Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:50 pm

bigmick wrote: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.

Within phases B and C, barring Torres' omission against Portsmouth, in which games SPECIFICALLY do you believe we rotated to a degree that has unsettled our side and consequently had a negative impact on our results?

*Given that you largely don't mind rotation in cup matches.
**Given that you viewed the selection for the Birmingham match acceptable.

by **babu** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:12 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
bigmick wrote: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.

Within phases B and C, barring Torres' omission against Portsmouth, in which games SPECIFICALLY do you believe we rotated to a degree that has unsettled our side and consequently had a negative impact on our results?

*Given that you largely don't mind rotation in cup matches.
**Given that you viewed the selection for the Birmingham match acceptable.

Not trying to pick an arguement LFC2007, but i reckon you'd pick a hole in anyone's position, on any matter, if you could see a flaw, loophole, omission, etc - even if you agreed with the sentiment, ala Devils Advocate.

Not saying that's a bad thing, just an observation.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:18 pm

babu wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:
bigmick wrote: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.

Within phases B and C, barring Torres' omission against Portsmouth, in which games SPECIFICALLY do you believe we rotated to a degree that has unsettled our side and consequently had a negative impact on our results?

*Given that you largely don't mind rotation in cup matches.
**Given that you viewed the selection for the Birmingham match acceptable.

Not trying to pick an arguement LFC2007, but i reckon you'd pick a hole in anyone's position, on any matter, if you could see a flaw, loophole, omission, etc - even if you agreed with the sentiment, ala Devils Advocate.

Not saying that's a bad thing, just an observation.

I don't agree with his sentiments whatsoever on the point he is making.

If someone is going to lambast Rafa for over-rotating, then it's only right that the person doing so cites which games they believe he has done so, to the extent to which our results have been negatively affected within phases B and C (i.e. our recent fixtures - which is why I can't understand why he is still moaning about the issue).

I fail to see where Mick is coming from.

I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, it's just a question.

by **dawson99** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:20 pm

people say he over rotates as he roates more than other managers... it could be for any reason, injury, tiredness, hes bored, whatever.

i think with the amount of players we are always buying we need some stability., which is one arguament, others say that players get more hungry if rotated...

not sure where i stand to be honest, but if a player is playing well, he should play. simple as.

by **babu** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:21 pm

Okay. Fair enough. (i got the false impression you agreed over-rotation was an issue)*

*in response to LFC2007

by **neilE** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:41 pm

I don't believe the most fervent advocates against rotation believe you can win the league with the same 11 playing all season - even when we and Villa did it with 14(?) players in the early 80's it was something unusual. So, rotation is an essential part of club football success. The question is how much, and who. For all Benitez says about "4 equal strikers", he knows we have 1 really good one and 3 gap fillers. Torres, IMO would have played against both Birmingham and Portsmouth if Benitez thought he was fully fit. He was carrying a minor knock, and the case for not playing him in that condition was proved against Arsenal. As Saint says above, several players, the spine in fact, play almost every game. I'd add Pennant to the list, of "plays when fit" too. Apparently he played more games than any other outfield player last season. IMHO the debate here is not really about rotation, but the same arguments that fans have had for decades, namely, who should be picked? I'd say Crouch should get more chances than Kuyt has had, Benayoun should be ahead of Babel, Arbeloa should get more chances, but that's my view, no more no less. Doesn't make rotation a bad thing.
Another point - Mick says we rotate too much at the start of the season, when others are building settled sides. My answer would be - how many new players came to Liverpool last summer? answer loads. How to split regulars from squad players? - give them all a chance and see what works. Benitez is never gong to admit he overrotates because he firmly believes he changes the side when he needs to, and not because rotation is a good idea in itself.

by **Bammo** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:55 pm

You can tell I'm bored byt the fact I've spent 20 mins on Chelski's website looking this up. In 13 league games they've had 8 different defensive line-ups start the game. This was both under Moaninho and Grant:

1) Johnson, Ben-Haim, Carvalho, A Cole
2) Ferreira, Ben-Haim, Carvalho, A Cole
3) Essien, Ben-Haim, Terry ©, A Cole
4) Belletti, Alex, Terry ©, A Cole
5) Ferreira, Ben-Haim, Terry ©, A Cole
6) Belletti, Carvalho, Terry ©, A Cole
7) Belletti, Carvalho, Alex, Ferreira
8) Belletti, Alex, Carvalho, Bridge

Were either manager accused of rotating too much? Nope, hardly a mention in the press.

Rafa's fault is that he drops form players. He doesn'tnecessarily rotate more than rival managers. The problem nowis that the media and us fans are all looking out for it. If the line-up changes and we win, it's despite the rotation. If we don't win then it's because of the changes.

While the fans tend to stick to their guns, (you know who you are

) which is admirable, it always makes me laugh to hear the media's viewpoints change to jump onthe latest bandwagon. There were cries of "any rotation is bad", then we did quite well and it became "he needs to stick to the same core of players!". Then the facts showed that he was and it became "why isn't he playing crouch? Gerrard's in the wrong position". We lost a it of form and it goes back to "all rotation is bad".

Anyway, that's my rant over. Here's a question for the staunch anti-rotators:

would you be happy if there were 7 or 8 players on form starting every game with the rest picked to fit the oppo, or should the full 11 remain unchanged?

by **dawson99** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:00 pm

major injuries tho. guarunteed a fully fit cheatski squad would ALWAYS play terry, carvalhio, cole and...beletti i reckon.

by **Bammo** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:27 pm

That kinda sums it up though. :;):

With rafa it's the number of changes that's looked at not the reasons. If injuries were taken into account (Carra, Agger, Arbeloa, Masch, Alonso, Pennant, Benayoun, Kewell, Torres) then Rafa's changes aren't as bad as people make out.

by **bigmick** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:49 pm

LFC2007 wrote:Within phases B and C, barring Torres' omission against Portsmouth, in which games SPECIFICALLY do you believe we rotated to a degree that has unsettled our side and consequently had a negative impact on our results?

*Given that you largely don't mind rotation in cup matches.
**Given that you viewed the selection for the Birmingham match acceptable.

I actually "specifically" had major problems within phase A. I disagreed with the selection away to Sunderland but we still won. I thought it ws unnecessary rotation, made just about OK as it gave most of the squad players a game to make them feel involved at the start of the season. At that time I started the "To be honest I'm starting to get a little worried" thread, where I predicted we would heavily rotate against Derby yet still win, and in the long-run if it sparked rafa into one of his more surreal periods, it wouldn't do us any favours.

When you ask "which gmaes specifically" it kind of misses my point. With two or three major exceptions (who pretty much must play), I think you can put out a team of pretty much any of our squad and I wouldn't have a problem with it "specifically". I don't for instance mind if he plays Finnan or Arbeloa at right back, Aurelio or Riise at left back (I have my own ideas of course who is better in each case but no matter), as long as we try and pick a settled team. Only when we do that IMHO, will this squad of players begin to achieve their potential.

This is where people constntly misunderstand where I'm coming from when they put up a team from such and such a game and say "well don't you think that team should be good enough to beat Charlton?" or whoever it is. It could, it should be, and it is, but if that team contains a bunch of players who are playing without confidence and desire for a number of reasons (chief of which is over-ratation in my opinion) then don't be surprised if we struggle.

I disagree with all unnecessary rotations, in every team we've fielded this season. Definition of unecessary? Not because of proper injury or proper loss of form. I would have thought that the only player I can recall who has deserved to be rotated through form would be Kuyt. Hope that clears up where I'm coming from, specifically.

by **66-1112520797** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:01 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.

Fair comment S@int.

But does this mean Rafa's transfer buys havent been good enough ?

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:24 pm

Bamaga man wrote:
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.

Fair comment S@int.

But does this mean Rafa's transfer buys havent been good enough ?

He probably should have bought fewer players than he has, but of a higher quality in my opinion.ie he has bought Pennant,Babel and Benayoun, for £23 million he could have got a great winger and maybe still got a squad player with the change.

Whether that would have fitted in with his rotational ideas is another matter

by **66-1112520797** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:42 pm

Sabre wrote: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.

The royal rectum is clean your highness.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:44 pm

Bamaga man wrote:
Sabre wrote: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.

The royal rectum is clean your highness.

by **66-1112520797** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:46 pm

s@int wrote:
Bamaga man wrote:
Sabre wrote: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.

The royal rectum is clean your highness.

Liverpool FC Forum

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

Who is online