Liverpool FC Forum

by **dawson99** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:17 pm

not out of position persay, but out of formation? We brought Babel but he hasnt been played where he should. The wings seem odd, like we dont quite know how to sort it. we are leaving players on the bench whoa re more suited to positions we are playing others in. Also, the midfield is playing SOOO deep lately i think. and it doesnt help that carra and hypia are hoofers whereas agger could find a pass. it just means that we are losing too many balls from defence and if there is a quick break we donthave the bodies where they are mostly needed

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:32 pm

dawson99 wrote:not out of position persay, but out of formation? We brought Babel but he hasnt been played where he should. The wings seem odd, like we dont quite know how to sort it. we are leaving players on the bench whoa re more suited to positions we are playing others in. Also, the midfield is playing SOOO deep lately i think. and it doesnt help that carra and hypia are hoofers whereas agger could find a pass. it just means that we are losing too many balls from defence and if there is a quick break we donthave the bodies where they are mostly needed

I won't say too much as I still haven't seen yesterday's match but, from the Marseille game, it was clear that we are sitting very deep of late. The rumour is that Rafa is trying to protect Hyypia who, at 34, may not have enough in the tank to cope with two matches a week. It certainly doesn't help that neither CB is brilliant on the ball and that getting the ball forward usually requires a hoof rather than playing along the deck. As for Babel, I think Rafa bought him to play on the wing rather than up top (some have questioned that move) but it's clear that he doesn't have the confidence of the manager just at the moment: we've not seen him since the Brum game.

by **Sabre** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:36 pm

dawson99 wrote:not out of position persay, but out of formation? We brought Babel but he hasnt been played where he should. The wings seem odd, like we dont quite know how to sort it. we are leaving players on the bench whoa re more suited to positions we are playing others in. Also, the midfield is playing SOOO deep lately i think. and it doesnt help that carra and hypia are hoofers whereas agger could find a pass. it just means that we are losing too many balls from defence and if there is a quick break we donthave the bodies where they are mostly needed

Interesting the too deep midfield, because it's true, we've seen the midfielders deep. It's the Valencia way, so missed around here this days. Of course, you're deep, but if you know getting out the pressure you make 45 passes in a row, and then you advance the lines, so deep and no deep is a relative concept, that depends on how well you do. If you do well, then you're not that deep. But basically, we tried to play as Valencia used to this two last games, unfortunately with bad results.

That kind of football is about not losing the ball, and if you lose it don't lose it in the wrong place, and if you lose it in the wrong place, press correctly. Exactly what we haven't done well this games as of late.

Yes the so missed Valencia's game was about that, I remember Barcelona's fans saying how "defensive" they were as a dig.

IMHO No system is good or bad per se, nor positive or negative per se, it's the implementation what it makes a system good or bad.

by **ConnO'var** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:43 pm

Leonmc0708 wrote:
dawson99 wrote:but why rest torres and then play him in carling cup? why when a player does well, or did at beginning of season, get rotated. theres loasd of mistakes like that happening. now torres form has dropped and no one seems to know what they are doing

change the record.

Jawohl Mein Fuhrer!

:no

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:48 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
s@int wrote:For all the talk of the level of rotation not being as bad as the bare facts would have us believe, I was just reading that this is the first time the eleven players who started the game had played together. When you consider that it was probably as strong a line up as we can put out at the moment thats a pretty strange state of affairs.

That's technically true, mate, but by my maths 9 out of 11 of them (Reina, Finnan, Carra, Hyypia, Arbeloa, Pennant, Gerrard, Mascherano and Torres) have played together quite a lot--especially since Agger and Alonso have been injured. So, I don't think playing Riise at LM and Voronin up top disrupted the team chemistry in and of itself.

As for it being about as strong a team as we can field at the moment, I would agree but, interestingly, the two real debating points concerning that statement relate to the two players I've mentioned above: Riise and Voronin. Based on my "best 11" poll, neither of these lads would be considered our best option in their respective positions by many of us on here. I bring this up to highlight the fact that even if we opt for picking a settled side over the next few matches to regain some sense of stability (regardless of whether those matches occur in the league, the CL or the CC) there's still a big question mark over who should be selected at LM and who should be selected to partner Torres.

So, would people be content if Rafa kept his rotating to those positions only or would they prefer to see him pick one player for each of those positions and stick with him for a run of matches?

1) You say you agree that the team fielded against Spurs was the best available, however, your best eleven (as of 4th Oct.) contained Kuyt. Unless Voronin's performance against Spurs has changed yor mind, if so, how and why?

2) I'm not sure about the injury to Aurelio, but I'd certainly prefer him on the left to Riise at this moment in time. Kewell seems to be perennially injured, and as such can feck off.

After Torres I dont think there is much difference between the other strikers and any could arguably be included in a "probably as strong eleven".

As Aurelio was injured I don't see how he even comes into the argument of the strongest line up we can put out at the moment.

Sabre says

6-7 changes do affect more than 4, but 4 changes shouldn't diminish your performance when you've trained together

I remember Bob Paisley saying once, the problem with introducing a player into the team, is not that the player plays poorly, as any team can manage with a player playing badly, but that because footballers are too willing to help out the new player at the expense of doing their own job properly, their own game suffers . He said that he always told the team to concentrate on their own game and not worry about trying to help the newcomer.

That was for one player imagine the problems of introducing 4,5,6 players, with the rest of the team trying to help them out as well as play their own game.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:49 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:1) You say you agree that the team fielded against Spurs was the best available, however, your best eleven (as of 4th Oct.) contained Kuyt. Unless Voronin's performance against Spurs has changed yor mind, if so, how and why?

Actually, I was agreeing with Saint's notion that it was just about the best available team. I don't prefer Riise at LM but I'll address that below. Also, all other things being equal, I think I'd prefer Aurelio to Arbeloa at LB. But, all other things are not equal: Arbeloa's slotted in well at LB all season and Aurelio is short of match fitness, hence I went with the Spaniard in my Best 11 submission on Oct. 4th because we need that stability and continuity at the back.

As for picking Kuyt ahead of Voronin in that same Best 11, I'd still stick with that but, TBH, it's not like I think the Dutchman's miles ahead of Voronin at the moment. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they are in a virtual dead heat in terms of getting into my Best 11 (Crouch is 4th by some distance, based on current form). I guess the real question, then, is who works better with Torres and, long term, I think that's Kuyt. But, if Voronin and Torres strike up a real understanding, I would have no hesitation to drop Kuyt down the pecking order.

2) I'm not sure about the injury to Aurelio, but I'd certainly prefer him on the left to Riise at this moment in time. Kewell seems to be perennially injured, and as such can feck off.

You know, I've never been convinced by Aurelio at LM. Sure, he can put in a lovely cross but he rarely tries to get behind the fullback and he often resorts to crossing from deep positions, much like Finnan does on the rare occasions when he plays RM. To me, both think like a fullback--which, I can't fault them for since they are fullbacks --and that hinders their play when they line up as midfielders. Riise, I think, does manage to think like a wide midfielder when he plays there but, unfortunately, he only has a couple of tricks in his locker to get past a fullback and his crosses are too inconsistent. He's a good solid option when we want to keep things tight down our left flank but he doesn't offer enough going forward and, as we've seen, that's where our problems lie at the moment. So, with Kewell a virtual write-off at this point and with Leto not quite up to playing in the league, IMO, that leaves Babel and Benayoun. With Babel you get pace and directness, with Benayoun you get guile and cleverness so pick your poison. Personally, I'd be inclined to give Babel a run of games to see just what he can do. The worst that happens is that we confirm what some of us suspect: that he's no winger. On the other hand, his pace, directness and willingness to go for goal might inject some life into our attack. If, it's not working with him after 3-4 games then I would give Yossi a chance to make the position his own. If that fails I would be getting the cheque book ready for January.

1) Ok, I think you just 'about' granted yourself an insurance policy re. Voronin and Kuyt.

2) I don't think we'd do ourselves any favours playing Babel on the left wing. I said before we signed him that he's not a conventional winger, he won't get to the by-line and float the ball in, generally speaking he needs to cut in onto his right foot and that delays play somewhat. Perhaps in a counter attacking situation, he may be useful, he can be skillful and has a very powerful shot but only in short flashes. I don't think he has the guile or delicacy of touch that we need at this moment of time, our inability to retain possession has been one of our problems of late, I don't think Babel compliments the current state of affairs. I also think given our predicament we don't have '3 or 4 games' to try him out.

This leads on to Aurelio; like Kewell, Aurelio retains possession well, he has a lovely cross and gives us balance on the left. Maybe Kewell has slightly more ability to beat a defender and get to the by-line, but I think this is something Aurelio is capable of. Even if from a slightly deeper position, Torres would surely benefit from someone with such an assured left foot. I think switching play has also been a problem of late, it takes us too long, giving the opposition more time to position themselves. Our pattern of play is too square and flat, and without variance bar Gerrard, Alonso may be part of the solution, but for me Aurelio also. Switching play quickly helps create space. Aurelio is more than capable of swinging a pass with accuracy to anyone of our players who happens to be in an exploitable position on the right. Some might say Pennant isn't good enough to be able to convert such a scenario into a meaningful attack, in terms of cushioning the ball and springing a quick attack....you could say that Gerrard would be perfectly suited to this type of situation, a situation that we saw plenty of when he played on the right.

I agree with what you say about Riise, and I can't be arsed to go on much about Benayoun. He's not a conventional winger, he comes inside very often and narrows our play too much IMO. Although it depends on the opposition, and selection of other players within the team.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:55 pm

s@int wrote:1) You say you agree that the team fielded against Spurs was the best available, however, your best eleven (as of 4th Oct.) contained Kuyt. Unless Voronin's performance against Spurs has changed yor mind, if so, how and why?

2) I'm not sure about the injury to Aurelio, but I'd certainly prefer him on the left to Riise at this moment in time. Kewell seems to be perennially injured, and as such can feck off.

After Torres I dont think there is much difference between the other strikers and any could arguably be included in a "probably as strong eleven".

As Aurelio was injured I don't see how he even comes into the argument of the strongest line up we can put out at the moment.[/quote]
Fair enough about our striking options, I personally view Kuyt as the best foil for Torres, slightly ahead of Crouch and certainly Voronin .

I wasn't suggesting Aurelio should have been in Bob's 'best eleven' line up, I was suggesting, when fit or if he was fit - I would prefer him as an option to Riise.

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:56 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:1) You say you agree that the team fielded against Spurs was the best available, however, your best eleven (as of 4th Oct.) contained Kuyt. Unless Voronin's performance against Spurs has changed yor mind, if so, how and why?

Actually, I was agreeing with Saint's notion that it was just about the best available team. I don't prefer Riise at LM but I'll address that below. Also, all other things being equal, I think I'd prefer Aurelio to Arbeloa at LB. But, all other things are not equal: Arbeloa's slotted in well at LB all season and Aurelio is short of match fitness, hence I went with the Spaniard in my Best 11 submission on Oct. 4th because we need that stability and continuity at the back.

As for picking Kuyt ahead of Voronin in that same Best 11, I'd still stick with that but, TBH, it's not like I think the Dutchman's miles ahead of Voronin at the moment. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they are in a virtual dead heat in terms of getting into my Best 11 (Crouch is 4th by some distance, based on current form). I guess the real question, then, is who works better with Torres and, long term, I think that's Kuyt. But, if Voronin and Torres strike up a real understanding, I would have no hesitation to drop Kuyt down the pecking order.

2) I'm not sure about the injury to Aurelio, but I'd certainly prefer him on the left to Riise at this moment in time. Kewell seems to be perennially injured, and as such can feck off.

You know, I've never been convinced by Aurelio at LM. Sure, he can put in a lovely cross but he rarely tries to get behind the fullback and he often resorts to crossing from deep positions, much like Finnan does on the rare occasions when he plays RM. To me, both think like a fullback--which, I can't fault them for since they are fullbacks --and that hinders their play when they line up as midfielders. Riise, I think, does manage to think like a wide midfielder when he plays there but, unfortunately, he only has a couple of tricks in his locker to get past a fullback and his crosses are too inconsistent. He's a good solid option when we want to keep things tight down our left flank but he doesn't offer enough going forward and, as we've seen, that's where our problems lie at the moment. So, with Kewell a virtual write-off at this point and with Leto not quite up to playing in the league, IMO, that leaves Babel and Benayoun. With Babel you get pace and directness, with Benayoun you get guile and cleverness so pick your poison. Personally, I'd be inclined to give Babel a run of games to see just what he can do. The worst that happens is that we confirm what some of us suspect: that he's no winger. On the other hand, his pace, directness and willingness to go for goal might inject some life into our attack. If, it's not working with him after 3-4 games then I would give Yossi a chance to make the position his own. If that fails I would be getting the cheque book ready for January.

1) Ok, I think you just 'about' granted yourself an insurance policy re. Voronin and Kuyt.

2) I don't think we'd do ourselves any favours playing Babel on the left wing. I said before we signed him that he's not a conventional winger, he won't get to the by-line and float the ball in, generally speaking he needs to cut in onto his right foot and that delays play somewhat. Perhaps in a counter attacking situation, he may be useful, he can be skillful and has a very powerful shot but only in short flashes. I don't think he has the guile or delicacy of touch that we need at this moment of time, our inability to retain possession has been one of our problems of late, I don't think Babel compliments the current state of affairs. I also think given our predicament we don't have '3 or 4 games' to try him out.

This leads on to Aurelio; like Kewell, Aurelio retains possession well, he has a lovely cross and gives us balance on the left. Maybe Kewell has slightly more ability to beat a defender and get to the by-line, but I think this is something Aurelio is capable of. Even if from a slightly deeper position, Torres would surely benefit from someone with such an assured left foot. I think switching play has also been a problem of late, it takes us too long, giving the opposition more time to position themselves. Our pattern of play is too square and flat, and without variance bar Gerrard, Alonso may be part of the solution, but for me Aurelio also. Switching play quickly helps create space. Aurelio is more than capable of swinging a pass with accuracy to anyone of our players who happens to be in an exploitable position on the right. Some might say Pennant isn't good enough to be able to convert such a scenario into a meaningful attack, in terms of cushioning the ball and springing a quick attack....you could say that Gerrard would be perfectly suited to this type of situation, a situation that we saw plenty of when he played on the right.

I agree with what you say about Riise, and I can't be arsed to go on much about Benayoun. He's not a conventional winger, he comes inside very often and narrows our play too much IMO. Although it depends on the opposition, and selection of other players within the team.

Yeah, you've hit in on the head with your last remark: with Kewell out we don't have a conventional left winger in the squad (well, Leto, I suppose but he's not ready...). So, it comes down to what kind of unconventional left midfielder we want to play. I wouldn't be opposed to giving Aurelio another shot at the position--he has his uses there--but I think who ever Rafa picks does need to be given 4 games minimum to make the position their own. We've given Pennant lots of opportunities on the right and he's benefitted from that stability so I think we need to do the same on the opposite flank.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:10 pm

dawson99 wrote:not out of position persay, but out of formation? We brought Babel but he hasnt been played where he should. The wings seem odd, like we dont quite know how to sort it. we are leaving players on the bench whoa re more suited to positions we are playing others in. Also, the midfield is playing SOOO deep lately i think. and it doesnt help that carra and hypia are hoofers whereas agger could find a pass. it just means that we are losing too many balls from defence and if there is a quick break we donthave the bodies where they are mostly needed

If the defence is playing deeper (which it is to combat the problem of Hyypia's lack of pace, unfortunately the midfield have to play deeper to avoid leaving space that can be exploited between midfield and defence. If the forwards drop deep we offer no goal threat, if the forwards stay upfield we get tempted to hoof the ball up to them for quick breaks rather than building from the back. Especially when neither Carra or Hyypia are adept at the passing game and the opposition close us down.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:51 pm

The left and right wing problem, because I believe if you want a balanced team it would be rare to see 2 attacking wingers with 2 strikers. Usually you get one attacking player eg Pennant with a more defence minded player on the opposing wing eg Riise or Aurelio rather than Babel or Leto.

If we are going to give Babel a run at Left wing we should be looking to play Gerrard at right midfield to allow the team some balance.

just my opinion

by **Sabre** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:08 pm

s@int wrote:Sabre says

6-7 changes do affect more than 4, but 4 changes shouldn't diminish your performance when you've trained together

I remember Bob Paisley saying once, the problem with introducing a player into the team, is not that the player plays poorly, as any team can manage with a player playing badly, but that because footballers are too willing to help out the new player at the expense of doing their own job properly, their own game suffers . He said that he always told the team to concentrate on their own game and not worry about trying to help the newcomer.

That was for one player imagine the problems of introducing 4,5,6 players, with the rest of the team trying to help them out as well as play their own game.

A Liverpool authority's words like Bob Paisley's must always be listened to carefully. And in a traditional context of football he makes a lot of sense, that's indeed the ABC IMHO, the basics of how to include a young player within a first team.

But is this context the same? Meaning, when a first team player like Heighwey, McDermott, Kennedy Johnson or a Tommy Smith wasn't available, had you in the bench an equally quality player? or a youngster or a backup?

I was born in that years and all I know about that days is videos I've seen and docs I've read, but wise words must be understood in context, and I'm not sure whether it's the same context. You obviously know millions times better than me how these times were, so feel free to rant about that days and correct me, I have all the time of the world for that old stories about Liverpool, and there are not specific threads talking about history of Liverpool in newkit!

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:43 am

Just to stir this thread up a bit, I thought I'd share Paul Tompkins' latest views on rotation with everyone (from .tv). I can just guess how this will go down in some quarters!

------

Slumps. Sticky patches. Call them what you will, but I've written about a few of them in the past three years.

As ever, the Reds will emerge from this one. Between January and March 2006 the Reds couldn't buy a goal. Then five flowed against Fulham, as Robbie Fowler broke his duck, and the team never looked back.

Confidence is everything in football; without it good teams can easily look like bad ones. One-nil up, and playing well, Liverpool had chances to get to that comfort zone with a second goal against Spurs. It didn't happen, and then goals conceded at two of the worst times –– immediately before and after half-time –– did to the Reds what it does to any team low on confidence: it killed them in their tracks.

The confidence that began to flow from being 1-0 up was not as powerful as the kind of 'concrete' confidence a team feels when it is regularly winning games. It is far more fragile, like pumice. It took the shellshocked players a while to find some belief again, but by the end they'd earned a deserved draw. It wasn't classic Liverpool, but it was a big improvement on last Wednesday's showing.

Last week, after the Marseilles game, I commented on my own website that Liverpool needed something, from somewhere –– I called it an 'Olympiakos moment'. The kind of goal, or result, that changes a team's fortunes and instils belief.

Sunday's opposition had just had theirs, a few days earlier. And what a difference it made to them. Spurs are now a team starting, somewhat belatedly, to look like a top-five side. Until a week ago, they were closer to relegation fodder, with a squad that cost pretty much the same as Liverpool's.

Spurs were a minute from a famous win at Anfield. This is the same Spurs who were losing 4-1 at home on Monday night, 30 minutes away from total meltdown. Against Villa they got back into the game with a goal, but in truth were going nowhere –– before being gifted a penalty by a Marlon Harewood's clumsy 'forward's challenge. Suddenly they were a goal away from a 4-4 draw.

They achieved it with an injury-time equaliser, which probably felt like a winning goal. Spurs, so talented a team but having such an utterly abject season, suddenly had their Olympiacos moment. They arrived at Anfield buoyed.

Could Torres' header be Liverpool's Olympiacos moment? Perhaps the comeback wasn't dramatic enough for it to give that 'miracle' feeling, but it could still prove a turning point in the Reds' fortunes. After all, the early season confidence was made possible by Gerrard's dramatic goal at Villa on the opening day.

If Liverpool aren't winning enough games right now, at least this goal showed a desire not to lose them. Drawing too many matches can be a problem in itself, so being unbeaten in the league doesn't paint the rosy picture it otherwise might; but it's still something to cling to, in terms of regaining confidence. It's something to build upon.

But obviously in most sections of the media the problem is being put down to one thing. Much to my chagrin, rotation has become an absolute obsession. I can't recall any other issue relating to the Reds' play causing so much controversy.

It is overshadowing everything, clouding the main issue –– namely that confidence has drained away. Without confidence, it almost doesn't matter who's in the team. When teams lose confidence, every player seems to suffer.

There are probably a number of reasons for it happening, and it's ultimately the manager's job to find some way of reversing it –– although there are no magic cures, as Spurs are finding with the previously reliable Paul Robinson.

In the case of some Liverpool players, perhaps rotation may have had an adverse affect. It's certainly a possibility. But why are some of the usually reliable regulars playing below their high standards, and some of those being most heavily rotated, such as Andrei Voronin, doing extremely well?

The more the debate rages, the more I see a truth: namely, that rotation is only an issue when Liverpool aren't winning. And that, for me, is what makes a lot of the debate a mockery.

Like all ideas in football, rotation isn't 100% perfect, and it does seem that with a bigger squad Benítez is making even more changes than in the past. But I'm sick to death of it being blamed for everything in a massively simplistic manner. As well as rotating, there have been lots of changes forced by injury, and that needs to be taken into account.

I just find it impossible to categorically blame rotation because there's absolutely no way to prove it. When I look at Benítez's team selections in recent weeks, as results have faltered, I actually see evidence that suggests rotation isn't the problem is being made out to be.

Take the defence, who are now making mistakes. Is that down to rotation?

Well, the defence were regularly keeping clean sheets when Benítez was rotating the back four, and alternating between centre-backs. Of late, he hasn't altered his central pairing because of Daniel Agger's absence with a broken foot. And Arbeloa and Finnan, who played against Spurs, are his two main choices at full-back (although Aurelio, back from long-term injury, was missing because of another injury).

So, despite more consistent selections at the back, the defending hasn't been as good.

Against Spurs, the central defenders were at fault on both goals, and yet no-one can tell me these two don't have a finely-developed understanding after playing together in the same back line for almost a decade, as well as having been the regular partnership at the heart of the defence between 2004 and 2006. So it's not like rotation early in the season was denying them a chance to build up understanding and consistency.

Is rotation to blame for Steve Finnan also not being at his best? After all, he's started ten of the 12 games. This supremely consistent full-back has had a very patchy start to the season by his standards. Perhaps, like Carragher, he was due a blip. But again, in such a well-drilled and, in recent years, almost telepathic unit with Carragher and Hyypia, the defending has suddenly gone awry. And I don't see how rotation can be blamed.

Further forward, Steven Gerrard has been deployed only in the centre of midfield, where everyone said last season that he simply had to play. He hasn't been switched around, in the manner that is supposed to disrupt his game, and he's now starting pretty much every match he's fit for. But like Carragher with his damaged ribs and lung in August, Gerrard's form has dipped since injury.

You could argue that Gerrard's mix of midfield partners hasn't helped him form a consistent partnership, but it's not like he's been paired with anyone new to the club whose game he doesn't understand. Xabi Alonso's absence is being felt, but Gerrard is capable of so much more than his current form –– he is capable of looking world-class even if I was lumbering around alongside him.

His body language tells us he knows he's not in the best form. But whatever the reason, I don't see much evidence to suggest it's down to rotation. He was much better in the first half against Spurs, but once the team went behind his confidence seemed to drain and his influence waned.

It's the same when it comes to the strikers, with Benítez castigated for constantly rotating his his four forwards.

Don't get me wrong –– I do think it can be hard at times for individual strikers to find their rhythm when being rotated. But if they are playing one of Liverpool's (usual) two games a week, then they should be able to give their all in the knowledge they need to keep nothing in reserve.

But what I don't get –– if rotation is so bad for them –– is how the four strikers have 15 goals between them in all competitions already this season. By contrast, Tevez, Rooney and Saha have just six, while Chelsea's forwards have seven. Liverpool's four strikers have scored the same as free-scoring Arsenal's three forwards.

There's always a controversy about which two strikers Benítez omits, but he can't play them all, and on the whole he has got a lot from whichever two who have played. Andrei Voronin has four goals, but has been far from a regular.

And are players who stay in any side all season long automatically immune from losing their form? Of course not.

While being on the bench or omitted from the 16 can affect confidence, it's better than being totally frozen out as two first-choice strikers play every single game. With Benítez, performing well doesn't guarantee you'll play the next game, but it does mean you'll play again soon. Only playing poorly will limit your chances, but even then, you're still in the frame.

I believe that on some level, all fans resent rotation, and it's perfectly natural. We do not know where we stand in the way we do if there's a set, defined starting XI. So it takes a bit more patience to bear with what is, by its very definition, a more complex way of working. I just loathe seeing it blamed again and again, given that all teams have difficult patches and lose confidence.

Make no mistake –– it's not been a good week. But the Reds are still 4th with a game in hand on the Manchester clubs, and unbeaten in the league. That may be of little comfort to some, but it's a reality that tells us the situation is far from critical. Of course, a return to winning ways needs to come about sooner rather than later before a gap opens up.

In total contrast to the previous one, I think the international break has come at the right time. It gives the coaching staff a chance to take stock and analyse what's going wrong ahead of a return to league action.

A win at Everton would provide just the kind of confidence boost that can lead to a revival. Liverpool's superb form on the way to the 2001 Treble was kick-started by another 'Olympiacos moment' –– Gary McAllister's 93rd-minute winning goal at Goodison. On such things seasons can turn.

by **112-1077774096** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:17 am

tompkins is a bit of a t*t to be fair, everything he says that can't be caused by rotation can actually be caused by rotation, if he was against rotation he cold have written this just as easily with a different slant

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:28 am

Sabre wrote:
s@int wrote:Sabre says

6-7 changes do affect more than 4, but 4 changes shouldn't diminish your performance when you've trained together

I remember Bob Paisley saying once, the problem with introducing a player into the team, is not that the player plays poorly, as any team can manage with a player playing badly, but that because footballers are too willing to help out the new player at the expense of doing their own job properly, their own game suffers . He said that he always told the team to concentrate on their own game and not worry about trying to help the newcomer.

That was for one player imagine the problems of introducing 4,5,6 players, with the rest of the team trying to help them out as well as play their own game.

A Liverpool authority's words like Bob Paisley's must always be listened to carefully. And in a traditional context of football he makes a lot of sense, that's indeed the ABC IMHO, the basics of how to include a young player within a first team.

But is this context the same? Meaning, when a first team player like Heighwey, McDermott, Kennedy Johnson or a Tommy Smith wasn't available, had you in the bench an equally quality player? or a youngster or a backup?

I was born in that years and all I know about that days is videos I've seen and docs I've read, but wise words must be understood in context, and I'm not sure whether it's the same context. You obviously know millions times better than me how these times were, so feel free to rant about that days and correct me, I have all the time of the world for that old stories about Liverpool, and there are not specific threads talking about history of Liverpool in newkit!

While we obviously didn't have the squad strength that all teams have today, we certainly had good players on the bench and to bring through, and usually we took our time in doing so. All the players you mentioned as "established players", also spent a long time either fighting to get into the team or fighting to get back into the team.

David Johnson and Terry Mcdermott for example spent a long time on the bench for us.

At that time a player would be bought, played in the reserves to "learn the Liverpool way", before becoming a sub, and as Bob Paisley didn't really believe in using subs very much it could be a long frustrating wait.

Paisley was once asked why he never brought his subs on even when a player was obviously injured. He said that as long as the players injury was not being made any worse he would rather have an injured player on the field, than bring on a substitute when Liverpool were winning. He said that if you bring a sub on he will run round getting everyone wound up and changing the tempo of a game, and a game that was nicely under control and winding down could soon be fired up again.

Under Shankly we tended to have the same player on the bench week in week out, only changing him when he perhaps needed a reserve game to freshen him up. Bobby Graham and before him Alf Arrowsmith spent most of their career's warming the bench. Graham finally getting his chance, played regularly for most of one season, finishing top scorer, before breaking his leg against Chelsea the following season. Heighway was the sub, came on had a great game, and Graham never won his place back again, as the arrivals of Toshack and Keegan pushed him even further down the pecking order. All this for a player who scored a hatrick on his debut.

So we did have good players to introduce, just not as many as today, but as you could only use one sub thats pretty understandable.

Back to context, Benayoun, Babble, Torres, even Mascherano are all fairly new players, and most are also new to English football as well, certainly Leto and Lukas fall into this category. Should you be introducing 3 or 4 such players into the side at once.

Mascherano settled brilliantly last season, would he have settled so quickly if we had introduced another couple of new players at the same time?

We are all eager to see new signings, but maybe sometimes the right thing to do is introduce them gradually into a settled team rather than throwing 3 or 4 in together and expecting them to perform.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:20 am

Rafa's numbers just don't add up
20:51pm 8th October 2007

Study the extended sequence of numbers below and see if you can crack this week's sporting enigma code. The puzzle is: 6, 6, 4, 7, 5, 5, 6, 2, 9, 7, 5, 5.

Any ideas? No, it's not some tedious Sudoku grid. It isn't Stephen Hawking's chassis number. It's got nothing to do with bingo either, although it is associated with a lottery of sorts.

The sequence actually details the extraordinary number of changes made by Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez in every game this season.

Following victory over Aston Villa on the opening day, the Anfield boss has chopped his personnel around so often that he is averaging more than five changes per match.

When his team is winning, this squad rotation policy can be seen as an astute management of resources. But when Liverpool struggle, Benitez is cast as a man trying to solve a Rubik's cube despite being colour blind.

Fiddling for fiddling's sake doesn't provide an answer, as another magnificent statistic demonstrates; one so startling it deserves to be served on a silver platter and accompanied by a glass of vintage red. In a total of 153 matches, Benitez has named an unchanged side only once.

So what happened that week? What was different? The momentous occasion, which deserves to be commemorated by The Kop in song, occurred last season on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 — three days after Liverpool had beaten Villa at home.

On that night, Benitez confounded everyone by selecting the same 11 against Bordeaux in the Champions League, a wild and crazy notion that was rewarded with a 3-0 victory.

Afterwards the Liverpool manager justified this behaviour, saying: 'I thought if we are playing well, we have the confidence and we have time, then we can use the same team.'

Brilliantly simple. But not so brilliantly simple that he ever tried it again. And if that was his rationale back then, are we to presume that he hasn't opted for the same line up again because his side hasn't been playing well in the intervening period? Not even after beating Derby 6-0? Or was Benitez being contrary for a more selfish reason that night?

The Bordeaux game was his 99th in charge and it is more likely his selection had less to do with fitness and more to do with him wanting to dodge headlines referring to a 'century of tinkering'.

Whatever the reasoning, all this twisting and turning is obviously not doing much good right now. It's not so much a rotation policy as a tragic roundabout.

Liverpool have picked up one League victory since September 1 and a single point from six in the Champions League.

The devil in any successful operation is in the detail and Benitez analyses the data more than most. As he sifted through the debris of another disjointed performance against Tottenham on Sunday, he spared nobody. Except himself, that is.

'We need to learn,' he seethed. 'The small details change games.' And indeed they do. The smallest of details can make the difference between a win, a trophy, a title, or absolutely nothing at all. But how can players concentrate on the small details when they are having to double-guess who will be playing alongside them week in and week out?

A team succeeds by building an almost telepathic understanding on the field, forging instinctive relationships that enable them to trust and react to one another without a second thought.

That doesn't follow when the numbers on the teamsheet look as if they have been plucked off a roulette wheel. Right now, the Liverpool players look like strangers to one another. They are spinning in and out of the team so often they are bound to be a little disorientated.

Yes, it can all click for a cup run, and there is silverware enough in the cabinet to excuse Benitez from criticism in a knockout scenario.

But the League requires consistency, team spirit, self-belief and a certainty that the best 11 equipped for the job are on the field, with reinforcements on hand if required. Isn't that how titles are won?

This Anfield scenario might sound horribly familiar. Liverpool have certainly been cursed by the revolving door approach to selection before.

In 2002, Gerard Houllier managed to go two years without sending out the same side in consecutive matches. He also had success in cup competitions but, like Benitez, never found the consistency required to succeed in the League.

History is now repeating itself and at a moment when Liverpool were supposed to have their best chance of being crowned champions in almost two decades.

Benitez is an astute, intelligent manager and even in this sticky patch of form it is worth remembering Liverpool have yet to lose a league match, so this mini slump hardly ranks as a crisis.

However, there is no doubt the manager has put himself in a difficult situation when he has to stubbornly insist his complicated calculations are right, even though they keep spewing out the wrong results. Benitez may even be close to the ideal winning formula by now but if it happened, how would anyone be able to tell?

Liverpool FC Forum

The rotation thread - All "R" talk in here please!

Who is online