Liverpool FC Forum

[LFC2007]

Like most pro rotation "Rafa style" arguments, the "the players play more games than they did twenty years ago" sounds good but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Fortunately for those wish to prove the stat and the statement to be correct, as has been pointed out we were banned from Europe during this particular year so it just about is. Nobody will convince me however that this is what Rafa meant when he said it, he didn't think to himself "I know what, Ill defend rotation by picking on that particular period where the club was banned from Europe as it's true to say we'll play more games in this season that we did in that one". He most probably didn't consider that the league was forty two games in those days rather than thirty eight, and figured that the Champions league as opposed to a knockout European Cup would involve many more fixtures. It's by no means a crime on his part that he got a bit mixed up, but that is certainly what happened in my view.

Fair enough, for the sake of the argument (even though I disagree with you as it would assume that he's just plucked these figures out of thin air -despite being a student of the game for many years) let's assume he was referring loosely to a distant era, whether it be 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Is it not possible that on average over say a period of a decade, we played in 20% fewer games than we do now, or that players in general 20, 30 or 40 years ago played 20% fewer games? It's unclear as to whether he was referring to International matches as an inclusion in this statement by the way. If you can provide the stat's I'll happily accept your view, until then, it can't be said that it doesn't stand up to scutiny, unfortunately. Alternatively, write him a letter to explain his statement.

[bigmick]

Provide the stats, feck that I would be very surprised (if you provide the stats ) to discover they do play 20% more matches these days, if indeed any more but as I've gone onto say in my next paragraph, it's not really the point anyway.

If we were to get into a situation whereby we were having a little gripe about playing too many matches, howsabout we start finishing in the top two of the Premiership every now and then, we'll save ourselves either two or four Champions league qualifiers for a start off. It'll also have the knock on effect of avoiding the inevitable "styled" selection in one of those games which results in us being in severe danger of being knocked out of the thing before it's even got started. Then of course we have to field a weakened team in a League game so as to enable us to field a strong team against some mickey mouse outfit in the Champions league qualifier to ensure we go through. Out of such nonsense sprung the Bramhall lane fiasco of a couple of seasons ago. We were the first Liverpool team in history to concede the Premiership after about four matches.

See if we really must rotate (and we must, just nowhere near as much as Rafa has in the past) why not play a strong team and beat macabi haifa four nil at home. THEN rotate/rest for the second match. Similarly, win your first three or four Champions League group matches and THEN rotate. Toores getting tired after an International break?, play him and when you're 2-0 up THEN bring him off.

Anyway, although I'm right (obviously      ) the "number of games" thing is a red herring IMHO whichever way you look at it.

[RedBlood]

i dont think its the amount of games that matters as gbjh is probally right it is rougthly the same..
the thing that matters is the physical demands in games are much higher these days, they run a longer distance during games and at a faster pace

[LFC2007]

I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that players nowadays play 20% more games than they did 'back in the day', particularly if you included internationals and friendlies but not necessarily so - especially given that the European cup was a knockout competition pre-92/93 (on whole you may well find that we played fewer games if you accounted for how far we went in each cup competition over a set time period - only if you do the math's though - I'm not going to be dragging up a decade's worth of stat's, that's for certain).

As for the rest, there isn't much room for manoeuvre really mate, it's all based on your magnus opus; 'it's rotation that's costing us' , and although this is a thread dedicated to that subject, it's old ground well covered.

[Owzat]

Well the number of games in the FA and League Cup hasn't changed (much), and the league has fluctuated between 38 and 42 games, so in fact the difference in the number of games is likely to vary only according to how successful the team is. The Champions League has become very much for TV and there are six group games and a whole load more non-champion teams in it, not forgetting the split of USSR and Yugoslavia plus the addition of other countries that has seen the UEFA zone go from having about 36 national teams to 50. And of course that means there are more decent teams in it, that you get to the crux at the QFs regardless doesn't make the earlier games any less demanding these days. We certainly wouldn't be playing a good team or two at the group stage equivalent "back in the day"

[god_bless_john_houlding]

We certainly wouldn't be playing a good team or two at the group stage equivalent "back in the day"

why wouldn't we?

It was a straight draw which meant you could get Real Madrid or Bognor Regis (if they were in it)

We got Forrest in the first round of the european cup in 78/79. We'd won it two years running and got the England champions in the first round, so how can you say we wouldn't of been playing good teams "back in the day" It was more easier to get good teams "back in the day" then it is now. Who do you get nowadays? Beskitas?

[Bad Bob]

I wanted to this thread (quit groaning! ) to come back to a season long question we've been discussing about the title race.  Now, before I start and before I'm misinterpreted let me be clear: we at no point challenged properly for the title this season and that is a disappointment.  What I'm about to say, then, in no way changes that fact or excuses our early exit from the race.

But, I find it interesting what's happened to Arsenal of late.  Why Arsenal?  Well, because they were held up as the title-challenging model to follow earlier this season for, IMO, two reasons.  First, they, like us, were the poor cousins of the Big Four--looking to challenge on a relative shoe-string when compared with the likes of Chelsea and Man United.  Indeed, a number of people contended that we outspent Arsenal pretty handily this season and this claim was used as a rebuke for those that said you can't challenge for the title without money.  Second, and more importantly for this discussion, Arsenal tended to play pretty much their best team week in, week out regardless of the competition and thus seemed to offer the perfect case study to juxtapose with rotation Rafa-style.

Now, in the last few months we've watched Arsenal flag, stumble and now crash out of every competition they've entered.  The general consensus is that they're dead on their feet and have been for weeks, thanks largely to the fact that Wenger insisted on having such a small squad.  Indeed, having played the same number of games as us in the league, they now sit just 5 points ahead, having lost one fewer and drawn one fewer games than us.  And, of course, we're still in with a shout in the Champions League, while Arsenal have nothing left to play for.

So, I raise these points again not to put a rosier gloss on our own still-born title challenge but to suggest that perhaps the Arsenal model isn't the one to follow either.  Maybe both their situation and ours makes a nice little case for the merits of sensible rotation (some have suggested we might dub this Fergie-style?)--rotation that allows you to keep players fresh (so you can avoid 'doing an Arsenal' and running out of gas) while also keeping momentum flowing and team cohesion building (so you can avoid 'doing a Liverpool' and stumbling out of the blocks).  If we can establish the kind of sensible team/tactics selection that we've enjoyed in the past month at the start of next season, I think our challenge will be much better served.  That said, we must sort out our back room problems first and Rafa must be given money to spend on at least a couple of Torres-calibre players to bolster our first team.

[JoeTerp]

when you look at what it would take for us to fergie style rotate, we need to see if we have the squad for it.  I think Evra is the level of quality we need at left back, not having  a dig at aurelio but that is where they gain their slight edge on the defensive comparison.  Scholes, Hargreaves, Carrick, and Anderson vs. Gerrard, Mascherano, Alonso, and Lucas. We can both go 4 deep  without really thinking about it, and the quality of both is so high its really a wash, (with us having the edge)

Giggs, nani, and RONALDO vs. whatever we consider to be our wide players. they aren't even that deep here, Park sucks, but the quality crushes Babel, Pennant, yossi, kuyt

Torres vs. Rooney. Again a wash with us getting the edge

Tevez vs. Crouch/Kuyt/Voronin

So the diagnosis seems to be the same, we need one top quality fullback, 2 (but settle for 1 as long as they player is of a VERY HIGH class) wingers, and a "creative second striker"

Against Arsenal today, fergie played Park over giggs, but he still had Anderson AND Tevez on the bench. we need that sort of quality in depth. And that means that we need to be able to continue to have that same sort of not loosing a step with all 3 subs quality even if injuries hit us.  This would mean about 15 or 16 "Starting XI" type players NOT 6 or 7 plus 12 or 13 "fringe" players

[duk]

I for one can see the use in rotation and can see it playin g a big part in next season, Rafa needs to use his money wisely and makes sure that every player he buys is good enough to play in the first team consistantly even if he doesn't plan on using them constantly. By doing this he is making sure that every player he decides needs a rest will have a quality replacement.

The mancs can drop rooney and call up tevez, drop nani and call up giggs, drop scholes to call up anderson, carrick for hargreaves etc.
chelski can drop drogba for anelka, cole for bridge, fat frank for ballack

if we drop torres it would be for crouch or voronin, gerrard for lucas..... hardly compares

[duk]

Havin said this the january signing of Skrtel now leaves me with a huge amount of confidence with rotation of the CB position. Carra and Agger when fit but this signing and the return of form for the mighty sami mean we have 4 quality CB's next season.

[bigmick]

The Arsenal question is an interesting one, and it was only a matter of time before some of the pro's punced on their demise (although I must say Bob did it very nicely and with great eloquence  ). There are a couple of factors to consider here.

Firstly there is no question in my mind that they aren't finishing games off as efficiently as they were earlier in the season when they find themselves on top. I didn't see the match yesterday, but by all accounts they gave Man Utd a lesson at Old Trafford in the first half, much as they did to us at Anfield in the first half, but on both occasions they failed to eventually deliver a result. There are a number of reasons why this may be so, and the lack of rotation is almost certainly a factor, although needless to say I'm probably going to have it down as less important than some.

I think at least as much a factor as the rotation are the injuries they have sustained to key players at difficult times for them. In the strikers for instance, they've had Van Persie injured for much of the season, Eduardo out possibly for good and a fourth string of Bendtner who is by no means certain to be good enough. This has meant that Adebayor has had to start and finish almost every game, and while he's a really good player IMHo the workload has probably taken its toll. In midfield they've lost Rosicky for longish periods which has meant that Fabregas has had to play every match, and he above all others looks to me like he's felt it. He's still a wonderful player of course, but the goals have dried up as he has made less and less of the lung busting bursts into the box as time has gone on. Without his goals, the 1-0's have stayed 1-0 and like against us, the opposition has been able to get a foothold and get back into the game.

The other factor to consider is that they've probably got a case when they say they've been on the wrong end of a couple of refereeing decisons of late. I certainly thought against us in the Champions League for instance their "claim" at the Emirates was more realistic than ours which we got at Anfield, and although he is not known as @rsehole Winger for nothing, their manager is probably justified in thinking they've been a bit unlucky.

I personally think they've actually been forced into a non rotationist outlook, and like us they need a couple of players but for slightly different reasons. They've gone about it the right way I think in that they've built a competitive "team" and they need to deepen the squad, whereas we've got more players than we know what to do with but a relative lack of quality. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the Summer.

[Bad Bob]

The Arsenal question is an interesting one, and it was only a matter of time before some of the pro's punced on their demise (although I must say Bob did it very nicely and with great eloquence  ). There are a couple of factors to consider here.

Firstly there is no question in my mind that they aren't finishing games off as efficiently as they were earlier in the season when they find themselves on top. I didn't see the match yesterday, but by all accounts they gave Man Utd a lesson at Old Trafford in the first half, much as they did to us at Anfield in the first half, but on both occasions they failed to eventually deliver a result. There are a number of reasons why this may be so, and the lack of rotation is almost certainly a factor, although needless to say I'm probably going to have it down as less important than some.

I think at least as much a factor as the rotation are the injuries they have sustained to key players at difficult times for them. In the strikers for instance, they've had Van Persie injured for much of the season, Eduardo out possibly for good and a fourth string of Bendtner who is by no means certain to be good enough. This has meant that Adebayor has had to start and finish almost every game, and while he's a really good player IMHo the workload has probably taken its toll. In midfield they've lost Rosicky for longish periods which has meant that Fabregas has had to play every match, and he above all others looks to me like he's felt it. He's still a wonderful player of course, but the goals have dried up as he has made less and less of the lung busting bursts into the box as time has gone on. Without his goals, the 1-0's have stayed 1-0 and like against us, the opposition has been able to get a foothold and get back into the game.

The other factor to consider is that they've probably got a case when they say they've been on the wrong end of a couple of refereeing decisons of late. I certainly thought against us in the Champions League for instance their "claim" at the Emirates was more realistic than ours which we got at Anfield, and although he is not known as @rsehole Winger for nothing, their manager is probably justified in thinking they've been a bit unlucky.

I personally think they've actually been forced into a non rotationist outlook, and like us they need a couple of players but for slightly different reasons. They've gone about it the right way I think in that they've built a competitive "team" and they need to deepen the squad, whereas we've got more players than we know what to do with but a relative lack of quality. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the Summer.

Sure, Mick, their injuries have been telling but one thing they especially point up is their lack of depth.  One area of the pitch you didn't mention was defense but the loss of Sagna has been huge.  Toure is a fantastic CB but only a decent RB.  Why Wenger moved him out there when he could have had Eboue slot in at RB is known only to him but it's hurt them.  In fact, today he put Toure at RB again to accommodate, not Senderos (who is liability enough), but Alexandre Song!  The kid wasn't terrible but it would be like us moving Carragher to RB in order to play Hobbes at Old Trafford.  Not surprisingly, their back line looked extremely shaky at times today and the Gallas handball (blatant) so soon after Adebayor's opener was a killer penalty to concede.

My feeling is that they are a fantastic young team that just didn't have the strength in depth to challenge all the way.  Given the hype that's surrounded them all season (including from certain quarters on here) that's somewhat gratifying but not my main point.  No, my main point is that champion teams have deep squads full of quality and use them effectively.  We still have some work to do on the former (the quality bit) even if we are now showing more encouraging signs with the latter.

[Thingy]

Fulham next week I think Rafa will rest a number of players, and whilst I dont want to jump the gun, if we were to get to the CL final, we could see the goodness of resting players come out. If the blue s.*i*e dont win and we do weve all but secured 4th, even if they do win id be suprised if we didnt hold on, so Gerrard,Torres, Carra ect should get a rest or 2 before then , if we get there.

[bigmick]

Just wonder whether anybody has any observations on last night visa vis rotation. Chelsea have been playing at full zip for a few months now as they've been chasing and catching Man Utd in the league. They had a massive game against their closest rivals on sunday and came through in a pulsating encounter with a late winner. They played practically the same team which took the field against us, save for Lampard who hasn't even been training never mind playing. We on the other hand have been able to rest up, picking and choosing the games in which to play our first team. Could anyone tell last night in terms of energy levels because if anything I thought they looked likle slightly the stronger outfit in terms of fitness.

I ask the question slightly mischieviously as I'm absolutely certain somebody would have brought up the opposite point of view had we prevailed in extra time. Nevertheless it is an interesting one, and the results of "resting" and rotating over these last few weeks were by no means as obvious nor the benefits anywhere near as clear cut as some on here would have you believe. Certainly the idea that we should rest our players after five or six games in order for them to be "sharp" for the business end of the season would appear now to be folly. If the theory holds, the players who were rested at pompey and at home to Brum are going to be jumping out of their skin in matches which are absolutely meaningless. I guess you could even argue that if the "delayed gazelle" has any validity, we could rest our best players as of now and then the mileage which was saved could be carried forward to manifest itself into "freshness" at the end of next season. Or maybe the closed season kind of zero's off the old mileometer, I'm not really sure on that one.

[laza]

Well on the other side of the coin, the other team that is in the CL Final and still in the box seat for the league has had what sort of rotation program ?