Liverpool FC Forum

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:00 pm

Sabre wrote:
dawson99 wrote:can i ask a stupid question?

cheers...

why do we change our team all the time depending on who we play..eg: fulham we play differently than arsenal...

why dont they change to the way that we play? if we play our best way shouldnt the other teams be the ones that need to change, and not us?

We change of way of playing because in football there are not magical formulas.

The zonal defense that works for us, can be disasterous for a team that hasn't the proper defences to play in zone.

You don't attack the same way an advanced line of defence or a deep defence.

It's a long and well known story told by all the big clubs: Big clubs have to have a way of playing and should not change it. Well it's not like that nowadays. Basically you change your approach to games not because you fear the opposition, but because you're seeking the way to make the most harm to the opposition, which is nice.

Not doing so can be a trap. Barcelona away game, they score. Then, we, planted well in the pitch, we draw. Barcelona, forgetting that there were plenty of minutes on front of them and a second leg, removed their holding midfielder. They were faithful to their philosophy, no english team had won in Barcelona NEVER, and they wanted to attack and win. As a result, Liverpool was the first english team to win in Barcelona. God knows what would happen if they hadn't been so anxious, but the truth is that their philosophy ended up with them eliminated. That's IMHO anyway, you'll probably find lots of fans who're against changes and want to have a same style always. Lots of them.

One team had Sabre...................... Liverpool 1-0 when Toshack scored. (I know you meant in the CL mate

)

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:18 pm

Bamaga man wrote:As we well know even if a player has a blinder of a game (Crouch) perfect example can be sitting on the bench or even out shopping buying coke for his misses come the next game.
.
.
.
But surely as a manager you HAVE to be looking at the performances of your players aswell obviously as the result, why rest players when their IN form.

Apologies for chopping and changing your post, mate, but this was the point I wanted clarification on. Do you have particular examples of in form players this season who have been rested in the following game? You mention Crouchy but, until the Besiktas rout IMO, his form has not been so good as to make him undroppable. Indeed, I would suggest that he's been below his standards for a good part of the season and that the clamour for his selection had more to do with Kuyt and Voronin's (until recently, in the case of Ukrainian) dismal form. Torres, of course, would be an example but his situation has been well discussed. Beyond him, I'm struggling to name players who have excelled and then been dropped straight away.

by **Judge** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:37 pm

bamaga never has examples

by **bigmick** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:30 pm

Bad Bob wrote: Beyond him, I'm struggling to name players who have excelled and then been dropped straight away.

"Beyond him", is a pretty big beyond though Bob. At the time we decided to not start Torres in two consecutive league games (but play him in the crucial away tie of the Carling Cup and the Away game in Porto either side of one of the matches), he was looking just about the hottest striker in the Premiership at the time. Similarly, you could make a claim that anybody who figured in the Home game against Chelsea, given the team put in such a top performance, could feel pretty aggrieved at being "rotated".

In truth though, there haven't been that many players who have excelled throughout the whole team as we've kind of stumbled along from game to the next ("But we're unbeaten!". Yes I know).

THE selection, THE game of course was away at Pompey. That was the one which said to the senior players, here we go again. We're prepared to risk our success this season because I think one of our best players might be tired after four games. Lets not forget, though we all (me included) could understand the omission of Gerrard, he wasn't actually "injured" in the truest sense either. I wouldn't have played him, but he wasn't unavailable for selection. He came on as a sub FFS. Torres on the other hand was fit and ready to play. One look at his fizzog on the bench told you that he himself wanted to play. Not playing him in that particular game, away against those particular opponents was an extreme risk. Some of us said so at the time. The "get some coaching badges" brigade poured scorn on our assertion that on such decisions momentum is lost, belief ebbs away, but so it proved.

Hindsight may be a wonderful thing, but forsight is even better. Some of us have been bemoaning the rotation for the best part of three seasons FFS, thats not hindsight. I've been saying since day one that no team will ever win or come close to winning the English Premier League while rotating the tactics, the team and the formation in the style that Rafa does. I'm not just talking about Liverpool here, I'm saying NOBODY. Now I know Tompkins and one or two others have actually tried to make the case that Man Utd and Chelsea actually rotate the team in a similar fashion to us, maybe by now they've even managed to find a stat which shows they rotate even more than us, God knows anything is possible.

The reality is of course though that they don't. The reality is that Rafa believes in a different method to the other top managers in this country. Nothing wrong in that per se, and if it works then he will rightly be hailed as the messiah reborn. I keep asking though, when? Every season it seems to me we toss points, momentum and rhythm away with gay abandon and for what? For the life of me I just can't see any net gain, none at all. I can see plenty of net losses though, and I said after the Besiktas game we will never have a better chance of rescuing our season ("but it doesn't need rescuing, we're unbeaten" yes I know). Well since then we've had one game and we kept the same team. I'm encouraged. The only rotation we should be seeing for the forseeable is the gradual re-introduction of our big guns as they come back from injuries, and the replacement of anybody who has a cataclysmic loss of form or gets injured, properly. We can't afford to do much else, we are a couple of bad results away from our season being effectively over before Christmas.

by **Sabre** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:49 pm

Your opinion is super respectable because is well thought and you're right, you've always been skeptical. Which is nice, and that's what we come for here, read different views.

You ask when. One of the things you have defended in the past is that you think that our squad yesteryear was good enough to at least challenge for the title. So it's only consistent that one year later, with better signing ups you ask when we'll win the title. And since we're not winning it so far, it's only consistent that you blame rotation if you believe it's the trouble.

I don't know if someone will ever win the league rotating like Rafa. I certainly think so but I can't be sure about the future. But one thing, that I've seen in champions of the league of your country and mine, is that the champions used to have a very top class striker playing for them. With the exception of Chelsea and Drogba, league champions always had players like Raul at his best, Van Nystelroy, Bergkamp, or fúcking Rooney. That kind of striker, a striker that scores goal at ease is a rol that not Morientes nor Kuyt (so far, and I like both) have managed to fulfill here. This year though, Torres is achieving that role, he's playing at that required level. That's some of the things we lacked to win the league in the past two seasons, alongside with squad depth. We wouldn't have won it not rotating, nor not rotating.

At the start of last season I WAS confident to challenge for the title because I thought Kuyt had to be the man. I thought that Morientes was class but unlucky, and if he was off loaded was because a much better player was coming. A top class one. Kuyt in his first season wasn't up to that expectations (as much as I like him) so once again we had not that kind of man that makes differences upfront.

Anyhow, as I've mentioned, your position is not only respectable but CONSISTENT with your thoughts. Fair play to you Bigmick.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:14 am

bigmick wrote:

THE selection, THE game of course was away at Pompey. That was the one which said to the senior players, here we go again. We're prepared to risk our success this season because I think one of our best players might be tired after four games. Lets not forget, though we all (me included) could understand the omission of Gerrard, he wasn't actually "injured" in the truest sense either. I wouldn't have played him, but he wasn't unavailable for selection. He came on as a sub FFS. Torres on the other hand was fit and ready to play. One look at his fizzog on the bench told you that he himself wanted to play. Not playing him in that particular game, away against those particular opponents was an extreme risk. Some of us said so at the time. The "get some coaching badges" brigade poured scorn on our assertion that on such decisions momentum is lost, belief ebbs away, but so it proved.

Although, by the same token, just after Torres had been on fire against Reading in the Carling Cup he then started against Wigan. This didn't transform the way in which we played, and the game could quite easily have resulted in a draw. Wigan away on paper, is almost certainly an easier game than Portsmouth away. I'm not quibbling over whether Torres should have started that particular match. I'm quibbling over the degree to which you believe one player would have influenced the outcome of the result. It was by no means a certainty that Torres' inclusion would have resulted in a win against Portsmouth, it would almost certainly have improved our chances. The degree to which you believe our chances would have been improved is THE only point of debate here.

Well since then we've had one game and we kept the same team. I'm encouraged. The only rotation we should be seeing for the forseeable is the gradual re-introduction of our big guns as they come back from injuries, and the replacement of anybody who has a cataclysmic loss of form or gets injured, properly. We can't afford to do much else, we are a couple of bad results away from our season being effectively over before Christmas.

I'm really quite intrigued to know which games, within phases B and C, you believed overrotation has affected our momentum significantly (barring Pompey). Thus far, I think you've only really made the point about Torres' omission from the Portsmouth side, and even then, I believe you are overstating the impact one player would have made, citing the Wigan game as reasonable evidence to support this.

You yourself said you didn't mind rotation in cup games, and you invariably agreed with the selection made against Birmingham. Against Spurs at home Torres started, and we still performed poorly. I fail to see which games, within these phases, you are moaning about. Arsenal at home? Blackburn away? Be specific (kindly if you would, sir).

If, as you once said, "good teams and good players can adapt", then surely the team should have been more than capable of adapting to Portsmouth away? You believe we have a squad, that, man to man is as good as any other Premiership team. This would suggest that you believe we have players more than capable of unlocking the likes of Portsmouth away, irrespective of the omission of one player, just as our title rivals can.

As Bad Bob pointed out earlier, Arsenal went to Old trafford last season without Henry and still managed to win.

If our side is of equal pedigree, why can we not do the same?

The reality is (IMHO) that, we don't have a side of equal pedigree, mainly due to the incompleteness of forwards and wingers, barring Torres of course.

We are too reliant on Torres, and Gerrard, They are our only players, with real quality, guile and pace. Babel is something of an unknown quantity in this respect, although I believe he will ultimately develop into a fantastic player.

I believe we can win the league, but in order to do so, we must have all of our key players fit and firing on all cylinders. The manc's and Arsenal have a buffer of attacking quality, their attacking players are generally interchangeable, and they possess the combination of pace, power and quality in abundance.

Coming back to the point about rotation, if you believed we did have a side of equal pedigree "man for man" to any other side in the league, I suspect you wouldn't have minded Torres' omission against Portsmouth.

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:10 am

bigmick wrote:THE selection, THE game of course was away at Pompey. That was the one which said to the senior players, here we go again. We're prepared to risk our success this season because I think one of our best players might be tired after four games. Lets not forget, though we all (me included) could understand the omission of Gerrard, he wasn't actually "injured" in the truest sense either. I wouldn't have played him, but he wasn't unavailable for selection. He came on as a sub FFS. Torres on the other hand was fit and ready to play. One look at his fizzog on the bench told you that he himself wanted to play. Not playing him in that particular game, away against those particular opponents was an extreme risk. Some of us said so at the time. The "get some coaching badges" brigade poured scorn on our assertion that on such decisions momentum is lost, belief ebbs away, but so it proved.

Mick, mate, if the players' "belief ebbs away" on the basis of that one result then we have absolutely no business winning the league. Players that lack the bottle to bounce back from a draw (yes, a draw!) in September are not up to a title challenge. I mean, Man U only a managed a draw at Portsmouth in Week 2 yet they seem to have preserved their belief and pushed their way back to the head of the pack--I guess we don't have players with that kind of heart?

Basically, what I'm reading is that--at the end of the day, after all of the signings we've made in the past three years--we still depend on 1 or 2 players (Gerrard and now Torres) to save our bacon if things go a little stale/pear-shaped. Well, to take a page from your book, mate, I'd say that no team so reliant on 1-2 individuals has or ever will win the title. I mean, if we can't afford to leave Torres on the bench for one game--any game--we are not in a position to challenge for the title because we lack the creative players needed to pick up the slack when Torres and Gerrard are unavailable or are having a bad day at the office. That's the big problem, IMO, not rotation.

by **maguskwt** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:42 am

rafa should be given 2 more seasons...that's it... pro-rotation or anti-rotation...

by **66-1112520797** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:36 am

Bad Bob wrote:
Bamaga man wrote:As we well know even if a player has a blinder of a game (Crouch) perfect example can be sitting on the bench or even out shopping buying coke for his misses come the next game.
.
.
.
But surely as a manager you HAVE to be looking at the performances of your players aswell obviously as the result, why rest players when their IN form.

Apologies for chopping and changing your post, mate, but this was the point I wanted clarification on. Do you have particular examples of in form players this season who have been rested in the following game? You mention Crouchy but, until the Besiktas rout IMO, his form has not been so good as to make him undroppable. Indeed, I would suggest that he's been below his standards for a good part of the season and that the clamour for his selection had more to do with Kuyt and Voronin's (until recently, in the case of Ukrainian) dismal form. Torres, of course, would be an example but his situation has been well discussed. Beyond him, I'm struggling to name players who have excelled and then been dropped straight away.

On the note of Crouch this season you have to be fair and say the bloke hasnt even had the chance theo build up a head of steam as far as his form goes. Kuyt up until now hasnt been rotated as much and is equally if not poorer than Crouch's form.

Nobody this season has really been in top form, but that alone shouldnt give the manager the need to rotate. After all Gerrard, Carra, Mascha and the likes of Torres are our top players. But who can replace them though ? Alonso is injured, and we dont have any better players who can fill their positions.

But in all honesty I dont think they've been rotated too much, but when you see Torres benched away at Pompey and Kuyt on the pitch you have to ask yourself WHY. Momo in for Mascha WHY.

Arbeloa has been in good form IMO at Left back, I think he has been one of our better defenders this season, yet he's now being shuffled around as Aurelio is back. If Arbeloa is playing that well he shouldnt be rotated for Riise or Aurelio just for the sake of rotation. I'm sure you'll bring up Finnan's below form for the reason Arbeloa being moved, by Finnans standeards he's been just below average, not poor mind. But how is Finnan going to regain form if he's out of the side ?
Surely he'll pick it up over the next few games, but if he is dire then drop him.

Babel was in at the start, thrown in at the deep end, and then we never saw him for a few weeks.
I just dont understand how all this rotation and by Raneria Benitez's numbers how it will work. We dropped $hit loads of points this time last season Because IMO Rafa was f.ucking around with the team too much. This season, earlier on especially I'd say its largely down to poor form, but putting heavy numbered rotations onto that wont help IMO unless those players coming in can bring a spark to the team, and those players coming in if rotation is to work have to be better than Gerrard and Torres etc. But frankly we dont have anyone better, so let them find their rythmn and form.

FWIW also and where Rafa is largely concerned there is no such thing as a squad player anymore, unless your a reserve keep. I dont know the exack number of our squad, say 24 decent first team players for example. Those 24 IMO are not squad players but team players, but you can only have 11 in a team at anyone time on matchday. In theory that sounds good but in practise it hasnt and will not work in regards to winning the title. Draft them in if a regular first team player is injured or in the latter stages of the season genuinly tired or every now and again. But bringing in them in and out of the side every other match just doesnt work IMO.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:08 am

While the benching of Crouch remains a mystery, unless you believe there are genuine problems between him and Rafa, most of Rafa's rotating tends to be with the new players OR players consistantly playing poorly. Babel, Benayoun,Voronin and Torres probably need more rest as no doubt they will expend more nervous energy during games than the more established players. Kuyt, Sissoko and Riise have probably been dropped at times rather than "rested".

Gk -Reina - when fit plays
RB - Finnan - until recently when fit plays
LB - No one has really grabbed the position yet
CB -Carra - when fit plays
CB -Agger - occasionally rested for Hyypia (maybe technical change to use Hyypia's better heading ability)
LW - No one has yet grabbed the position
CM -Gerrard - plays when fit
CM -Alonso - rotated with Masherano (Again maybe technical change to use Mascherano's tackling and speed or Alonso's passing and positioning)
RW - No one has yet grabbed the position but Benayoun and Pennant seem to have it between them when fit.
Striker - Kuyt - probably dropped for Crouch/Voronin
Striker -Torres - plays when fit (maybe needed a rest after all the pressure of moving when left out)

What I am trying to say is I don't think Rafa rotates just for the sake of it, he has his reasons, whether we agree with him or not.

by **bigmick** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:30 am

I think it's probably time to dispel this urban myth that the anti-rotationers think rafa changes the team because he's bored, likes a laugh, or just fancies a change. Of course he has his reasons, it's just that we think they're wrong.

If they monitor the heart rates of the players constantly, wiegh them every day, check their recovery rates etc then it's quite possible that the majority of the changes are based on a perception of the fittest players starting the game. Rafa refers to this often, this thing about "freshness". Look, I'll even concede if that is the case that I can see where he is coming from. The thing is though, is it worth compromising a tad on the freshness in order to build a little continuity and momentum? I think it is.

He went on record (albeit perhaps tongue in cheek) as saying the players in the unchanged team looked tired against Fulham. Well if they did and were, we really must look at our training methods. If playing in a game where you win 8-0 tires them out, then serious questions really need to be asked. I have never heard such utter nonsense in all my life, (well I probably have but you get my drift).

Now if the International break wasn't upon us, you can probably be certain that at least one of the full-backs would be "rotated" for the next game. Why, and to what possible end, your guess is as good as mine. Quite what Arbeloa or Aurelio will gain from sitting on their erse for a game or two, or Carragher or Hyppia will gain from having a different partner playing in the full back slot alongside them is anyones guess, but it would probably have happened nontheless. It really does make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I'm still waiting to see a gain from the policy, although I can see many minuses.

LFC asked me in an interesting post earlier which in particular of the "rotations" I disagreed with. That's easy, all of the unecessary ones. Ha, well which ones are the unnecessary ones smart erse? Obviously, as I am constantly reminded by the get some coaching badges brigade, I am not privvy to the comings and goings at the training ground, who is injured etc etc so I don't know. I do know however that making seventy five changes to the team in fifteen games or whatever the feck it was was absolutely ridiculous.

I say again, if Rafa intends to approach next season the same way as he approached this one, I would shake his hand at the end of the season (assuming I am right in calling us just about out of the title race) and try a different approach. I ask this of people who come onto the rotation thread, if we don't infact challenge for the title this season, would you be prepared to put it down to injuries, bad luck, the squad not yet being good enough etc? Would you seek assurances form the manager regarding the way the squad is managed, or would you be perfectly happy to see him approach next season in exactly the same way we approached the others?

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:04 pm

I think we are a top striker, a good winger and a decent CB (for cover) short of winning the league. Thats not to say I don't think we can still win the league, it just means that without them we will at times struggle and our key players have to raise their game or even play when not fully fit.

I think its more the team being short of quality in those areas than any rotating that Rafa has done. We have only 2 real matchwinners at the moment (Gerrard and Torres) players who can grab a goal out of the blue and change the whole course of the game. We really need 3 or 4 matchwinners,maybe other players can raise their level or Kewell's comeback can reduce this deficit in our squad but the lack of creative talent up front is costing us both points and making what should be easy games into dire struggles.

Rotation IS VERY MUCH SECONDARY IN MY OPINION to this lack of quality. Benayoun, Pennant, Risse, Kuyt,Voronin, while decent players and probably all good enough for the squad,should not in my opinion be considered first team players. Babel is still not ready, Kewell not yet fit and Crouch not yet given much opportunity.

If we still have problems AFTER we get the 2 quality players in, I will go with rotation not working, until then I will stick with the team being not quite good enough.

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:12 pm

s@int wrote:I think we are a top striker, a good winger and a decent CB (for cover) short of winning the league. Thats not to say I don't think we can still win the league, it just means that without them we will at times struggle and our key players have to raise their game or even play when not fully fit.

I think its more the team being short of quality in those areas than any rotating that Rafa has done. We have only 2 real matchwinners at the moment (Gerrard and Torres) players who can grab a goal out of the blue and change the whole course of the game. We really need 3 or 4 matchwinners,maybe other players can raise their level or Kewell's comeback can reduce this deficit in our squad but the lack of creative talent up front is costing us both points and making what should be easy games into dire struggles.

Rotation IS VERY MUCH SECONDARY IN MY OPINION to this lack of quality. Benayoun, Pennant, Risse, Kuyt,Voronin, while decent players and probably all good enough for the squad,should not in my opinion be considered first team players. Babel is still not ready, Kewell not yet fit and Crouch not yet given much opportunity.

If we still have problems AFTER we get the 2 quality players in, I will go with rotation not working, until then I will stick with the team being not quite good enough.

That's eerie, mate---it's like you've read my mind. :nod

To add to this, just look what an impact Torres has had on the team. In 20 games he's made himself nigh on undroppable by scoring vital goals to give us an important lead (Chelsea), to salvage points (Spurs), to put the tie out of reach (Reading) and to turn a draw into a win (Fulham). We now have someone, other than Gerrard, who can take the game by the scruff of the neck and almost single-handedly get us a result. As Saint's said, who else can do that? A few players can rise to the occasion on occasion but there isn't quite that level of individual brilliance in the side that other top teams rely on (unfortunately, that's even more the case now that we've sold Garcia).

So, imagine how much more likely we are to turn some of these bore draws that we've been racking up into wins if we were to add 1-2 more class attacking players into the mix? Throw in another young, cultured CB and--with the likes of Kewell and Aurelio getting fit and the likes of Babel and Lucas maturing--and we suddenly look a very different proposition. When we can put 3-4 players on the pitch who have consistently shown their ability to change a game, we'll have a proper crack at it. So, rather than query Rafa about his plans for rotation come May, I'd be much more interested in asking him who he intended to buy.

by **Sabre** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:34 pm

For me S@int has touched the key element of disagreement, the amount of effect rotation has. Reading Bigmick this months I agree many things he say, and he makes sense, I just disagree in the impact of the things he mentions.

Without injuries though, I disagree S@int. I think that without injuries we're not a step below of winining the league. Of course it won't be easy, but we'll be there if we are not unlucky with injuries IMHO.

by **Judge** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:09 pm

rotate on this mother fuckers

Liverpool FC Forum

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

Who is online