Liverpool FC Forum

bigmick wrote:So there we go, sooner or later we were bound to play well and we did. Granted they were absolutely garbage but we absolutely hammered them.

Anybody who has any doubts about how sh!te we were playing recently however, would do well to remember they turned us over a couple of weeks back. We have been through a dark tunnel, but hopefully there is light at the end of it now and it isn't just somebody with a Woodbine.

So what is the chance? Well, given the run of games we have coming up, we have a real opportunity now at last to get something going. Anybody who didn't play tonight can hardly moan about not playing in the next game, everybody who did play did OK so lets turn the same team out in the next match. That's right, the same eleven that started this one.

Even the big guns can be benched if approaching fitness and can fight their way back into the team. This in my personal opinion is our last opportunity of this season to launch ourselves. We had something going earlier in the season but totally lost the plot, please please please lets not make the same mistakes again.

The same team next game. No restings, rotations, revolutions, re-jigs or re-hashes, just the same team. No 4-5-1's, 3-5-2's or anything similar. It's Fulham at Home I think so we'll win the game anyway. Bring your Kewell's and your Torres's on in the second half and if they uproot trees, start them in the following game. If they don't stick with this one. By the time Man Utd arrive at Anfield we need to be absolutely fizzing. With a settled team.

   

spot on

redtrader74 wrote:We rotated a lot from our last game, we won 8-0, looked fluid and cohesive, does that mean rotation can work or cannot?

very solid point. Under the typical anti-rotationalist thinking, it would require a side to have a whole run of games before it could develop such a level of cohesion.  And this was a pretty heavily rotated side. Arbeloa hadn't played much at all the last few weeks, and he played RIGHT BACK where he really hasn't played much this year. Aurelio had only played against Cardiff, Risse had played predominately at LB and was deployed in midfield, Voronin and Crouch up front together in a 442 hadn't happened in god knows when ( I am surprised they knew which end to attack    )

I see a lot of people on here say they don't mind a change here and there if someone has a dip in form, or injuries, but not "rotation for roation's sake"   Well if you are calling out for keeping the same XI even though you are admitting it probably is not our best XI players, wouldn't that be "not rotating for anti-rotation's sake?"

JoeTerp wrote:

redtrader74 wrote:We rotated a lot from our last game, we won 8-0, looked fluid and cohesive, does that mean rotation can work or cannot?

very solid point. Under the typical anti-rotationalist thinking, it would require a side to have a whole run of games before it could develop such a level of cohesion.  And this was a pretty heavily rotated side. Arbeloa hadn't played much at all the last few weeks, and he played RIGHT BACK where he really hasn't played much this year. Aurelio had only played against Cardiff, Risse had played predominately at LB and was deployed in midfield, Voronin and Crouch up front together in a 442 hadn't happened in god knows when ( I am surprised they knew which end to attack    )

I see a lot of people on here say they don't mind a change here and there if someone has a dip in form, or injuries, but not "rotation for roation's sake"   Well if you are calling out for keeping the same XI even though you are admitting it probably is not our best XI players, wouldn't that be "not rotating for anti-rotation's sake?"

JoeTerp wrote:

redtrader74 wrote:We rotated a lot from our last game, we won 8-0, looked fluid and cohesive, does that mean rotation can work or cannot?

very solid point. Under the typical anti-rotationalist thinking, it would require a side to have a whole run of games before it could develop such a level of cohesion.  And this was a pretty heavily rotated side. Arbeloa hadn't played much at all the last few weeks, and he played RIGHT BACK where he really hasn't played much this year. Aurelio had only played against Cardiff, Risse had played predominately at LB and was deployed in midfield, Voronin and Crouch up front together in a 442 hadn't happened in god knows when ( I am surprised they knew which end to attack    )

I see a lot of people on here say they don't mind a change here and there if someone has a dip in form, or injuries, but not "rotation for roation's sake"   Well if you are calling out for keeping the same XI even though you are admitting it probably is not our best XI players, wouldn't that be "not rotating for anti-rotation's sake?"

Sabre wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:

redtrader74 wrote:We rotated a lot from our last game, we won 8-0, looked fluid and cohesive, does that mean rotation can work or cannot?

very solid point. Under the typical anti-rotationalist thinking, it would require a side to have a whole run of games before it could develop such a level of cohesion.  And this was a pretty heavily rotated side. Arbeloa hadn't played much at all the last few weeks, and he played RIGHT BACK where he really hasn't played much this year. Aurelio had only played against Cardiff, Risse had played predominately at LB and was deployed in midfield, Voronin and Crouch up front together in a 442 hadn't happened in god knows when ( I am surprised they knew which end to attack    )

I see a lot of people on here say they don't mind a change here and there if someone has a dip in form, or injuries, but not "rotation for roation's sake"   Well if you are calling out for keeping the same XI even though you are admitting it probably is not our best XI players, wouldn't that be "not rotating for anti-rotation's sake?"

The fact Joe is that as a core rotationalist, I wouldn't use the 8-0 victory of yesterday to prove my point. Rather, when we win the league it will be the time to say 38 games, 230 changes, 19 teams below us in the table. But yes, the fact still remains there, heavily rotated but they didn't play as strangers.

One game doesn't prove the validity of rotation, the point I'm tired to insist on is that a draw and a defeat doesn't prove rotation is not valid neither. Because there are other factors, such as injuries or confidence, that will be FAR MORE IMPORTANT than rotation policy.

If you can ask Crouch to adapt to be a classical counter attack player, which he naturally isn't, then you surely can ask him to adapt to play with 3 different mates if the game require it? I think yes, what about you?

JoeTerp wrote:

Sabre wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:

redtrader74 wrote:We rotated a lot from our last game, we won 8-0, looked fluid and cohesive, does that mean rotation can work or cannot?

very solid point. Under the typical anti-rotationalist thinking, it would require a side to have a whole run of games before it could develop such a level of cohesion.  And this was a pretty heavily rotated side. Arbeloa hadn't played much at all the last few weeks, and he played RIGHT BACK where he really hasn't played much this year. Aurelio had only played against Cardiff, Risse had played predominately at LB and was deployed in midfield, Voronin and Crouch up front together in a 442 hadn't happened in god knows when ( I am surprised they knew which end to attack    )

I see a lot of people on here say they don't mind a change here and there if someone has a dip in form, or injuries, but not "rotation for roation's sake"   Well if you are calling out for keeping the same XI even though you are admitting it probably is not our best XI players, wouldn't that be "not rotating for anti-rotation's sake?"

The fact Joe is that as a core rotationalist, I wouldn't use the 8-0 victory of yesterday to prove my point. Rather, when we win the league it will be the time to say 38 games, 230 changes, 19 teams below us in the table. But yes, the fact still remains there, heavily rotated but they didn't play as strangers.

One game doesn't prove the validity of rotation, the point I'm tired to insist on is that a draw and a defeat doesn't prove rotation is not valid neither. Because there are other factors, such as injuries or confidence, that will be FAR MORE IMPORTANT than rotation policy.

If you can ask Crouch to adapt to be a classical counter attack player, which he naturally isn't, then you surely can ask him to adapt to play with 3 different mates if the game require it? I think yes, what about you?

I am aware that one game cannot prove a point either way, I am just giving the anti-rotationalists a taste of their own medicine.

JoeTerp wrote:

Sabre wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:

redtrader74 wrote:We rotated a lot from our last game, we won 8-0, looked fluid and cohesive, does that mean rotation can work or cannot?

very solid point. Under the typical anti-rotationalist thinking, it would require a side to have a whole run of games before it could develop such a level of cohesion.  And this was a pretty heavily rotated side. Arbeloa hadn't played much at all the last few weeks, and he played RIGHT BACK where he really hasn't played much this year. Aurelio had only played against Cardiff, Risse had played predominately at LB and was deployed in midfield, Voronin and Crouch up front together in a 442 hadn't happened in god knows when ( I am surprised they knew which end to attack    )

I see a lot of people on here say they don't mind a change here and there if someone has a dip in form, or injuries, but not "rotation for roation's sake"   Well if you are calling out for keeping the same XI even though you are admitting it probably is not our best XI players, wouldn't that be "not rotating for anti-rotation's sake?"

The fact Joe is that as a core rotationalist, I wouldn't use the 8-0 victory of yesterday to prove my point. Rather, when we win the league it will be the time to say 38 games, 230 changes, 19 teams below us in the table. But yes, the fact still remains there, heavily rotated but they didn't play as strangers.

One game doesn't prove the validity of rotation, the point I'm tired to insist on is that a draw and a defeat doesn't prove rotation is not valid neither. Because there are other factors, such as injuries or confidence, that will be FAR MORE IMPORTANT than rotation policy.

If you can ask Crouch to adapt to be a classical counter attack player, which he naturally isn't, then you surely can ask him to adapt to play with 3 different mates if the game require it? I think yes, what about you?

I am aware that one game cannot prove a point either way, I am just giving the anti-rotationalists a taste of their own medicine.

jonnymac1979 wrote:

Toffeehater wrote:i rmb early in the season when kewell was set to come back many of u guyz nt saying u fowler , many of u guys were not even giving him a chance and saying that is there a cup final? and this adn that majority of u 1 him in ur teams??? Next time keep the negativity to urself and wait till he has shown u what he can do .... u're bunch of hypocrites ...

What's that? 

That was just a noise...

Sabre wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:

redtrader74 wrote:We rotated a lot from our last game, we won 8-0, looked fluid and cohesive, does that mean rotation can work or cannot?

very solid point. Under the typical anti-rotationalist thinking, it would require a side to have a whole run of games before it could develop such a level of cohesion.  And this was a pretty heavily rotated side. Arbeloa hadn't played much at all the last few weeks, and he played RIGHT BACK where he really hasn't played much this year. Aurelio had only played against Cardiff, Risse had played predominately at LB and was deployed in midfield, Voronin and Crouch up front together in a 442 hadn't happened in god knows when ( I am surprised they knew which end to attack    )

I see a lot of people on here say they don't mind a change here and there if someone has a dip in form, or injuries, but not "rotation for roation's sake"   Well if you are calling out for keeping the same XI even though you are admitting it probably is not our best XI players, wouldn't that be "not rotating for anti-rotation's sake?"

The fact Joe is that as a core rotationalist, I wouldn't use the 8-0 victory of yesterday to prove my point. Rather, when we win the league it will be the time to say 38 games, 230 changes, 19 teams below us in the table. But yes, the fact still remains there, heavily rotated but they didn't play as strangers.

One game doesn't prove the validity of rotation, the point I'm tired to insist on is that a draw and a defeat doesn't prove rotation is not valid neither. Because there are other factors, such as injuries or confidence, that will be FAR MORE IMPORTANT than rotation policy.

If you can ask Crouch to adapt to be a classical counter attack player, which he naturally isn't, then you surely can ask him to adapt to play with 3 different mates if the game require it? I think yes, what about you?

Bamaga man wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:

Sabre wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:

redtrader74 wrote:We rotated a lot from our last game, we won 8-0, looked fluid and cohesive, does that mean rotation can work or cannot?

very solid point. Under the typical anti-rotationalist thinking, it would require a side to have a whole run of games before it could develop such a level of cohesion.  And this was a pretty heavily rotated side. Arbeloa hadn't played much at all the last few weeks, and he played RIGHT BACK where he really hasn't played much this year. Aurelio had only played against Cardiff, Risse had played predominately at LB and was deployed in midfield, Voronin and Crouch up front together in a 442 hadn't happened in god knows when ( I am surprised they knew which end to attack    )

I see a lot of people on here say they don't mind a change here and there if someone has a dip in form, or injuries, but not "rotation for roation's sake"   Well if you are calling out for keeping the same XI even though you are admitting it probably is not our best XI players, wouldn't that be "not rotating for anti-rotation's sake?"

The fact Joe is that as a core rotationalist, I wouldn't use the 8-0 victory of yesterday to prove my point. Rather, when we win the league it will be the time to say 38 games, 230 changes, 19 teams below us in the table. But yes, the fact still remains there, heavily rotated but they didn't play as strangers.

One game doesn't prove the validity of rotation, the point I'm tired to insist on is that a draw and a defeat doesn't prove rotation is not valid neither. Because there are other factors, such as injuries or confidence, that will be FAR MORE IMPORTANT than rotation policy.

If you can ask Crouch to adapt to be a classical counter attack player, which he naturally isn't, then you surely can ask him to adapt to play with 3 different mates if the game require it? I think yes, what about you?

I am aware that one game cannot prove a point either way, I am just giving the anti-rotationalists a taste of their own medicine.

Not swallowing it son.

better to swallow it than choke and DIE         

JoeTerp wrote:

Bamaga man wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:

Sabre wrote:

JoeTerp wrote:

redtrader74 wrote:We rotated a lot from our last game, we won 8-0, looked fluid and cohesive, does that mean rotation can work or cannot?

very solid point. Under the typical anti-rotationalist thinking, it would require a side to have a whole run of games before it could develop such a level of cohesion.  And this was a pretty heavily rotated side. Arbeloa hadn't played much at all the last few weeks, and he played RIGHT BACK where he really hasn't played much this year. Aurelio had only played against Cardiff, Risse had played predominately at LB and was deployed in midfield, Voronin and Crouch up front together in a 442 hadn't happened in god knows when ( I am surprised they knew which end to attack    )

I see a lot of people on here say they don't mind a change here and there if someone has a dip in form, or injuries, but not "rotation for roation's sake"   Well if you are calling out for keeping the same XI even though you are admitting it probably is not our best XI players, wouldn't that be "not rotating for anti-rotation's sake?"

The fact Joe is that as a core rotationalist, I wouldn't use the 8-0 victory of yesterday to prove my point. Rather, when we win the league it will be the time to say 38 games, 230 changes, 19 teams below us in the table. But yes, the fact still remains there, heavily rotated but they didn't play as strangers.

One game doesn't prove the validity of rotation, the point I'm tired to insist on is that a draw and a defeat doesn't prove rotation is not valid neither. Because there are other factors, such as injuries or confidence, that will be FAR MORE IMPORTANT than rotation policy.

If you can ask Crouch to adapt to be a classical counter attack player, which he naturally isn't, then you surely can ask him to adapt to play with 3 different mates if the game require it? I think yes, what about you?

I am aware that one game cannot prove a point either way, I am just giving the anti-rotationalists a taste of their own medicine.

Not swallowing it son.

better to swallow it than choke and DIE         

How about just spitting it out and treating it with the contempt it deserves.