Liverpool FC Forum

[weringo]

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?

06/07

Rooney - 36 games
Ronaldo - 34 games
Crouch - 31 games
Kuyt - 34 games
Drogba - 36 games

Rooney: 33 starts
Ronaldo: 31 starts
Drogba: 32 starts

Kuyt: 27 starts
Bellamy: 23 starts
Crouch: 19 starts

[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.

do you think our best team, with players in their best positions (barring injury) would of won us the title?

I think this side
Reina
Finnan, Carra, Agger, Riise
Pennant, Gerrard, Alonso, Kewell
Crouch, Kuyt

could of won us the title if they played all 38 games last year. Compared to the United side who did win it, I think the only advantage they have over us is up front. Their 2 wingers and forwards will always score more than ours, and I think that's where we have lost the title time and time again. We don't score enough goals. Rotation doesn't help either because when players were scoring last year, Rafa did the smart thing and dropped them for the following game.    A consistant side with a man who can bang in 20-30 goals in the league we would win the league IMO. Crouch if played week in week out could easily get 20 goals because he can score and if he plays all the time then he'd score more.

[bigmick]

Lets imagine we go to Villa all fired up first game of the season. We attack from the off with what looks like our very strongest line up in Rafa's eyes and by the end, we are comfortable 2-0 winners. We have banished the memory of last seasons fiasco at Bramhall Lane. There are no injuries.

Next game is Chelsea at Home. Do we "rotate" and change 2-3 people or do we go in with the same team? My feeling is obviously that we go in with the same team, whereas Rafa would without question tinker with the line up. A couple of people who played in the opening game at Villa will get a "rest" despite playing in a team which did the business (Crouch perhaps particularly if he scores both goals) while some players who didn't play in the first game will get a "turn" in the second.

Like most things in football, rotation is not new. Older posters will remember when an England manager in the late seventies and early eighties (Ron Greenwood I think) who used to rotate the goalkeepers. I kid you not, Ray Clemence used to play in one game, Peter Shilton in the next. It was of course absolute b0ll0cks, just as it is now.

[JoeTerp]

Lets imagine we go to Villa all fired up first game of the season. We attack from the off with what looks like our very strongest line up in Rafa's eyes and by the end, we are comfortable 2-0 winners. We have banished the memory of last seasons fiasco at Bramhall Lane. There are no injuries.

Next game is Chelsea at Home. Do we "rotate" and change 2-3 people or do we go in with the same team? My feeling is obviously that we go in with the same team, whereas Rafa would without question tinker with the line up. A couple of people who played in the opening game at Villa will get a "rest" despite playing in a team which did the business (Crouch perhaps particularly if he scores both goals) while some players who didn't play in the first game will get a "turn" in the second.

Like most things in football, rotation is not new. Older posters will remember when an England manager in the late seventies and early eighties (Ron Greenwood I think) who used to rotate the goalkeepers. I kid you not, Ray Clemence used to play in one game, Peter Shilton in the next. It was of course absolute b0ll0cks, just as it is now.

Wouldn't the players required to break down the likely very defensive villa team, possibly not be ideal to defend against the Chelsea attack. I am not saying we should play for a draw by anymeans but a loss at home and falling behind chelsea from the 2nd game would be awful. I would think pennant wide right against villa while Gerrard on the right or in the hole in a 4-5-1 agaisnt chelsea and Macherano and ALono both in the middle.  Just because one team was successful one week, does not garuntee that they will be the next week, and it is also unlikely that the same team in back to back weeks would be ideal for beating 2 different teams.

[redtrader74]

Lets imagine we go to Villa all fired up first game of the season. We attack from the off with what looks like our very strongest line up in Rafa's eyes and by the end, we are comfortable 2-0 winners. We have banished the memory of last seasons fiasco at Bramhall Lane. There are no injuries.

Next game is Chelsea at Home. Do we "rotate" and change 2-3 people or do we go in with the same team? My feeling is obviously that we go in with the same team, whereas Rafa would without question tinker with the line up. A couple of people who played in the opening game at Villa will get a "rest" despite playing in a team which did the business (Crouch perhaps particularly if he scores both goals) while some players who didn't play in the first game will get a "turn" in the second.

Like most things in football, rotation is not new. Older posters will remember when an England manager in the late seventies and early eighties (Ron Greenwood I think) who used to rotate the goalkeepers. I kid you not, Ray Clemence used to play in one game, Peter Shilton in the next. It was of course absolute b0ll0cks, just as it is now.

Lets imagine that we beat Aston Villa as you said 2-0, but with Torres and Babel, Torres getting 2, then in the next game Chelsea are missing Carvalho and Terry, therefore Ferreira and Essien as CB's.........shall we play Kuyt and Crouch now or stick with Torres and Babel?? Sometimes Rafas team selction will be dependant on the opposition, and not necessarily their strengths but their weaknesses.

[god_bless_john_houlding]

Lets imagine we go to Villa all fired up first game of the season. We attack from the off with what looks like our very strongest line up in Rafa's eyes and by the end, we are comfortable 2-0 winners. We have banished the memory of last seasons fiasco at Bramhall Lane. There are no injuries.

Next game is Chelsea at Home. Do we "rotate" and change 2-3 people or do we go in with the same team? My feeling is obviously that we go in with the same team, whereas Rafa would without question tinker with the line up. A couple of people who played in the opening game at Villa will get a "rest" despite playing in a team which did the business (Crouch perhaps particularly if he scores both goals) while some players who didn't play in the first game will get a "turn" in the second.

Like most things in football, rotation is not new. Older posters will remember when an England manager in the late seventies and early eighties (Ron Greenwood I think) who used to rotate the goalkeepers. I kid you not, Ray Clemence used to play in one game, Peter Shilton in the next. It was of course absolute b0ll0cks, just as it is now.

Wouldn't the players required to break down the likely very defensive villa team, possibly not be ideal to defend against the Chelsea attack. I am not saying we should play for a draw by anymeans but a loss at home and falling behind chelsea from the 2nd game would be awful. I would think pennant wide right against villa while Gerrard on the right or in the hole in a 4-5-1 agaisnt chelsea and Macherano and ALono both in the middle.  Just because one team was successful one week, does not garuntee that they will be the next week, and it is also unlikely that the same team in back to back weeks would be ideal for beating 2 different teams.

4-5-1 at home? I don't care who we're playing, but at Anfield you have to attack. If you set out with a draw in mind, you're likely to get beat because you'll be allowing the opposition on to you. I think it's this defensive attitude that has lost us so many points. Unlike United and Chelsea to an extent we don't go and look to kill sides off, we're very comfortable trying to defend 1-0 leads and allow sides on to us and in the end the side we're facing will eventually break us down and get chances, wheter they take them or not is another question entirely. So I think we should attack sides and kill the game off and then you can swap and change for the remainder of the game. But I think killing a game off is what we have failed to do for so long now. Obviously this method will leave gaps but if we are attacking with 5 players, then the oppositon will have at least 8 players defending and if 6 of our players can't cope with 3, something seriously needs doing. Old Trafford, Emirates and Stamford Bridge, we'll obviously be a little more cautious but I still don't think we can go in with the attitude of a draw, because top quality sides will beat us with that attitude, and they won't come to Anfield looking for a draw. Nou Camp is perfect example from last year. We attacked them, got 2 early goals and they couldn't get back on top of the game, even though we were a goal down and a 1-0 defeat away from home would of been a decent result, we attacked and they couldn't cope. At Anfield we sat back and lost the game itself, although still qualified, it was a nervous match, had we attacked got an early goal the tie would of been much easier, but that's all in the past now. The future however I think should be killing sides off.

[stmichael]

Lets imagine we go to Villa all fired up first game of the season. We attack from the off with what looks like our very strongest line up in Rafa's eyes and by the end, we are comfortable 2-0 winners. We have banished the memory of last seasons fiasco at Bramhall Lane. There are no injuries.

Next game is Chelsea at Home. Do we "rotate" and change 2-3 people or do we go in with the same team? My feeling is obviously that we go in with the same team, whereas Rafa would without question tinker with the line up. A couple of people who played in the opening game at Villa will get a "rest" despite playing in a team which did the business (Crouch perhaps particularly if he scores both goals) while some players who didn't play in the first game will get a "turn" in the second.

Like most things in football, rotation is not new. Older posters will remember when an England manager in the late seventies and early eighties (Ron Greenwood I think) who used to rotate the goalkeepers. I kid you not, Ray Clemence used to play in one game, Peter Shilton in the next. It was of course absolute b0ll0cks, just as it is now.

Wouldn't the players required to break down the likely very defensive villa team, possibly not be ideal to defend against the Chelsea attack. I am not saying we should play for a draw by anymeans but a loss at home and falling behind chelsea from the 2nd game would be awful. I would think pennant wide right against villa while Gerrard on the right or in the hole in a 4-5-1 agaisnt chelsea and Macherano and ALono both in the middle.  Just because one team was successful one week, does not garuntee that they will be the next week, and it is also unlikely that the same team in back to back weeks would be ideal for beating 2 different teams.

4-5-1 at home? I don't care who we're playing, but at Anfield you have to attack. If you set out with a draw in mind, you're likely to get beat because you'll be allowing the opposition on to you. I think it's this defensive attitude that has lost us so many points. Unlike United and Chelsea to an extent we don't go and look to kill sides off, we're very comfortable trying to defend 1-0 leads and allow sides on to us and in the end the side we're facing will eventually break us down and get chances, wheter they take them or not is another question entirely. So I think we should attack sides and kill the game off and then you can swap and change for the remainder of the game. But I think killing a game off is what we have failed to do for so long now. Obviously this method will leave gaps but if we are attacking with 5 players, then the oppositon will have at least 8 players defending and if 6 of our players can't cope with 3, something seriously needs doing. Old Trafford, Emirates and Stamford Bridge, we'll obviously be a little more cautious but I still don't think we can go in with the attitude of a draw, because top quality sides will beat us with that attitude, and they won't come to Anfield looking for a draw. Nou Camp is perfect example from last year. We attacked them, got 2 early goals and they couldn't get back on top of the game, even though we were a goal down and a 1-0 defeat away from home would of been a decent result, we attacked and they couldn't cope. At Anfield we sat back and lost the game itself, although still qualified, it was a nervous match, had we attacked got an early goal the tie would of been much easier, but that's all in the past now. The future however I think should be killing sides off.

There is nothing wrong with 5 in midfield - Barcelona do it. It's about the mentality - e.g. when we have a corner we need 5 players in the box not 2. One striker systems can be fantastic, but the support and attacking intent has to be there to make it flourish. Our biggest problem in the past when playing this system has been lack of movement and attacking intent, it's as if we are obsessed with controlling the game and keeping our shape. Now, with the additions we've made in the attacking third, including a fit again Kewell (touchwood), I think we can make the system work. Hell our best performance last season was against Arsenal last season with Crouch upfront on his own.

I generally think we get stuck on systems too much. Rafa has his own ideas based on the particular situation in the match.
We saw last year how he plays Kuyt as essentially a 5th midfielder with the licence to get forward along with Gerrard.
This season we may play Torres up front on his own but with Babel, Gerrard and Voronin in the same side. Three up front when we have the ball, five in midfield when we don't.
To play this style of footbal you need players with pace ,tactical awareness and discipline. I can see this is what he is trying to achieve.

[burjennio]

god_bless_john_houlding
LFC Advanced Member




Group: LFC Members
Posts: 335
Joined: Mar. 2007  Posted: July 31 2007,00:07 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (JoeTerp @ July 30 2007,22:05)
Quote (bigmick @ July 30 2007,16:28)
Lets imagine we go to Villa all fired up first game of the season. We attack from the off with what looks like our very strongest line up in Rafa's eyes and by the end, we are comfortable 2-0 winners. We have banished the memory of last seasons fiasco at Bramhall Lane. There are no injuries.

Next game is Chelsea at Home. Do we "rotate" and change 2-3 people or do we go in with the same team? My feeling is obviously that we go in with the same team, whereas Rafa would without question tinker with the line up. A couple of people who played in the opening game at Villa will get a "rest" despite playing in a team which did the business (Crouch perhaps particularly if he scores both goals) while some players who didn't play in the first game will get a "turn" in the second.

Like most things in football, rotation is not new. Older posters will remember when an England manager in the late seventies and early eighties (Ron Greenwood I think) who used to rotate the goalkeepers. I kid you not, Ray Clemence used to play in one game, Peter Shilton in the next. It was of course absolute b0ll0cks, just as it is now.

Wouldn't the players required to break down the likely very defensive villa team, possibly not be ideal to defend against the Chelsea attack. I am not saying we should play for a draw by anymeans but a loss at home and falling behind chelsea from the 2nd game would be awful. I would think pennant wide right against villa while Gerrard on the right or in the hole in a 4-5-1 agaisnt chelsea and Macherano and ALono both in the middle.  Just because one team was successful one week, does not garuntee that they will be the next week, and it is also unlikely that the same team in back to back weeks would be ideal for beating 2 different teams.

4-5-1 at home? I don't care who we're playing, but at Anfield you have to attack. If you set out with a draw in mind, you're likely to get beat because you'll be allowing the opposition on to you. I think it's this defensive attitude that has lost us so many points. Unlike United and Chelsea to an extent we don't go and look to kill sides off, we're very comfortable trying to defend 1-0 leads and allow sides on to us and in the end the side we're facing will eventually break us down and get chances, wheter they take them or not is another question entirely. So I think we should attack sides and kill the game off and then you can swap and change for the remainder of the game. But I think killing a game off is what we have failed to do for so long now. Obviously this method will leave gaps but if we are attacking with 5 players, then the oppositon will have at least 8 players defending and if 6 of our players can't cope with 3, something seriously needs doing. Old Trafford, Emirates and Stamford Bridge, we'll obviously be a little more cautious but I still don't think we can go in with the attitude of a draw, because top quality sides will beat us with that attitude, and they won't come to Anfield looking for a draw. Nou Camp is perfect example from last year. We attacked them, got 2 early goals and they couldn't get back on top of the game, even though we were a goal down and a 1-0 defeat away from home would of been a decent result, we attacked and they couldn't cope. At Anfield we sat back and lost the game itself, although still qualified, it was a nervous match, had we attacked got an early goal the tie would of been much easier, but that's all in the past now. The future however I think should be killing sides off.

GBJH You appear to have a very selective memory because precisely what Manu did was turn up and play for a draw at Anfield and stole an injury time winner, and in the 2nd leg against Barca at home we battered them for 60mins (hitting the woodwork 3 times in the process) without scoring so I think you are wrong to state think that we're not an attacking team at Anfield

[god_bless_john_houlding]

I didn't say we wasn't an attacking side at Anfield. I remember us tormineting every side at Anfield last season and I expect us to be attacking at Anfield this year, my point is I'd like us to kill sides off rather than defend 1-0 leads, especially against weaker sides.

StMichael, I agree 5 in midfield can work and it's all about who plays where in a 5 man midfield, but knowing the way Rafa surprises us, our 5 man midfield would consist of Finnan on the right wing, Aurellio left wing, Hyypia, Arebloa and Momo in the middle of the park   I think 5 in the middle could work depending solely on the selection, but I'd much prefer 2 right up top with midfielders supporting them.

[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.

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.

Always good to discuss these kinds of things with you Mick, although we frequently disagree on a few things.

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.

I think that you have missed my point here.  When I spoke of "a broader range of tactical approaches" I was refering to the ability that we have to totally change up the game by playing Gerrard on the right instead of Pennant (say against Chelsea, to provide Finnan with more protection), or playing Momo to disrupt midfield fluidity (like the way he way brought on as a trump card against Barcalona).  If you know what the other team is going to play AND you have the ability to change your team, you can counter them.  If you have a manager who is skilled tactically (as many would agree that we do) then this IS an advantage.  I fail to see any counter-arguements to this.

"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.

I feel I have been taken some what out of context here.  What I mean is that if Gerrard played every game in the middle and suddenly he was out for 2 months.  Momo would slide into the team better if he had been playing every once in a while.  Under a rotation system, the impact would not be anywhere near what it would if Momo only played when Gerrard was injured and hence Gerrard would be more "replacable".

Similarly, I could go on and on about whether "Competition for places brings about better results".  It is pretty obvious what both of our opinions are and it is pretty obvious what Rafa thinks on the issue as well.  Is he right?  At the end of the day it doesnt really matter.  What I think is that he deserves the chance to prove that he is right.


Everyone tends to classify teams as either ones that rotate or ones that play their best 11.  Actually all teams rotate a certain amount, and the difference between our changes and other teams would not be that great.  Obviously if you measured data over 100 years on what was the most successful amount of changes per game of top teir teams you might be able find the magic number.  But still that number would still be an average number.  Would it not be better to make the changes that were necessary?  Some games it might be 1, some games it might be 3 or maybe 7.  If it was deemed benefical (by someone that knew the circumstances of the team and more about football better than you or I) to rotate 6 players in one game, why place a restriction the number? 

This is not refering to you Mick, but what I see frequently is when Rafa "over rotates" (meaning we have lost and made more then 2 changes, when we win it is called by the same people a tactical masterpiece) people think that the only reason why this could have occured was becasue or the rotation, they disregard any other factors.  Gerrard and Hamann won the midfield battle to get the Cup in Istanbul, but Rafa is the reason why we dont win the league.  In my opinion a manager is always the same, their class is permanent and there is no such thing as "form".  Okay, that is my opinion.  But for arguement's sake lets say that form is much more volitile for the team then it is for the management decisions then you should almost never blame a manager for losing.


I dont think that Rafa rotates for the sake of it, I dont think that he will try to fix something if its not broken.  We may put 5 minutes into thinking about why Rafa should have picked this team and why he shouldnt have picked this team.  He puts all day every day into it, he watches them in training, he speaks to them.  At the end of the day you have to look at your Manager and ask yourself "do you trust him?"  I am not saying that you should never question him, I just think that people are jumping on a bandwagon of rotation bashing.

stick to old, tried and (probably not) true method

I will try to clarify something, what I mean by this was we should not support a culture that refuses to accept any kind of change.  No method is tried and true, its an estimate, and that is also assuming that football is staying the same (which it isnt).  Current trends in the game suggest that rotation must be used more, there can be no arguement there.  We play more games and compete in more trophies.  Whether it moves from 0-2 changes per game to 0-3 or 4 is irrelvant.  We have to realise that it is the growing trend.  There is no such thing as a tried and true method.  So claiming that something will never work is becasue it hasn't worked many times yet is not a strong arguement. 

Now Big Mick, I will finish with another business analogy.  If you are predicting a trend (and you have a logical base around your assumptions), and buy into it when others are still doubting it through misinfomation, you have the opportunity to get in and make higher returns before all others follow suit.

[redtrader74]

Excellent reasoned post.

[Oakesy8]

Hello there,
first post, long time reader of the forum.
Here goes!

For what it's worth, in my eyes Rafa does indeed realise you need to score goals and kill teams off in the prem, unlike maybe in Spain. He's not stupid, and clealy his summer signings prove his offensive intentions thoughout.

Idealy we do need defensive cover, but the priority of strikers has been identified and hopefully solved. To his credit he did thats last summer with Dirk & Morienties before that, only this time hes not had to fight the purse strings.

The one thing that does concern me is the guenuine belief on this forum that Steve G will operate in the centre. I doubt this wil ever happen when we have so much quaility and abundance of deffensive midfields, which again can dictate how we play. Do Chelsea and Utd play with two? No.

Thanks
Simon
x

[god_bless_john_houlding]

Hello there,
first post, long time reader of the forum.
Here goes!

For what it's worth, in my eyes Rafa does indeed realise you need to score goals and kill teams off in the prem, unlike maybe in Spain. He's not stupid, and clealy his summer signings prove his offensive intentions thoughout.

Idealy we do need defensive cover, but the priority of strikers has been identified and hopefully solved. To his credit he did thats last summer with Dirk & Morienties before that, only this time hes not had to fight the purse strings.

The one thing that does concern me is the guenuine belief on this forum that Steve G will operate in the centre. I doubt this wil ever happen when we have so much quaility and abundance of deffensive midfields, which again can dictate how we play. Do Chelsea and Utd play with two? No.

Thanks
Simon
x

The only central midfielder, other than Gerrard who can dictate the play for us is Alonso, because neither Mascheranho or Sissoko are capable of passing a ball 10 yards. So although Sissoko and Mascheranho are great at breaking the play up, once they have the ball they need to be looking for a Gerrard, Alonso or even Danny Agger, which is why my prefered central pairing would be Xabi and Stevie. With Xabi defending, it allows Gerrard to bomb on forward, instead of having to sit deep, to ratain the ball off Mascheranho/Sissoko and then run the lenght of the pitch to get on the end of a Pennant cross. Should we play with 5 across the middle which has been discussed, I think it doesn't matter who's in the middle with Gerrard and Alonso, becuase Gerrard can still roam freely, while Alonso is picking the passes. But Gerrard with anybody else in the middle other than Alonso, would mean Gerrard not getting forward as often, and inevitablly resulting in even fewer goals, certainly from the already goalless midfield.

If Gerrard is played wide right however, I think as long as Alonso is in the middle, it won't matter a great deal with who his partner is, but again goals from midfield, have let us down and Alonso, Mascheranho, Sissoko aren't going to get enough, and I don't think Mascheranho and Sissoko, create enough chances for us. With the inclusions of Babel, Yossi and a possibly fully fit Kewell, goals from midfield shouldn't be a problem but I feel that goals from midfield have let us down so consistantly. United get 10 from Scholes, Chelsea get 15 from Lampard (even if they are mainly deflected or pens) and even Everton get 10 from Cahill. Unless Gerrard scores, our midfield is non exsistant in terms of goals, but as I've said, Babel, Yossi and Kewell may change that and take some of the responsibilty away from Gerrard. Also if or forwards do their job this season and bang in 20 goals each, then the lack of midfielders on the team sheet won't be as notable. 10 goals between Alonso, Mascheranho and Sissoko this year is what I'm looking for, not too much to ask for.

[Big Niall]

Ferguson basically says " Giggs on left, Ronaldo on right, centre forward (Van NistleRoy when there, then Saha when fit) in centre with Rooney behind. What you going to do to stop them?

answer for most teams - F**k all. Rafa thinks - "oh, we won at Villa last week but now we have the mighty west ham so we have to change our tactics to beat the mighty west ham"

Bo11ox.

[stmichael]

I didn't say we wasn't an attacking side at Anfield. I remember us tormineting every side at Anfield last season and I expect us to be attacking at Anfield this year, my point is I'd like us to kill sides off rather than defend 1-0 leads, especially against weaker sides.

StMichael, I agree 5 in midfield can work and it's all about who plays where in a 5 man midfield, but knowing the way Rafa surprises us, our 5 man midfield would consist of Finnan on the right wing, Aurellio left wing, Hyypia, Arebloa and Momo in the middle of the park   I think 5 in the middle could work depending solely on the selection, but I'd much prefer 2 right up top with midfielders supporting them.

Fair enough mate.

I just don't accept this statement that is constantly thrown at us that we are "we are a defensive side". A big club cannot have this idea and it just wouldn't work, in the league all the teams bar the top 4 relinquish possession and play on the break against the big teams, they do it even at home. Some are a bit more open than others. We always have the right emphasis in going forward.

However our apllication is different to our intent, we are an attacking side, however we are not the most dynamic or creative. This is where Benitez has to chose the route for his team. Does he go for a dynamic style of play with high intensity (more traditional utd) and pressure or go for a more possesion based side who control games and open opponents up with slick passing (Traditional Liverpool style)

For me I think a cross over of both can be done as obviously a team cannot play a 100mph all the time, plus sooner or later the trick is caught out by teams. However what I want us to see do most is vary our attacks, too much emphasis is placed on begin direct when Crouch is on the pitch (not his fault, natural instincts from defenders distributing the ball) and we also cross too much. A much more varied attack with more passing around and moving will be better for us and help open teams up and make us less predictable. Towards the latter of last season we became very reliant on Pennant and seeked him out too much for my liking.

Also its imperative the players distribute the ball from he defence to attack right, Carra and Riise have a tendency when teams are pressing us and marking the mids tightly to just hoof it up, however if we pass and move we can always open teams up and tire them out.

Last year we made the mistake of Rafa trying to make a counter attacking team, which meant we didn't really build many games even though teams give us the ball and force us to make the game, this meant less spaces. Also we did not have the attacking players intelligent enough to incorporate a counter attacking system, however the biggest flaw is that we are not clinical enough and never have been to have such a style. Last year we only had a few attempts on goal less than utd, however the shots-goal ratio was way worse.

I think we need to find balance and hopefully the new players can bed in, also goals need to be subsidised throughout the side, as Rafa said he prefers to noty have one identified goalscorer but lods of "double figure scorers" which includes midfielders. So its a team effort.

We need more creativity as opposed to a change of emphasis... IMO