Liverpool FC Forum

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:19 am

One last point on rotation, what benefit has anyone ever seen from rotation? We have seen games we have lost points in presumably because of rotation. Players losing form and confidence presumably because of rotation. Our momentum damaged presumably because of rotation.

So what benefits have we seen. What game have we won presumably because we had rotated earlier in the season. What player has suddenly struck a rich vein of form presumably because of rotation.

It seems to me the negative effects of rotation are there for all to see, but the positive effects like Alonso's hidden attributes are rather more difficult to see.

I believe in rotation but Mick keeps making me doubt!

by **112-1077774096** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:28 am

s@int wrote:One last point on rotation, what benefit has anyone ever seen from rotation? We have seen games we have lost points in presumably because of rotation. Players losing form and confidence presumably because of rotation. Our momentum damaged presumably because of rotation.

So what benefits have we seen. What game have we won presumably because we had rotated earlier in the season. What player has suddenly struck a rich vein of form presumably because of rotation.

It seems to me the negative effects of rotation are there for all to see, but the positive effects like Alonso's hidden attributes are rather more difficult to see.

I believe in rotation but Mick keeps making me doubt!

good point mate, i would hardly see 21 points behind (but the players not exhausted) as a positive.

i keep having to harp back to my comments earlier, 3 points are 3 points whether they come now or at the end of the season, this belief that the points will be more important then is rubbish, if we didn't lose them now then they wont be so important come April.

his policy has not worked for the last three seasons in the league and it's not working this season, it's not relevant that we are unbeaten this season, what is relevant is that the mancs have been beaten and are now back with us because of our three draws (chelsea we didn't deserve to lose, and pompey and birmingham was our own fault because of bad team selection). those of us against rotation have results to back us up, have league finishes to back us up, have bad performances to back us up.

what do the pro rotationers have to back them up?

by **The_Rock** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:51 am

Why do we want to turn this into an Alonso vs Mascherano thread ?

Aren't both of them LFC players...?

BTW....i am in the anti-rotation camp...... In almost all the finals we have played since rafa came here, we looked really tired. So don't think this rotation works......Like mick has said...we only finished the 2nd season strongly in the league...

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:18 am

With all due respect Peewee--and this of course is just my opinion--but the anti-rotation brigade has just as little tangible evidence to back its views up than does the pro-rotation brigade. Why? Because there are a lot of factors that go into winning, losing or drawing a football match and Rafa's team selection is only one such factor. For me, the whole rotation issue is a rather large, rather crimson red herring that makes for some interesting, if repetitive, message board debates but which doesn't even come close to explaining the highs or lows of the team's performance week to week. As Red Trader pointed out, to truly evaluate the system we'd need a parallel universe where all else remained constant (injuries, bad officiating, the lot...) and Rafa didn't rotate before we could say with confidence that such and such poor or positive result was down to team selection. In short, blaming rotation for any poor result is, IMHO, an overly-simple response to a complex problem.

Following the same logic, then, gets us an answer to Saint's question: why don't we more clearly see the benefits of rotation? Well, because the pro-rotationers are not as single-minded as the anti-rotationers in banging their drum of course! If the 'pro' camp used every positive result to praise Rafa's rotation* in the same way that the 'anti' camp used every negative result to criticize the policy, we'd hear loads about the benefits of rotation! :;):

*For instance: "Resting Torres against Brum was a masterstroke! Look at the performance he put in against Reading. Rotation works, mate!"

by **bigmick** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:57 am

Bad Bob wrote:Following the same logic, then, gets us an answer to Saint's question: why don't we more clearly see the benefits of rotation? Well, because the pro-rotationers are not as single-minded as the anti-rotationers in banging their drum of course! If the 'pro' camp used every positive result to praise Rafa's rotation* in the same way that the 'anti' camp used every negative result to criticize the policy, we'd hear loads about the benefits of rotation!

'Tis an intersting take Robert (if you're wondering why I've suddently reverted to old english text, I'm not entirely sure

) however that is why I have gone for my "how good are we actually?" question.

Clearly, although us "anti's" can usually point to a silly selection or two followed by a bad result, there are also silly selections which produce good results (Sunderland Away this season for example) so the "pro's" are at something of a disadvantage. Equally, even when we pick a largely sensible team but then play sh!te (Birmingham for example) the anti's have it in their armoury to blame it on some previous rotation a couple of weeks back (disruption of fluency etc etc), whereas the "pro's" are left trying to defend not only a bad performance, but occasionally a bizarre post-match interview ("Birmingham defend too deep for Torres") etc etc.

I must say that in almost all cases I am full of admiration for the determination of the pro's to stick up for their beliefs at all costs (although I must confess I think most of them don't actually buy into the whole thing 100% in the style of Sabre, but are merely sticking to their half of the trench despite having severe reservations that they may have initially picked the wrong horse).

I think the "how good were we last season" question is entirely a reasonable one, and one I'm yet to get a good answer from anyone in the "pro" camp. The reason it's a hard one for them to answer of course is that it inherantly rquires a contradiction for the argument to work. If we were genuinely such a huge distance worse than the top two, how come we reached the Champions League final, beating the teams we did along the way?

My hunch has always been that us reaching the Champions League fnal, beating Chelsea and Barcelona along the way was a fair indication of how good we were. I simply don't accept finishing where we did in the League was a true reflection of our quality. It follows as sure as eggs is eggs as far as I'm concerned, that if I'm right then the rotation did us no favours.

by **112-1077774096** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 5:45 am

what mick said

by **112-1077774096** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 5:50 am

Bad Bob wrote:*For instance: "Resting Torres against Brum was a masterstroke! Look at the performance he put in against Reading. Rotation works, mate!"

mick pretty much answered with my thoughts on this mate your post mate so i wont go over it again

but the comment i have highlighted, please tell me it's tongue very much in cheek

by **woof woof !** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:34 am

bigmick wrote:Mick, why don't you stop being a boring tw@t and discuss something else. I think they have probably come to the conclusion not to debate it with me because it just encourages me. The worst part about it is of course that they are entirely correct

Becoming a bit like the nutter who gets on the bus Mick ?
Nobody wants to make eye contact with the f'ucker in case he takes it as sign of friendship and starts talking to them :wwww

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:37 am

I was brought up in an age when a single change in the starting line up brought rumours of legendary drinking sessions, nights out with fabulous blonds or battles with the manager. To be substituted was considered a public humiliation to be answered with thrown shirts or a stream of abuse from the player.

So why did I buy into the whole "rotation is the right way forward"........ Rafa, the CL and the fact that all the top successful clubs now do it.

Rafa won the CL with a team that in all fairness we had no right to expect to win it. I just kept hoping we would get a little farther in the competition so we could get money to buy some decent players. Expecting that sooner or later a team would knock us out, yet surprisingly every team we were drawn against I expected us to beat.

The only advantage we had over these other clubs is we had nothing left to play for but the CL, while all the other clubs were chasing League titles and other paths to glory. We also had Rafa, who seemed to be able to send a team out knowing exactly what they had to do to win and they just went out and did it. Maybe just maybe our players were also better rested than the other teams, which gave us that little bit of an edge enabling us to do the impossible.

If rotation doesn't work why do all the top clubs now do it (to varying degrees admittedly),surely some manager would see the flaws in the argument and walk away with the league and CL by playing his best players "WEEK IN WEEK OUT" as the ever popular slogan goes. The Mancs tried it to an extent last season, won the league, but came up on empty when it came to the cups. Their players were just too tired to go the extra yard, even with limited rotation.

I think if pushed we could sacrifice all the cups and play our strongest team every week in the league, but if we want (or need) to progress in CL as well, rotation is a necessary evil. I don't think Rafa is stupid, he knows as well as anyone if you leave Torres and Gerrard out of the team you are weakening it. He has to plan to play 60 games a season not 38, As much as we would like him to concentrate on those 38 league games, he also needs to bring in the big money that CL football provides, and that unfortunately means rotation.

Am I sure rotation works.......... no, but I am sure our manager thinks its necessary, and that with it, or maybe despite it we can win the league and CL.

We have reached the CL final twice under Rafa, with a team that he's still rebuilding, maybe its not luck maybe its rotation.

Barcelona, Chelsea , Real Madrid, Mancs all fighting for the league, but who made the CL final?........ Milan and Liverpool, two teams that could afford to rest players.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 6:41 am

woof woof ! wrote:
bigmick wrote:Mick, why don't you stop being a boring tw@t and discuss something else. I think they have probably come to the conclusion not to debate it with me because it just encourages me. The worst part about it is of course that they are entirely correct

Becoming a bit like the nutter who gets on the bus Mick ?
Nobody wants to make eye contact with the f'ucker in case he takes it as sign of friendship and starts talking to them

pmsl

by **bigmick** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:22 am

woof woof ! wrote:Becoming a bit like the nutter who gets on the bus Mick ?
Nobody wants to make eye contact with the f'ucker in case he takes it as sign of friendship and starts talking to them

Fecking outrageous that Woof!

Funny as feck though I've gotta admit, (and of course worryingly close to the truth).

by **Sabre** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:19 pm

ROTATION. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Was our squad good enough to challenge for the league?

We could have been closer to win it yes, IF we hadn't played the CL until the final stages

Our squad was good enough for that since the winter market. Mascherano is praised with impetus by many, as if he was here for ages, but he only came in winter. In September, we had Alonso off form, Gerrard still not at his best, and having played a world cup. We had some injuries, and we hadn't a Mascherano to play instead of Alonso.

Our squad yesteryear was like a short blanket. With a small blanket you must choose whether you cover your tits, or you cover the knees. IF we had the squad we eventually got in the winter market ALL the season, and IF we didn't play the champions league, THEN our squad would have been good enough to compete for the league. Maybe not winning it, but yes compete.

Why did we focus on the Champions League if we wanted the league?

It turned out to happen like that. At the end of the league we dropped the league, and we directly rested players in league games to have them well in the quarter, semi and finals of the Champions league. We lost the season in the early part of the league. Due partly to new players adapting, some debatable "selection sillyness", and players not coming well from the summer due to the world cup. And we missed a key player in that stage of the season, Mascherano, and Carra. Agger was new aswell as a regular.

But doesn't affect rotation to the fluency?

At some SLIGHT extent. Probably having players not fully fit or tired affects more. It also protects players for bad muscular injuries, which, at the end of the day, helps the "let's play the strongest squad" idea when you see the big picture.

Is our squad good enough to compete for the league this season?

Yes, our blanket is larger and we can cover the tits and the knees this year

Have you always been a rotation defender Sabre?

No, I used to believe in the notions the antirotationist defend for many years, as those are classic concepts in football and good practices -- meaning, I see your point

I started to believe in rotation when I saw teams like Osasuna, Sevilla, Barcelona and Valencia using it in the league and being effective in Europe

But England is different to Spain

Yes it is, but football is football, and that's why the good ideas and players (Torres, Reina, Alonso) work in England aswell.

I am not sure of that

Fair enough, I am

What teams are comparable with Liverpool in power?

Real Madrid, Barcelona

Do they rotate?

Barcelona yes, Real Madrid didn't yesteryear, this season they do. They do because they have a bigger squad (squad depth has been one of their troubles)

And are they criticised for that?

Yes, rotation gets almost the same stick in my country from the press.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:33 pm

s@int wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:Who's got the least bookings?

Mascherano has one, same as YOU, and Xabi mate

Our survey says...

Uh eeerrrrrrrrrrrr!

Regarding my booking:

I can't help it if people are precious.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:40 pm

bigmick wrote:Well I'm certainly glad that we can expect to see to some short term benefits because if we don't get some positive results over the next six or seven games, we might as well start saving players for the Champoions League.

Question four, (question three I put to AB earlier) is back to a point I made about a week ago as to whether the policy of rotation could be judged to have been a success over the previous three seasons, and most notably last season. I made the point that whether or not it had been successful largely depended on how good you thought our team was. We finished the season twenty one points behind the Champions, if you think we should have been closer it was reasonable to assume the rotation hadn't worked. If you think that's about right, the result had been neutral and if you think we were actually worse than that, the rotation had worked. Now not surprisingly or indeed not without justification, people latched onto the fact (at least it's a fact in my opinion anyway) that once we had realised we weren't going to win the league but would probably qualify for the Champions League instead, we began to take the league less seriously. Fair enough says I. How did we take it less seriously? Well we kind of rotated our better players even more. Guess what happened? Well we didn't play with the maturity or the quality which a less rotated team containing more of your better players would. No surprise there then but I digress.

Anyway the point of this ramble is to reframe the question. If we assume that those of us who felt we gave up on the league a bit are correct, and many of the games we drew we could in fact have won how many points could we have got? Well I think we'd certainly have beaten Man City, Villa and a few other teams. I'm going to make a bold assumption and say we would have converted six of those draws into wins had we have been really going for it. Now some might say that's over optimistic but in the interests of fairness that's how I'm calling it. We are instantly 12 points better off. But what of Man Utd? Last game of the season they got beat at Home to West Ham. They had already won the league by this point, and I'm going to be bold and predict that had they needed to win, they would have. In the end it makes us nine points better off overall. I'm asking is twelve points behind the eventual winners a fair reflection on how good we were? I don't think it is.

But the mere fact is we were missing the clinical finishes upfront. We were playing well, but just couldn't hit the back of the net, despite our numerous chances.

Had Gerrard recaptured his form of the previous season, we would have been approximately 16 goals better off.

It's swings and roundabouts IMHO.

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:41 pm

What Sabre said.

Bigmick wrote:My hunch has always been that us reaching the Champions League fnal, beating Chelsea and Barcelona along the way was a fair indication of how good we were. I simply don't accept finishing where we did in the League was a true reflection of our quality. It follows as sure as eggs is eggs as far as I'm concerned, that if I'm right then the rotation did us no favours.

To answer your question, mate, I thoroughly agree that we had the squad last season to run the league race a lot closer than we did (although I don't think we quite had the all-around quality, esp. up top, to win it all). Does that mean, "as sure as eggs is eggs" that it was rotation that cost us a true title tilt? Not on your life, mate. I would say (still) that injuries and a nasty world cup hangover on the part of some of our most pivotal players were just as--feck it, much more--important in getting us off to a very slow start in the league. Take the Everton match at Goodison. If Gerrard finds the net rather than the woodwork, if Carra puts the ball in row Z rather than whiffs at it, if Finnan does a better job of picking up Cahill, if Reina doesn't drop a bollock etc. we stand a good shot of picking up a vital away win in September against our cross-town rivals. As it stood, all of these vital, in-everyone's-best-11, hardly-ever-rotated players had a terrible game at the same time. Rotation had feck all to do with our pathetic performance that day and yet some people still wanted to make it out as though it was the reason we dropped points (why was Fowler--the Liverpool lad who'd made a career of burning the Bitters--playing, some asked?). And, I could have made a similar case for the Bolton match or the Man U game at OT (where we played a very strong team and looked terrible) or the Blackburn game at Anfield and so on.

Bottom line for me is this: rotation may have contributed something to several of our poor perfomances last season (and this). I'll allow that. Was it the sole reason or even the most important reason for our troubles? Not in my mind, it wasn't.

Liverpool FC Forum

Xabi Alonso; the pass master - Sorely Missed ?

Who is online