Liverpool FC Forum

Sabre wrote:I just ask that luminosity levels in the future, are not described depending on we get the points or we drop them, depending on we end up first, or 3rd 8 points away.

That is, if 3 certain changes are silly, call them a brown out anyway. Do not call them "slight glitches of darkness" if we win.

Just in case, eh? a warning for the future. Not that we have done that so far.

bigmick wrote:

s@int wrote:One thing I am curious about Mick. We won 5-1 in our last game ...... should we rotate and bring back Keane, Alonso and Riera or stick with the team that won so convincingly and has confidence and momentum behind them ?

Good point S@int  I think we should probably not play Torres if fit either as it would disrupt our fluency.

Probably the best way of looking at it, is that if we were to play teams of a similar ilk to Newcastle as they were against us from here on in, we are already champions. Infact not only are we already Champions, but I want a game before the seasons out   

This is the thing which I don't get about the "but we won 5-1" argument that I've had over the last few days. Beating Newcastle 5-1 confirms that we didn't lose any points as a result of the styling on this occasion. We didn't though gain from it as far as our 20 million quid striker is concerned. Time will tell if that is an opportunity wasted or an irrelevence.

I fear we may find out fairly soon S@int, as I have a hunch we are about to leave the "seen the light" phase and move into what will become known as the "dimmer switch" era.

" the dimmer switch era "
I dont know why I find that so funny.

bigmick wrote:

Sabre wrote:I just ask that luminosity levels in the future, are not described depending on we get the points or we drop them, depending on we end up first, or 3rd 8 points away.

That is, if 3 certain changes are silly, call them a brown out anyway. Do not call them "slight glitches of darkness" if we win.

Just in case, eh? a warning for the future. Not that we have done that so far.

Sabes I'm not sure I know what you mean to be perfectly honest. People have accused me before of only moaning about rotation if we lose, and I'm happy to prove them wrong. I moan about it even when we win 5-1.

I still maintain that the decision not to play Keane was a silly one, and if I see such selections further down the track you can bet I'll be going on about them whether we win or lose.

That is totally fair-play Mick.

I don't know we can discuss rotation here too..

So the point of contention was KEANE bcos noone (not even Mick) argued on Alonso & Reira's omission. But I am actually 179% sure that had we not won the game.. their names will pop up everywhere too. I am sure all the reporters were already licking the tip of their pens! :P No matter bcos we won.

Since we can almost certainly rule out that Keane was injured or unfit (bocs he was warming at one stage).. It was a tactical decision to leave him out. But only God and Rafa know why he must choose those 3 players (incl. one in-form striker) out of the 11 to rest.
 
It is the classic "form vs freshness/risk of injury" consideration that if you ask Rafa to choose.. he will pick the latter 9 times out of 10!

The thing that we fans sometimes can't quite accept/understand is if "freshness/risk of injury" is so high on his priority list.. why some of the most important players (in his eyes) never quite require the rest that he forces upon others.. ie carra, kuyt, gerrard?

I am beginning to actually think there is no such thing as "form" in Rafa's footballing philosophies.

Keep guessing..

Sabre wrote:

I am beginning to actually think there is no such thing as "form" in Rafa's footballing philosophies.

I disagree radically. Proof: Alonso, one of the examples that shows the less rotation of Rafa this season. He has been playing not well but excellently, and Rafa has acknowledged that by giving him as much as games as possible, with only rotations in extreme cases of too many games in a row.

No coach ignores the form, Milou.

Hmmm... I think my statement was a bit too "harsh" cos I agree NO coach would ignore form completely.

Perhaps I should instead say Rafa "put much less emphasis on form", as compared to other managers.

Assuming Keane wasn't injured (and it is pretty clear to me that he wasn't) and in the rich form he was in (having endured such a bad start, getting so much stick along the way)... I would argue (as Bigmick possibly would too ) that among all 20 managers in BPL, arguably and possibly only Rafa would have omitted him for Newcastle.

I think a lot of what we argued/discussed on "rotation" may just boil down to this difference in his thinking.

Even if Rafa somehow thought of THE masterplan that the only way to beat Newcastle was to play Dirk "the sharp shooter" Kuyt as our all-lethal lone striker , he made that decision DESPITE Keane's form.

But you just have to admire Rafa's guts for making such controversial decision.. as much as I have the guts to controversially analyze his thinking!

bigmick wrote:

s@int wrote:One thing I am curious about Mick. We won 5-1 in our last game ...... should we rotate and bring back Keane, Alonso and Riera or stick with the team that won so convincingly and has confidence and momentum behind them ?

Good point S@int  I think we should probably not play Torres if fit either as it would disrupt our fluency.

Probably the best way of looking at it, is that if we were to play teams of a similar ilk to Newcastle as they were against us from here on in, we are already champions. Infact not only are we already Champions, but I want a game before the seasons out   

This is the thing which I don't get about the "but we won 5-1" argument that I've had over the last few days. Beating Newcastle 5-1 confirms that we didn't lose any points as a result of the styling on this occasion. We didn't though gain from it as far as our 20 million quid striker is concerned. Time will tell if that is an opportunity wasted or an irrelevence.

I fear we may find out fairly soon S@int, as I have a hunch we are about to leave the "seen the light" phase and move into what will become known as the "dimmer switch" era.

   

bigmick wrote:

Sabre wrote:

Newcastle away was the perfect example of why some degree of rotation is vital, particularly with the way the Reds play. Yes, there's no league game for a while now, but this away fixture, against a Newcastle side rejuvenated at home, came just 43 hours after the Bolton game ended. If you can't even freshen things up over the hectic festive programme, when can you?

Yes, you might have to face a question like the one I highlight, but in the other hand, you must be tired of Sabre's old points in the rotation thread. Try this Tompkins question instead.

"Resting" Alonso was one thing, Riera even. As it turned out, we could probably have rested Gerrard as well and still won the game. We could certainly have stuck Leon in goal and still won it, but I guess we weren't to know that before the game.

There are two points though with the omission of keane which make it totally different to the other players (with the obvious discalaimer here that we are making the assumption he isn't injured).

Firstly, it's worth pointing out that previous to the two games which preceded the Newcastle game, he had been rested/rotated/sat on his erse/taught a lesson for two consecutive matches. Now whilst I accept that I'm not at Melwood, not privvy to his body fat ratio index and all that old nonsense, I would argue that the chances of Keane being "tired" or "jaded" or "lacking sharpness" after a cruisy Home win against Bolton are somewhere close to zero. If he was any of those "fatigue" words after two games in three weeks or whatever he's played, and after a season where he's barely completed a full 90 minutes throughout it's whole course, then we should look at a new fitness trainer. Failing that we should put him on the same fitness regime as Kuyt, or Gerrard, or Carragher who seem to be able to play every game no bother.

Anyhow, that is not the main reason why IMHo it was silly to drop Keane. It was silly to drop him, as I've said probably twenty five times now, because he was in the beginning of a rich vein of scoring and it would have made sense to let him continue it. Infact, once we had seen how bad Newcastle were, it would have made sense to get him on sharpish as I'm fairly certain that given half an hour or so he would have scored a goal. Any genuine striker playing for us would have scored a goal against them. But? Yes, I know.

Bad Bob wrote:

sgs wrote:

bigmick wrote:Good point S@int  I think we should probably not play Torres if fit either as it would disrupt our fluency.

Probably the best way of looking at it, is that if we were to play teams of a similar ilk to Newcastle as they were against us from here on in, we are already champions. Infact not only are we already Champions, but I want a game before the seasons out   

This is the thing which I don't get about the "but we won 5-1" argument that I've had over the last few days. Beating Newcastle 5-1 confirms that we didn't lose any points as a result of the styling on this occasion. We didn't though gain from it as far as our 20 million quid striker is concerned. Time will tell if that is an opportunity wasted or an irrelevence.

I fear we may find out fairly soon S@int, as I have a hunch we are about to leave the "seen the light" phase and move into what will become known as the "dimmer switch" era.

   

I'll refer you to my comments in another thread HERE and remind you that this is a football forum geared to actual discussion of the game.  Disagree by all means but please refrain from spamming threads with smileys and sarcastic digs.  Future posts of this nature will be deleted.

go ahead mate delete this one... gotta start somehwere !

Ciggy wrote:

bigmick wrote:I've just read it, and to be fair to him it's one of his better efforts. There aren't any really funny bits in from what I could see which is something of a disappointment if I'm honest. Anyway good luck to the bloke, and in the unlikely event that he ever logs on here, I hope he has a happy new year.

He logged on here once and gave St Mick a bollockin for copying & pasting his posts 

bigmick wrote:

sgs wrote:

bigmick wrote:

Sabre wrote:

Newcastle away was the perfect example of why some degree of rotation is vital, particularly with the way the Reds play. Yes, there's no league game for a while now, but this away fixture, against a Newcastle side rejuvenated at home, came just 43 hours after the Bolton game ended. If you can't even freshen things up over the hectic festive programme, when can you?

Yes, you might have to face a question like the one I highlight, but in the other hand, you must be tired of Sabre's old points in the rotation thread. Try this Tompkins question instead.

"Resting" Alonso was one thing, Riera even. As it turned out, we could probably have rested Gerrard as well and still won the game. We could certainly have stuck Leon in goal and still won it, but I guess we weren't to know that before the game.

There are two points though with the omission of keane which make it totally different to the other players (with the obvious discalaimer here that we are making the assumption he isn't injured).

Firstly, it's worth pointing out that previous to the two games which preceded the Newcastle game, he had been rested/rotated/sat on his erse/taught a lesson for two consecutive matches. Now whilst I accept that I'm not at Melwood, not privvy to his body fat ratio index and all that old nonsense, I would argue that the chances of Keane being "tired" or "jaded" or "lacking sharpness" after a cruisy Home win against Bolton are somewhere close to zero. If he was any of those "fatigue" words after two games in three weeks or whatever he's played, and after a season where he's barely completed a full 90 minutes throughout it's whole course, then we should look at a new fitness trainer. Failing that we should put him on the same fitness regime as Kuyt, or Gerrard, or Carragher who seem to be able to play every game no bother.

Anyhow, that is not the main reason why IMHo it was silly to drop Keane. It was silly to drop him, as I've said probably twenty five times now, because he was in the beginning of a rich vein of scoring and it would have made sense to let him continue it. Infact, once we had seen how bad Newcastle were, it would have made sense to get him on sharpish as I'm fairly certain that given half an hour or so he would have scored a goal. Any genuine striker playing for us would have scored a goal against them. But? Yes, I know.

Hindsight has to be a better place to be than a sacked manager-turned pundit getting benefits from his old club!

Now everyone's grand mom could've had a hattrick against Newcastle!

Hindsight? What a wonderful happy clappy place to be!

This is the same fella who tried to give me a lecture about Rafa changing the team not just to rest players, but because he also takes into account the opposition.

That shaft of insight was followed by him telling me that you can't just judge Kuyt up top by his goals, or assists. You must also take into consideration the fact that he closes down players, and gets the team "steals".

I agreed to differ and gave you the last word fella, now you come back in for more. Once again I don't do internet spats, so I'll give you something further to think about the next time you discuss defensive patterns with people. I'll develop the point further so you can see why I disagreed about the Kuyt point properly. You can have it for free, a new years prezzie if you like, just to show there's no hard feelings.


If two teams play each other, assume for instance they both play 4-4-2. Assume we are playing Man City for the sake of argument, and they have two strikers up top which are being marked by our back four. Each team has a goalkeeper, meaning they have 10 outfield players each. Now if we have four marking two, and assuming that none of our defenders step up at this point (which none ever do, this isn't basketball where you can concede a point and it doesn't matter because the final result will be 108-102), we can make the assumption that they have eight against six in this little mini match. That's four defenders, four midfielders versus four midifelders and two attackers.

If those eight players in posession of the football are any good (and in the Premiership they generally are) they can theoretically ping it about all day long with decent movement and technique, if you charge in like a lunatic. Hence the term "hunting in packs". I don't know if Tommy Smith has ever used it on ESPN, but it broadly refers to the concept of a "team" of defensive minded players rounding up the football, boxing in the player in possession and collectively herding it and him into an area. It's a bit like trying to stop water with your hands though, it'll always leak through so the best bet is to allow it to leak into the weakest area, ie the weakest distributor. The you close off his options and ask him to hit a difficult pass. If you do all that correctly, you hopefully win the ball back. It's quite clever when it works well, it's a hugely important part of the game, but it requires colective not individual effort and also people who are able to think. It's the reason you sometimes hear managers talking of players playing with their "heads not their hearts".

Kuyt running around a lot and trying to get "steals" (oh dear) may look impressive to those who don't really understand what they are watching, but it's not and never is quite so simple as they think.

Anyway, I'm glad you chose to follow football (soccer if you prefer). It really is the best game in the World I think, that's why everyone plays it.

Happy New Year to you as well, and I mean that.