Liverpool FC Forum

[bigmick]

I've said it all a million times before so I'll keep it brief on this occasion. Mass rotation is nonsense and no team will win the English Premier League employing such methods. Ever.

[god_bless_john_houlding]

The amount of games the super human fit footballer plays nowadays on perfectly laid pitches where tackling has gone out of the game, it's only natural they'll get tired and therefore have to be rotated.   Where as when players were on 40 ciggy's a day along with 20 pints an hour on mud baths when you had the likes of Tommy Smith, Graeme Souness, Jimmy Case, Billy Bremner, Ron Harris and Billy Bonds up your backside, rotation was never mentioned. Doesn't make sense to me. Footballers are to pampered these days. Rotation is billhooks. We won the league once by using only 14 players in an entire season. Nowadays sides use 14 players in a match. I'll repeat myself ROTATION IS BILLHOOKS. Players need to build up a relationship with one another on and off the pitch, how can they when they have a different partner every week. For a third and final time ROTATION IS BILLHOOKS.

[Espionage]

The arguements for and against rotation can go on forever with some saying it will never work in England.  It DID work in Spain with Valencia and I see no reason why it cant work here.  Some things that are often over-looked:

(1) A broader range of tactical approach the manager can employ.  We have a world class manager who has shown that when it comes to preparing players tactically for different oppositions he is one of the top talents in the world.

(2) No player in irreplacable.  Often if a first 11 player is injured the replacements are not match fit and they struggle.  With rotation you are keeping more players match fit and if long term injuries occur you are able to deal with it much easier.

(3) You give more players a chance to prove themselves and find something that really works.  Youth players will get many more opportunities to develop and get first team experience.

(4) Competition for places brings about better results.  If you dont agree with this then study more economics.



One final point that I would like to make is I am unsure that Rafa rotates "all the time".  During that 10 game winning streak (or whatever it was) we had 2 seasons ago.  I am pretty sure that he kept the back Finnan/Carragher/Hypia/Riise and Gerrard/Alonso/Momo/Kewell  unchanged.  When it wasnt broken, he didnt try to fix it.  And i believe that if we start playing some really good football Rafa will stop rotating the areas that are working fine.

I am not saying that there are not arguements against it, but it seems to me that if done properly, it would be preferable.  Liverpool fans are in a situation where we have a top class manager who is trying to put together something special, and we have a chance to either get behind him and support him or stick to old, tried and (probably not) true methods.

[Sabre]

Rotation would be a travestry if we played once a week.

But quite simply, if you play Tottenhan on saturday, PSV on wednesday, and Bolton again on saturday, you can't play Alonso 3 times and bench Mascherano another 3 times. That's where rotation proves useful.

I don't like overrotation neither, although I've seen some teams working well with massive rotations (Uefa champions Sevilla, uefa semifinalists Osasuna). But I'm not against rotation, on the contrary I think it's good.

Rotation must be planned, but as we've stated more than once, some facts should be respected, if a striker is scoring, don't sit down him and things like that.

[Wilhelmsson]

Rotation at the start of the season is completely stupid, and if Rafa does it again this season I will be calling for his head immediately, assuming that we don't win the games where he rotates 

Rotation firther into the season is sensible but not the wholesale changes rafa was making last season, never make more than 2 changes to a team unless you are playing against a complete noddy team.

Calling for Rafa’s head if he continues to mass rotate at the start of the season is rather melodramatic. I will, however question his dogmatic and rather stubborn approach to English football should we drop out of the race because of constant rotation.

I remember when Houllier used to rotate in his plenty and Alan Hansen made a good point about the balance and partnerships never flourishing because of constant chop and changing.

I’m all for rotation as along as it’s used in an intelligent manner, as soon as the manager starts making five or six changes in a match (providing it’s not a cup game) then I start to raise my eye brow at such decisions.

People who are not in favour of rotation don’t realise that the top clubs in Europe play between 55 to 60 (sometimes more) games a season. It’s not logical or possible for Benitez to play the same eleven players week in and week out.

Espionage and Sabre, make sound points too.

[Cool Hand Luke]

Rafa has rotated more than I would have.

But if you are playing every 3 days where the games are significant and not a walk over then it is impossible to “play your best 11 every game” as people keep saying.

The problem with Rafa is that he tampers with the spine of the team too much, there are certain player for me that would only be rested if it was a FA or League cup game, or ever the Christmas period.

The way I see it, the “Diamond” of the goalkeeper, centre backs and the anchorman need to play every game. Now we have the opportunity to occasional change the anchor man because we have Alonso and Mascherano, but Reina, Carragher and Agger should play every Premiership and Champions League minute except maybe over the Christmas/New Year period when the centre backs may miss a game or two.

Players in form should not be “rested either”, last season Crouch should have played far more regularly especially at the start season when he was our best striker.

This season there is no excuse for Rafa to rotate so much at the start of the season because everyone has had an extended break and a good pre-season.

One thing I will say, rotation has definitely improved our injury situation over the last 2 years, we have been very good in this department.

[Rafa D]

Manure and Chelsea rarely rotate and don't seem too tired come the end of the season (Chelsea were fitter than LFC in extra time in CL).

Pick your best 11 and give the ODD rest to players now and then.

Rafa should know his best strike force and they should nearly always play together to get used to each other and get some rythm going. it reall p*sses me off.

Eh? I'm pretty sure we were a lot fitter outfit than them in that game, we could and should of won it in extra time and a lot of there players were out on their feet.

[Smeg]

Personally I think that Rafa blows it in the league by his obsession with rotation. I read him talking about the strikers we have and he said that they all have different strengths and will suit different games so it sounds like another season of rotation.

Ferguson and Mourinho stick to the same strikers nearly every game and I think Benitez will blow the league by September again if we don't have a settled team.

I HATE rotation and think it is plain 100% stupid.

I know many here believe in "trust Rafa" etc but personally I prefer to think for myself.

Who is in favour of rotation and who is against?

We "blow the league" because our players arent as good as Utd or Chelsea's.

Facts are you cant play the same team week in week out now, but yeah when possible we should have our best team out. But for example, we dont need sissoko in at derby county at home,stick Gerrard in the middle and have Pennant and kewell in aswell. Attacking players win you games against like that.


Oh and Utd have Rooney and Chelsea Drogba and Shevchenko, we had Kuyt and bellamy, theres the difference.

Cant see Torres playing less than 30 league games, injuries aside.

[god_bless_john_houlding]

Personally I think that Rafa blows it in the league by his obsession with rotation. I read him talking about the strikers we have and he said that they all have different strengths and will suit different games so it sounds like another season of rotation.

Ferguson and Mourinho stick to the same strikers nearly every game and I think Benitez will blow the league by September again if we don't have a settled team.

I HATE rotation and think it is plain 100% stupid.

I know many here believe in "trust Rafa" etc but personally I prefer to think for myself.

Who is in favour of rotation and who is against?

We "blow the league" because our players arent as good as Utd or Chelsea's.

Facts are you cant play the same team week in week out now, but yeah when possible we should have our best team out. But for example, we dont need sissoko in at derby county at home,stick Gerrard in the middle and have Pennant and kewell in aswell. Attacking players win you games against like that.


Oh and Utd have Rooney and Chelsea Drogba and Shevchenko, we had Kuyt and bellamy, theres the difference.

Cant see Torres playing less than 30 league games, injuries aside.

Like I've already said, we were able to play the same side week in week out in years gone by, when players weren't as fit as they are now, pitches weren't as good as they are now and tackles were a million times harder and refs were mor leninant than they are now. Also tell me whenever has Ferguson played Rooney/Scholes out of their natural position. Lampard is always played in his best position, so instead of us playing our best player in his best position we put him everywhere else but central midfield. The majority of sides in world football will play practically the same side week in week out bar possibly 1 change. Liverpool are lucky if we have 1 player in the 2 consecutive sides.    Rotation doesn't work and it never will if you want to win major honours on a continious basis. We need to get a settled spine of the side, which means Gerrard in the middle and at least 1 settled forward. Back 4 needs to be the same week in week out so they can build up a relationship with one another. Gerrard needs a permanant partner in the middle of midfield. Whoever is 1st choice forward needs a partner he works well with and that's the point of pre-season, try all options. The two wingers also need a run in the side so they can know where and when the forwards will  be making their runs. So in a nutshell, ROTATION IS BILLHOOKS.

[bigmick]

The arguements for and against rotation can go on forever with some saying it will never work in England.  It DID work in Spain with Valencia and I see no reason why it cant work here.  Some things that are often over-looked:

(1) A broader range of tactical approach the manager can employ.  We have a world class manager who has shown that when it comes to preparing players tactically for different oppositions he is one of the top talents in the world.

(2) No player in irreplacable.  Often if a first 11 player is injured the replacements are not match fit and they struggle.  With rotation you are keeping more players match fit and if long term injuries occur you are able to deal with it much easier.

(3) You give more players a chance to prove themselves and find something that really works.  Youth players will get many more opportunities to develop and get first team experience.

(4) Competition for places brings about better results.  If you dont agree with this then study more economics.



One final point that I would like to make is I am unsure that Rafa rotates "all the time".  During that 10 game winning streak (or whatever it was) we had 2 seasons ago.  I am pretty sure that he kept the back Finnan/Carragher/Hypia/Riise and Gerrard/Alonso/Momo/Kewell  unchanged.  When it wasnt broken, he didnt try to fix it.  And i believe that if we start playing some really good football Rafa will stop rotating the areas that are working fine.

I am not saying that there are not arguements against it, but it seems to me that if done properly, it would be preferable.  Liverpool fans are in a situation where we have a top class manager who is trying to put together something special, and we have a chance to either get behind him and support him or stick to old, tried and (probably not) true methods.

There's plenty I disagree with, (obviously) in this thread but most of the points are enclosed at some point within this post (No offence Espionage but I can't do that clever thing where I pick out a line from a number of posts so I've just quoted yours).

Fisrtly rotation worked in Spain, no argument there. That said, the likes of Barcelona and Madrid don't make five or six changes per match at the start of the season but we'll let it go, rotation worked there for Valencia. Now lets look at some of the things which are "often overlooked".

The "broader range of tactical approaches"? Once again no argument. Clearly if you are picking from a pool of 24 rather than a pool of 16, as long as you didn't make the mistake of buying players who were very "samey" you have more options to change tactics and formations. This is kind of the problem in some respects but as the statement stands, there's no sensible argument to refute it. 

"No player is irreplaceable"? Well, not in a numerical sense, but clearly some players are more irreplaceable than others. It would be easier to replace Jermaine Pennant or indeed any other player in the squad than Steven Gerrard for instance. The match fitness thing doesn't really hold water for me either I'm afraid. I would venture that a constantly rotated player is never "match fit". Bellamy last season for instance was never ever match fit at any stage of the season. Match fitness is not being able to run around a lot, it's sharpness, anticipation, comfort in your surroundings. It's precisely these qualities which players begin to lack if they don't play regularly.

You give more players a chance to prove themselves? Yes you do. There is also the counter argument however that even when a player is proving himself in every game (Crouch at the beginning of last season for instance) he is still sat on the bench so what does it "prove" in the end?

"Competition for places brings about better results". Maybe I should take your advice and study economics because although I agree with the statement, I actually think that rotation does not provide competition, it actually hinders it. To use that statement as a justification for rotation is baffling to me so I really will have to go back to school. If a player thinks that when he gets his chance, if he plays well he will stay in the team then by definition the competition makes him try harder. Similarly, if he reckons it'll take him a few weeks before he'll get another chance if he doesn't do the business it will gee him up no end. Conversely, if he feels that regardless of how many goals he scores (Crouch as a good example), or how poorly he plays (Zenden for instance) he is involved in some kind of selectorial merry go round and he will get another chance or be benched soon enough anyway, it does not "promote competition and bring about better results". If it did, Man Utd would be doing it, Chelsea would be doing it and we'd have a chance of winning the league using the system.

You then go on to say that during one of our ten game winning runs, we didn't rotate. Your kind of stealing my arguments a bit here, but suffice to say I think that's precisely the point. We've actually strung together winning runs a few times in the last couple of seasons, and each time it's been with a largely settled team and with our best players playing in their best positions.


Last couple of points. Firstly this urban myth that some of us are advocating playing the same team every week. No I'm not. Arsenal on Saturday, PSV midweek, Bolton following weekend? Of course you have to change the team. But how much is the question. Remember last season at the Emirates? We played Bolo Zenden in central midfield and lost 3-0. Change the team by all means, but sensibly. There will be injuries, there will be suspensions, there will be losses of form so there will be plenty of opportunities to tinker around. But we DON'T, repeat DON'T need to feck around with the team for no reason.

I ask the question again, if mass rotation of personel, tactics, positions and formations is such a great idea, how come we're the only team who employ it? It worked in Spain etc etc. So did Fernando fecking Morientes but he didn't work over here. You pick a nucleus of a team, with obvious replacements/undertudies. If you pick Alonso, then it is Mascherano's job to get in the team in front of him. Similarly Kuyt/Crouch, or Agger/Hyppia, or Finnan/Arbeloa. THAT'S competition, THAT'S what brings better results. It's not an "old, tired, and probably not true method". It's what has won the English Premier League every year so far, and it's what will win it this year as well.

[god_bless_john_houlding]

Mick you seem to have a similar view to myself when it comes to the rotation policy and the view is that rotation is BILLHOOKS. Like you've said Mick, it's what's won England's top prize since the year dot. Competition for places is a great thing to have but a steady side is much more important. Players will be unable to build up relationships with one another if they are in and out of the side from one week to the next. I think it's vital that the back 5 (keeper and defence) the 2 central mids and the two forwards are settled and bar injuries, suspension and lack of the form, it should be those 9 playes with which ever wingers are chosen on a particular day depending if we're at home to Derby so we want attacking wingers or away to United were we'll be sitting deep for most of the game.

[bigmick]

Mick you seem to have a similar view to myself when it comes to the rotation policy and the view is that rotation is BILLHOOKS.

Not sure about BILLHOOKS mate but we're not really in agreement to be perfectly honest. I've read your posts on the subject and you seem to me to be advocating keeping the same eleven players in every game which isn't realistic in this day and age I don't think.

Given the intensity of the games these days and the sheer number of matches, I do think the players need to be given a bit of a rest where the situation allows. Like yourself though, I think the level of rotation which rafa has employed in his Liverpool manegerial career so far is way over the top.

[account deleted by request]

I believe in rotation, what I don't believe in and what I think we saw again last season was OVER-ROTATION. Freshening the team up by making one or two tactical changes, or resting a player shouldnt be a problem. Wholesale changes however are a different matter, players not only have to adapt to the different style of football played (ie playing through balls for Crouch wouldn't be the same as playing a throughball for Bellamy.)but need to gain confidence and momentum, and WHOLESALE chopping and changing every week hinders this.

[Rafa D]

I believe in rotation as well S@int.

I appreciate bigmicks view's but football is evolving and although no-one has won the English League with rotation, Rafa brought it to Valencia and did win the league. Its like when Hansen said you can't win anything with kids and United did. And when Arsenal won the league with loads of foreigners in their team. Times change, clubs evolve.


When Rafa first came to the club he introduced this zonal marking system and everyone (including Andy gray) said it wouldn't work in the Premiership, however after 2 seasons of having the most clean sheets, I beg to differ.

Rafa's rotation in the first season was fine, last year he tried too hard to accomadate everyone.

This season I think he will get it just right.

[stmichael]

I've had a look at the starting line-ups at the beginning of last season and Rafa was making 2-3 changes on average (modal average) for each league game, except for between Sheff Utd away and West Ham at home when 6 changes were made and another time he made 5 changes. The rest of the time it was 2 or 3 changes maximum for the first eight league games. Reina, Finnan, Carra, Riise (sometimes Aurelio), Hyypia (sometimes Agger), Gerrard, Alonso, Momo, Kuyt and Bellamy started in most of the first eight games.

Rafa's problem last season was that he set the tone for the league season by picking a weakened team in the first game. He should have picked his strongest team against Sheffield United (and for the Champions League qualifier) and then made small changes in the subsequent games. Changing 1 or 2 players after that in the right situations and I think we would have done better than we did.

But let's be honest, if we rest, say, Steven Gerrard, then we're never going to be able to replace him like for like, and not be seriously weakened as a team. Nobody has players who are just as good waiting to be rotated into a side.

Chelsea are probably the closest (Bridge, Cole at LB, and the midfield options of Ballack, Joe Cole, Robben, SWP, Lampard, Essien, Diarra, Mikel, Makelele, Kalou) but they haven't got a Drogba sub that can come in and take his place equally well. Pizarro is a decent acquisition but is nowhere near Drogba's level. They also haven't even got ONE right-back of note.

Also, the notion that United and Chelsea didn't rotate a lot is a myth. Less than us maybe - certainly at the start of the season. But it wasn't minimal - particularly United. Just mentioned less.