Liverpool FC Forum

by **Sabre** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:49 pm

And go back to school

by **LFC2007** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:51 pm

bigmick wrote:
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.

That specifically did not answer my question.

Given that I've yet to see you really query our team selections during phases B and C (barring Torres of course, which I've explained already), I fail to see why you still moan about rotation.

Unless you are still moaning about phase A?

If you more or less accept the specific selections made in each game since the Portsmouth game, then surely you accept the broader theme of rotation?

You can't agree in principle with every side Rafa has selected since the Portsmouth match, whilst at the same time moan about the overall impact those selections have had on how 'settled' our side is. It's a contradictory position.

The only possibilities to your position are;

1) You believe that phase A is still having an impact on how 'settled' the side is now, or;

2) You believe Torres' omission against Portsmouth is still having an effect on how 'settled' the side is now, meaning the significance of his omission pretty much supersedes any other factor that may have influenced our performances and results within phases B and C.

If, as you said, we had a squad 'man for man' as good as any other in the league, rotating Torres against the likes of Portsmouth shouldn't be a problem. Like you said "good players and good teams" should be able to "adapt".

by **Sabre** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:15 pm

s@int wrote:
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

Should he have saved some "cheap" signings, would he have reached to the required amount of money to buy the likes of Torres, Etoo or Villa?

Torres is the cheaper player of that lot and Rafa only had that kind of money this season. Torres wouldn't have gone any cheaper before this season but more expensive.

So the answer (this is for Bamaga man) is no.

by **JoeTerp** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:30 pm

bigmick wrote:\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.

this would mean when a player gets injured there would be a serious drop off in team form. His replacement would have almost no confidence because he hadn't been picked for any games at all, and is now only being selected due to injury. Also, since the team would have come to rely on cohesion to beat other teams an unsettled side would perform that much worse.

In Rafa's system, nobody gets to used or dependent on playing with anybody else. Therefore, if somebody goes down, no big deal, the squad is built to deal with it and any replacement player shouldn't be getting their first minutes of the season, AND they should view themselves as 1st teamers and play with the confidence of one.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:50 pm

Sabre wrote:
s@int wrote:
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

Should he have saved some "cheap" signings, would he have reached to the required amount of money to buy the likes of Torres, Etoo or Villa?

Torres is the cheaper player of that lot and Rafa only had that kind of money this season. Torres wouldn't have gone any cheaper before this season but more expensive.

So the answer (this is for Bamaga man) is no.

I am not really sure what you mean Sabre? Surely if we had saved the money spent on Kuyt and Babel circa £20million we could have bought a striker of a higher standard than Kuyt and perhaps more developed than Babel.

This is not meant as a criticism of Rafa, because obviously he didn't know Kuyt was going to struggle, and he was also limited by the uncertainty surrounding the clubs finances at the time.

I do think he could have bought less players than he has though and improved on the quality.

by **Sabre** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:07 am

I don't care if it's a criticism or not, Rafa can be criticised. The problem is that despite Morientes is disregarded due to his failure, he was a good signing for a striker. A bit the same happened with Kuyt. I don't think those to be bad players, but we needed more than this, really top class strikers. Back then, he hadn't the money, and with the money available he signed what he could, good strikers, but not what we needed. In the first season, even with the money of Alonso, plus the money of Morientes, he wouldn't have reached the required money for Torres. So he did what he could given the circunstances IMHO.

Plus, even if the hypothethical scenario of saving money in other players. Imagine he would have used the money of ALonso, LG and Morientes to buy Torres (Babel is expensive and was signed this season with the american money so I don't use him as example). IMHO, in that case you would have covered the forward line and leave weakened other key positions.

My point: he did well under the circunstances. He had limited money, and made a team competitive enough to be in a CL final, and in that moment he made the fans think the league can be won again in the near future. That's why now there's a bit of frustration, we really EXPECT we have a team good enough to win the title, and fans do not like to see the team in 4th position any more, that's not good enough now.

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:52 am

I appreciate that in his first couple of seasons he was firefighting to strengthen the squad rather than picking and choosing the best players. This season however he had the chance to make top quality signings and while Babel and Lucas may prove to be great buys in the future they are not ready yet to make a title challenging team at the moment. Benayoun is probably going to prove no better than Pennant in solving the longstanding problem on the right and we still haven't sufficient cover at the back.

I am not saying that Rafa has made bad buys, because(unlike Houllier) he would probably get most of his money back if he sold the players. What I am saying is he bought the wrong level of players for our current requirements. ie Babel and Lucas are great investments(hopefully) for the future, but in the short term we would have been better off buying "say" Malouda or Mancini or perhaps a creative second striker.

Another way of looking at it is that in 3 years he has spent £126million, you could either buy 20 players at £5million or 12 players at £10million or 6 top quality players at £20million. Rafa has bought 45 players. If you accept that 5/6 players are still in the first team from the Houllier days (Finnan, Carra, Hyypia(?)Riise(?) Gerrard, Kewell(?) in simplistic terms we could have bought 6 players for £20million each and had a world class team.(Maybe I should have borrowed Bamaga's non scientific calculator?

)

While that is a stupid unworkable example, as obviously you need a squad and he didn't have all the money in his pocket at once, hopefully it gets across what I am trying to say.

Fewer players but better was what was required, and only Torres of his summer buys has really been of the required quality to immediately improve the team.

by **bigmick** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:59 am

To answer LFC, I do think I have specifically answered your point. I think you are asking me to name a team whcih we fielded which I had a problem with? I have said on this and a number of occasions, it is not the eleven players which take the field in any particular game which by and large I have a problem with, it is the fact that those same eleven players don't start the next match.

I have my idea about our strongest team, but whether that agrees with Rafa's or yours makes no difference at all to the argument. Pick whatever team you like (with obvious inclusions) and then broadly stick to it. I think it is perfectly clear, I have explained it now three times so sorry if after all you can't understand me then it will have to go down as one of lifes mysteries because I aren't going to keep going over it again.

Hang on, I've just thought of a really simple and even better way of explaining it. Please refer all further queries to this sentence.

I don't like it when he changes the team.

There, I hope that clears it up. Specifically of course.

by **bigmick** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:04 am

Joe Terps point is an interesting one that if we didn't rotate, players coming into the team would significantly weaken it as they wouldn't have had much game time. Pretty true I would say, except for the fact that would be coming into a settled unit, and hopefully a confident and winning one.

It's just like introducing youngsters. Bring them on at Home when you're 2-0 up and they'll shine. Sling them in away when you've lost four on the bounce and you're asking a lot.

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:06 am

bigmick wrote:I don't like it when he changes the team.

So you don't really like rotation then Mick? You should have mentioned it mate

by **66-1112520797** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:51 am

The excuses really do come out here for Rafa dont they Sabre. In principal I agree with Saints last post about the signing of quality players.

So its not Rafa's fault when we rotate and lose, but gets the accolades when we win for being a master tactician.

Its also not Rafa's fault that he's had a 120 million odd pounds to spend on the right players and getting it right, but inevitably hasnt got it spot on yet ?

FFS.

by **LFC2007** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:10 pm

bigmick wrote:To answer LFC, I do think I have specifically answered your point. I think you are asking me to name a team whcih we fielded which I had a problem with? I have said on this and a number of occasions, it is not the eleven players which take the field in any particular game which by and large I have a problem with, it is the fact that those same eleven players don't start the next match.

I have my idea about our strongest team, but whether that agrees with Rafa's or yours makes no difference at all to the argument. Pick whatever team you like (with obvious inclusions) and then broadly stick to it. I think it is perfectly clear, I have explained it now three times so sorry if after all you can't understand me then it will have to go down as one of lifes mysteries because I aren't going to keep going over it again.

Hang on, I've just thought of a really simple and even better way of explaining it. Please refer all further queries to this sentence.

I don't like it when he changes the team.

There, I hope that clears it up. Specifically of course.

Well what is so difficult about stating which games you believe we rotated unnecessarily in?

If you agree with the individual team, say for instance against Birmingham, why did you also not comment *hang on a minute, actually I disagree with the team as it includes players who were not selected in our previous game, it is therefore 'unnecessary' rotation*

So, you are basically agreeing with the team on the day, but at the same time disagreeing with the team as it included 'unnecessary rotations' since our last EPL fixture?

It seems a puzzling position to assume.

If "good players and good teams can adapt" what is the problem with rotating to account for the strengths of the opposition?

If you only believe in rotation forced through 'proper' loss of form, or through 'proper injury', then presumably you believe we do have a squad who can adapt to any opposition with the same level of effectiveness. I don't, and this is why I see it more necessary to rotate.

by **Ace Ventura** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:29 pm

LFC2007, Not my argument or should i say disagreement but i think what bigmick is saying makes perfect sense and to be fair to him he has said it from day one.
He is not picking out players that should or shouldnt play in whatever game. More saying that Rafa should really pick a team from the first game of the season and barring injuries suspensions or lack of form stick with it.

Feel free to disagree but surely you can see what point he is making. For the record i agree.

by **Sabre** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:31 pm

I can understand the logical construction of your point LFC2007. It's difficult to summarise what Bigmick says in one line with my english, but Bigmick hasn't a big problem with team selections except for some cases like resting Torres against Portsmouth.

What he asks (I think), is to give the chance to one of those decent selections he has seen to give them continuity, and not make unnecessary changes.

So that's why he asked to repeat the team of the 8-0. Perhaps it wasn't his best personal team selection, but he wanted to use that team as a solid platform, and include other players in it as long as they show their worth in second halves, or a serious drop of form of one of the starting eleven players.

So while I understand your logic, I don't see a contradiction in Bigmick's position. He doesn't have a problem with most of the specific line-ups, he just wants to give one of those selections a continuous run, so that the benefits of it are seen in some weeks.

by **LFC2007** » Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:34 pm

Ace Ventura wrote:LFC2007, Not my argument or should i say disagreement but i think what bigmick is saying makes perfect sense and to be fair to him he has said it from day one.
He is not picking out players that should or shouldnt play in whatever game. More saying that Rafa should really pick a team from the first game of the season and barring injuries suspensions or lack of form stick with it.

Feel free to disagree but surely you can see what point he is making. For the record i agree.

So, why is it, when a game comes around he agrees with the team?

Like I said, when the Birmingham game came around, he agreed with the team, why then did he not say *actually I disagree with this team as it contains 'unecessary rotations' from our previous UCL and EPL games*?

Why can't it be *I disagree with this team as it contains unecessary rotations* and leave it at that?

You can't have it both ways IMO.

Liverpool FC Forum

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

Who is online