Liverpool FC Forum

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:52 pm

stmichael wrote: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.

I've posted up all the rotation stats on page 28 of the thread, mate.

A quick glance shows:

Five 'unforced' changes from Toulouse to Derby
Nine 'unforced' changes from Birmingham to Reading
Four 'unforced' changes from Blackburn to Besiktas (at Anfield)

I'll let you have a look and pick the matches were you think we made few changes and played atrociously.

by **Fowler_E7** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:16 pm

s@int wrote:Its more about getting the balance of the side right, and getting your best players and matchwinners on the pitch than rotation.

100% agree with this point. As far as im concerned Rafa can change the entire starting 11 and formation every match as long as the right balance and players are used for that formation.

For example i didnt agree with him playing Babel and Benayoun together as wingers the other night as they both naturally drift into the centre of the pitch and congest things, one of them should have been left out in favour of kewell or another natural winger.

For me rotation makes no diffrence to the team that plays the match, i mean these players play football with each other nearly everyday for 10 months of the year! its all about getting the correct balance in the team and trying to get the best players on the pitch when possible.

by **mart** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:30 pm

Fowler_E7 wrote:
s@int wrote:For example i didnt agree with him playing Babel and Benayoun together as wingers the other night as they both naturally drift into the centre of the pitch and congest things, one of them should have been left out in favour of kewell or another natural winger.

As i see it thats one of the problems Liverpool has. The lack of natural wingers. I can easily see Babel becoming a natural winger, but will need time. The only natural wingers in the team atm is Pennant (injured) and Kewell (almost injured). With Kewells history i think Rafa is matching him carefully so he might stay fit for a while.

Pennant is mediocre but at least he stays out on the wing.

by **bigmick** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:09 pm

stmichael wrote: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.

You're quite a difficult guy to disagree with Mick because your stance tends to radically alter dependent on whose post you are quoting at the time.

Taking this post though as it is, when you said "we heard nothing about it the first five or six games" it's simply a factually incorrect statement. On the forum there was a very long thread, "To be honest I'm starting to get a little worried", give that a read through. You probably contributed to it at some point.

The draw at Pompey wasn't "all about rotation". The draw at pompey lets be honest was about a lot of luck on the day, we should have lost the game based on what went on. Our performance wasn't "all about rotation" either, but it didn't help. the fact we didn't score a goal in that game or the next League game against Birmingham, wasn't only because Torres didn't play, but it made that outcome more likely I would venture. "But he did play against Porto in midweek and we didn't score there either!". Yes, I know. can I just say once and for all, I do know that if you play your best players it doesn't make winning the game a certainty, it just makes it more likely.

You're also quite right that we had two wins against Reading and wigan (I can't believe I'm arguing this point but there you go :no

) after making lots of changes. Bob's even stuck Derby into the equation. If we draw Scarborough at Home in the third round of the FA Cup, will the pro-rotationers put that into the equation as well

Feck me do me a favour. Reading put half a side out in the Carling Cup (we didn't, we played Torres :eyebrow

), and we were more than a tad fortunate to beat Wigan. Derby I'll grant you, we changed the team, played very well and won comfortably. I think if you refer back to the aforementioned thread you'll see most of us predicted that (it was hardly a surprise lets face it).

The paragraph about the "it doesn't matter if you pick the same eleven every week or make five changes" is a strange one. I don't know what to say really, you got me.

As for the ten game winning run and nobdoy mentioning rotation, well I thought you knew me better than that mate

We're actually in the middle of a good run now while still rotating (I can actually make the case for the rotationers better than they can sometimes

) and I'm still going on about it.

Rather than constantly mis-representing what anti-rotationers say, why aren't the pro's asking sensible questions about our current run? We are rotating and winning? Why do we get this old nonsense about "but you can't play the same team in every single game" or "So are you saying if Torres played then we definately would have won?". Why aren't they talking about the late goals we keep scoring? Why aren't they highlighting and banging on about our defensive record despite rotating the full-backs? So defensive have people become about their own stance and the possibility that after another season of rotation Rafa-style that we will be again double digit points behind the Champions, that they have lost sight of what the debate is about.

Bob still makes sense, but even sabre's lost it. what on earth is that post about Manchester United all about Sabes? Not your best effort that one mate. Jeez we win a game without changing the team and I'm the first one on here, telling everyone that it would take at least three or four games of settled teams to make a difference. Don't put the win down to the same team being picked. We win after rotating the whole midfield (despite it looking decidedly rocky for a while) and suddenly it's because we rotated. Suddenly we played well at wigan, suddenly we were jumping around like gazelles and collecting more points than anybody else at the end of last season. Feck me.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:42 pm

The mancs lost because their main goalscorers and game breakers Rooney(9) and Ronaldo(11) didn't play. Just as when Torres(10) and Gerrard(8) don't play we have trouble scoring. Sod all to do with rotation. Saha has scored 2 goals for them this season (makes even Kuyt look prolific

)

We have failed to score in only 3 league games (guess who didn't start in any of them ?)I will give you a clue........ TORRES.

by **Sabre** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:31 pm

My point of Manchester United is simple, they do not rotate as we do, they keep that policy through out the season, and at this point of the season according to the non-rotationist we should see a superiority against a rotating team, if not making changes is so bloody important, isn't it fair to ask where the effects of cohesion are if we beat them?

My post wasn't an argumentative one but one that wished to receive Manchester at Anfield, btw, some sort of "bring them on" rather than a "this is the definite proof".

IMHO, S@int is spot on in a previous post, we're discussing too much about this when probably it's not the key factor of our success and our problems. We simply disagree on the extent of influence rotation has in individual games. IMHO when the rotations are quality this effect is minimal (and IMHO even positive), and you think instead that it's important enough to hinder us for winning a title in England.

If we were preparing to climb a mountain, and measuring what weight we will carry in our bags, talking about rotation would be like considering the weight of your shirt, that weight would be unimportant compared to the equipment you bring.

I have admitted that other years we played weak teams under some rotations in some league games, and that costed us points, but that was up to a not too deep squad.

For the record, I'm not one of those who think your stance is unconsistent. The only thing I detect is you have lost some patience with Rafa. In the past you talked about asking serious questions if we fail to challenge for the title, and now you advocate more strongly for Rafa leaving (if we fail blatantly). Which is nice, and logical, because in the past you also said that you believed Rafa would change the methods, which he hasn't, so it's only natural that you start to be tired of something you don't believe it will bring Liverpool the title.

We disagree on this, but what the fúck? I know you'll be the first celebrating in case you're wrong.

P.S. I saw the Sevilla - Arsenal. Even with a team full of subs, Arsenal did a decent football. Fabregas asked Wenger not to rest him for emotional reasons, he had never played in that stadium (an historic one here), and he ended up the game injured, and they said that this wednesday would be known better if he's doubt for the next league game. The need of this rests is a proof that an excess of continuous games put players in muscular injury danger, and this danger is even more evident at the end of the season (this is opinion of doctors in spor medicine, not me).

Rotation seeks to avoid this while you still play strong teams. You think though that it hinders the football in the long term, and that the advantages in avoiding injuries is not that evident.

Who's right? again, we'll talk at the end of the season, and I'll eat humble pie aswell if necessary. Not as happily as with Torres, who is making me happy now he's proving me wrong (and many people wrong), but I'll eat the humble pie anyway.

by **roberto green** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:42 pm

who can honestly say rotation hasn't worked this season ok no one likes it but come the end of the season and if liverpool win the league will anyne really care,

i bet there wouldn't be a thread saying rotation works.you look at the back end of the season last season and man u had a lot of players who were injured because they were playing week in week out.

I do believe if you have enough good players in the squad you should rotate to keep everyone fresh.

I think we will be ok as long as we keep the spine of the team.

by **66-1112520797** » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:43 pm

rotation rotation rotation.
I'm an anti-rotational fan, but recently we've been picking up points when rotations being used. I still dont think its proved me wrong, but as we're winning I'm happy enough not to critise it.

Just when we lose then I'll blame everything on rotation :laugh:

moral to the story: Dont lose.

by **Bad Bob** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:10 am

bigmick wrote:Rather than constantly mis-representing what anti-rotationers say, why aren't the pro's asking sensible questions about our current run? We are rotating and winning? Why do we get this old nonsense about "but you can't play the same team in every single game" or "So are you saying if Torres played then we definately would have won?". Why aren't they talking about the late goals we keep scoring? Why aren't they highlighting and banging on about our defensive record despite rotating the full-backs? So defensive have people become about their own stance and the possibility that after another season of rotation Rafa-style that we will be again double digit points behind the Champions, that they have lost sight of what the debate is about.

This is an interesting point, mate. And, actually, I was going to post a theory the other day about rotation keeping us fresh through the hectic festive season, when the fixtures come fast and furious. We have always seemed to have a decent set of results throughout this period under Rafa so it seemed to be one area where rotation looked to be a boon to us. Of course, then I looked at how the Mancs have done in December over the last few years (quite well) and the whole thing fell apart.

(Of course, I didn't look to see how heavily they rotated in that time but lets assume that it was less than us).

I offer this by way of saying that, while I love our newfound ability to come up with late winners, I'm not definitively sure that it's down to rotation. After all, we've rotated for 3 years now and haven't enjoyed these late winners nearly as frequently as we have this season. My guess is that it has a lot more to do with having that bloke Torres to turn to in a pinch now.

I do think the defensive solidity we show despite rotating fullbacks this season (and CBs in season's past) does suggest that the tactic can work. But, I'm not one to say that rotation is the reason why we play so well defensively.

And there's the difference between the two brigades, IMO. Whereas anti-rotationers think that rotation is one of the primary reasons for poor results, pro-rotationers see it as merely one of a number of factors. On the other side of the coin, very few of us pro-types see rotation as the exclusive or even main basis for any success we've had. At most, I think a lot of us think it has a potentially mild positive effect during heavy periods of the schedule or during the run-in. For most of us, I suspect, both bad and good results are the product of many, many factors--one of which being rotation.

Put frankly, I'm not convinced that rotation has ever won or lost us a game in and of itself--nor do I think it has been the major factor behind any particular result. It's no doubt contributed to any result we've had under Rafa but to what degree in proportion to other salient factors I'll never know. So, my aim in these debates--besides working out my own views and having some fun with fellow footy fans--is not to champion rotation per se. Rather, it is to temper the all-the-eggs-in-one-basket approach of the anti-rotationists. What that means is that I'll often have much more to say in questioning the rotational explanation for a bad result than in offering a rotational explanation myself for a good result.

by **Sabre** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:20 am

Next time I'll wait until you post. It's frustrating to be thinking minutes how to say something in a language you don't master only to read exactly your point perfectly put afterwards :veryangry

pro-rotationers see it as merely one of a number of factors. On the other side of the coin, very few of us pro-types see rotation as the exclusive or even main basis for any success we've had. At most, I think a lot of us think it has a potentially mild positive effect during heavy periods of the schedule or during the run-in. For most of us, I suspect, both bad and good results are the product of many, many factors--one of which being rotation.

I second this.

by **redtrader74** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:53 am

Bad Bob wrote:
bigmick wrote:Rather than constantly mis-representing what anti-rotationers say, why aren't the pro's asking sensible questions about our current run? We are rotating and winning? Why do we get this old nonsense about "but you can't play the same team in every single game" or "So are you saying if Torres played then we definately would have won?". Why aren't they talking about the late goals we keep scoring? Why aren't they highlighting and banging on about our defensive record despite rotating the full-backs? So defensive have people become about their own stance and the possibility that after another season of rotation Rafa-style that we will be again double digit points behind the Champions, that they have lost sight of what the debate is about.

This is an interesting point, mate. And, actually, I was going to post a theory the other day about rotation keeping us fresh through the hectic festive season, when the fixtures come fast and furious. We have always seemed to have a decent set of results throughout this period under Rafa so it seemed to be one area where rotation looked to be a boon to us. Of course, then I looked at how the Mancs have done in December over the last few years (quite well) and the whole thing fell apart. (Of course, I didn't look to see how heavily they rotated in that time but lets assume that it was less than us).

I offer this by way of saying that, while I love our newfound ability to come up with late winners, I'm not definitively sure that it's down to rotation. After all, we've rotated for 3 years now and haven't enjoyed these late winners nearly as frequently as we have this season. My guess is that it has a lot more to do with having that bloke Torres to turn to in a pinch now.

I do think the defensive solidity we show despite rotating fullbacks this season (and CBs in season's past) does suggest that the tactic can work. But, I'm not one to say that rotation is the reason why we play so well defensively.

And there's the difference between the two brigades, IMO. Whereas anti-rotationers think that rotation is one of the primary reasons for poor results, pro-rotationers see it as merely one of a number of factors. On the other side of the coin, very few of us pro-types see rotation as the exclusive or even main basis for any success we've had. At most, I think a lot of us think it has a potentially mild positive effect during heavy periods of the schedule or during the run-in. For most of us, I suspect, both bad and good results are the product of many, many factors--one of which being rotation.

Put frankly, I'm not convinced that rotation has ever won or lost us a game in and of itself--nor do I think it has been the major factor behind any particular result. It's no doubt contributed to any result we've had under Rafa but to what degree in proportion to other salient factors I'll never know. So, my aim in these debates--besides working out my own views and having some fun with fellow footy fans--is not to champion rotation per se. Rather, it is to temper the all-the-eggs-in-one-basket approach of the anti-rotationists. What that means is that I'll often have much more to say in questioning the rotational explanation for a bad result than in offering a rotational explanation myself for a good result.

Absolutely spot on :nod

That is essentially my stance on the subject. The manager believes in small details, infact he has an OCD about small details and he obviously believes that rotation will offer us a small advantage when we PLAY teams that do not. The anti camp all come alive should we have a poor result, the boards are full of blaming Rafa and his 'Fcking about' 'Selectorial silliness' etc etc. When you then defend it, or offer other reasons why the result went against us, you are apparently a pro-rotationist, and therefore obviously believe that all good results are because of rotation.

The fact is that nobody can ever prove that had we gone for a non-rotation policy that results would have been better. Nobody.

The old chesnut of why don't all the other managers rotate if it is so beneficial, is another poor argument, because its all about degrees of rotation, for example Wenger rarely seems to use it, except in the Cups, Ferguson does rotate (even his better players, i specifically remember Rooney and Ronaldo not starting away to Everton in the run in last year), Chelsea rotated too, but rarely their key players. Most of the rest rarely seem to rotate, but then they usually don't have the depth in the squad to do it.

All managers manage their own way, for example Arsenal fans could complain that this expansive attacking football is not paying dividends over the last 3 years, and that they have never won a European trophy under Wenger, would they then be right in saying we should copy Chelsea or Liverpools methods? And that if this kind of football was right why are the rest of the teams not playing it?

Mick your point after every win this season, has been along the lines that 'well we'd have beaten this lot if i was in goal' 'Or if Leon was in defence' (Maybe he's great in the air :;):

), do you really think that it is that easy to win games? Fro example Bolton have two strikers that in their time have sold for £22m, and £11m, most of the teams have players to a similar value of our most expensive before Torres, they are not mugs, they all have internationals in their sides. By using your logic the other top teams that rotate less than us should never lose to the also rans, and we know that doesn't happen. There are many things that need to be addressed to counteract the opposition to create a victory, and to simply state that rotation is the overriding factor in our poor results is far too simplistic.

So far this season we are unbeaten in the league, have the best defensive record inspite of the rotation (how the hell have we managed to be cohesive, fluid and succesful in defence with all Rafas 'messing about'?), are still in all the competitions, IMO a good start, i won't be so simplistic to say that its down to rotation, although the temptation is there with all the anti rhetoric that follows a bad result.

I would say that if we pick the right BLEND of players for each game, albeit with changes from the previous game, with the squad we have, we should get very close indeed.

by **JohnBull** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:20 am

Our defensive display is thanks to us having largely similar players in those positions. Our CBs are all much the same and when Aggers back I do not think anyone would suggest rotating him.

The weakness of rotation is where a player is replaced by a lesser or totally different type of player. When we hit a winning streak or even a good performance if we cannot replace the "rested" player with similar type of player then it is "start all over again".

The rotation system is being carried by results made by the usual suspects. Players who can score or make goals being brought on as subs. For the life of me I cannot see why they were not starting in the first place. These are top class sportsmen who want to play but are being given enforced rests and the last 15 minutes of some games.

If we had two sets of eleven players of similar ability and style then all well and good but we don't. Stick with the sides that look at ease with each other. They obviously know when the games right you can see it on the pitch.

This is an argument that will never end.

by **bigmick** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:44 am

Yeah we seemingly can't get over this idea of rotationalists not accepting the "primary reasons" for losing games, or "it being one of a number of factors". Of course there are thousands of factors which come into play every game, and the difference between a great team and a terrible one will be in single digit percentage points in all disciplines during a match. Of course rotation isn't the only reason games are lost, in may cases it wouldn't even be the primary reason (except in obvious cases like where you play away at Pompey and decide not to play your two best players). But to accept the mantra that tiny details are important, and then decide to change the whole of the midfield quartet from one game to the next is somewhat contradictory in my opinion.

That aside though there are some sensible points. I like the one about the full-backs constantly rotating and yet we are still defensively solid, (even if I had to prompt the pro camp a touch, I've been waiting for that particular point for a couple of weeks now). The reason is not that we are playing rubbish teams who Leon could play in goal against (and really Red, to suggest I've said that after every win this season is not one of your better arguments, perhaps you forgot the smiley there). No I think there are two main reasons, the first of which is zonal marking. By nature and if employed properly one of the things it has in it's favour is its interchangeability. That is to say there shouldn't be too much variation to how you do your job when defending set-pieces regardless of whether you are playing alongside Hyppia, Carragher or whoever else. Rafa will have his system as to where the full backs defend, which zones they pick up etc etc and it shouldn't really alter regardless of who plays. This obviously helps with defensive solidity, as does the discipline shown by our holding midfielder (over this particular run it's been Masherano). The only other top team (and it's pointless comparing us with Aston Villa or somebody similar) who sit a holding midfielder so deep and keep him there are Chelsea, although under Grant they are becoming more exoansive. In his halcyon days, Makaleli was the best in the World at it, and they didn't concede that many then either. It can and does compromise you going forward sometimes, but it definately makes you more solid. Also it's probably fair to say that we don't commit as many players into the box as any of the other big four teams, particularly when Hyppia plays instead of Agger so this would be a factor as well.

In short, we aren't defending well because of rotation, but the fact that we can still defend well despite it is testimony to Rafa's undoubted excellence as a coach, and of the systems which we employ. It's definately an interesting one though and I'm glad I brought it up

Just as an aside. Seeing as I'm now largely arguing the pro-rotationers points as well, I'm kind of talking to myself here so I'm obviously gradually fecking mad

by **redtrader74** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:08 am

But to accept the mantra that tiny details are important, and then decide to change the whole of the midfield quartet from one game to the next is somewhat contradictory in my opinion.

Not if the manager believes that this complement of players will serve us better than the previous four. He obviously felt that playing that particular set would more likely get us the result.

Defences still play as a group, especially with regard to the offside line, regardless of zonal or man to man marking. I would not consider that zonal marking would allow changes in personnel to be less 'disruptive' than conventional defending. The fact is that during a period of rotation we have currently the best defence in the league, i'm not saying its because of rotation, but it would seem at first glance that rotation has not hindered it.

and really Red, to suggest I've said that after every win this season is not one of your better arguments, perhaps you forgot the smiley there

sorry Mick but as i remember it, you have either said or intimated the good results would have been achieved whatever side we put out.....maybe you're coming round to the idea of rotation

particularly when Hyppia plays instead of Agger so this would be a factor as well.

so we are defending better because we have a weak link in our defence? and still managing to get forward enough to score 17 goals in our last four matches?

I'd like to hazard a guess that having been rotated so much, the players have now learnt, and will continue to learn how to play in real match situations with any one of their colleagues, in fact they may just have been rotated in cohesion :idea

by **Bad Bob** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:26 am

bigmick wrote:But to accept the mantra that tiny details are important, and then decide to change the whole of the midfield quartet from one game to the next is somewhat contradictory in my opinion.

RedTrader's already addressed your point about zonal marking quite nicely so I'll just respond to this bit, mate.

As I've said a couple of times now, the midfield against Newcastle was the anomaly and the changes made for the Porto match were the resumption of normal service. The Newcastle match was an experiment borne out of the exertions and lack of preparation associated with the international break...exacerbated by ongoing injuries to Alonso, Pennant and, to a lesser extent, Benayoun. Moreover, given that Mascherano had once again just flown back from South America, Rafa opted to give him a rest. That left Rafa Gerrard, Sissoko, Lucas, Kewell and Babel to choose from. Now, personally, I would have opted for the more orthodox midfield of Babel, Gerrard, Lucas and Kewell but, feck it, Rafa's never shy to experiment when we play Newcastle and he opted to roll the dice again. And, the result shows that the gamble paid off.

Now, does that mean that he should have stuck to the same midfield for an absolutely vital Champions League tie--a match his job is palpably riding on--against a technically gifted team full of tricky forwards and wide men? Does it feck--we'd have been eaten alive if we played that Newcastle line-up against Porto.

Now, Mick, I hear you saying 'but, all four changes?' On that, we probably agree because I would have liked to see Kewell on from the start against Porto. On the other hand, he had just made his first start for us in 18 months and had only just managed a full 90 minutes the week before. No use putting the man of glass under undue strain so soon after his comeback or we wouldn't see him again until 2009 (or, more likely, his "delighted to be here" press conference at Craven Cottage or Fratton Park). And, I've already gone into a great deal of detail as to why I think it would have been, shall we say, tactically naive to play Gerrard at RM in this game--either he'd leave the right flank woefully exposed or he'd contribute little to our attack.

So, yes, in the circumstances, I can understand why Rafa swapped around his whole midfield. As it happened, it worked--or at least didn't cost us the needed win so fair play to the man, I say.

Liverpool FC Forum

The rotation thread - All "R" talk in here please!

Who is online