Liverpool FC Forum

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:39 am**

I pinched these stats from Rawk, but I must admit I found them hard to believe as I had readily accepted that we usually do better in the second half of the season (rotation?)than the first.

Liverpool under Rafa
2006/07

Played 19, Points 34
Played 38, Points 68

First Half: 34 pts
Second Half: 34 pts

2005/06
Played 19, Points 41
Played 38, Points 82

First Half: 41 pts
Second Half: 41 pts

2004/2005

Played 19, Points 28
Played 38, Points 58

First Half: 28 pts
Second Half: 30 pts

Liverpool under Houllier
2003/2004

Played 19, Points 29
Played 38, Points 60

First Half: 29 pts
Second Half: 31 pts

2002/2003

Played 19, Points 32
Played 38, Points 64

First Half: 32
Second Half: 32

So only once under Rafa have we gained more points (2) in the second half of the season. Maybe some of this can be blamed on FA CUP and CL distractions but I was still very surprised especially as we went on such a great run (I had thought) when we also won the FA cup.

Manchester United For comparison

2006/07 -
First Half: 47 pts
Second Half: 42 pts

2005/06

First Half: 41 pts
Second Half: 42 pts

2004/05

First Half: 37 pts
Second Half: 40 pts

Arsenal For Comparison

2006/07
First Half: 33 pts
Second Half: 35 pts

2005/06
First Half: 33 pts
Second Half: 34 pts

2004/05
First Half: 41 pts
Second Half: 42 pts

What this says about all the rotational theories I will leave up to Bigmick, but maybe rotation doesn't have as many benefits OR pitfalls as we thought.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:05 am**

I'll leave the rotation side to Mick too, for me that subject is finnalised with the 'anti's' being proved right all along that rotation doesnt work, well for Rafa and LFC certainly.

The stats are conclusive of that S@int, but no doubt you'll get some jelly bean come along and say that stats can be twisted or turned to suit the arguement, or that those stats dont tell you everything, ya know all that sort of old boll0cks that doesnt wash.

The FACTS are above, and we're no better off with this rotation malarky.

I'll wait to see which drongo still excuses or worms his way out of this one.

Wait for it ...

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:23 am**

Yeah....saw this in the rawk site. Have to say i am suprised as i remember the year we won the FA cup...we were pretty much winning all our games in the 2nd half of the season.

Well....if these stats are correct.....this finally nails it. ROTATION DOES NOT WORK..........IT NEVER HAS. IT NEVER WILL................. :eyebrow

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:30 am**

It's no surprise to me that teams by and large pick up the same number of points in the second half of the season as they did in the first, I can't really see why it should be any other way. I supose if Torres and Gerrard were long-term injured in the first half of the season and came back in the second half you might get a marked difference, but in the main it's always going to be a couple of points either way at most I would have thought.

To be honest though whether the stats in themselves are a proof of anything against rotation I'm not so sure. They appear to disprove the "delayed gazelle" theory (you know the one which says you sit a bloke on his erse for a few games in September and like a car with less miles on the clock, he starts jumping out of his skin in March) but I'm not sure that many people believed in that anyway really. My suspicion is that the rotationers are probably of the belief that one of the reasons that Torres has played so fantastically in the first half is precisly because he was given a couple of rests earlier on. It may even be true, who can say for sure?

To some extent, you would almost hope it is the case that our star striker has done so well because of rotation. I say that of course because if he hasn't, then it is becoming increasingly difficult to find any sort of positives out of the policy. The "well it helps us avoid injuries" one is probably dead in the water now (well at least you would think so as some are using the injuries as the reason the policy didn't work), the "delayed gazelle" if it ever was a sensible theory appears to be disproven, while it's hard to argue that selections and formations which change from week to week make a team MORE likely to find consistent performances (well I think it's hard to argue that anyway). Like I said yesterday before I was asked to "leave it", probably the last refuge of the pro is to claim that the rotation has had little or no effect either way.

Another quite sobering thought is that this season we have had an easier first half of the season than second half, and based on the points totals of the top teams so far divided by the games played and then multiplied by 38, we are goin gto do very well indeed to keep the deficit to the team that wins it in single figures. Remember that first game Away to Villa, where we nicked a win and the next gamw where we kept the exact same starting eleven? I wonder where we'd be if we'd kept up with that policy. Nobody knows of course, but I am convinced we'd have been a lot closer.

Quick note in addition. I have taken heed of the advice to "leave it", but felt as I was mentioned in both of the earlier posts it was OK to come back with a reply. I hope it is :cool:

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:32 am**

Dont listen to Leon Mick.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:59 am**

Bamaga man wrote:The stats are conclusive of that S@int, but no doubt you'll get some jelly bean come along and say that stats can be twisted or turned to suit the arguement,

I guess I am the jelly bean

You win trophies at the end of the season, if that is not finishing strong what is? If rotation allows you to win trophies at the end of the season it might not show when you look at points gained in the league.

We won the CL in '05 (that has got to be at least five extra victories in the second half of the season) and we had a cup run.

We won the FA cup in '06 once again at least five more victories (which adds up to a whopping fifteen points if it was counted).

We made the final of the CL in '07 and a cup run (see where I am going)

Rotation certainly did not make a difference in the league but the bigger picture (all the other competitions) I would say it COULD have. Saint how about finding out how many victories we had in all competitions, as I would guess we won more games in the second half of the season every season.

Yes, stats can be twisted to prove any point.

:;):

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:40 am**

I guess I am the jelly bean

I stopped reading right there. :no

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:28 pm**

The 2005/2006 season seems surprising at first blush because we all remember the excellent run-in we had to get to 82 points. As Mick has pointed out, some of that has a lot to do with "running through beaten horses". What we sometimes forget, I think, is that we also had an excellent run of form earlier in the season, between late October and early January. We put together a string of 12 or so games unbeaten in the league during that period--most of them wins. Indeed, between losing to Crystal Palace in the Carling Cup on October 25th and losing to the Mancs on January 22nd (feckin' Ferdinand :angry:

), the only game we lost was to Sao Paulo in the World Club Championship. Hell, we didn't even have a terrible start to the season that year--just a few too many draws at the start (i.e. all of September) and a couple of losses in October (Chelsea and Fulham) saw us out of the race by the time our run started. Just shows what kind of blistering pace Chelsea set that year.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:46 pm**

bigmick wrote:It's no surprise to me that teams by and large pick up the same number of points in the second half of the season as they did in the first, I can't really see why it should be any other way. I supose if Torres and Gerrard were long-term injured in the first half of the season and came back in the second half you might get a marked difference, but in the main it's always going to be a couple of points either way at most I would have thought.

To be honest though whether the stats in themselves are a proof of anything against rotation I'm not so sure. They appear to disprove the "delayed gazelle" theory (you know the one which says you sit a bloke on his erse for a few games in September and like a car with less miles on the clock, he starts jumping out of his skin in March) but I'm not sure that many people believed in that anyway really. My suspicion is that the rotationers are probably of the belief that one of the reasons that Torres has played so fantastically in the first half is precisly because he was given a couple of rests earlier on. It may even be true, who can say for sure?

To some extent, you would almost hope it is the case that our star striker has done so well because of rotation. I say that of course because if he hasn't, then it is becoming increasingly difficult to find any sort of positives out of the policy. The "well it helps us avoid injuries" one is probably dead in the water now (well at least you would think so as some are using the injuries as the reason the policy didn't work), the "delayed gazelle" if it ever was a sensible theory appears to be disproven, while it's hard to argue that selections and formations which change from week to week make a team MORE likely to find consistent performances (well I think it's hard to argue that anyway). Like I said yesterday before I was asked to "leave it", probably the last refuge of the pro is to claim that the rotation has had little or no effect either way.

Another quite sobering thought is that this season we have had an easier first half of the season than second half, and based on the points totals of the top teams so far divided by the games played and then multiplied by 38, we are goin gto do very well indeed to keep the deficit to the team that wins it in single figures. Remember that first game Away to Villa, where we nicked a win and the next gamw where we kept the exact same starting eleven? I wonder where we'd be if we'd kept up with that policy. Nobody knows of course, but I am convinced we'd have been a lot closer.

Quick note in addition. I have taken heed of the advice to "leave it", but felt as I was mentioned in both of the earlier posts it was OK to come back with a reply. I hope it is

F.uck me, Mick and another one line reply

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:53 pm**

Bamaga man wrote:
I guess I am the jelly bean

I stopped reading right there.

Which is why your opinion has no credibility.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:28 pm**

kazza wrote:
Bamaga man wrote:
I guess I am the jelly bean

I stopped reading right there.

Which is why your opinion has no credibility.

And yours neither as you've totally missed the point by the thread starter.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:36 pm**

Lets throw the towel in now then hey ?

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:38 pm**

Leonmc0708 wrote:Lets throw the towel in now then hey ?

Why ?

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:43 pm**

Bamaga man wrote:
Leonmc0708 wrote:Lets throw the towel in now then hey ?

Why ?

Cus we dont play well in the second half of the season, rotation is no good, Rafa is a clown, Klinsmanns coming in, G&H are skint, Crouch is off, Kuyt is cr.ap, Voronin is awful, KEwell is a joke and all the other things people moan about.

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:50 pm**

Leonmc0708 wrote:
Bamaga man wrote:
Leonmc0708 wrote:Lets throw the towel in now then hey ?

Why ?

Cus we dont play well in the second half of the season, rotation is no good, Rafa is a clown, Klinsmanns coming in, G&H are skint, Crouch is off, Kuyt is cr.ap, Voronin is awful, KEwell is a joke and all the other things people moan about.

Let it lie Leon, you carry on like that and you'll end up a bitter and twisted old man.

Liverpool FC Forum

We always finish strong - Myth

We always finish strong - Myth