Liverpool FC Forum

[bigmick]

Did we lose?

No.

So rotation worked last night.

Fair play Lando (I assume you are joking), I did say in the match thread that somebody would come on here and say that and I was beginning to despair.

In answer to Igor's post about my change of stance, I don't think it has changed really to be honest. I probably explain it differently now, but that's more that I've been forced to over the last couple of years by the pro-rotationers. Firstly you get the "but you can't play the same team in every single game" argument, then you get the "but rotation isn't the ONLY reason you lose football matches, other things come into it as well", then you get the "but all the other teams rotate as well" arguments. There are many others, "I remember when the same people slagged off zonal marking" etc etc.

So then, every time you answer a question you have to put AND NOBODIES SAYING WE SHOULD PLAY THE SAME TEAM IN EVERY SINGLE GAME,  to counter the first one.

The second one is slightly more complicated. Being anti-rotation "Rafa-style" is simply about giving the fantastic bunch of players the manager has brought together the optimum chance of success. Clearly changing all four midfield players from one game to the next doesn't mean you can't win the games, but I would venture you have more chance of finding consistency and a winning habit if you don't take that course of action.

Of course, a dodgy refereeing decision, a fluky goal, a flash of inspiration or whatever can change and ultimately win a game, but it's all about giving yourselves the maximum chance of success. "But even if Torres had played at Portsmouth there's no certainty we would have won the game is there?". Well no there isn't, but surely we can accept there's more chance that you would win the game with our best striker in the team? Wouldn't we? Just a little bit more chance perhaps?

And the third one, "but all the other managers rotate" which of course they do. They don't of course rotate in the same fashion as Rafa, but they do rotate. Wenger rotates, as he showed in midweek with nine changes or whatever it was. Ferguson rotates, as he showed with his ill-fated changes against Bolton. But they don't rotate like rafa. They don't change the whole midfield from one game to the next, they wouldn't have left Torres and Gerrard on the bench at Fratton Park, they don't rotate "Rafa-style". I don't think even rafa himself would dispute that he rotates in his own individual way, "Rafa-style" is simply a way of saying that so I don't constantly get the "but the other teams do it".

As for the thing about no team ever winning the Premiership whilst rotating "Rafa-style" i don' think I've been too inconsistent. Just like as I've always said, no team will ever win the Premiership whilst changing the line-up, the formation and the positions which people play in as often as Rafa does, it's equally fair to say no team has ever won the Premiership by keeping the same team in every single game either. To win the league, everybody will have to change the team from time to time.

There'll be injuries for a start, losses of form (dropped they used to call it) and tactical alterations. It's about scale though. God knows what the numbers are now, (were'nt we 75 changes to the team after 15 games or something absolutely bizarre). I don't think it can be done but we'll see.

Last couple of things. I've asked the question a couple of times now and still none of the pro-rotationers have given me an answer. Do you think that Arsenal would have more, less, or the same number of points in the League as they have now if they had changed the team as often as we have? Secondly, if Rafa (and your good selves) are indeed correct and we can move on to launch a title push from here, wouldn't it have been more sensible to rotate a fraction less at the start of the season so as to be a bit closer to the top than we currently are?

[Leonmc0708]

Typical, here we are discussing the subtle differences and nuances of different approaches and styles of play , and Leon stepps in with both his size 14's and ruins it 

13's lad.

[Bad Bob]

Last couple of things. I've asked the question a couple of times now and still none of the pro-rotationers have given me an answer. Do you think that Arsenal would have more, less, or the same number of points in the League as they have now if they had changed the team as often as we have? Secondly, if Rafa (and your good selves) are indeed correct and we can move on to launch a title push from here, wouldn't it have been more sensible to rotate a fraction less at the start of the season so as to be a bit closer to the top than we currently are?

In response to the first question:

Depends if they had the same number of injuries as we've had or not. 

In response to the second question:

Your whole question is premised on the idea that rotation hinders results which is kinda of the main question we've been debating all along, isn't it? 

[zarababe]

Of course rotation works ..because everyone in the squad knows they can play so need to keep at the top of their game. When that happens it menas that tactically the manager has more options to suit games which throw-up different challenges.

If you know that the same 11 are going to play week-in-week-out then players lose incentives to be on top of their game because the're only likely to get in because of suspensions to others / injuries - therefore when they come they won't always provide the smooth transition that works like there have been no changes.

The spine does not change but the rest of the tinkering is effective, particularly when the team is in form, as it is at the moment.

Innovative and way ahead in terms of 'blue sky thinking' - Hail Rafa Benitez - I lurve this man !

[account deleted by request]

I think that last nights game proved that 90% of the rotation talk is rubbish. We were struggling until we brought on 2 players who have hardly played all season and they changed the game.

Its more about getting the balance of the side right, and getting your best players and matchwinners on the pitch than rotation. So I will agree that when Torres, Gerrard etc are rotated out of the team rotation does have an adverse effect. Apart from that, rotation has much less effect than whether Rafa picks Crouch or Kuyt to partner Torres.

[metalhead]

I think that last nights game proved that 90% of the rotation talk is rubbish. We were struggling until we brought on 2 players who have hardly played all season and they changed the game.

Its more about getting the balance of the side right, and getting your best players and matchwinners on the pitch than rotation. So I will agree that when Torres, Gerrard etc are rotated out of the team rotation does have an adverse effect. Apart from that, rotation has much less effect than whether Rafa picks Crouch or Kuyt to partner Torres.

As I explained before.. I agree s@int.

Keeping key players in the side, while rotating others.

[Igor Zidane]

I think that last nights game proved that 90% of the rotation talk is rubbish. We were struggling until we brought on 2 players who have hardly played all season and they changed the game.

Its more about getting the balance of the side right, and getting your best players and matchwinners on the pitch than rotation. So I will agree that when Torres, Gerrard etc are rotated out of the team rotation does have an adverse effect. Apart from that, rotation has much less effect than whether Rafa picks Crouch or Kuyt to partner Torres.

That's the crux of the matter as far as i'm concerned Saint, we have better players and a better squad for rafa to rotate and for it to have a positive ,rather than a negative impact on the team. You have your core players that will start most games, (you can add torres to that list)but then you have the rest of the players who are now of sufficient quality (hopefully) to be able change systems and tactics around them core players.

On the Arsenal thing mick i would hazzard a guess and say yes If Arsenal have a strong enough squad to rotate Rafa style , they would still be where they are now. You can only guess at these things ,because as you know mate ,it's all if's and buts. They might have played this way or that way ,with this player or that player. The reason i say yes is simply i think Arsenal have the players and the squad with quality enough to so it imo.

[bigmick]

As always some intersting views. On the Arsenal question, none of us know for certain but I am absolutely convinced that had Arsenal made as many changes to the team as we have, they wouldn't be clear at the top of the table. I think they have good players, a good team and a good manager but they have been given the maximum opportunity possible to make full use of their helpful fixture list. Had we used the same selection methods, my feeling is that we would be probaly three or four points closer than we are now.

How do I know that? Well I don't of course is the short answer to that one. As for the injuries, we have been a bit unlucky there's no doubt about that. I would hardly put it in the crisis bracket though. Arsenal have been without Van Persie for weeks now and have had to change their whole formation to accomodate for that. they also missed Gallas earlier in the season so they've hardly had a clear run either. Chelsea have had significant problems, while Man Utd are currently without Rooney and have missed other big players so we're not on our own. The changes to the team which cause the debate though are not brought on by injuries, they are "unforced rotations" like the ones on Wednesday, where we changed the whole midfield with not an injury in sight.

One thing about me, at least you can't say i only moan when we lose. We won 4-1 in the Champions and I thought the team selection was a very good example of way over the top rotation. I think it will come back to bite us badly in the end, but we'll see.

[Sabre]

Answering the question about Arsenal, I'd answer that it depends on the rotation players

Scenario a) the rotating players are not good enough, then Arsenal would have noticed it in terms of 5 or 6 or even 9 points less

Scenario b) The rotating players are good enough, then Arsenal would have the same points or almost the same.

Yes, a continuous run at the start of the season of the same starting eleven would help them to reach 100% earlier than other teams, so I reckon that with rotation, they might have not won brilliantly 3-0 against Sevilla so soon, but they would have won the game anyway. If the players are good AND the team selection is good (team selection is another matter) then they'd have the same points. Or maybe more. :P

[Judge]

go on rafa, rotate the fuck out of the league, get everyone in a spin, and as the dust settles, we will be top of the league and with another CL trophy

[VamosRafa]

I'm not the biggest fan of rotation, and would have loved to have seen us keep a settled team and system over the opening 10-15 games of the season. Hand on heart I feel we'd be in an even stronger position in the league, and would have already qualified for the knockout stages in Europe had rafa done this, even in spite of the bad luck we've had with injuries. However as it's part and parcel of Rafas management style and i'd prefer not to get rid of him, i suppose it has to be accepted.

With a fully fit squad, i'd be prepared to accept minimal rotation from rafa as long as the following players were playing 95% of the time. Reina, Carra, Agger, Finnan, Mascherano, Gerrard, Alonso, Torres.  I feel this situation would be the perfect compromise between rotation and anti-rotation. It would give rafa 3/11 positions in the starting line-up to tinker around with, but would give the team a settled feel. It would also let Rafa experiment with his 4-3-3's and 4-5-1's that he loves to use so much when u think about the versatility of gerrard.

As far as up front is concerned, for me, it's not so important who partners Torres up front, as he has so much quality, it seems to bring the best out of Crouch, Kuyt and even Voronin (though he was pretty poor against Porto). I'd happily have Stevie on the right in order to accomodate alonso and mascherano in the middle.We'd be able to rotate in the likes Pennant, Kewell, Babel, when it was best suited to the game, it seems the perfect compromise. Thoughts?

[Bad Bob]

I'm not the biggest fan of rotation, and would have loved to have seen us keep a settled team and system over the opening 10-15 games of the season. Hand on heart I feel we'd be in an even stronger position in the league, and would have already qualified for the knockout stages in Europe had rafa done this, even in spite of the bad luck we've had with injuries. However as it's part and parcel of Rafas management style and i'd prefer not to get rid of him, i suppose it has to be accepted.

With a fully fit squad, i'd be prepared to accept minimal rotation from rafa as long as the following players were playing 95% of the time. Reina, Carra, Agger, Finnan, Mascherano, Gerrard, Alonso, Torres.  I feel this situation would be the perfect compromise between rotation and anti-rotation. It would give rafa 3/11 positions in the starting line-up to tinker around with, but would give the team a settled feel. It would also let Rafa experiment with his 4-3-3's and 4-5-1's that he loves to use so much when u think about the versatility of gerrard.

As far as up front is concerned, for me, it's not so important who partners Torres up front, as he has so much quality, it seems to bring the best out of Crouch, Kuyt and even Voronin (though he was pretty poor against Porto). I'd happily have Stevie on the right in order to accomodate alonso and mascherano in the middle.We'd be able to rotate in the likes Pennant, Kewell, Babel, when it was best suited to the game, it seems the perfect compromise. Thoughts?

I think Rafa largely does what you're suggesting already, mate.  When fit, the following lads generally play (unless we're looking at an early round Carling Cup or FA Cup tie): Reina, Carragher, Agger, Finnan, Gerrard, Pennant, Alonso, Mascherano, Torres. 

Let's look at the main areas where Rafa likes to rotate:

1) Fullbacks - I think in an ideal world, Rafa would start with Finnan and Aurelio most games and use Arbeloa to slot in for either as situations dictate.  Since we are well-organized defensively, we manage to rotate the fullbacks quite a bit without losing defensive form.  So, the rotations here are about keeping players fresh and giving us different options going forward.

2) Wide Positions - It may seem hard to believe, but the numbers show that Pennant is virtually nailed on to start at RM when fit.  So, most of the rotation before Pennant's injury concerned our left flank.  Here it's the case of nobody stepping up and making the position their own. so Rafa's rotated to try different things.  I think if Kewell can stay fit than he'll start at LM more often than not.  Babel and Benayoun will provide cover, with Aurelio able to slot in as well if needs be.  Riise, I suspect, will be sold before too much longer.

3) Central Midfield - Here it's an embarassment of riches situation.  Since Gerrard starts virtually every game if fit, it's a matter of picking his partner.  Here's where I completely agree with rotation because I think the likes of Alonso, Mascherano and, increasingly, Lucas are too good to spend too long on the bench.  Besides each gives different options so rotating makes sense.  Alonso would be my preferred choice for most matches but I have no concerns when he's sat down in favour of Masch.  Lucas is still young and needs to wait a little longer for a run of games, given our depth.  Sissoko is surplus to requirements.

4) Striker.  Torres has now cemented his place in the must-start-when-fit group so the question is, who to partner him?  To most of us, Crouch seems like the best choice because of his link play, his ability to unsettle defenders and because of his goal threat.  Rafa, on the other hand, clearly values Kuyt's workrate, even if it comes at the expense of a goal threat.  He also sees Voronin as very much part of the mix and then there's Babel...  I suspect that this position will continue to be rotated heavily until one of two things happen: 1) one of those four make themselves absolutely undroppable with a real head-turning purple patch or 2) we buy someone of Torres quality to partner Torres.

So, to recap, rotation Rafa-style still sees him pick a core group of players virtually every game.  When he does rotate, there are two types of rotation: rotating from a position of strength (CM and fullbacks) and rotating amongst limited options (LM and second striker).  If this row with the owners gets patched up and the Yanks could see their way clear to stump up the cash for even one more quality player up top, we'll be in a better position to use rotation as a source of strength rather than as merely a solution to problem areas.

[Igor Zidane]

I'm not the biggest fan of rotation, and would have loved to have seen us keep a settled team and system over the opening 10-15 games of the season. Hand on heart I feel we'd be in an even stronger position in the league, and would have already qualified for the knockout stages in Europe had rafa done this, even in spite of the bad luck we've had with injuries. However as it's part and parcel of Rafas management style and i'd prefer not to get rid of him, i suppose it has to be accepted.

With a fully fit squad, i'd be prepared to accept minimal rotation from rafa as long as the following players were playing 95% of the time. Reina, Carra, Agger, Finnan, Mascherano, Gerrard, Alonso, Torres.  I feel this situation would be the perfect compromise between rotation and anti-rotation. It would give rafa 3/11 positions in the starting line-up to tinker around with, but would give the team a settled feel. It would also let Rafa experiment with his 4-3-3's and 4-5-1's that he loves to use so much when u think about the versatility of gerrard.

As far as up front is concerned, for me, it's not so important who partners Torres up front, as he has so much quality, it seems to bring the best out of Crouch, Kuyt and even Voronin (though he was pretty poor against Porto). I'd happily have Stevie on the right in order to accomodate alonso and mascherano in the middle.We'd be able to rotate in the likes Pennant, Kewell, Babel, when it was best suited to the game, it seems the perfect compromise. Thoughts?

I think Rafa largely does what you're suggesting already, mate.  When fit, the following lads generally play (unless we're looking at an early round Carling Cup or FA Cup tie): Reina, Carragher, Agger, Finnan, Gerrard, Pennant, Alonso, Mascherano, Torres. 

Let's look at the main areas where Rafa likes to rotate:

1) Fullbacks - I think in an ideal world, Rafa would start with Finnan and Aurelio most games and use Arbeloa to slot in for either as situations dictate.  Since we are well-organized defensively, we manage to rotate the fullbacks quite a bit without losing defensive form.  So, the rotations here are about keeping players fresh and giving us different options going forward.

2) Wide Positions - It may seem hard to believe, but the numbers show that Pennant is virtually nailed on to start at RM when fit.  So, most of the rotation before Pennant's injury concerned our left flank.  Here it's the case of nobody stepping up and making the position their own. so Rafa's rotated to try different things.  I think if Kewell can stay fit than he'll start at LM more often than not.  Babel and Benayoun will provide cover, with Aurelio able to slot in as well if needs be.  Riise, I suspect, will be sold before too much longer.

3) Central Midfield - Here it's an embarassment of riches situation.  Since Gerrard starts virtually every game if fit, it's a matter of picking his partner.  Here's where I completely agree with rotation because I think the likes of Alonso, Mascherano and, increasingly, Lucas are too good to spend too long on the bench.  Besides each gives different options so rotating makes sense.  Alonso would be my preferred choice for most matches but I have no concerns when he's sat down in favour of Masch.  Lucas is still young and needs to wait a little longer for a run of games, given our depth.  Sissoko is surplus to requirements.

4) Striker.  Torres has now cemented his place in the must-start-when-fit group so the question is, who to partner him?  To most of us, Crouch seems like the best choice because of his link play, his ability to unsettle defenders and because of his goal threat.  Rafa, on the other hand, clearly values Kuyt's workrate, even if it comes at the expense of a goal threat.  He also sees Voronin as very much part of the mix and then there's Babel...  I suspect that this position will continue to be rotated heavily until one of two things happen: 1) one of those four make themselves absolutely undroppable with a real head-turning purple patch or 2) we buy someone of Torres quality to partner Torres.

So, to recap, rotation Rafa-style still sees him pick a core group of players virtually every game.  When he does rotate, there are two types of rotation: rotating from a position of strength (CM and fullbacks) and rotating amongst limited options (LM and second striker).  If this row with the owners gets patched up and the Yanks could see their way clear to stump up the cash for even one more quality player up top, we'll be in a better position to use rotation as a source of strength rather than as merely a solution to problem areas.

Exactamundo Bob, Agreed completely.

[stmichael]

I don't have the stats at hand, but I'm sure this season the times we've played the best football has actually been when there's been the most number of changes between matches. I'd love to know the number of changes per-match between Toulouse & Derby, Reading & Birmingham and compare them to the numbers between games where we made just two changes from Saturday. Neither in 'key' positions, yet played atrociously.

Rotation is a problem apparently but we've looked at our most clueless in the middle of the park when Gerrard and Mascherano have been playing together consistently. We never heard nothing about it during our first 6 games of the season when we won 5 and drew one and Rafa was ROTATING as much then as he is now. Soon as we drew at Pompey out it comes and off we go again about it all being down to rotation blah blah blah.

Its funny that we had 2 wins against Reading and Wigan after Rafa making EIGHT changes to the team for each match and yet that gets conveniently over-looked. Shouldn't making EIGHT changes to a team completely balls it up and we should be losing 4-0 or something if you listen to the experts??..hmmm.

It doesn't matter whether you pick the same 11 each week or make 5 changes per game, if the 11 that do play don't perform or make individual errors then we hamper our chances of winning. Rafa only made 1 change for the Spurs game from the previous league game and yet rotation was blamed for that draw...Was it not 2 individual errors by our players gifting Spurs 2 goals.

We could go on a 10 game winning streak from tomorrow onwards and NO ONE will mention rotation despite Rafa making 5 changes per game.Then we could lose the 11th game or worst still draw it (As draws seem to cause mass hysteria nowadays with our fans)and Rafa will get stick galore for ROTATING.

[Sabre]

St Michael says

Its funny that we had 2 wins against Reading and Wigan after Rafa making EIGHT changes to the team for each match and yet that gets conveniently over-looked. Shouldn't making EIGHT changes to a team completely balls it up and we should be losing 4-0 or something if you listen to the experts??..hmmm.

According to the same experts Manchester United should come to Anfield and win easily no? with their non rotating fantastic manager  Manchester United should come and win with all their cohesion and stuff.

Well, I think Manchester United is not going to be the team that ends the unbeaten league record.