Liverpool FC Forum

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:14 pm

NANNY RED wrote:pmsl Miick there even doing it in Hicks other team

http://mvn.com/mlb-rangers/2008/01/23/rotation-accumulation-station/

For those not familiar with baseball, "the rotation" is a long-standing term for the group of starting pitchers (think bowlers in cricket) each team uses. Since pitching a baseball causes tremendous strain on your arm, you can only pitch in a game effectively once every 5 days or so (I'd know, I used to be a pitcher). Since a Major League baseball team plays games virtually every day from April until October, this means that a team requires a "rotation" of 4-5 pitchers who can take it in turns to start each game. Of course, not all pitchers in the rotation are equally good or dependable. The best teams, though, often have a rotation with incredible quality, variety and depth. The best I've seen was the rotation for the Atlanta Braves in the early 1990s--all gems! The interesting thing is that monkeying with the rotation order causes problems because the arm just not recover fast enough if rushed (can lead to injuries and it usually leads to a terrible performance where the pitcher's "stuff" [pace, movement, placement of his pitches, etc.] is just not sharp at all). So, teams find it very hard to change the order of their rotation around to suit their schedule. Thus, if a title contending team were playing their chief rivals on Friday, Saturday and Sunday (a standard 3-game series) but their "ace" had pitched in his regular spot in the rotation on Thursday, he would miss out on the big games. Imagine having the use of Torres only once every four games and him missing the game at Old Trafford because his number was up to start against Derby the game before!

The only time you'll see top pitchers fast-tracked is during the playoffs/world series, where there are more off-days built into the schedule and where there is a whole off-season to recover afterwards. In playoffs, teams often go to a 3-man rotation and hope that adrenalin (or steroids :oops:

) can offset the lack of proper recovery time.

Not sure anyone wanted to know all that but there you go!

by **ste123lfc** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:24 pm

FACT. Manure have rotated their team more times this season than Liverpool, But no mention of that on Sky when they keep harping on about it. I didn't believe it myself at first but i was shown the facts and its true. :nod

by **NANNY RED** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:28 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:pmsl Miick there even doing it in Hicks other team

http://mvn.com/mlb-rangers/2008/01/23/rotation-accumulation-station/

For those not familiar with baseball, "the rotation" is a long-standing term for the group of starting pitchers (think bowlers in cricket) each team uses. Since pitching a baseball causes tremendous strain on your arm, you can only pitch in a game effectively once every 5 days or so (I'd know, I used to be a pitcher). Since a Major League baseball team plays games virtually every day from April until October, this means that a team requires a "rotation" of 4-5 pitchers who can take it in turns to start each game. Of course, not all pitchers in the rotation are equally good or dependable. The best teams, though, often have a rotation with incredible quality, variety and depth. The best I've seen was the rotation for the Atlanta Braves in the early 1990s--all gems! The interesting thing is that monkeying with the rotation order causes problems because the arm just not recover fast enough if rushed (can lead to injuries and it usually leads to a terrible performance where the pitcher's "stuff" [pace, movement, placement of his pitches, etc.] is just not sharp at all). So, teams find it very hard to change the order of their rotation around to suit their schedule. Thus, if a title contending team were playing their chief rivals on Friday, Saturday and Sunday (a standard 3-game series) but their "ace" had pitched in his regular spot in the rotation on Thursday, he would miss out on the big games. Imagine having the use of Torres only once every four games and him missing the game at Old Trafford because his number was up to start against Derby the game before!

The only time you'll see top pitchers fast-tracked is during the playoffs/world series, where there are more off-days built into the schedule and where there is a whole off-season to recover afterwards. In playoffs, teams often go to a 3-man rotation and hope that adrenalin (or steroids ) can offset the lack of proper recovery time.

Not sure anyone wanted to know all that but there you go!

LOL Bob imagine if Mick was a fan of theres hed be havin heart attacks and hes moanin about us

by **bigmick** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:25 am

I've long said that in my opinion it is impossible for a football team to challenge for the English Premier League whilst employing the methods that Rafa chooses to,

Hi Mick, in less than 1000 words

( sorry it was a light hearted dig), can you please explain why you believe this? Maybe i have missed an explaination previously, but i have read this often from you, but without reason.....not including 'we have not challenged for the league so far' what makes the EPL so unique? I know its a little off topic, so you can reply in the rotation thread IF you do.

I've actually explained my stance on this quite a few times, but doing so again is no problem and I'll do my best to be brief.

It is my opinion that the English Premier League requires many things of the team which wins it. The team that wins it needs goals and plenty of them from all over the team. They need a solid defence, an unswerving will to win no matter what the odds and they must be able to scrap for a result in the most trying of circumstances. They must be able to go on sustained winning runs, not just sustained unbeaten runs and they must be able to bounce back from inevitable occasional poor results with resolve and determination. They must have a collective team spirit and effort/intensity level which will overcome all, and they must be able to find a level of consistency which means they expect to win every game they take part in.

No arguments from anybody so far I wouldn't have thought. So what does Rafa do which doesn't allow this to happen often enough? Well I'll surprise nobody here when I say that Rafa's main fault in my opinion is that he rotates the team too much. How does this effect our ability to win matches? Well usually it doesn't. Such is the quality of player at our club that in most cases you can tinker with the line-up and you'll get away with it. You won't though ever reach that optimum level which some of our rivals consistently reach, simply because the players don't ever get chance to develop that fluency, cohesion, rhythm and team spirit which they would do in a more settled line-up or formation.

I think when you over-rotate you no longer have a team you have a group of players and at crucial moments, when you're playing one of your main rivals or when the cards fall against you, you are less likely to pull the rabbit out of the hat. I am absolutely convinced that if you change the team, the formation and the positions which players play in as often as we do, you significantly damge the teams capacity to gain the maximum number of points in the league.

As a follow on from that, and I'm cutting this bit a bit shorter 'cos i'm off for me dinner, the transfer policy reflects the rotation policy. We try too hard to build towo teams rather than building one very good one.

Anyways, as I'm typing I know I'm repeating myself so if anybody can be ersed to read through this thread they'll find numerous occasions where I've expained my opinions better.

by **redtrader74** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:40 am

Mick i probably didn't word my question well enough. I can find agreement in the weaknesses you believe rotation can cause to team, i don't agree to the degree of effect, and think the way we play might just mean our players are worked harder than teams that allow the ball to do the work, and therefore tire quicker.

My question was what makes the EPL so unique? all the points you mentioned could be addressed to any top European league, to win La Liga, Scudetta etc. you need lots of goals, good defences, winning runs and powers of recovery..nothing new there. My point is that IF Rafas methods worked in Spain, then why can't they work here?

by **bigmick** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:18 am

Ah sorry Red. Short answer is I don't know to be perfectly honest. I hardly ever used to watch any La Liga when I lived in England, and I never ever watch it now. Maybe it's something to do with the physical nature of the matches in England, or the pace the games are played at but I must confess I haven't the foggiest. I think it's fairly easy to see what's wrong with the system and the negative effects it has on the way we play, but exactly why those negative effects were not so negative if at all when applied overseas is certainly beyond me.

It's certainly the case that some things don't quite translate. Morientes for example was absolutely awful in a Liverpool shirt, whereas he was succesful in Spain before he came and by all acounts is still successful now. In his particular case, if you really looked you could see why he wasn't and wasn't going to be a hit (a little like Kuyt now) but unlike the Dutchman, the reason wasn't simply because his previous success had been in a relatively poor league. It's a mystery to me mate, I certainly don't have all the answers. I'm fairly certain I'm right in that it'll never ever work over here, and I'm fairly certain that my reasoning is sound. Why it did famously work for Rafa in Valencia though, sorry it's a pass from me

by **redtrader74** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:34 am

Players and systems can't really be compared IMO, Morientes failure was a failure in a LIverpool shirt, not neccessarily a failure in the Premier league, Shevchenko i'd gamble would score goals for MAn Utd and probably shed loads for Arsenal, players have many factors that would lead them to fail in another league such as language barriers, cultural differences, homesicknesses (Looks, Kuyt only!) none of which are even football related.

You said that you believe your reasoning is sound, but how can you be so sure when the methods HAVE worked in a equally competitive and skillful league? It seems your reasons are gut feelings rather than quantifiable ones, because the as i said the points you made are givens for any league and not exclusive to the EPL.

by **RedBlood** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:47 am

zzzzzzzzzzzzz boring:blues: :blues:

by **bigmick** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:01 am

redtrader74 wrote:You said that you believe your reasoning is sound, but how can you be so sure when the methods HAVE worked in a equally competitive and skillful league? It seems your reasons are gut feelings rather than quantifiable ones, because the as i said the points you made are givens for any league and not exclusive to the EPL.

Gut feelings? Possibly. The methods worked for Rafa in Spain where he won the title twice of that there's no argument, but equally there's no argument that they haven't so far worked in the league here (at least I don't think there is, not a sensible one anyway).

Whether La Liga is an equally competitive league is propably a thread on it's own, while I would imagine it's probably MORE skilful than our league to be perfectly honest but there will no doubt be differences as there is in all countries leagues. It's very difficult for me to get involved in an in depth discussion about La Liga though Red, as I've already said I know very little about it. I have been accused by soime before of claiming to have all the answers (I wonder who that could be :;):

) but I don't. I don't know why it worked in Spain, but I think I do know why it won't work over here. This will of course go round in circles as you'll now counter that all of my misgivings about the system also applied to Spain and it worked there, therefore it can't be said categorically that it won't work here either. I suppose I'll have to concede as the "Glen Roeder factor" applies, ie how do we know categoriacally that Glen wouldn't have been a better manager than Rafa? We don't. We can suppose we do on all sensible evidence, but in reality we can't scientifically check.

So what do we do? Do we say that it might one day work over here because five years ago it worked in a European League, and quite possibly still does to this day? Do we use that as irrefutable evidence, or do we believe our own eyes. Do we follow the methods that are succesful in this country and try and win the league as opposed to trying to prove a theory?

I stand by what I say. In my opinion, nobody will ever win the English Premier League whilst operating a "Rafa Style" type management. We can theorise all day long about the difference between "rotation", "bad selections", "changes to the formation" "forced changes", "unforced changes" and the like. The fact that it once worked for Rafa (well twice if you're counting) in Spain is lovely and makes the debate more interesting. Unfortunately though, it doesn't change my opinion that it'll never ever work over here one iota. If somebody someday, once, ever gets close to launching a title challenge employing the method, then maybe we have a debate. Lets face it though, it doesn't look look too likely anytime soon.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:04 am

redtrader74 wrote:Players and systems can't really be compared IMO, Morientes failure was a failure in a LIverpool shirt, not neccessarily a failure in the Premier league, Shevchenko i'd gamble would score goals for MAn Utd and probably shed loads for Arsenal, players have many factors that would lead them to fail in another league such as language barriers, cultural differences, homesicknesses (Looks, Kuyt only!) none of which are even football related.

You said that you believe your reasoning is sound, but how can you be so sure when the methods HAVE worked in a equally competitive and skillful league? It seems your reasons are gut feelings rather than quantifiable ones, because the as i said the points you made are givens for any league and not exclusive to the EPL.

What we can be sure of is that rotation hasn't worked over here up to now. Maybe its because Spain is hotter and a much bigger country. Heat, loss of hydration and tiredness from travel may all have a part to play in the differing success of rotation in Spain and over here.

I certainly don't lend the same amount of weight to the rotation theory as Bigmick, but I am quite willing to acknowledge that it plays some part in our lack of success.(I would believe anything before believe that Everton are almost our equals)

I however do not believe that if Rafa stopped rotation tomorrow, our fortunes would suddenly change and all our problems would be behind us. There is a lot more going wrong at the moment than stopping rotation would solve. What it would do would be to take one excuse off the list and maybe then we could examine some of the others that play an equal if not larger part in our problems.

by **bigmick** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:06 am

RedBlood wrote:zzzzzzzzzzzzz boring:blues:

I know, fancy people going on about rotation in the rotation thread FFS

by **bigmick** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:15 am

s@int wrote:I certainly don't lend the same amount of weight to the rotation theory as Bigmick,

I think that's a bit of an urban myth that saint to be honest. I don't by any means think it's our only problem, it's just a re-occuring blight on our aspirations. It makes it much more difficult to sort out our other problems (lack of cutting edge, lack of fluency, lack of rhythm, lack of confidence when defending a lead, inability to beat big teams in the league, inability to stop blips being bliiiiiips etc etc) than would otherwise be the case. Also, if we weren't so devoted to the idea then we might be a little more ruthless when putting a squad together, going for more quality rather than quantity, "possibilities" and "options".

Pick a front six and tell them their your first choice, and they're going to play the next four games regardless if they're fit and would you find fluency? I think you'd have a significantly better chance of finding it than we do now, and you'd have the added bonus of having a chance of keeping it once you've got it. As it is, we chop and change and the confidence ebbs away. It's all about putting the pieces in place which create a circumstance which gives the group of players the most chance of forming a good team. The way Rafa does it, doesn't do that.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:51 am

s@int wrote:
redtrader74 wrote:Players and systems can't really be compared IMO, Morientes failure was a failure in a LIverpool shirt, not neccessarily a failure in the Premier league, Shevchenko i'd gamble would score goals for MAn Utd and probably shed loads for Arsenal, players have many factors that would lead them to fail in another league such as language barriers, cultural differences, homesicknesses (Looks, Kuyt only!) none of which are even football related.

You said that you believe your reasoning is sound, but how can you be so sure when the methods HAVE worked in a equally competitive and skillful league? It seems your reasons are gut feelings rather than quantifiable ones, because the as i said the points you made are givens for any league and not exclusive to the EPL.

What we can be sure of is that rotation hasn't worked over here up to now.

Only to the extent that no club has won the EPL whilst operating a game-to-game player rotation policy to the same degree as Rafa (I'm assuming the stat's would show Rafa's numbers exceed others', no-one has ever actually provided the stat's and for that reason we can't quantify the exact extent to which Rafa's policy of player rotation exceeds our rivals, if indeed it does). I'm also assuming that the stat's would bear out that Rafa has made more more alterations to our formation and system than any other side. Since we don't actually have those detailed statistics you just can't gauge extent - which is absolutely key for me in this debate. How do you gauge exactly how far Rafa's policies differ from our rivals if you haven't the combined figures to quantify that extent? I can accept the assumption the he probably does make more alterations overall, but to what extent is the key - how can you come to such a forthwith judgement that Rafa's policies will never work if you can't gauge with quantitive and qualititive data, the degree to which his policies are out of touch with those who have won the league.

What's more INFURIATING for me however is, or rather was (Mick at least makes the distinction now, but he didn't used to - most still don't though), the categorisation of rotation. Funnily enough, at the beggining of the debate, formation change, system change, and player-position change were presumably lumped under the rotation banner, as we can now see. No distinction was made, and those who disagreed with the balance of the side but saw how ineffectual analysing the actual number of changes was, were simply labelled 'pro R's' by default without actually thinking of what that connotates, i.e. they didn't actually define rotation and say exactly what 'rotation' referred to. I always took it as the numerical data that showed how many players had been rotated from one game to another, or on how many occasions the side had incurred a personnel change. After all, that's exactly what the traditionalists used as evidence - e.g. Rafa rotating the side for 99 games in a row, well that surely must be the problem etc.

Actual player rotation in numerical terms is a very loose and shallow measure of the managerial policies Rafa employs, and for that reason I dismiss it as being pretty irrelevent on its own. The simple link between lack of EPL success over three seasons and Rafa's rotation policy (numbers of player rotated, or number of times the side has been changed) is a poor attempt at trying to link the seemingly obvious.

Of much greater significance in my view is formation change, system change and player-position change, in tandom with the actualy quality of the squad. Obviously they are all linked, a formation change might well incur a player change. A system change may well incur a change in player-position. The point being; these factors are of far greater significance to any stat that shows either; i) number of players rotated from one game to another, or ii)the number of times the team has been changed.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:01 am

bigmick wrote:
s@int wrote:I certainly don't lend the same amount of weight to the rotation theory as Bigmick,

I think that's a bit of an urban myth that saint to be honest. I don't by any means think it's our only problem, it's just a re-occuring blight on our aspirations. It makes it much more difficult to sort out our other problems (lack of cutting edge, lack of fluency, lack of rhythm, lack of confidence when defending a lead, inability to beat big teams in the league, inability to stop blips being bliiiiiips etc etc) than would otherwise be the case. Also, if we weren't so devoted to the idea then we might be a little more ruthless when putting a squad together, going for more quality rather than quantity, "possibilities" and "options".

Pick a front six and tell them their your first choice, and they're going to play the next four games regardless if they're fit and would you find fluency? I think you'd have a significantly better chance of finding it than we do now, and you'd have the added bonus of having a chance of keeping it once you've got it. As it is, we chop and change and the confidence ebbs away. It's all about putting the pieces in place which create a circumstance which gives the group of players the most chance of forming a good team. The way Rafa does it, doesn't do that.

It certainly wasn't meant as a dig at you mate, I was just trying to explain that IMHO rotation tends to distract us away from other important factors that play a part, while also giving a ready excuse for our poor play. We play well with 5 changes and its because (insert reason), we play badly with 5 changes and its down to rotation.

Sometimes we play bad for other reasons than rotation just as we play well for a variety of reasons.

I know that a lot of the reasons can be attributed somewhere along the line to rotation, but they can also be attributed to things that have nothing to do with rotation as well.

Kuyt......ffs if you have a striker that can't score and can't create you are going to struggle in a few games for goals.

Wingers.....I don't believe we have ever come to terms with the fact that our wingers just arn't good enough (Kewell possibly if he ever gets fit)

Strange formations....... I really am baffled why Rafa suddenly throws a new formation into the mix. It may confuse our opponents but it seems to confuse our team even more.

One thing that I think that does let us down more than our rivals is we are too nice a team when the going gets tough.

If you look at the mancs (especially when Keane was there)they play nice attractive football UNTIL THEY GO BEHIND. Then you see the other side of their game, they start leaving their foot in, tackles go flying in and they start to intimidate opponents. Yes they pick up a few bookings when this happens, but more often than not they pick up the points as well.

As I have said before maybe we have too many foreign players who perhaps prefer the more refined air of the CL, than the weekly grind of the premiership.

And yes Rotation does play a part too.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:09 am

bigmick wrote:I have been accused by soime before of claiming to have all the answers (I wonder who that could be ) but I don't.

Was not me.

Liverpool FC Forum

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

Who is online