Liverpool FC Forum

[Bad Bob]

*For instance: "Resting Torres against Brum was a masterstroke!  Look at the performance he put in against Reading.  Rotation works, mate!"

mick pretty much answered with my thoughts on this mate your post mate so i wont go over it again   

but the comment i have highlighted, please tell me it's tongue very much in cheek

Peewee, I was most definitely being tongue in cheek with that example! 

But, in all truthfullness, it's no worse than explaining our poor performance against Brum as being entirely down to Torres not playing or--even worse--to some silly notion that a group of players who train together every day and 9 of whom had just played together midweek in Portugal were "like strangers" on the pitch because of Rafa's rotation policy.

[Lando_Griffin]

The poor spell in the league at the end of last season was partly down to a shifting of priorities due to the predicament we found ourselves in, was our position the result of unforced over rotation? Not entirely, there were many factors. It has to be viewed holistically. What about the loss of Kewell for example, he added much balance to the left side in the previous season (05/06), or the loss of Aurelio early on. What about a few poor acquisitions  such as Gonzales and Zenden? Key players underperforming? It's not as simple as we would have won but for unforced overrotation.

I may already be viewing the whole thing holistically for all I know. If I'm not you'll have to excuse me as I've no fecking idea whatsoever what it means 

To be honest though LFC, you are starting to show promise and I might be about to welcome you into the anti-rotationers club. We pretty much agree on everything (no really we do) and rotation alone certainly does not lose you football matches. You are quite right to point to injuries, bad aquisitions, bad refereeing decisions, suspensions (I know you didn't mention the last two but you would have got to them eventually  ).

I think the best way of looking at it is to go for the conservative approach. Don't disturb the equilebrium unless you really have to. One day somebody will explain to me how a forced rotation is different to one which you do of your own free will (presumeably then if Gerrard and Torres had been injured at Pompey it's different than us choosing to leave them out?) but they haven't managed to put it into simple enough terms for me to understand thus far. Thanks for at least bothering to respond though mate. It seems to me that most people have already draughted question five. It is this,

5. Mick, why don't you stop being a boring tw@t and discuss something else. I think they have probably come to the conclusion not to debate it with me because it just encourages me. The worst part about it is of course that they are entirely correct   

It's different because an unforced rotation is subject to fore-thought and planning, the other is not.

For instance - if Pepe were dropped, it would likely be for the Carling Cup (for instance, away at Reading.)

If he were injured, it could be for a title-decider at Old Sh*tford.


If Rafa benched Gerrard, as we've seen, it's likely to be against a team we should be able to beat without him.

If he were injured, it would possibly fall at the wrong time, when we have to travel to play the Gooners or Sh*tski.

There's a World of difference between the two, IMHO.

[redtrader74]

I agree with your last 2 posts word for word Bob. Those of us who will defend Rafas methods don't do it without question. I'm sure we were all puzzled with one or more of his selections over the last 2 weeks, but the results were down to many variables and we accept that. The reason why 2 'camps' spring up here is solely down to those that believe all losses, draws and poor performances are solely because of rotation, without any evidence. Its all down to Rafa pulling names out of a hat....

In the good old days of Evans and even Houllier when we hardly rotated (and degenerated into a sh!t side) what reasons did we all find for losses and draws then? Was there a mental capacity to find a reason beyond what lazy tabloids tell us? 

Just a reminder, our much vaunted run from oct-may(2005-6), was performed under the 'constraints' of being rotated EVERY SINGLE GAME.

[account deleted by request]

Who's got the least bookings?

Mascherano has one, same as YOU, and Xabi mate 

Our survey says...

Uh eeerrrrrrrrrrrr!

Regarding my booking:

I can't help it if people are precious.

Our survey says 1 mate 

LFC TV

soccerbase link

[account deleted by request]

Question for Sabre mainly. Do you think that maybe rotation is more effective/necessary in Spain because of the heat ? I.E. because players will lose more fluids sweating in the hot Spanish sun rather than the p!ssing rain over here, the recovery time for players might be very different.

[Sabre]

No. Northern Spain and Southern England are not different weather-wise.

And even under extreme southern Spain hot you can lose more water, which is recovered easily (isotonic drinks for instance) but when it comes to muscle fatigue the recovery from players is similar.

I wish at the end of season we'll be able to say that rotation is effective up there aswell

[bigmick]

I'm sure we were all puzzled with one or more of his selections over the last 2 weeks, but the results were down to many variables and we accept that. The reason why 2 'camps' spring up here is solely down to those that believe all losses, draws and poor performances are solely because of rotation, without any evidence. Its all down to Rafa pulling names out of a hat....

In the good old days of Evans and even Houllier when we hardly rotated (and degenerated into a sh!t side) what reasons did we all find for losses and draws then? Was there a mental capacity to find a reason beyond what lazy tabloids tell us? 

Hmmm. I think I can see a new "you can't play the same team in every single game" mantra coming here because a few of the "pro's" have started to dredge this one up of rotation being the SOLE reason for losing a game. Lets put this silliness to bed here and now.

If anybody can be bothered to read back, (and I don't blame you if you can't) I've said on numerous occasions that rotation isn't a reason by itself to lose football matches. I even alluded to the fact in a post one page back from this one that we had selectorial silliness against Sunderland and yet still produced a decent performance and the three points. Of course you don't lose "simply because of rotation", but as I've always maintained, if you chop and change the team every week you will have an effect on the fluency and cohesion of the team. If I had one of those highlighter pens, I'd go over that last sentence. I haven't, so I'll do this.

If you chop and change the team every week you will have an effect on the fluency and cohesion of the team. Now I ask the "pro's", how can you possibly dispute that and keep a straight face?

Anyways I'm off into work now, but I am hooked up there and please don't all feck off like you did yesterday. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear a sensible answer to the "how good were we" question. It seems to be a concensus that we were a bit unlucky, we hit the post a few times otherwise we'd have been a lot closer    I'm expecting a bit better.

And since in the second bit of Red's post he seems to be implying that my resistance to the mass rotation we employ* is fuelled by a tabloid devotion I'' ask this. If rotation has nothing to do with indifferent performances now, how come the lack of it during the Evans/Houllier era (which is actually factually incorrect as Evans rotated a little, Houllier quite a bit and even Kenny Dalglish used to rotate the team on occasion. Rest wasn't infact invented during the last three years contrary to popular myth) contributed to our demise?

I ask again, how good were we last season, and did the rotation on the scale which we employed help or hinder us in our quest for points?

Last couple of things. Bob, even though we played decent teams in the Everton/Bolton matches, it was of course our farcical selections in the Macabi Haifa home game and Sheffield United Away games which derailed us to a point which we never recovered. As we are now seeing, once you have a team which is underperforming, it's not just a question of sticking your best eleven out and you're suddenly back to square one. It's a bit more complicated than that, even I know that. I didn't even learn it in the tabloids either.

[bigmick]

Sheesh I forgot my little asterisk thing*. The key of course is the level of rotation we employ, it's a question of degree. The "pro's" love that, "you can't play the same team every week" chant. I totally agree, although I would contest you can play the same team some weeks but anyway. But if you make 57 changes in ten games or whatever it is, you can't play with fluency every week, it's impossible.

Now Paul Tompkins in his ground breaking studies on rotation proved last season that if you only count weekend games, not against teams who play in red or early kick offs with refs whose name don't include the letter "P", that we actually rotate no more than the other big teams. In point of fact, I think we rotate even less than Chelsea as I remember. I said at the time of course that the whole thing was a complete, sheer and utter load of b0ll0cks and of course it is.

It's about who, where, how the opposition are doing and frequency. No team will ever win the English Premier League while employing mass rotation on the scale that Rafa has chosen to do in the past, and has worryingly showing a tendancy towards this season. One of the "pro's" defence mechanism's is "but Chelsea, Man Utd and Arsenal rotate". Of course they do, and if we rested players to a similar degree rto them you wouldn't hear a word of criticism from me  promise. But we don't. 

  Surely there is no disputing the fact that changing the starting eleven effects the team is there, really? I mean I would concede that if you changed Finnan for Arbeloa, it wouldn't have a major effect. Geerard for Alonso would (I'm not talking about making the team better or worse, just changing the way it performs), Crouch for Torres would, Reina for the other bloke would. How can anybody dispute that this would have an effect on the way the team plays, it's shape, its fluency, its method, it's cohesion? Ultimately, we will see I guess.

Resting players wasn't invented in the last three seasons, but the notion that you can make four and five changes each game while performing at a similar level was. It may have worked in Spain, but so did and does Fenando Morientes.

[LFC2007]

Mick, if no-one replies to your points, it's not because the points are valid, it's because they can't be arsed.

[Sabre]

Mick, if no-one replies to your points, it's not because the points are valid, it's because they can't be arsed.

Or they give up, I tried to answer his last questions thoroughly, but he's still waiting a sensitive answer. 




I'll rest this topic of discussion until the end of the season. I just hope not to read then the rotation done was sensible and that kind of bóllocks. I hope to see no antirotationist saying that it works because you replace quality with quality, and I hope to see no antirotationist saying he was never a antirotationist.

Grrrrrr. 

[gato_busta]

I really dont see where all the complaints about rotation are comming from. We have not lost any games so far this season (official ones that is) and tied 4 games although the Chelsea one was due to terrible ref decitions. That really leaves the games to Portsmouth, Porto and Birmingham which were three consecutive tied games. the line ups for those games were:

Against Portsmouth:                                     Against Porto:                                     Against Birmingham:
Pepe Reina                                                  Pepe Reina                                          Pepe Reina
Alvaro Arbeloa                                             Alvaro Arbeloa                                      John Arne Riise
Daniel Agger                                                Jamie Carragher                                   Jamie Carragher
Jamie Carragher ©                                      Sami Hyypia                                         Sami Hyypia
Steve Finnan                                               Steve Finnan                                       Alvaro Arbeloa
Yossi Benayoun                                            Ryan Babel                                          Ryan Babel
Xabi Alonso                                                 Steven Gerrard ©                                Steven Gerrard ©
Momo Sissoko                                              Javier Mascherano                                Javier Mascherano
Jermaine Pennant                                         Jermaine Pennant                                 Jermaine Pennant
Peter Crouch                                               Dirk Kuyt                                             Dirk Kuyt
Andriy Voronin                                             Fernando Torres                                   Andriy Voronin

The team against Portsmouth had Gerrard with a broken toe so that is one player that could not be used. Other than that, the team had its storngest players in each position with the possible exception of  Torres and some may argue that Babel should have played (Im not considering Masch as I dont think he would have changed the outcome of the game). Against Porto we fielded IMO our strongest team when Xabi is not around. Against Birmingham, without Xabi or Agger we had a very strong team out on the field, the only players that could have been chosen differently are Benayoun and Torres.

Its not as if were fielding 11 different players every game, and so far many of the changes were due to injuries. Against Reading we fielded 6 players who were not playing regularly and won, while against Porto we fielded our stongest team and tied. I dont blame Rotation for bad results, it is just due to bad luck. IMO people are just complaining because Torres doesn’t start every game. He won’t win every game for us, in fact he did not win the game for us this weekend, it was Benayoun who did. Does that mean he should start every game from now on? Who knows, probably someone will start topic on that soon.

[bigmick]

Fair enough Gato and some intersting points. Just a lil' tip though, in football (real football that is) if you score the same amount of goals as the other lot it's a "draw" not a "tie". Though you raise some very good points, and your actual team line-ups are helpful to the debate the counter-arguments to these particular points have been done to death so I won't go over them again now.

Suffice to say some of us are still waiting to see any evidence whatsoever that rotation on the scale which we practice it has had any positive effects on our achievements as a team. Once we see that, there will be of course no argument. "What kind of evidence do you expect to see?" I hear you ask. Well, if we could at the very least achieve a points total somewhere near what the team is capable of, then we would have a basis for discussion. As it is though, there is still no answer to the question about last season. Sabre said he did answer it but I can't recall. I'll read back and reply.

[bigmick]

ROTATION. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Was our squad good enough to challenge for the league?

We could have been closer to win it yes, IF we hadn't played the CL until the final stages

Our squad was good enough for that since the winter market. Mascherano is praised with impetus by many, as if he was here for ages, but he only came in winter. In September, we had Alonso off form, Gerrard still not at his best, and having played a world cup. We had some injuries, and we hadn't a Mascherano to play instead of Alonso.

Our squad yesteryear was like a short blanket. With a small blanket you must choose whether you cover your tits, or you cover the knees. IF we had the squad we eventually got in the winter market ALL the season, and IF we didn't play the champions league,  THEN our squad would have been good enough to compete for the league. Maybe not winning it, but yes compete.

Ok I've re-read itr and it's a good post. Full of glaring inaccuracies of course but a good post nontheless 

In answer to question b) was our squad good enough etc etc. I don't see to be perfectly honest that the latter stages of the CL were the reason we were out of the league by October. We were barely into the group stages before our silliness had rendered our league challenge null and void so I don't think that argument stands up. Clearly Mourinho had something of a point when he claimed that Liverpool had hardly had a competitive game since Christmas before they played us in the CL, and I'll concede that would have been advantageous to us, but the CL didn't put us out of the title race, we did that ourselves.

Equally it could be argued that in extra time Liverpool were dying on their feet while Chelsea seemingly got a second wind, just like in the final where against an ageing Milan team we looked tired out. Given this I would have thought that choosing to argue for the concept on the basis of the CL achievements is not the wisest choice but there you go.

Curiously I kind of agree with the thing about the short blanket thing. I certainly like the analogy anyhow. I would have thought though that if the squad lacks depth, the sensible thing to do would be not to expose that lack of depth by changing the team every game. I mean, if our reserve goalie is dodgy the best thing to do is to play Reina instead surely? If I may stick with the textile based analogies, if the blanket is too short then perhaps we should cut our cloth accordingly.

[LFC2007]

Mick, perhaps if you summarised your points and numbered them, it may clarify your position and make it easier for people to respond.

There are many different points you make, and in a roundabout way they have all been answered either in this thread or before in other threads.

[redtrader74]

I'm sure we were all puzzled with one or more of his selections over the last 2 weeks, but the results were down to many variables and we accept that. The reason why 2 'camps' spring up here is solely down to those that believe all losses, draws and poor performances are solely because of rotation, without any evidence. Its all down to Rafa pulling names out of a hat....

In the good old days of Evans and even Houllier when we hardly rotated (and degenerated into a sh!t side) what reasons did we all find for losses and draws then? Was there a mental capacity to find a reason beyond what lazy tabloids tell us? 

Hmmm. I think I can see a new "you can't play the same team in every single game" mantra coming here because a few of the "pro's" have started to dredge this one up of rotation being the SOLE reason for losing a game. Lets put this silliness to bed here and now.

If anybody can be bothered to read back, (and I don't blame you if you can't) I've said on numerous occasions that rotation isn't a reason by itself to lose football matches. I even alluded to the fact in a post one page back from this one that we had selectorial silliness against Sunderland and yet still produced a decent performance and the three points. Of course you don't lose "simply because of rotation", but as I've always maintained, if you chop and change the team every week you will have an effect on the fluency and cohesion of the team. If I had one of those highlighter pens, I'd go over that last sentence. I haven't, so I'll do this.

If you chop and change the team every week you will have an effect on the fluency and cohesion of the team. Now I ask the "pro's", how can you possibly dispute that and keep a straight face?

Anyways I'm off into work now, but I am hooked up there and please don't all feck off like you did yesterday. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear a sensible answer to the "how good were we" question. It seems to be a concensus that we were a bit unlucky, we hit the post a few times otherwise we'd have been a lot closer    I'm expecting a bit better.

And since in the second bit of Red's post he seems to be implying that my resistance to the mass rotation we employ* is fuelled by a tabloid devotion I'' ask this. If rotation has nothing to do with indifferent performances now, how come the lack of it during the Evans/Houllier era (which is actually factually incorrect as Evans rotated a little, Houllier quite a bit and even Kenny Dalglish used to rotate the team on occasion. Rest wasn't infact invented during the last three years contrary to popular myth) contributed to our demise?

I ask again, how good were we last season, and did the rotation on the scale which we employed help or hinder us in our quest for points?

Last couple of things. Bob, even though we played decent teams in the Everton/Bolton matches, it was of course our farcical selections in the Macabi Haifa home game and Sheffield United Away games which derailed us to a point which we never recovered. As we are now seeing, once you have a team which is underperforming, it's not just a question of sticking your best eleven out and you're suddenly back to square one. It's a bit more complicated than that, even I know that. I didn't even learn it in the tabloids either.

I think i might just give Mick something to do in his coffee break!

Maybe i should have been a little clearer the post critique was not directed solely at you Mick, infact you have advocated tinkering (thread re:Birmingham), but more on the response after the Brum game where almost exclusively the blame for the draw was laid at Rafas use of rotation, basically not selecting Torres. Therefore if you don't blame rotation for the root cause of all evil including the black death, then you are a 'pro-rotationalist', 'happy clappy' 'red spec wearer'.

You speak about chopping and changing affecting cohesion etc.etc., Quite possibly, if you can identify which of Rafas selections have been disrupted, they change all the time, they're isn't a best side. It may just be that Rafa is willing to off-set a certain amount of disruption to have fitter (mentally and physically) players.

It is coming across as though you believe the players only turn up on Saturday at 2pm and fck off after the game not to meet until an hour before the next game. They play, train, socialise all week, most have known each other for a year and more, so know how each other play.

In fact Torres and Benayoun do not seem to have affected cohesion after 'disrupting' the side and being picked to play as new boys. So i'm not willing to accept it is down to rotation that the players found it difficult to pass any further than 10 yards against Pompey and Brum.

Maybe i should say this clearly, i have never said, and neither have i read it, that poor team selection ( or rotation if you like) has nothing to do with poor performance, my gripe is that it seems to be (in general, not always you!) the only reason spouted for a bad result. Infact the players rubbish performances have come in for little stick....but i guess they were rubbish because of rotation , and here we are back at square ONE, i'm all rotationed out.