if we are so dependent on Torres and Gerrard to get results then rotation isn't really our problem at all--a lack of quality attacking players is (because no title winning team simply relies on two star players to get results week in, week out).  Could it be that people have been misdiagnosing the "problem" all along?

Yes, absolutely.

I'd say that pure 'over-rotation' accounts for very little towards our 'inconsistencies', it's all about the balance of the side, and it always will be.

I have maintained that, in order to win the league, we must have our key players fit and firing on all cylinders, our most important two players who are key to a title challenge are Torres and Gerrard. We are unquestionably over-reliant on these two. Other than Babel, who is very much learning the ropes, we don't have wide men or forwards who can combine pace and power with skill. In order to have the correct balance in each game, at least one of Babel, Gerrard or Torres must play IMHO. Generally speaking, I'd advocate at least two of these playing in each game.

As a general rule for the fickle anti-R brigade, if Torres and Gerrard play, the anti-R's are placated with the exception of BM.

[bigmick]

As always some interesting points. When we beat Fulham a couple of weeks back after keeping the same team, I resisted the (not very big TBH) temptation to say that the reason we played well and won was because we kept the same team. The truth was and is that you wouldn't see any benefits from a more settled selection policy for three or four games at least I shouldn't think. That's not to say that you'd have to play exactly the same team for three or four games, but largely so.

Before the Newcastle game I was in bed fast asleep. I said in the match thread that if I had been around I would certainly have slagged the line-up as there were many parts of it which I didn't agree with, most notably the resting of Crouch and the playing of Kuyt. Masherano probably couldn't play after landing ten minutes before the game or whatever it was ( only probably mind    ) and I probably wouldn't have pklayed Finnan either.

All that said we won and we played well. Thankfully some people seem to have read my post because I've been kind of left out of the "oh it's all gone quiet over there" post-mortem, but it's worth looking at the situation now.

Does our success in the Newcastle game prove you can rotate after an International break (and I will concede that if you absolutely must have a little rotatathon, then at least after an Internation break there is a modicum of logic to support the changes, not much in many cases but some) and still be successful. The short answer of course is yes, because we were.

We mass rotated, fecked about, tinkered, threw all the names in a hat or whatever else you like to call it, and we won the game comfortably. We also showed a high degree of fluency and cohesion, while we even began to develop some rhythm int he second half as well. So there you have it, conclusive proof. You can mass rotate after International breaks and still perform well while winning the game comfortably. As long as you are playing Newcastle   

[Scottbot]

To me, it just goes to show that, with the notable exception of Big Mick, complaints about rotation only seem to crop up when results don't go our way.

That my friend is hitting a BIG NAIL with a BIG HAMMER

[Sabre]

There's something I don't get. Rotation is valid then against a poor team, like Newcastle away or Besiktas at home then.

So may I ask where was the cohesion in Chelsea when we beat them twice in the CL? may I ask why we do not seem to be inferior to any team, rotating or not when we face them?, shouldn't those teams overrun us because they practice the old good not change too much the team?

Yes they should. But they don't. Games won't be solved by rotation or lack of it, but other multiple factors. Rotating or not rotating, we could lose again 2-1 against Milan, or beat them 2-1. The difference will be decissions of Rafa, inspiration of men like torres (what if we had him last season?) and details like that. When Liverpool has confidence and is playing like they know, I don't fear Barcelona, nor Manchester United, nor anybody.

Maybe it's true that if you play almost the same team 1 month and a half you'll have a improvement, more automatised game, but this improvement will be far less important than many other factors. Interesting or not, this is my opinion. And I'm sure that more than one member of this forum will end up believing in rotation, even if  they have to see winning the premiership so that they believe. Like Saint Thomas, there are people who need to see to believe, which is nice.

[stmichael]

Also, was anything made of Alex Ferguson's "costly rotation policy" for leaving Ronaldo out when the guy was fit to play.

No, I thought not.

[bigmick]

It's a pretty convincing endorsement for rotation Mick to say "Sir Alex leaves out his best players and gets beat too". I might be about to jump ship

In all seriousness, Bolton Away these days is nothing like Bolton Away was two or three years ago. Similar to Newcastle Away I guess, therefore Ferguson thought he could get away with it, yet he couldn't. He might come to the concludsion now that while Ronney is out injured, resting his other best player isn't the wisest course of action.

As to whether much was "made of it", I have absolutely no idea. Like I've said many times, you don't get Andy Gray or british newspapers over here, so you';ve got to come up with your own opinions. You can't just nick somebody else's words and use them from over here, it's good for the soul in a funny kind of way Mick

[Sabre]

I need your knowledge as you (lot) know better Arsenal than me.

In the line up Arsenal has put today in Sevilla, you can see it here, in the left :

Here

How many changes are there in the Arsenal's eleven compared to their best eleven? I don't know well their squad but there seem to be more than 5. If that's the case, then we can see an obviously weakened eleven. When you suddenly make 6 changes and those who enter haven't much games in their pockets, then you really have a weakened team and that might cost you for instance in this case the first place in the group.

That's the opposite notion to rotation, where you introduce men that are  regular in the team, have played a good amount of matches, and thus if you make 4 changes with this kind of seasoned players you have the same or almost the same power as a team, while you rest a 2 of 3 of your players following a carefully thought plan. It's always about finding a powerful starting eleven that can win the game, while you don't burn the players. If you don't plan this, then it reaches a game like this, in which you HAVE TO play a weakened team with less chances of success.

If as I suspect you confirm that many of those Arsenal men have not played much, then we have a clear example of a not that competitive team, that kind of changing would be the one I'd consider madness, what we call here throwing the game to the W.C.

[account deleted by request]

Only 3 possibly 4 first teamers in that team Sabre. Having already qualified it was a good game to try out a few of the players pushing for the first team. One could argue, as Arsenal already have the points because they have played their best eleven week in week out, it is an ideal time to give them a rest, before the big push up to Christmas.

And that idea is much worse than having to fight up to and including the last game to qualify because ?

Maybe if they have won the League by the end of March they will rest a few players again

[bigmick]

To me it's quite sensible. Win your first few games to make sure you've qualified, then put out a skeleton team in your toughest Away game in the group. The result is of course that he players get to have a "rest", you get to give the lads who don't normally get a start an outing, and the biggest plus of all of course is that the first team remain on their fantastic run no matter what. Ask Fabregas or Adebayor and no doubt as far they are concerned they ares still in the middle of a brilliant winning run.

It's kind of like the old fashioned way of doing things. In the two leggers against the Icelandic teams you'd hammer them 4-0 at Home, put the whole thing to bed and then send out half a side in the Away game. As the players at Arsenal will now have played something like sixteen or seventeen matches they could probably use a little rest, even I would concede that. It's definately different though to resting blokes after four games or so, and then having to go Away to your hardest ask in the group in the last game needing a win to go through. That is of course if you can win the previous two games as well.

Wenger maybe stuck in the nineties in some respects but there is no question that in the way he picks the team, Rafa could learn from him IMHO. I asked the question before and never ever did get an answer. If Wenger had made as many changes to his team as we have made to ours in the season so far, do people think Arsenal would have gained more, less or the same number of points in the Premiership? Obviously none of us know and it can't be proven either way, it's just an opinion. If it's the case that in actual fact he could have rotated "Rafa-style" and still qualified after four games for europe, and still been clear at the top of the Premiership, then surely he has missed out on an opportunity to have his players leaping around like gazelles at the end of the season like ours will be by all accounts.