Liverpool FC Forum

[Sabre]

Well I slightly take issue with the notion that in order to jump on the good ship anti-rotation, you've by definition got to be a doomer and gloomer We're quite happy clappy about life in general over here, confident in the fullness of time we will be seen to be on the money as Rafa, emboldened by the teams richest run of form since his tenure began, decides to put Reina up front and Lee Peltier in goal for the Away trip to Man Utd. The anti's will cry "although we lost 6-0 it's nothing to do with rotation" and we'll be chockers again.

Of course it will have nothing to do with rotation. If he chooses Poltier, and also Hobbs for CB, while he picks Sissoko and Lucas for the middle, we will be talking about a VERY POOR TEAM SELECTION.

One thing is the method, rotation, which is modern and better than the models used in the nineties ( ), and another thing team selection. You can still pick a very poor team under rotation, and that will be Rafa's fault of course, but that's independent to the method.

So basically, you can agree the method, but you can disagree wholeheartedly to sit down Torres or Gerrard because you think that this two must play no matter what.

FWIW, I think that a team that thinks big must respond well and be able to win games even if they lose one of their key players. If we're too Torres dependant, then we have a problem. If we're too Gerrard dependant, then we have a problem. A big club that wants to win everything must win games even if one of those are 2 weeks out of the squad.

I don't know the english clubs, but Barcelona if they have Etoo injured or in Africa, they have Henry. They have their problems now, but it's not because they're Etoo dependant. They have answers to most key positions, and they can rotate confidently almost every position, except perhaps the one of Toure.

[Bad Bob]

Here's a gift for the anti brigade...stats for another team that's been rotating heavily in the league and paying a heavy price for it.  I say this tongue in cheek, of course, but I'm curious what people make of it.

From football365.com

Big Sam`s Ever-Changing Line-ups
Posted 04/12/07 15:03
EmailPrintSave


Alan Smith left ManYoo this summer in search of regular football. We hope for his sake that he wasn't looking for football in a regular position. So far this season for Newcastle, he has played in a midfield three, a midfield four, a midfield five, a strike pairing and a front three.

Obafemi Martins - the Toon's most prolific goalscorer with five goals - has played with three strike partners and as part of two different three-man strike combinations. And sometimes he's been confined to the bench.

At the back, Sam Allarydce has fielded a massive nine different defensive line-ups in 14 games, including an ill-fated three-man defence that lasted 20 horrendous minutes against Liverpool.

No player has started every game for Newcastle. No wonder there was reportedly some little mumbling and shuffling of feet when Allardyce asked his players what they thought of his tactics.

And pundits wonder why Newcastle fans sing 'you don't know what you're doing'.

It's not even an insult - it's a fact. Allardyce has been casting around for a line-up that works ever since a 3-1 defeat at Man City led to him changing four of his back five as well as his formation.

That worked for two games - against Everton and Spurs - and since that fortuitous win over Tottenham, they have garnered just one point from five matches that have featured some of the worst defending of the season not to involve Titus Bramble.

Against Blackburn on Saturday there was some improvement, but that improvement came courtesy of a return to the 4-3-3 formation that saw them lose only two of their first seven games. That formation clearly works for Allardyce - even if it doesn't please the impatient football purists of Newcastle who want to win every game 4-3. Changing it was a sign of weakness.

Big Sam has to have the strength of character to pick a team and a formation and stick with it. Any fool knows that a settled line-up is the key to success - even Rafa Benitez plays his players in approximately their preferred positions.

Allardyce's attitude seems to be 'I'm the boss, so lump it' - and that's led to him dropping crowd favourites like Steven Taylor, Emre, James Milner, Oba Martins and Charles N'Zogbia at various junctures this season. But that attitide only ever really washes when you're winning.

It all smacks a bit of Steve McClaren's England reign...and that didn't end awfully well, did it?

For the record, here are Newcastle's Premier League line-ups this season:

Bolton 1 Newcastle 3 (4-3-3)
Harper; Carr, Taylor, Rozehnal, N'Zogbia; Butt, Geremi, Smith; Martins, Viduka, Milner.

Newcastle 0 Aston Villa 0 (4-3-3)
Harper; Carr, Taylor, Rozehnal, N'Zogbia; Butt, Geremi, Smith; Martins, Viduka, Milner.

Middlesbrough 2 Newcastle 2 (4-3-3)
Harper; Carr, Taylor, Rozehnal, N'Zogbia; Butt, Geremi, Smith; Martins, Viduka, Milner.

Newcastle 1 Wigan 0 (4-3-3)
Harper; Taylor, Rozehnal, Cacapa, N'Zogbia; Butt, Geremi, Smith; Owen, Viduka, Milner.

Derby 1 Newcastle 0 (4-3-3)
Harper; Taylor, Rozehnal, Cacapa, N'Zogbia; Butt, Geremi, Smith; Owen, Ameobi, Milner.

Newcastle 3 West Ham 1 (4-3-3)
Harper; Beye, Rozehnal, Cacapa, N'Zogbia; Butt, Geremi, Smith; Owen, Viduka, Milner.

Man City 3 Newcastle 1 (4-3-3)
Harper; Beye, Rozehnal, Taylor, N'Zogbia; Butt, Geremi, Smith; Martins, Viduka, Milner.

Newcastle 3 Everton 2 (4-4-2)
Given; Beye, Cacapa, Faye, Jose Enrique; Milner, Geremi, Butt, N'Zogbia; Martins, Smith.

Newcastle 3 Tottenham 1 (4-4-2)
Given; Beye, Cacapa, Faye, Jose Enrique; Geremi, Butt, Emre, N'Zogbia; Martins, Owen.

Reading 2 Newcastle 1 (4-4-2)
Given; Beye, Cacapa, Faye, Jose Enrique; Geremi, Barton, Butt, Emre; Martins, Owen.

Newcastle 1 Pompey 4 (4-4-2)
Harper; Taylor, Cacapa, Faye, Jose Enrique; N'Zogbia, Barton, Butt, Milner; Smith, Owen.

Sunderland 1 Newcastle 1 (4-4-2)
Harper; Taylor, Rozehnal, Faye, N'Zogbia; Milner, Barton, Smith, Emre; Owen, Viduka.

Newcastle 0 Liverpool 3 (3-5-2 to 4-4-2 after 20 minutes)
Given; Rozehnal, Beye, Jose Enrique; Geremi, Butt, Smith, Emre, N'Zogbia; Martins, Viduka.

Blackburn 3 Newcastle 1 (4-3-3)
Given; Beye, Rozehnal, Faye, N'Zogbia; Geremi, Butt, Barton; Martins, Smith, Milner.

[username]

Bad Bob, nice idea, but its not rotation that makes Sam Allarydce a manger

[JC_81]

In fairness to Allardyce Bob, his hand has been forced a lot of the time in terms of selection because of the injuries they've had this season.  As much as I don't like the guy, I think the Newcastle fans and the media are being a bit harsh on him.

He was left with a rubbish squad, half of whom you sense didn't want to be there even before he took over.  Add that to injuries to key players, fans with completely unrealistic expectations and the pressure of a new owner who didn't hire you as manager - who'd want his job?!  Whether he rotates the squad or not I think he's fighting a losing battle there, he'll not last the season.

Going back to Rafa's rotation - it's a policy that seems to work when the team's winning, as we are seeing at the moment.  But I still think that if we'd persevered with a more consistent line-up at the start of the season we'd have hit form sooner.

[account deleted by request]

Fat Sam obviously doesn't know the secret to being a popular manager at Newcastle.......... buy a new striker. Team letting in loads of goals........... buy a new striker. Midfield can't pass......... buy a new striker. Manager unpopular and about to get the sack.......... buy a new striker.

[zarababe]

Going back to Rafa's rotation - it's a policy that seems to work when the team's winning, as we are seeing at the moment. 

The team's winning because they are playing as a unit, putting the chances away, are more familiar with each other and Rafa's systems, which gives confidence, form has returned and the changes do not change the way the team plays overall. Every players in contention and this is without Alonso and Agger, so players are in peak condition.

Its not a 'policy' that works when we are winning it is a policy that enables us to win !

[Ciggy]

There was a letter in the echo off someone who has worked as a footballer in America, he said the yanks have this thing about No1 striker, No2 Striker, and so on........

And because they spent that much cash on Torres he is classed as the No1 striker plus he is the No1 isnt he, he is the best forward at our club.

The yanks dont like the fact he will be rotated or rested and obviously have said something about it because they dont understand that part of Rafa's policy.

But for me he should play every single game apart from the Carling Cup that Im not really @rsed about and I dont think Rafa will be either.

And against dross in the FA Cup.

[stmichael]

So it's not that Rafa is still rotating that is the issue... It's the fact that he's not doing it willy nilly anymore. Point has always been to do it sensibly especially so in the spine of the team.

In fairness to Rafa, throughout his time here he's pretty much always tried to keep a spine of the team going. I mean it's only this season really that he has quality players in other areas that he can rotate, and rotate effectively.

The media have overhyped it as usual. We've always had a spine, but sometimes you have to even rotate the spine of your team, particularly if you have midweek games, players coming back from injury etc.

[NANNY RED]

As far as im concerned Rafa can pick the ballboy. As long as were winning and playing like we are that will do for me

[Bad Bob]

So it's not that Rafa is still rotating that is the issue... It's the fact that he's not doing it willy nilly anymore. Point has always been to do it sensibly especially so in the spine of the team.

In fairness to Rafa, throughout his time here he's pretty much always tried to keep a spine of the team going. I mean it's only this season really that he has quality players in other areas that he can rotate, and rotate effectively.

The media have overhyped it as usual. We've always had a spine, but sometimes you have to even rotate the spine of your team, particularly if you have midweek games, players coming back from injury etc.

Ermmm, those were Conn O'var's sentiments not mine that you've quoted.   

[JoeTerp]

Since the 0-0 Birmingham draw that all the antis love to point out, Rafa has picked Torres in EVERY game that he was FIT except for the time when he picked the same side that did Besiktas in 8-0 against Fulham, but he scored as a sub in that game.  Maybe Rafa hadn't quite realized the level of undroppableness that Torres had reached when he did not select him on September 22nd?

[maguskwt]

I've noticed that recently the key word from the anti-rotationalists is "mass rotation" instead of just "rotation"  ...


just as Sadam Hussein was suspected of possesion of WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) now Rafa is being accused of using WMR's (Weapon of Mass Rotations)


   

[bigmick]

I've noticed that recently the key word from the anti-rotationalists is "mass rotation" instead of just "rotation"  ...


just as Sadam Hussein was suspected of possesion of WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) now Rafa is being accused of using WMR's (Weapon of Mass Rotations)


   

This is an interesting one, as is Joes post before it where he talks about rafa playing Torres in every game since Birmingham.

The mass rotation one is an easy one to put to bed. If you are anti rotation "Rafa style", then as new people join the debate you constantly get the "but you can't play the same team in every single game" argument. The reality is of course that nobody on the anti side of the fence is suggesting that you should. Some of us think that changing the whole midfield from one game to the next is "mass-rotation" and unnecessary, and to counter another urban myth, are quite happy to point is out even after we've won the game 4-1.

As for the Torres issue, I am absolutely certain that Joe is right. Torres's performances have elevated him firmly into the "undroppable/unrotationable" bracket (unless we get very brave), whereas around the time of the Birmingham game, we still were under the misconception that Voronin/Kuyt was a good idea.

It's one of the most puzzling aspects of the pro rotationary stance to say "it's not the fault of the system that we've dropped points with it over the last three seasons, it's simply that the players we were bringing in/rotating in weren't good enough". Some of us in that case would advocate rotating less then. Sure if you've got a Henri, an Eto or a Tevez on your bench, then resting Torres isn't going to hurt quite so much as it would if we're talking Voronin. Thankfully the manager seems to have realised that now, and as a result the results have inevitably improved.

FWIW I actually thought Peewee got a very unfair press for his point about Rafa "seeing the light" on rotation somewhat. While it's true to say that numerically we haven't seen a massive reduction in the number of changes, we haven't seen Gerrard and Torres rested for Away games at the same time either.

Clearly there has been a steep learning process for all of us with regards to Torres in particular as to how important to the team he actually is. Saints stat about Liverpool only failing to score in three league games, and guess who didn't start in any of them, puts the decision not to start him at Portsmouth and at home against Birmingham into sharp focus. We've learnt the lesson right enough, but whether we learnt it quite quickly enough, or indeed whether it was an experiment that we needed to conduct in the first place, is still to be proven one way or another.

[maguskwt]

FWIW I actually thought Peewee got a very unfair press for his point about Rafa "seeing the light" on rotation somewhat. While it's true to say that numerically we haven't seen a massive reduction in the number of changes, we haven't seen Gerrard and Torres rested for Away games at the same time either.

so are you and pee wee implying that all that matters in liverpool's current team is Gerrard and Torres? and you don't care whether others are rotated just as long as rafa keeps playing Gerrard and Torres. (a bit of exageration here but you get the idea). So are the anti-rotationlists finally saying that rotation works... just keep gerrard and torres in the team?

What I do suspect the real reason for our recent good performances is that Rafa's rotation policy is starting to bear its fruit. players are getting much more familiar with changing tactics and playing with one another. They are also finally getting enough games and hence match fitness. On top of that because of rotation... the players are more fresh and energetic... look at the recent games against newcastle, porto, bolton... we played well yeah... but we didn't play superbly... but we kept the level of our game high consistently throughout 90 minutes and they finally crumbled...

So perhaps the issue is not really about how much rotation (since our arguments are going in circles between the anti and the pro camps anyway)... perhaps the issue is maybe we need to have started our pre-season earlier! 

[stmichael]

Decent article on rotation:

Whether it be zonal marking or squad rotation, all too often football pundits are guilty of lazy journalism as they attempt to simplify a complex situation to explain a team's form or results.

When results go in our favour, the doomsday headlines disappear, and people quickly forget that zonal marking is not the way to defend set-pieces and that you can't win with squad rotation'

When asked this week whether he thought Liverpool are serious title contenders this season, an Anfield fan - and one of Rafa's biggest critics during the period when rotation headlines were ubiquitous - responded :
"Contenders - most definitely. Will we win it? I'm not so sure, probably not this season. We still need to strengthen at left -back, right midfield and up front. However, since my original comments that we will never win the league under Rafa Benitez, there has been a significant improvement in the team's performances - especially going forward - and also an improvement in tactics and team selection though I still feel we could use the ball better at times and pass it more.

''Also, I feel in a way our injuries have helped us more than hindered us. I'm not saying we don't miss Xabi Alonso, Daniel Agger and company, but due to injuries we have been forced to pick a more settled team with less changes which in turn has led to more familiarity among players which has added to fluidity and attacking play. There's a better sense of cohesion among the players because they are getting used to playing together!''

This sounded distinctly like an attempt to exit from the back door. Yes, our form has improved since this pundit's statement that the Reds wouldn't win under Rafa - but that's because he made a major doomsday prediction when our form wobbled a bit, and he set himself up for this by getting carried away with the pessimism and negativity after a home draw or two.

As far as the claims of a more settled squad are concerned, I can understand why people would think the squad is more settled (given the absence of rotation headlines when Liverpool are winning - as I predicted would happen when rotation bashing was the fashion during our lull in form). But they'd be mistaken, since the media tend to talk about rotation only when we're losing.

In reality, Rafa has 'rotated'" 41 times since our last defeat (against Besiktas) - that's 41 changes in nine matches. In other words, an average of about 4.6 rotations per match, no fewer than he made before (in fact, above his average for the last two seasons). In fact, he made five changes from the team that drew 0-0 with Blackburn, and had we not thumped Besiktas 8-0, we'd have seen headlines about squad rotation.

Rafa then made no changes against Fulham, and there was amazement that the tinkerman extraordinaire had kept the same line-up. Six changes were made to the side to face Newcastle, and had we not won 3-0 (and it could have been 6-0 if Fernando Torres had taken his hat-trick of clear chances) we'd have again seen Alan Hansen and the other pundits going on about Rafa's rotation.

Five changes followed that match as we hosted Porto, and again, you can imagine the headlines had we not won 4-1. Then there were four more changes this past weekend, and our 4-0 win again kept the critics of squad rotation silent.

So I'm afraid the injuries haven't done anything to stop Rafa from rotating. In fact, Agger was almost never rotated before his injury, and Xabi was rotated no more or less than Javier Mascherano, Momo Sissoko and Lucas Leiva have been since he was crocked. In fact, Lucas didn't get many matches at all prior to Xabi's injury and the rotation was between the other three, while now with Alonso injured, Lucas is being rotated in and out in his place.

Our strikers are still being rotated as much as they were when the anti-rotation headlines were a fixture on the back pages. Our improvement has nothing to do with a more settled side. It is simply the big players starting to pull their weight (most notably Steven Gerrard), the team finally converting chances into goals, and a general improvement in attitude and confidence.

If you believe the scaremongers, you would have thought zonal marking was a problem in the past, and then suddenly you would forget about it once the team adapted to it and started defending well (the best defensive record in the Premier League). Similarly, if you believed the nonsense the lazy journos were printing about squad rotation, you could also have made similarly infamous statements about Liverpool never winning under a rotation-obsessed Rafa.

Now that we are putting together good results - squad rotation still withstanding - and the lazy journos have conveniently shut-up about squad rotation, it seems the Rafa-rotation critics are attempting to back-track through the back-door.

The moral of the story? Lazy journalists and knee-jerkers are half-brothers. When results don't go our way, they all start shouting "the sky is falling" and looking for simple, short answers to our problems - be it zonal marking or squad rotation. When results go in our favour, the doomsday headlines disappear, and people quickly forget that "zonal marking is not the way to defend set-pieces" (after all, empty spaces don't score goals - men do! So why are they marking empty space?) and that you can't win with squad rotation. How are players going to learn to play with each other? Never mind the fact that they train together six days a week!

In short, the next time you read a headline succinctly summarising the key to a team's form (good or bad) with a simple theory like squad rotation or zonal marking, ask yourself whether you're reading lazy journalism masquerading as football punditry. All to often, you'll find the answer is a resounding "yes"!

http://www.sportingo.com/footbal....01,6000

Generally I think it's a decent article. Tomkins also wrote a decent article recently about why rotation could actually be a positive thing. I always said during the bad spell that such a simplified answer as rotation was not the key to our problems. It just did not explain away the things that were happening on the pitch.