Liverpool FC Forum

by **bigmick** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:21 am

maguskwt wrote:rotation is not the be-all and end-all cause of our bad performances and that is where I feel alot of ppl are too easily implying...

I'm not actually sure that many people are implying that rotation is the be all and and all cause of our bad performances to be perfectly honest mate. The people who believe that the current levels of rotation are OK propogate this myth that those of us who think it is excessive think that way, but I certainly don't and I don't think others do either.

Most people I think would accept that we've been unlucky with injuries for a start, even more so if Torres misses out on Saturday. While there is dispute over whether Alonso would help by returning, pretty much everyone would probably accept that the return of Agger would help us to look like a better team. Similarly, most people I think would accept that for us to look at our very best, our very best player must be somewhere near his optimum. That Gerrard isn't, is surely beyond any dispute from absolutely anyone with two eyes. I would have thought that pretty much everyone also would accept that this is due in the main to the fact he has been injured and ridiculously overused in International games.

Now if you talk of whether the rotation of the first eleven has been beneficial to our fluency and cohesion, well many people will be of the opinion it hasn't. If we hadn't rotated it doesn't mean we would necessarily still be playing well, but it would have given us a better chance of doing so I'm fairly certain of that.

Sole reason though? Not at all. As I've said a hundred times, in my opinion a football team is made up of lots of little interconnecting parts, all functioning off each other. When it's going well, the best policy is to do very little with it becuase you run the risk of putting a spanner in the works.

As I've also said on a couple of occasions, if it was such a good idea to change the team as much as we do, why doesn't everyone else do it? Why aren't Arsene Wenger, Alex Ferguson making an average of five or six changes a game? Surely they also know that rafa won the title with Valencia while rotating? Surely they have heard the theories about players being fitter at the end of the season? Aren't they worried? Why is Wenger playing the same team in Europe which is currently leading the Premiership? Are those two managers obsolete as well?

We'll soon see because we WILL see a settled thirteen at most players being used in the next seven or eight games in all competitions barring Carling Cup games and injuries, you mark my words. Why? because Rafa knows we need to find some form fast and that the est way to do so is to play a settled group of players. When he does that, we'll start playing well again. No doubt when that happens, those that say the fact we are playing badly now is nothing to do with rotation will say that the fact we are playing well is nothing to do with him playing a settled team. We'll see :;):

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:22 am

bigmick wrote:This "train and practice" one is a baffling one for me though Saint. I know you've got more sense than to suggest very much is going on in training once the season is fully underway. There'll be a few five a sides, some working on set-pieces, some pattern of play stuff, some videos, plenty of gym work, some individual coaching etc etc but I'd be very surprised if there are any full-scale matches on full sized pitches, and if anybody was to claim that there was anything whatsoever which resembled a full-blown competitive match, I'd be staggered.

We're all familiar with blokes who come back from long term injuries, talking about "well it's all very well being up to it in training but you have to play matches to get match fit". What I think they meant by this was that you needed to play, to get sharp, to get accustomed to the rhythm of the team, the pace of the game, to anticipate what your teammates are going to do in a given moment. Now I know that some Rafa devotees would have us believe that many long held truisms are actually now merely the ramblings of long obsolete has-beens and maybe this is another. Just like it is seemingly a myth to suggest that Keegan and Toshack had an "understanding", a "telepathy" which was built up from playing together. As I've said before maybe Dalglish didn't actually sense when and where Rush was going to run, and the Welshman didn't anticipate the little through ball. Maybe it wasn't really a partnership built up over time, and maybe you could have rotated them for a couple of matches, stuck them back together and bingo!, they could read each other instantly.

I accept that sometimes your memory can play tricks on you, but those maybe's just don't hold true for me though.

Surely thats all the more reason to rotate then Mick. If you accept that players can't play 60 games a season any more? That means you have to rest players either throughout the season or for a number of games together.

Rest a player for 5, 6, or even 10 games at once and he's going to be no-where near match fit. Rest a player for the odd game throughout the season and he will never lose that match sharpness.

So by your recconing we should wait till the players are tired before resting them. That may come after 30-40 games. So then you bring in a player who hasn't played all season just as you are getting to the sharp end of the season. No match fitness, no sharpness, no understanding between players.

Don't get me wrong I dont believe in the level of rotation that Rafa is using at the moment, I do believe rotation is necessary though.

by **bigmick** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:34 am

s@int wrote:So by your recconing we should wait till the players are tired before resting them. That may come after 30-40 games. So then you bring in a player who hasn't played all season just as you are getting to the sharp end of the season. No match fitness, no sharpness, no understanding between players.

Don't get me wrong I dont believe in the level of rotation that Rafa is using at the moment, I do believe rotation is necessary though.

I think everyone believes "rotation", resting a player, dropping a player now and then is necessary though Saint don't they? Just like no team will ever win the Premier League while employing mass rotation, no team has ever or will ever win it by playing the same eleven in every game.

Once again this is a myth (not put about by you I hasten to add) which says that if you think that Rafa changes the team too much, the alternative is you never change it at all. If you believe that changing the team five, six and seven players per game is too much, the alternative is never to change it at all.

No it doesn't wash. You rest players as and when they need it, no more or less than that. If somebody loses his form or his focus, you drop him. I suspect that would add up to an average of between none and two changes per game. Call it rotation if you like, resting, taking a breather, being sensible, but that's what I believe in. If anyone can't grasp the concept they should just looka t what Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd do. Lets have a go at copying them.

On the second point about bringing a bloke ina fter 30-40 games I'm not really advocating that either. There's plenty of opportunities as a sub for players to get a feel for things for a start, and there is no reason why they can't get a game when somebody is rested or when we play in the Carling Cup. Even if they do come in a bit cold, as long as the rest of the team know where they're at the newbie will slot in just fine. It's when you've got half the team trying to slot in at the same time you get a problem.

by **Ola Mr Benitez** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:34 am

Im with Saint on this one.

Rotation is part of the modern game. You have to rotate if you a top side playing in 3 or 4 competitions virtually all season. Other teams do rotate. The difference is that currently when we rotate we generally draw games we think we should win.

I am sure if Rafa rotated and we won nearly every game the knockers would take little or no notice.. When Ferguson rotates no one seems to say anything.

I thnk rafa will continue to rotate because he believes in it 100%. I believe rotation is the right way but it has to be the right rotation, which I don't think is quite right yet. But kets face it we are still unbeaten inthe league, We have only played 8 games so far. If we go on a bit of a run (which we have done every season Rafa has been with us) of beating everyone infront of us, we will all have forgotten the "apparent problems".

The season is not over, where still in the mix, we can still win it.. We are improving, probably just not as fast as every one wants.

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:44 am

Player games Played
Jermaine Pennant 52
Jamie Carragher 51
Steven Gerrard 51
Xabi Alonso 51
Jose Reina 51
Peter Crouch 49
Dirk Kuyt 48
John Arne Riise 48
Steve Finnan 47
Daniel Agger 43
Craig Bellamy 42
Mark Gonzalez 36
Boudewijn Zenden 30
Sami Hyypia 29
Mohamed Sissoko 28
Luis Garcia 27
Fábio Aurélio 25
Robbie Fowler 23
Álvaro Arbeloa 14
Javier Mascherano 11

Then take into account that Garcia,Sissoko and Aurelio had long term injuries and we only got Mascherano and Arbeloa after Christmas and I think the rest played more than enough games, especially when you consider that we didnt really progress in the FA Cup.

So I don't think you are really complaining about the number of games players played, so it must be about which games they played and how many changes were made in each game.

I agree and have no argument that Rafa makes too many changes at a time for some games, but Rafa does pick his best players for the big games.

One last point, I think in actual fact I am much closer in thought to Mick and his cronies, than I am to most of the pro- rotational "in Rafa we trust" brigade. Maybe I am slightly happier with a few more changes than Mick and I blame the players slightly more, but I can't believe anyone thinks 5 or 6 changes a game is necessary.

by **Ola Mr Benitez** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:09 pm

That means Rafa thought this was his best team...

Reina
Finnan Carragher Agger Riise
Pennant Gerrard Alonso
Crouch Kuyt Bellamy

kind of :eyebrow

by **redtrader74** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:27 pm

bigmick wrote:
s@int wrote:So by your recconing we should wait till the players are tired before resting them. That may come after 30-40 games. So then you bring in a player who hasn't played all season just as you are getting to the sharp end of the season. No match fitness, no sharpness, no understanding between players.

Don't get me wrong I dont believe in the level of rotation that Rafa is using at the moment, I do believe rotation is necessary though.

I think everyone believes "rotation", resting a player, dropping a player now and then is necessary though Saint don't they? Just like no team will ever win the Premier League while employing mass rotation, no team has ever or will ever win it by playing the same eleven in every game.

Once again this is a myth (not put about by you I hasten to add) which says that if you think that Rafa changes the team too much, the alternative is you never change it at all. If you believe that changing the team five, six and seven players per game is too much, the alternative is never to change it at all.

No it doesn't wash. You rest players as and when they need it, no more or less than that. If somebody loses his form or his focus, you drop him. I suspect that would add up to an average of between none and two changes per game. Call it rotation if you like, resting, taking a breather, being sensible, but that's what I believe in. If anyone can't grasp the concept they should just looka t what Arsenal, Chelsea and Man Utd do. Lets have a go at copying them.

On the second point about bringing a bloke ina fter 30-40 games I'm not really advocating that either. There's plenty of opportunities as a sub for players to get a feel for things for a start, and there is no reason why they can't get a game when somebody is rested or when we play in the Carling Cup. Even if they do come in a bit cold, as long as the rest of the team know where they're at the newbie will slot in just fine. It's when you've got half the team trying to slot in at the same time you get a problem.

There are in fact many who claim to be riding on your bus who want the best 11 on the pitch each game, unless injured or out of form, there are those who have said that they don't agree with rotation for rest at all. I am sure it is clear to you there are very few on here advocating 6-7+ changes per game, but that doesn't stop the conversly perverse notion that if you stand up for the manager then you automatically agree with everything he does.

The separating of camps has come about because some posters are only banging the rotation drum as a reason for our dip on form, (not you Mick...although on occasion you are getting close!), others are willing to examine options outside of that, but as soon as you do you are labelled rose tinted, happy clappy etc.

Chelsea, Manu rotated almost the same as us last year, FACT, maybe at different times, for different reasons, but the figures were almost identical. As Saints figures show, our main players played on average 50 games last year, not really underused. The current season has seen at least in the league, the best available play, apart from Torres starting against Birmingham and Portsmouth where he was carrying a knock. Maybe Rafa thought i'll put him on the bench, and not risk starting him, but if we are in trouble i can take a gamble and get him on?

I'd say there is a general agreement (bar those few who have an agenda against the manager and are constant moaners or those who will never find fault), on here that some rotation takes place and that it is essential if we are to compete in all competitions, the degree of it is different for most. At the same time it really has been too early to judge. The dip in form..... maybe it was rotation, or that the players did not do themsleves justice, or poor tactics, or that we are not as good as we think, or a bit of everything, but to pin most of the blame on one thing without evidence is folly.

by **Sabre** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:40 pm

I'd like to comment a point of red37, excuse for chopping it red

Personally, for what its worth, I'm far from advocating a change in manager...what i would prefer it to be called is: a change in the direction promoted by him and the tools that he possesses, through adaptability and a willingness, to effect an improvement which benefits the use of the particular strengths he has within his squad. Because frankly, there are one or two fundamental principles that he is yet to grasp in the English League, that will continue to throw up this whole powder-keg in the first place. Until they are suitably modified to fit the cut of the cloth that is required. The issues at hand are well documented and need no further analysis here.

But the problems aren't going to vanish overnight, they still need addressing.

To be honest, I don't see why at this point talking about Rafa's head at the end of the season is a taboo.

I believe in the manager, I believe in his methods (and that doesn't mean I don't question anything), and thus I want him in charge.

Needless to say, I find reasonable that other posters do not believe in rotation, and think the manager doesn't use his tools best.

But as much as I can understand that, if I was at that point, I'd advocate for Rafa's head at the end of the season. Quite simply if you think that he's not using the squad best, and we have and some say we had have a good enough squad to compete for the league, wouldn't it be logic to think on another manager, and by the looks of it, a traditional english manager that doesn't believe in rotations?

In other words Red, why don't you advocate for changing a manager? what are your reasons? it would make sense to me to change the manager if I believed he's not using his squad best, no?

by **woof woof !** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:06 pm

Just to add more fuel to the debate, I noticed in one paper (Liverpool Echo ) that when discussing his upcoming selection for the Everton game Rafa says

“Torres is improving a lot. He wants to play, I was talking with him before and he said ‘If you want, I will be available."

“It could be a small risk, but we need to check with the physio.

“Harry Kewell is training, Xabi Alonso is running, Kuyt is running also, but Agger will be more difficult.

“We need to wait and see. Maybe we will need to use one, but not all because we have two more important games after the derby.”

Now I don't have a problem with unfit players being left out BUT the reference

"we have two more important games after the derby.”

makes me shudder . Surely Rafa realises how important this game is and yet he's already got one eye on the two (admittedly) important games after the derby.

Whatever happened to "take it one game at a time" ?

by **ConnO'var** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:20 pm

Sabre wrote:I'd like to comment a point of red37, excuse for chopping it red

Personally, for what its worth, I'm far from advocating a change in manager...what i would prefer it to be called is: a change in the direction promoted by him and the tools that he possesses, through adaptability and a willingness, to effect an improvement which benefits the use of the particular strengths he has within his squad. Because frankly, there are one or two fundamental principles that he is yet to grasp in the English League, that will continue to throw up this whole powder-keg in the first place. Until they are suitably modified to fit the cut of the cloth that is required. The issues at hand are well documented and need no further analysis here.

But the problems aren't going to vanish overnight, they still need addressing.

To be honest, I don't see why at this point talking about Rafa's head at the end of the season is a taboo.

I believe in the manager, I believe in his methods (and that doesn't mean I don't question anything), and thus I want him in charge.

Needless to say, I find reasonable that other posters do not believe in rotation, and think the manager doesn't use his tools best.

But as much as I can understand that, if I was at that point, I'd advocate for Rafa's head at the end of the season. Quite simply if you think that he's not using the squad best, and we have and some say we had have a good enough squad to compete for the league, wouldn't it be logic to think on another manager, and by the looks of it, a traditional english manager that doesn't believe in rotations?

In other words Red, why don't you advocate for changing a manager? what are your reasons? it would make sense to me to change the manager if I believed he's not using his squad best, no?

I can't speak for red, sabre..... but my own reasons are.

1. We've invested too much in Rafa and the squad to be rid now. It would cause no end of problems as we'll be hampered with players and systems that another manager may not want. For the life of me, I cannot and do not want to wait another 17 years for the league to come home to Anfield.

2. I may not like the way he has us playing, but there's much more to Rafa than just his rotational policy and preffered playing style... I like the attention to detail that he has in approaching our opponents. I just don't like his conclusions in how best to approach once the data has been gathered.

And I live in hope that he'll start to be flexible enough in his thinking to modify an approach that I feel is not working. I'm not against rotation per se.... only in wholesale rotation when I can't see the the need for it.

In short, I don't want Rafa out not because I feel that he's a great manager, but because I believe it'll do more harm to LFC than good right now.

by **red37** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:49 pm

Because the die is cast. Leopards and spots and all that..
So far, and in particular at Valencia - it worked to a degree (although describing the fact that Benitez wrenched the Primera title away from the monopoly of the 'big two' as merely 'a degree') also sounds a bit ungrateful and not entirely convincing on the surface. In any case...he did it.

Those methods served him well enough at that time. The members of that squad, i.e the tools at his disposal - allowed it to become a reality. Turning his charges into a side that nullifyed the opposition and hit them with swift, clinical counter-atacking play, that was truly a force to behold at that time in Spain.

Here: Well here there is an eagerness, almost an air of 'desperation' to restore the title of Champions of England back to the name of this club. Valencia was pretty much a blank canvas upon which to work. And the ideas and excecution of: where given ample time to evolve as much as the requested patience with which to test them out. But, at Liverpool - the history and heritage of the club precludes anyone from resting upon safe ground and having the time (beyond the resonable) to dither and ponder upon alternative strategies, that evidently are either:

A. Culturally, cannot ever be implemented in the English game. Uefa may end up holding the trump card there.

or, at the very least concession

B. Ahead of their time here. Rafa, although modest - strikes me as a bit of a Revolutionary.

I doubt the complete validity of either of those two statements holding up in truth, although there may perhaps be a grain of it somewhere along that line of thought. Even if they actually seem to state the same thing..

But whatever, the fact remains that we do indeed have a continental manager at the helm. One that will explore each and every avenue of opportunity to demonstrate his work upon these shores: One that 'should' be congratulated for that tenacity and measure of resilience. Best of luck to him as well in achieving those aims. Should he survive long enough.

But the clock is most definately ticking, the honeymoon period absolutely over. These swanky new American owners are at some point going to expect a return on their investment. That, more than any gripes that the fans hold. Will determine Benitez ultimate fate. Lets just hope and pray (if you like) that the hammerblow doesn't strike too early before the plan has led itself, somehow...perhaps, surprisingly to most. Into fruition and ultimately, then into the annals of history. A place which has almost, not yet defnately so..but could well be likely - for Rafa Benitez to take deserved residence in.

Thats all we can do. Then, the discussion over a replacement (english or not) will duly set the whole shebang back 5 years. And we'll still be here during the next world cup, window shopping for a new and exciting boss that will breathe new life into an old and much revered club such as this. With ideas of his own as to how that will transpire...

Very much a longwinded Tompkins'esque way of saying that the manager needs time, has already had some of it...now its down to the nitty gritty of whether or not the remainder, is spent wisely enough finishing off the project.

by **Sabre** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:44 pm

woof woof ! wrote:Just to add more fuel to the debate, I noticed in one paper (Liverpool Echo ) that when discussing his upcoming selection for the Everton game Rafa says

“Torres is improving a lot. He wants to play, I was talking with him before and he said ‘If you want, I will be available."

“It could be a small risk, but we need to check with the physio.

“Harry Kewell is training, Xabi Alonso is running, Kuyt is running also, but Agger will be more difficult.

“We need to wait and see. Maybe we will need to use one, but not all because we have two more important games after the derby.”

Now I don't have a problem with unfit players being left out BUT the reference

"we have two more important games after the derby.”

makes me shudder . Surely Rafa realises how important this game is and yet he's already got one eye on the two (admittedly) important games after the derby.

Whatever happened to "take it one game at a time" ?

A derby is a derby and nobody wants to lose it. The Liverpool - Everton derby is probably the most classic derby in all Europe. The atmosphere cannot be compared to anything.

However, if you're a manager, you must realise that the 3 points of Everton are as important as the next 3 points in order to get the main goal: the league. So if the physio says in his knowledge "There's a risk of having something worse if he plays" then, what you do? giving the priority to the passion of the derby and playing him no matter what?, or hear the advice of the physio so you can gather more points in the next weeks?

P.S. Thanks to Connovar for his opinion, I guess I needed point 2 in context, because considering the amount of debate that rotation brings, and considering the people are saying that we won't win the league never that way, I really was wondering why there were not more people asking for his head.

by **redtrader74** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:47 pm

Three points against Arsenal are more valuable than three against the bitters right now imho.

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:51 pm

I think everyone is missing the most important point of Woofs post, Harry Kewell is training now if only we can get him running we might be in with a chance.

by **Wilhelmsson** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:57 pm

redtrader74 wrote:Three points against Arsenal are more valuable than three against the bitters right now imho.

Three points are valuable in any given match, if this club wants to win the league than it needs to be picking up maximum points in a vast majority of the matches played.

Liverpool FC Forum

Rafa criticism just has to stop - Tony Barrett

Who is online