Liverpool FC Forum

by **Redrider** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:18 am

Be wary of rose tinted optimisim.
We all wan't to believe the best, but I'm with keeping feet on the ground and in touch with reality.
:blues:

by **stmichael** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:22 am

What happened to letting the season unfold a bit before casting judgement? Nobody knows if what's been happening so far will be beneficial to the team, until the season is over.

Surely the CL winning campaign taught people to have a bit of faith and just generally take a step back and see what happens.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't agreed with every decision made so far this season but it's early days and the end may justify the means come May time.

by **Ace Ventura** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:20 pm

Ciggy wrote:
bigmick wrote:I must confess I find the "glass is half full" thrust of every Tompkins post a little wearing at times. If you didn't know better you would think that picking up one point in four away games, in the process scoring only goal from an extremely dodgy penalty (I really can't go with the theory that the award was "legitamate", lets be sensible here the referee made a mistake) was all part of Rafa's grand plan, a deliberate ploy. Maybe he wanted to lure the others into a false sense of security.

"Rafa made a mistake? Nah mate, your a fairweather knee-jerker. Wait till you see us in the second half of the season, you'll be GLAD we lost those games and drew with Sheffield United then. We'll be sprinting about the pitch with gay abandon, everyone else will be treading water while we will be overwhelming all and sundry 'cos we'll be FRESH. Fresher than a spring lamb, we'll be leaping like salmon to head in those corners, sprinting around like gazelles to every loose ball whereas our rivals will be wearing concrete boots, overcome by the fatigue of playing in a non-rotated formation."

Sorry I don't buy it. I don't buy it because it's palpably b0ll0cks. Sorry if it makes me fall out with most people on here, but it's nothing short of delusional nonsense. We didn't win the Champions League because Rafa rotated the team. FFS, we were a couple of minutes from going out in the group stages until we fashioned an unlikely comeback culminating in Gerrard busting the net in the dying seconds against Olympiacos. Did we come back in the final because Milan were too tired? Did Gudjohnson miss by inches at Anfield because he had played too many games? If Milan were too tired, how come they were 3-0 up at half time and cruising? Sorry but I don't buy us winning the Champions League was down to rotation at all.

It really kills me when rafa says "nobody can play sixty games a season" and everyone goes "yeah exactly, top man Rafa". Nobody is suggesting that anybody, even Gerrard plays in every single game. Look at us sofar though, we have got players who are injured and players who have been injured. You have to rotate naturally through injuries so why make six changes in a game just for the sake of it?

If you are going to "rest" a player, do it one or two at a time. Do it when they are actually tired. Do it when the team has established at least a modicum of fluency and momentum. People need to realise, we are still in the race because everybody else is dropping points (which probably means it's a weaker league this term) and not because of some tactical masterstroke. While it's true to say that if we win the league people will forget about the start, it's also true to say that it won't mean the mistakes didn't happen. It's also true to say if we do win the league, it will most definately not be because of rotation, it will be despite it.

Now this is better than the PT article cause its the truth, sometimes people have to take off those red tinted specs and see thing for how they are.

I disagree, while the rotation has obviously affected the team, it would be more than foolish to suggest that apart from the Sheffield United game we wouldnt of had 3 really tough games no matter what.
They are now out of the way, and we can look forward. I agree with the fact that the manager may have over rotated players so far, but at the end of the day the fixtures we have had have been really tricky and coupled with the fact that they have been sandwiched inbetween international fixtures, and coming so soon after the world cup....hasnt helped one bit.
Uniteds fixtures have been far easier and they have already lost at home.
I am optimistic and think no matter what time we played Everton Chelsea and Bolton away and with even the strongest 11 we would of struggled and possibly dropped points.

by **bigmick** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:32 pm

stmichael wrote:What happened to letting the season unfold a bit before casting judgement? Nobody knows if what's been happening so far will be beneficial to the team, until the season is over.

My point is that whichever way the season pans out, mistakes have been made already and if Rafa thinks that making six changes per game will bring success (he doesn't by the way) then he is mistaken.

I'll make a prediction here and now, when we do start winning football matches consistently the run will coincide with Rafa picking a settled team. Before some wag comes on here and says that it's ninety odd games since he hasn't changed the team, I know. I reiterate, nobody to the best of my knowledge is suggesting that you play the same team in absolutely every single game. What I am suggesting is that wholesale changes every game for no reason are a mistake.

Settled back fours become stronger. Settled midfield quartets play with more fluency. Strikers in a run of form like to play as much as they can, that's the way it has always been. Almost always, right-footed players like to play either in the centre or on the right-hand side. Almost always, you work out where is the best and most effective position for your best player to play and pick your team accordingly around that presumption.

The thing is, Rafa realises this as well. Since the silliness of the first couple of matches he has tried to pick a more settled eleven. Unfortunately for him and the team the folly of early season tinkering has been shown up graphically, both in the fact that we have picked up injuries and would have had to rotate anyway and in the way the team have totally failed to gel as either an attacking or defensive force.

Despite what the scientists of the game tell us, each game is not played in isolation. Mess up the selection in one game and miss out on a victory and it carries over to the next game. Concede an equalising goal in the dying seconds of one home game and you can bet you'll be desperately hanging on in the final minutes of the next match, "oh no not again" is the anxious cry of the crowd and it filters down to the players. Don't win your first away game, which should have been an absolute penalty kick fixture and it carries forward into your next away game or three.

What irks me most is that Rafa knows himself I am sure that he has contributed to a poor start with his tinkering. Obviously, International breaks and the aftermath of the world Cup have had a disruptive effect but given that, is the answer to mess around with the team and positions unnecessarily?

We are still paying a heavy price for the daft selections in the Sheffield United and Macabi Haifa home game in my view. I still think we can get going and win lots of matches and who knows, silverware is not out of the question. It won't though be because we changed it every game or because steven Gerrard played on the left for a couple of games in which we got beat.

by **Ciggy** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:35 pm

Rotation policy is a winner, claims BenitezOct 13 2006

By Paul Walker, Daily Post

RAFAEL BENITEZ insists his rotation policy was the decisive factor in winning the Spanish title when he was manager at Valencia.

And he has repeated that he will not change the system now he is manager at Liverpool, having not fielded the same side for 94 consecutive matches.

The Anfield manager said: "In Spain I had the experience in Valencia when in the first year we won La Liga after 31 years without winning the league, and against Real Madrid, Barcelona, Deportivo and Atletico Madrid.

"And why? Because we were changing the team every game. In January we were eight points behind Real Madrid and we finished six or seven points ahead.

"Why? Because we were fresh at the end of the season, the last two or three months we were really, really fresh and we were playing at another level.

"We try to explain to our players why we decide to rotate. It's not possible to play 60-65 games 100% fit, it's impossible now with the tempo and the football.

"People talk about 20, 30, 50 years ago but it's different, now you can play with a really, really high tempo and after you finish the game you might need to fly to another country to play another really, really important game.

"Then you come back and a few days later play another important game against a tough team, with a lot of physical contact."

I have no problem with the rotation of 2 - 3 at the most players Ace, I agree with BM that its stopping us in our tracks the whole sale changes of 6 players, that is half of the team.
No team in the prem makes so many changes as us apart from Newcastle but they have no choice due to injuries.
All Im saying us why rotate just for the sake of it?

And its not going to stop due to us having a bigger squad now, and better players than weve had over the last decade.
You need to gradually fit the new players into the team not start with 4 new ones, they arnt used to playing together yet.

Thats why there is no fluidity to our play, twice weve played great this season and the 2nd one we didnt deserve to lose.
Both of them games where against Chelsea.

Why hasnt the team played like that against anyone else?
The derby was a killer, the game against Bolton it seemed like once they had scored we just give up.
No fighting back spirit and I think thats what we are lacking most of all.

by **JBG** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:44 pm

I think with rotation the phrase "less is more" is apt.

Still, I'm not losing me marbles just yet.

by **stmichael** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:45 pm

There's another reason why I think rotation is being used quite a lot this season. In our starting XI, how many players normally provide a goal threat?

When I analyse the teamsheet I can pick out 3 or maximum 4 players who, I feel, can score goals from open play. This normally includes the two strikers, whoever they maybe, and Gerrard/Garcia/Gonzalez.

Do you think this is a sufficient number?

by **Ciggy** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:13 pm

Theres a mixture of things that have gone wrong for us this season.

World Cup hang overs.

Rotation.

Injuries to Carra and Riise on the first day of the season.

Reina not in form.

The defence loosing concentration.

The defence looking very vunerable at set pieces.

New players that havent showed their potential yet.

B@stard internationals that have ballsed our season up so far.

Some players have played better with their old teams.
e.g. Pennant with Birmingham he was their best player and whenever we played them he used to give us a hard time but for his price tag. I am left wondering why he was a target and what all the fuss was about.

Bellamy played better for Newcastle and Blackburn, but he will come good if employed in a position that suits his game and we can get the best out of him, and once this court case is over and done with.

Maybe the 2 above cant believe their luck and are a bit shell shocked at being at Liverpool, I suppose I am wrong in making such judgements so early on in the season when the team havent had a good few months to get used to their new surroundings and team mates.

I think it was Tommy Smith who said it last week, that Rafa is still not happy with what he's got and maybe thats true.

2 positives to take from the season so far are Kuyt and Sissoko so its not all bad

by **mattylfc** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:14 pm

I can completely see why this discussion is taking place but i agree with St Mich. in that we really should let the season unfold a bit more before we make too much judgement.

At present we have had mixed fortunes in the way that we have played well in many games this season and perhaps been a little unfortunate to have so few points in the bag. luckily for us though, its not just us that have dropped points and we arent a million miles away with some tough games out of the way.

The whole rotation argument will run on and on, i think its just a case of finding the right balance. As BM and Ciggy have said, its about rotating one or two players and more importantly, rotating them at the right time (tired/injured).

Much of our rotation IMO comes from the fact that we have such a good variety of forwards. With a combination of pace, height, strength, technical ability and natural finishing, we have four forwards that require different service from the midfield depending on who is playing. Crouch/Fowler require more wing play to produce balls into the box, whereas bellamy/kuyt are more suited to link up play and trying to play in the space behind the defenders. For this reason the midfield has to change to suit the forwards.

Since Rafas arrival he has pretty much rebuilt the squad meaning that there has been lot of new faces to bed in and adjust to the team. You can only do this by giving them minutes on the pitch,as the season goes on though im pretty sure the team will become much more settled.

Next season there will be less faces in and out of the door and it will be more of a case of tweaking and upgrading where necessary. Rafa is getting closer now to building the squad that he wants and I think it will only be a matter of time until we start getting some momentum and the rotating will settle down im sure.

by **taff** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:54 pm

Once again Bigmick is the man of reason and I respect him more than Tomkins, I do however agree with some rotation and I trust Rafa with his long term plan and not reacting to a poor start.

This is where I lose it with tomkins, while I respect his views he uses stats to his advantage while ignoring them if they go against his argument, he is a great read but not far off saying stuff like "if global warming had increased by as much as was forecasted in the Helsinki summit of 1957 then liverpool would be playing in a warmer climate with drier pitches and would have beaten Bolton with their reliance on the long ball English style game suited to a Northern European climate"

by **red37** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:42 pm

mick - your in the wrong job m8

and there are several on here that would agree. it makes me chuckle that when a semi-decent post comes up, for example one of 'paul tomkins'. all of a sudden its. PHWOARRR what a read that is! or ' total and complete sense there from PT' as if nobody within these walls has a clue about anything - except him.

weve got our own fine orators on the game right here. if only the masses would decide which side of the fence they were on today. Tomkins does indeed put an argument across very well, years of journalistic training will help that. and he does raise interesting points. but also you get the impression that even if things in the garden arent that rosy, he'll blatantly go out of his way to avoid speaking the simple truth, to instead use number-crunching to blind his faith. something that i prefer and admire in anyone is honest, tell it like it is down to earth talk.
thats why people like Leon,BM,Ciggy,Badbob,Dalglish,Ace and Sabre etc...are all to a man, far more interesting and informative to read than the pussy-footed drivel churned up and exposed in here - just because its from PT or ripped from RAWK....

more of it i say.

by **66-1112520797** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:01 pm

Sorry I don't buy it. I don't buy it because it's palpably b0ll0cks. Sorry if it makes me fall out with most people on here, but it's nothing short of delusional nonsense. We didn't win the Champions League because Rafa rotated the team. FFS, we were a couple of minutes from going out in the group stages until we fashioned an unlikely comeback culminating in Gerrard busting the net in the dying seconds against Olympiacos. Did we come back in the final because Milan were too tired? Did Gudjohnson miss by inches at Anfield because he had played too many games? If Milan were too tired, how come they were 3-0 up at half time and cruising? Sorry but I don't buy us winning the Champions League was down to rotation at all

Playing devil's advocate here. As Lady luck seems to of been on our side mentioned here, we could say the exact opposite to a couple of recent results in the prem.
Was it because of rotation Gerrard hit the post a couple of times during our loss to Everton, was it due to our usually solid back four that they were all individually s.hit that day because they had been rotated. Was it down to rotation that Gerrard didnt find the back of the net as he did that night against Olympiacos when we played Chelsea, was it rotation that forced Kuyt to smack the crossbar also during the same game.
Again, was it down to rotation because Reina was wrongly a judged to of taken the ball over the 18 yard box with his hand.
I dont think we're quite getting the rub of the green at the moment especially in front of goal (Havent we had more shots on goal than any other team?) and luck always plays its part in the outcome of matches. Although our performances didnt warrant a result against Bolton and Everton especially, we may will see similar performances like that further on into the campaign but pick up three the points.

By the way Mick I do agree with the gist of you post because the team have lacked the cohesion and eachothers where-abouts on the pitch, but lady luck has possibly played her part for the opposition at times this season.

by **stmichael** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:02 pm

JBG wrote:I think with rotation the phrase "less is more" is apt.

Still, I'm not losing me marbles just yet.

Same here JBG.

To be honest, I really don't understand this debate about rotation, we've been using the same system for two seasons now and with good effect. It's like the zonal marking debate, we lose a few games and it becomes the scapegoat, almost to the point of obsession. We go on a ten match winning run and it's the greatest marking system ever produced.

What I will say though is that the defence should stay the same for the majority of games barring injury. So far this season we've had NINE different back fours playing at some stage.

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:21 pm

I'm loving this debate as I think it really gets to the heart of Rafa's philosophy as a manager. I'll respond to some particulars of your post below, mate, and, while I will disagree with some of what you've said, I am in no way "falling out" with you...

bigmick wrote:If you didn't know better you would think that picking up one point in four away games, in the process scoring only goal from an extremely dodgy penalty...was all part of Rafa's grand plan, a deliberate ploy. Maybe he wanted to lure the others into a false sense of security.

"Rafa made a mistake? Nah mate, your a fairweather knee-jerker. Wait till you see us in the second half of the season, you'll be GLAD we lost those games and drew with Sheffield United then. We'll be sprinting about the pitch with gay abandon, everyone else will be treading water while we will be overwhelming all and sundry 'cos we'll be FRESH. Fresher than a spring lamb, we'll be leaping like salmon to head in those corners, sprinting around like gazelles to every loose ball whereas our rivals will be wearing concrete boots, overcome by the fatigue of playing in a non-rotated formation."

This section made me chuckle but I wonder who it's directed at? I can't speak for Tomkins but I sure wouldn't describe our poor results to date as a tactical masterstroke nor a deliberate ploy. I haven't found anyone yet who has come out and said that Rafa intended for us to drop all of those points at the start of the season (we all know he didn't). Personally, I can agree with what Tomkins and others are saying about why we've had poor results (tough fixture list, international interruptions, injuries, bad luck, below-par performances and, yes, some dodgy selections) but that doesn't mean I don't see them as poor results.

Which leads us right back to Rafa's rotation policy, because this debate is really about how big a role that policy has had on our poor results to date (if you haven't guessed, I see it as a small part of a larger and more complex set of issues rather than the principal factor)...

We didn't win the Champions League because Rafa rotated the team. FFS, we were a couple of minutes from going out in the group stages until we fashioned an unlikely comeback culminating in Gerrard busting the net in the dying seconds against Olympiacos. Did we come back in the final because Milan were too tired? Did Gudjohnson miss by inches at Anfield because he had played too many games? If Milan were too tired, how come they were 3-0 up at half time and cruising? Sorry but I don't buy us winning the Champions League was down to rotation at all.

Here, I agree with you and I think Tomkins is a bit OTT to suggest otherwise. A whole lot of luck and a fair amount of grit got us through that CL campaign, with minor squad rotation playing only a small part in the success. I say small part because, without seeing the stats for that season, Tomkins's statement that Rafa "rotated heavily" between the League and the CL in 2005 strikes me as unlikely--we didn't have the squad depth to rotate heavily!

But I would suggest that, down the stretch, our league form suffered precisely because we had a small squad that was more focused on the CL than the League. So, if we want to compete in both the League and Champions League (not to mention the domestic cups) we do need a deep squad that we can rotate frequently to keep players fresh. If anything, our Jeckyl and Hyde 2005 season underscores that for me.

You have to rotate naturally through injuries so why make six changes in a game just for the sake of it?

If you are going to "rest" a player, do it one or two at a time. Do it when they are actually tired. Do it when the team has established at least a modicum of fluency and momentum.

Before I comment more on this point I'm curious which "six changes" game you (and Ciggy) are referring to? My follow up: how many of those six changes were down to injuries and how many were down to tactics (changes "just for the sake of it")? The particulars of this interest me so I just want to know what game(s) you are referring to.

People need to realise, we are still in the race because everybody else is dropping points (which probably means it's a weaker league this term) and not because of some tactical masterstroke. While it's true to say that if we win the league people will forget about the start, it's also true to say that it won't mean the mistakes didn't happen. It's also true to say if we do win the league, it will most definately not be because of rotation, it will be despite it.

Certainly won't argue with that, mate. What I will suggest is that Tomkins (and others, including a few of us on here) is not really critiquing the likes of you: reasonable, intelligent fans who have taken a hard look at the specifics of Rafa's changes and found faults. (I can point to several instances this campaign where I think Rafa's got the selection plain wrong and I think Tomkins can too.) No, the criticism is levelled at the media pundits--including the likes of Lawro--and fans who fixate only on the abstract numbers (93 games since an unchanged side) as some sort of reasonable critique of Rafa's longstanding and generally successful rotation policy. Surely any manager that changes his team every game for 90-odd consecutive games has a screw loose, this line of criticism implies. Well, Rafa does not have a screw loose. There is method to his madness and the team has achieved a number of great things in the course of those 93 games. This is why Tomkins (and I and some others) get a wee bit frustrated with the sloppy thinking that surrounds so much of this debate. If we're going to criticize his rotation policy, let's get into the details of it and not just summarily dismiss it on the basis of one beguiling statistic (93 games!!!) and a vaguely-stated yet palpably-held belief that the "simple English game" doesn't lend itself to such effete and overly-complicated management strategies by Continental "tinker men" like Rafa.

by **vlady16.1** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:03 pm

six weeks ago rafa was a god now he is an idiot. of course we all can manage better than him.

remember this my friends-- sammi hurt, jar hurt, so guess what we need to change the back line. fa cup run, champ league run, world cup-- yup lets play gerrard every game, nope lets play our best 11 every game -- ie:

reina

finnan sammi jc jar

gerrard alonso sissoko kewell

bellamy kuyt

every game/every competition -- oops but finnan's over 30, kewell can't even play, jc, jar,kuyt hurt

its ludicris to think about playing a constant 11 or we can be like bolton -- thats a good thing

relax we aren't out of it, WE HAVE THE BEST MANAGER IN THE WORLD so chill

Liverpool FC Forum

More sense - From tomkins

Who is online