Liverpool FC Forum

by **bigmick** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:14 am

Fair enough Roberto, straw clutch or not I'm merely putting forward the view that it was a bit more than a blip. Our streak of good ortune anbled it to remain in the realms of "blipness", while it could have been a disaster in different circumstances. Whatever though, just like our excellence in defense is an undeniable fact, I won't be saying "we were lucky" should we positively challenge for the title (even if we were

). I'll be saying i was wrong, and despite what many people think, I hope I am.

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:46 am

One fact I think we can all agree upon is that Torres doesn't seem to have the anticipated problem of playing "between the lines" that Rafa thought he might

Considering 8 of his 11 goals have come at home and only the hatrick against Reading away, my worry is can he score away from home.(I'm not that worried to be honest

)

I just hope Rafa doesn't look too far ahead and lose focus for the Reading game. We have the two big games coming up (Marseille and the mancs) but we still need the 3 points at Reading.

I suspect Rafa may even consider resting Torres against Reading, before common sense hopefully gets the better of him and he decides to rotate Riise instead.

I think these next three games will show whether rotation "Rafa style" can work, it should be interesting to see how he copes with two huge games on the trot. Will he decide to rest some of his key players or will he go for broke and play them in all three games?

One things for certain he won't play the same team in all 3 games, but I will be keeping a close eye on how many of our key players play in each game.

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:52 am

s@int wrote:One fact I think we can all agree upon is that Torres doesn't seem to have the anticipated problem of playing "between the lines" that Rafa thought he might Considering 8 of his 11 goals have come at home and only the hatrick against Reading away, my worry is can he score away from home.(I'm not that worried to be honest )

I just hope Rafa doesn't look too far ahead and lose focus for the Reading game. We have the two big games coming up (Marseille and the mancs) but we still need the 3 points at Reading.

I suspect Rafa may even consider resting Torres against Reading, before common sense hopefully gets the better of him and he decides to rotate Riise instead.

I think these next three games will show whether rotation "Rafa style" can work, it should be interesting to see how he copes with two huge games on the trot. Will he decide to rest some of his key players or will he go for broke and play them in all three games?

One things for certain he won't play the same team in all 3 games, but I will be keeping a close eye on how many of our key players play in each game.

It's a good shout, mate. I suspect that Rafa may be strongly tempted to rest Torres against Reading, which would be a worry. It will indeed be interesting to see how we approach rotation throughout the next fortnight and, indeed, throughout the entire festive season. Much will depend, I suspect, on when and how Alonso and Agger return. If they come back soon and slot right back in effectively, that will probably give Rafa the license to rest the likes of Gerrard and Carra at some point during the festive season. Torres, of course, has no comparable understudy but I would really doubt that Rafa will play him every match between now and January. When he chooses to rest him will be interesting and let's just hope that the scoring form we are currently seeing from the likes of Babel, Crouch and Gerrard will carry us through.

by **bigmick** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:54 am

s@int wrote:I suspect Rafa may even consider resting Torres against Reading,

Nah Saint. When he played him in the Carling Cup at the Majedski, it was precisely with this game in mind. He knew, months ago that this was to be a pivotal fixture, and that's why he played him so his start striker could get used to it

Also about the "between the lines" thing, all the other teams we have played against since Birmingham have defended much higher up than they do

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:01 am

bigmick wrote:
s@int wrote:I suspect Rafa may even consider resting Torres against Reading,

Nah Saint. When he played him in the Carling Cup at the Majedski, it was precisely with this game in mind. He knew, months ago that this was to be a pivotal fixture, and that's why he played him so his start striker could get used to it

Also about the "between the lines" thing, all the other teams we have played against since Birmingham have defended much higher up than they do

Saint, you've got Mick down to brief sarcastic reposts...what's your secret?

by **account deleted by request** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:03 am

bigmick wrote:
s@int wrote:I suspect Rafa may even consider resting Torres against Reading,

Nah Saint. When he played him in the Carling Cup at the Majedski, it was precisely with this game in mind. He knew, months ago that this was to be a pivotal fixture, and that's why he played him so his start striker could get used to it

Also about the "between the lines" thing, all the other teams we have played against since Birmingham have defended much higher up than they do

I'm begining to think the "between the lines " excuse was more for Gillett and Hick's benefit than ours. They probably wondered why the new top striker they had bought wasn't playing, and Rafa came up with that excuse to baffle them. It certainly baffled me anyway

by **Igor Zidane** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:18 am

I think mick is right really , were not going to be able to convince him until were in the final death throws of the title race . If we fail miserably between now and then ,then obviously his arguement against will be pretty hard to counter(i for one would try my best ). I think it's fare enough mick for you to say that if we are within 8 pts of the title at the end you would consider rafa's methods to be working (i hope i've taken you the right way mick). I think it's also fare enough that we should be entitled to a sustained title challenge , if not win the damn thing for us (pro camp) to be able to back our arguements up with some real proof that it works IN ENGLAND ATLEAST.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:29 am

I'll just say this BM:

It is unlikely that, if the scenario arises whereby we are significantly adrift from our title rivals at the end of the season, to find the mischaracterised 'pro-Rafa style rotationists' devouring humble pie in quite the same way as you will be. Why? - For 'us', the issue is, and never has been in any significant way an issue of 'overrotation'.

As I have maintained, and as have a few others, the issue is not rotation but rather balance. If the above scenario materialises in five months time, I consider it more likely that the supposed 'pro-Rafa style crazy/mad silly rotationists' will view Rafa's selections in terms of balance, as a key reason for any de-stabilising effect that ultimately cost us points - along with a host of other reasons, albeit I am entering speculative avenue come parrallel universe - I have a 'hunch'

this would be the case (I don't think we will finish significantly adrift from the top).

It's too simplistic to say 'this has been going on for three seasons now'. Each season must be analysed separately, the factors that have a significant effect on the outcome of this season, IMO, will be different to those that affected us last season, and the seasons prior to that.

Proving that poor results and poor performances are for the large part the direct consequence of 'overrotation' is very difficult. I think I've seen you give the odd example to try and link cause and consequence. Ironically, one of the examples you gave demonstrated the 'pro-balance/blend' view. That is, rather than 'over-rotation' being the issue, selecting the right combinations was one of the causes for our instability in a given match. The example went as follows:

Arbeloa. He's played pretty much every game so far (maybe it's every game I don't write such things down) and he's done pretty well in my view. Lets consider what he's had in front of him when he recieves the ball and looks up. Mostly he's had Riise.

Riise would be happy to come to him to recieve the ball, to come in off his flank and play a one two and let Arbeloa use his engine to get beyond the play. Risse would be closed down as a matter of course by opponents who would be wary of giving him an opportunity to shoot, and in so doing Arbeloa would have more freedom to move forward. Riise would rarely move inside with the ball onto his right foot, meaning that Arbeloa would like as not when going forward make his run with Riise in his sights, providing him with "security" should posession be lost. On the occasions the Norwegian didn't play, he would have had Babel much of the time.

Beyond Riise, when Arbeloa would have been recieving the ball say off Reina, he would have had Torres marauding down the channel, waiting for the ball into space. Inside him, he would have had Gerrard beyond Alonso, one looking for it square while the other is coming to and from him in a kind of "rotational" movement, looking to recieve it and inject some pace into the play.

What did he have yesterday? Well, he had Benayoun, almost diametricly opposite to riise in that firstly he likes to recieve the ball inside rather than outside, secondly having recieved it nine times out of ten he heads to his right, thirdly he doesn't have the shot of Riise but does have more creativity so would be defended against differently, and fourthly, as he vacates his starting position more readily and posesses less defensive abilities, he would provide less "assurance" to a player who wants to get forward like Arbeloa. Inside him, he still has Alonso looking for it square, but now he has Sissoko who though being a superb player, is entirely different to Gerrard in the way he recieves the ball. Up top? Well up top he no longer has the outball he's been using effectively every week. He now has not one but two big fellas who are looking for him to hit them from thirty five yards away, not into space but into the body.

Not only does the example prove the 'pro-blend/balance' viewpoint, it also raises an issue I've tried to emphasise for a while. That is, we do not have complete players in certain positions. Some of the players you cite in the above example, namely; Riise, Babel, Sissoko and Benayoun have their limitations above and beyond those of our title rivals - essentially they specialise in one aspect of the game. In your example, when Arbeloa comes inside looking for the square ball - he has Sissoko - who by general consensus hasn't the most delicate touch on the ball, and has neither the agility or passing ability to be able to release the ball fast enough to a player who can do damage. Therefore, in a game where we are likely to need this quick release ability high up, Sissoko will not be at his most effective - we lose fluency allowing teams, for example, who visit us at Anfield to reset their defensive stall. However, when firing on all cylinders, his destructive force in the middle of the park is an invaluable asset. In essence, his effectiveness is limited to certain types of game that require this type of ability. As a consequence, he will be 'rotated' into the side in games that Rafa feels require his destructive force, tending to be away matches or games against teams who can break quickly from the middle of the park.

In simple terms, we ('pro-Rafa style crazy/mad silly rotationists') do not believe that Rafa style rotation forms the core our of concerns for poor performances (as BB, Redtrader and Saint have elaborated on in previous posts). I'd say that actual over-rotation per se accounts for very little towards our concerns. If we could cut down Rafa's magic numbers by 5-10% I think most of us would be appeased in this respect.

But all that said, we have certainly made my assertion that we were already out of it a few weeks back look a bit premature. Nobody is happier than me about that. Nobody will be happier than me if we break the habits of Rafa's tenure and get positive results at Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester United in the second half of the season, which we'll need to. The memory drifts back to last season though, Gerrard on the left at Stamford Bridge, Zenden in central midfield at the Emirates while Gerrard played on the right and I can't help thinking that at some point Rafa will loosen the wheels again.

Interestingly, this little excerpt really sums up my point perfectly. You emphasis the positions of Gerrard, and Zenden which would suggest you believe the issue was not in fact over-rotation, but the balance of the side. Do we have a convert? :eyebrow

Perhaps your view is that, the cumulative effect of rotation in tandom with the cumulative effect of altering the balance of the side has a destabilising effect. Through reading your posts, it sounds as if you are placing significant emphasis on the effect of altering the balance of the side, though terming it under the banner 'rotation' (without distingishing). I mean to take it to the extreme, what would have a more unsettling effect on the team in the long term?; selecting invariably the same eleven week in week out but with each of those eleven players playing in a different position each week i.e. positional rotation but not selectorial rotation, or making an average of 4 changes game to game but keeping the balance of the side correct? The former, clearly. The emphasis is almost, but not exclusively, focussed on the balance of the side. I'm aware that this has been raised before, but it really forms the crux of the matter. System change and positional rotation are significantly more important than selectorial rotation when evaluating the effect on our performances, IMHO.

The debate may be getting stale, but to add depth to it, the next route would be to incorporate both system change and positional rotation into the 'rotation' chart that BB continues to update (Homework for a rainy day?). Otherwise, we generally go round in circles. When someone posts in the rotation thread, Mick's ears pri.ck up:

I'm off to my yurt, night.

by **ConnO'var** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:33 am

Bad Bob wrote:Look at these numbers and tell me, how are we rotating less of late?

With due respect mate, but presented like that, it's nigh on impossible to see how we are rotating less. I think you'll find that the majority of the folks who do not agree with rotation are continously harping on about not rotating the spine of the team. These are the critical areas of the team comprising of the GK, the 2 Centrebacks, the 2 central midfielders and at least 1 of the 2 strikers.

The point of contention has always been that these are the positions you don't want to mess with too much as you'll really fark up the rhythm, and to a lesser extent, the balance of the team.

Based on the data you provided in the part of your post I didn't quote, I put together a graphical representation of the degree of rotation that we have had over the last 5 games (as the improvements seemed to have come over the last 5 games) as compared to the amount of rotation that the team has had over the course of this season to date.

From the graph, I think it becomes much clearer, that with the reduction in rotation in these key areas and the unexpected finding that we've rotated the wings less as well, that "Rotation" or rather the reduction of the degree of it, has played a significant part in us playing much, much better.

So it's not that Rafa is still rotating that is the issue... It's the fact that he's not doing it willy nilly anymore. Point has always been to do it sensibly especially so in the spine of the team.

Inconclusive? - Maybe.
Other factors involved? - Definitely.
Coincidence? - I don't think so.

Excuse me but the seat on the anti-rotation bus still feels pretty comfortable.

Note: (or more accurately... disclaimers!)

1. Data was gathered from post and not conditioned or researched or verified by me.
2. Rotation factor is calculated using the number of times the position was rotated divided by the number of games in the chosen window analysed.
3. Forced and unforced rotation was not considered so there is definitely an element of uncertainty in the data as it precludes the human element.
4. However, for 5 games, the rotation factor is much more sensitive as the denominator is much smaller over 5 games as compared to the 23 games so far. So if anything, the rotation factor is conservative over 5 games as they can only be multiples of 0.2.

by **bigmick** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:29 am

I agree with Conn. I've not got the faintest fecking idea what on earth he is on about but he says he is on the anti-rotation bus so it must be sensible whatever it is

BTW Conn mate, if ot seems a bit quiet on there, we're all on the anti rotation ship now mate. It's cool but this strange spanish bloke (Sabre) keeps looking at us through his telescope :cool:

by **ConnO'var** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:44 am

bigmick wrote:I agree with Conn. I've not got the faintest fecking idea what on earth he is on about but he says he is on the anti-rotation bus so it must be sensible whatever it is

BTW Conn mate, if ot seems a bit quiet on there, we're all on the anti rotation ship now mate. It's cool but this strange spanish bloke (Sabre) keeps looking at us through his telescope

I don't even understand it myself!.. :wwww

by **red37** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:37 am

The debate may be getting stale, but to add depth to it...

Please for the love of God - not more!

by **bigmick** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:50 am

I love Con's "rotation factor". I've not the faintest idea what it is, and although it's limited to 0.2. I'm now going to start refering to it at random moments. There'll be no more talk of "selectorial silliness" from me, it'll be that Rafa is "unnecessarily nudging the rotation factor over 0.2" :laugh:

Inconclusive?-maybe, Other factors involved?-definately, Coincidence-I don't think so

Con I fecking love it mate, brilliant.

As for LFC's "the debate may be getting stale, but to add depth to it" :laugh:

Be honest, you've absolutely got to love this thread. Love Red's response as well. Unfortunately the mechanics of the site can't seem to cope with it all and it's developing some real glitches. Apologies of I end up replying about six times, but Cons "rotation factor" is worth the effort. Funny as feck.

by **Sabre** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:27 pm

Well I love this mathematical concept of the rotation factor.

To realise how relevant is the information it provides the rotation factor you can simply look at the goalkeeper's points.

We all know without looking any graph how much has rotated Itandje and Reina's positions through out the season -not much-

And yet, Itandje's appearance provokes a significant 0.10 rotation factor difference.

So, a case of small tinkering, the goalkeeper's position, has a rotation factor DIFFERENCE of 0.10

Of course the CB has a marvellous rotation factor of 0.00, and the DIFFERENCE is bigger in one of the CB, but Rafa could not make much about this positions as Agger was injured.

Now the interesting part, we see that most positions, Both ST, Both CM and also LB, we see the rotation factor difference is less than 0.10.

So, Basically, in most of the positions, the rotation factor is equal or smaller than the amount of changes we've done in the goalkeeper position, that is 0.10.

So actually, what the graph is saying is that we haven't changed significantly our level of rotation. You only can see significant differences in the CB position, but then that's where Rafa can't choose.

Anyhow that was a much better attempt than just saying "You know deep down I'm right", so fair play to Connovar

by **Judge** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:48 pm

the only thing that is rotating at the moment is this thread

Liverpool FC Forum

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

Who is online