Liverpool FC Forum

by **GYBS** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:35 am

He went with what he thought would win the game . It didnt work in the end , these things happen .

by **Bam** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:40 am

GYBS wrote:
s@int wrote:Yes I think he picked the team to show how clever he was, I certainly don't think he tried to pick the best team to WIN the game.

How can you over think something ?

I wouldn't worry about that bit if I was you, but it means to over analyze a problem so much that you reach a wrong conclusion.

Maybe you have a better explanation for playing Crouch on the left wing as we lost our first game of last season?

That was my question !

I find that shocking to beleive that any manager would pick a team to show how clever he was and not to win the game .

Mouriniho did it against us at Anfield.'

I know, he told me.

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:42 am

He went with what he thought would win the game . It didnt work in the end , these things happen

B0LLOCKS you don't change a side that has just won 4-0 to a formation and team you have never tried before or since and then change back to the original winning formation 3 days later. Not if you arn't trying to prove a point anyway.

by **GYBS** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:42 am

by **Leonmc0708** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:42 am

Bam wrote:Torres last season being a prime example of this, Rafa rested the Spainard and said in an interview that the Birmingham defence would sit to deep. And that Torres wouldnt get the space so he opted for Voronin who would be better suited to play in between the lines.
That comment Rafa made was a very poor excuse, either he did try and other think things, or he styled just for the hell of it, or as the pro's Ro's would say rested him. But either way the comment was shoddy and ontop of other selection/substitutions/tactics/formations and rotations during the past three years it does make you wonder.

Torres last season is not the prime examle in that the example you have used is one game, it sounds like a headline on the back of a tabloid that bit to be fair.

I wonder of the explanation was shoddy or it was the truth, and simply a poor decision.

by **GYBS** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:44 am

s@int wrote:B0LLOCKS you don't change a side that has just won 4-0 to a formation and team you have never tried before or since and then change back to the original winning formation 3 days later. Not if you arn't trying to prove a point anyway.

No

at all - maybe he wanted to try something different but still doesnt mean he didnt try and win the game

by **Leonmc0708** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:46 am

s@int wrote:I still await an explanation

For what ?

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:47 am

GYBS wrote:
s@int wrote:B0LLOCKS you don't change a side that has just won 4-0 to a formation and team you have never tried before or since and then change back to the original winning formation 3 days later. Not if you arn't trying to prove a point anyway.

No at all - maybe he wanted to try something different but still doesnt mean he didnt try and win the game

I never said he didn't try to win the game, I said he was more interested in showing how clever he was than trying to win the game.

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:48 am

Leonmc0708 wrote:
s@int wrote:I still await an explanation

For what ?

To the question I asked

by **andy_g** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:51 am

i don't quite get this 'being clever' over winning the game argument. if, for arguments sake, benitez was picking those teams to show he was clever, then surely winning the game with that team would have proved his cleverness. thus, he picked the team he thought could win the game. if, on the other hand, he picked an unexpected team to try to be clever but knowingly weakening the team then it wouldn't have been very clever.

if any manager at any level picks a team that he doesn't think is his best available team for that game then he really shouldn't be managing a football team. i don't think for a minute that rafa benitez is that kind of manager. sometimes his reasoning may have been inappropriate but the only person he's ever trying to outsmart is the opposing manager and his players.

by **Leonmc0708** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:51 am

s@int wrote:
Leonmc0708 wrote:
s@int wrote:I still await an explanation

For what ?

To the question I asked

Obviously - but lets not go round hte houses here, post the question up again.

by **Bam** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:51 am

Leonmc0708 wrote:
Bam wrote:Torres last season being a prime example of this, Rafa rested the Spainard and said in an interview that the Birmingham defence would sit to deep. And that Torres wouldnt get the space so he opted for Voronin who would be better suited to play in between the lines.
That comment Rafa made was a very poor excuse, either he did try and other think things, or he styled just for the hell of it, or as the pro's Ro's would say rested him. But either way the comment was shoddy and ontop of other selection/substitutions/tactics/formations and rotations during the past three years it does make you wonder.

Torres last season is not the prime examle in that the example you have used is one game, it sounds like a headline on the back of a tabloid that bit to be fair.

I wonder of the explanation was shoddy or it was the truth, and simply a poor decision.

Well maybe it was a poor decision then because he overthought the use of playing Voronin instead of Torres. If what he said in the interview afterwards was true, then he simply overcomplicated the theory behind breaking Birmingham down.

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:53 am

Maybe you have a better explanation for playing Crouch on the left wing as we lost our first game of last season?

This one

by **metalhead** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:56 am

s@int wrote:
Maybe you have a better explanation for playing Crouch on the left wing as we lost our first game of last season?

This one

But we didnt lose our first game of last season

by **Bam** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:56 am

Funny really, you get picked up and critised for scrutinising Rafa's methods, yet when him and the team do sincerely deserve the credit they recieve the old word fickle gets banded about.

Yer Damned if you do ...

In certain peoples eyes you have to stick by your guns and be "consistent" with your arguements. So if your an "anti-R" and have critised Rafa heavily in the past, you have to stick by that and continue to critise him, just to be seen as "consistent".

Feck all this consistentcy c.rap, I call it how I see it. If that makes me "fickle" rather than "consistent" in even when I'm wrong, well call me Bamfickle.

Liverpool FC Forum

Progress Under Rafa - Analysis and Opinion

Who is online