Liverpool FC Forum

by **bigmick** » Tue May 13, 2008 10:51 am

kazza wrote:Bigmick, the catalyst for your "rotation theory" was when Raffa left out Torres and Gerrard for a EPL match which followed a CL match. The team he put out WAS good enough to beat the team we were playing (I can't remember who it was) but you went on about how Raffa could leave out Torres and the rotation thing was born (due to a lack of success on the field your opinion has since become more entrenched). I said to you at the time that you did not have all the facts as you did not know what happened in training. If I remember correctly Torres played with a bad ankle the end of the previous season and was indeed having trouble with it at the start of this season. Then Pako left and it all went pear shape.

I still maintain that the team Raffa put out should have done better and that we should have had twenty two players that were bursting at the seams to prove they deserve a shot in the team. For me rotation had nothing to do with us not winning the league, nothing at all. The reason we did not win the league is simply they have better players. Untill we can compete in the transfer market we will not do any better, with or without rotation. It seems strange you would still be going on about it.

I actually agree with you in some respects here Kazza, but not in others. Firstly if I could clear up a couple of things. When Rafa left Torres and Gerrard on the bench for the away game at Fratton park this season it was by no means the "catalyst" for my rotation theory. No doubt everybody wishes it was, but no I've been going on about rotation, Rafa-style and the like for four seasons. I think even if you asked those people who completely disagree with my opinion, think I'm an ersehole or whatever they'd confirm this, I can honestly say I've bored the whole forum into submission on the subject and it started long before Pompey away.

I do remember your "you don't know what's happened in training" thing and of course your right. I don't think any of us do really (although Lynds practically seemed to know most things which had happened at one time). Given that indesputeable fact though (the one about none of us knowing what happened in training) we are left with the choice on an internet forum of offering an opinion or not. My stance has always been despite being a cocktail barman or whatever else I do for a living, I'm as entitled to my view as anyone else. 'Course equally it's anybodies perogative who comes on here to then dismiss my or anybody elses opinion out of hand.

I did say at the time as well that as Torres and Gerrard both played for the last half hour or so and then played the full ninety minutes in midweek away to Porto, they clearly weren't "injured" in any normal sense that we're used to. Rafa did say afterwards as well his line about it being "important that players were kept fresh for the end of the season" so I don't think he was trying to pretend that people were injured and was happy to admit it was a rotation. It was probably the catalyst of the "delayed gazelle" theory, the idea that when a bloke is rested for an hour in October he stores it up on his mileometer then magically reproduces freshness in a match six months later. It was only because the whole notion is absolutely ridiculous (IMHO of course) and the fact that I was derided by some at the time for saying so which leads to mention it occasionally these days.

You might rememner a week after the Pompey game, we rested Torres again at home against Birmingham. The reasoning was in Rafa's words "because they defend very deep and Voronin is better at playing between the lines". I said at the time it was utter b0ll0cks. Needless to say i got the "wheres your coaching badges" and "Rafa wouldn't ask you how to do his plumbing" (which BTW is just as well because I wouldn't have the foggiest). Since then however some people have come round to the idea that perhaps it was b0ll0cks after all, which is nice. Doesn't mean that Rafa got his theory wrong, i wasn't saying that. I was merely saying that in my opinion the manager was playing a game with the press, and I'm still convinced he was.

I nearly forgot about the bit I agreed with you on. The bit when you said that the "reason we didn't win the league is because they had better players". So do I. I never actually siad that if we didn't rotate we would win the league either, but I would contest that we would have a better chance of launching a challenge if we rotated less. I did actually allude to this common misconception of the anti rotaters stance a couple of pages back and this is a good example of it.

As for two of the other teams with which we can't compete in the transfer market, I agree with you here as well. If we "will not do any better with or without rotation" until we can compete, then we might was well not bother because we are going to be "outmonied" for a long time yet I should think.

by **LFC2007** » Tue May 13, 2008 12:53 pm

The_Rock wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:No worries, I can handle urban myths

Another spam.....

if you have nothing better to do than to post smilies, "who, where, what, WTF" & "urban legends" then just Shut up !!!

Jesus.....how many threads have been ruined by your sh1t....

2) Is this how you always react to being exposed as a fickle tw@t?

2) Is this what you'd call 'stalking' me around the forum, the very same accusation you made against me?

In conclusion, FUCK OFF.

by **Toffeehater** » Tue May 13, 2008 6:24 pm

Simple question for saint , we don't know mourinho's true managing ability yet . He was at a team where money was no option , i'm sure if i put anyone in charge of chelsea , etc. avram grant , they would have done slightly worse then him. In conclusion , all i'm trying to say with all the sh!t rafa has taken , would mourinho have taken it and yet done a better job then rafa this season?

by **account deleted by request** » Tue May 13, 2008 9:10 pm

Maureen did very well with little money at Porto - he did very well with lots of money at Chelsea. I am sure he had to put up with a lot of cr@p while he was at Chelsea (having to buy players he didn't want, being told he couldn't buy a player he needed,having appointments of staff made against his wishes etc)

I think Maureen would have done better in the league than Rafa did this season(I think we would have challenged for, if not won the title), but maybe not as good in Europe (but who knows?) The reason I think he would have done better in the league is Rafa makes lots of changes/decisions/gambles and the more changes/decisions/gambles you make the more likely it is to make a mistake (and Rafa made too many mistakes this season)

Would Rafa have won 2 league titles if he had gone to Chelsea ? (who knows). Mourinho won 5
cups in 3 seasons - not bad.

Remember but for Mourinho the mancs would already have the record for the most titles

Question for you - do you believe we would have gone 4 seasons without a title challenge if Mourinho had been our manager ?

by **bigmick** » Tue May 13, 2008 10:01 pm

s@int wrote:Maureen did very well with little money at Porto - he did very well with lots of money at Chelsea. I am sure he had to put up with a lot of cr@p while he was at Chelsea (having to buy players he didn't want, being told he couldn't buy a player he needed,having appointments of staff made against his wishes etc)

I think Maureen would have done better in the league than Rafa did this season(I think we would have challenged for, if not won the title), but maybe not as good in Europe (but who knows?) The reason I think he would have done better in the league is Rafa makes lots of changes/decisions/gambles and the more changes/decisions/gambles you make the more likely it is to make a mistake (and Rafa made too many mistakes this season)

Would Rafa have won 2 league titles if he had gone to Chelsea ? (who knows). Mourinho won 5
cups in 3 seasons - not bad.

Remember but for Mourinho the mancs would already have the record for the most titles

Question for you - do you believe we would have gone 4 seasons without a title challenge if Mourinho had been our manager ?

You want to be careful with the last line of your post Saint, people who won't hear a word against the manager will no doubt accuse you of starting a campaign to get rid of the manager and bring Mourinho in. My hunch is you're not doing that, merely trying to sift through the nonsense about the manager being irreplaceable as he's some sort of footballing God.

I could though follow up your question with two questions of my own. Firstly, had Rafa been in charge instead of Mourinhio at Chelsea, would he have won the title in his first two seasons in English football? Now I know many will say that Mourinho had huge funds which meant a huge quality squad which obviouisly he did, but I wonder whether the opportunity and temptation to "style" with such quality players, to baffle the football World with clever selections would have proved too much for Rafa. Would he have been able to find the consistency, the maddeningly repetitive consistency which Mourinho's Chelsea had and which won them two League titles?

My second question doesn't require anybody to remember back a couple of years it's more recent. Had Rafa taken over when Avram Grant did at Stamford Bridge, with those players, with the injuries, with the African Nations looming, with certain star players making it clear they were leaving in the Summer, would he have launched a title challenge from there. Once more the same temptations would apply, big quality squad making it the original stylers sweet shop, the opportunity to astound the football World with fairground rotation. Would he have gone for the "style" and if he did would it have it have worked?

It has taken so far four years and counting for rafa to work out that in English football some matches get a bit ugly and you need to be able to battle, show solidarity and have a strong team ethic if you are consistently going to get home. You need to win consistently, not draw, not stay unbeaten, not "don't concede", not consilidate, but win. He's probably got the idea now as this season we hardly got beat and were still a country mile behind. It didn't take Mourinho that long to work it out did it, indeed he made it his mission upon his arrival at Chelsea to instill that "togetherness", that team spirit which all successful teams have. He tended towards a style of play as well which had within its components an English philosophy, with Drogba up top and being very unafraid to go route one if necessary.

He may be a t!t, infact lets be honest he is a t!t and I'm not starting a campaign for him to be Liverpool manager either, but in answer to Saints question I think we would at some stage have launched a title challenge with Mourinho in charge for the last four seasons yes.

To answer my own two questions, I don't think Rafa would ahve won the title in his first season had he been Chelsea manager such would have been the random nature of his selection policy, although such ws their overwhelming financial muscle I would have thought that he ought to have won it the next year.

As for the Avram Grant question, no I don't think he would have got so close to winning it had he taken over at Chelsea no. Once again the styling would have cost them. For the record I don't want to start a campaign to get Grant as our manager either.

by **Sabre** » Tue May 13, 2008 10:36 pm

I think Bigmick that the camps thingy in Newkit is approached with humour sense and that's the point about it. But perhaps sometimes the pros vs antis labels hinder the discussion because we put ourselves in very separated positions.

Other than that literary dramatism you've given to the discussion, you rise some decent points of criticism. For instance, I have to admit it's a fair point when you say Chelsea also had turmoil yet they managed to perform very well in the league. Some other points, like the line saying something like "exploring the whole depth of squad in two games" made me laugh as it was sharp. But perhaps it's about time to stop exagerate the "pros and antis" debate because I don't honestly think there's anyone here who doesn't accept fair points like the ones you mention.

About Saint's question. I'll answer with more questions:

a) Would have been Mourinho able to be a succesful manager in the league without his financial muscle?

and

b) What would Liverpool look like after 4 years under Mourinho with the same money and the same Parry Rafa's been working with? Would he have signed Torres or someone similar? Would he have signed Mascherano and Alonso? or a better keeper than Reina? Would Mourinho's ego be jealous of not being more loved and especial than Gerrard?

The answers to these and your question is "we don't know". It's speculation. But I'd say Rafa's done a decent job surrounding Gerrard and Carra of players with quality in this 4 years. And he just has to sort out the wings and a couple of details.

by **Leonmc0708** » Tue May 13, 2008 10:45 pm

bigmick wrote:
s@int wrote:Maureen did very well with little money at Porto - he did very well with lots of money at Chelsea. I am sure he had to put up with a lot of cr@p while he was at Chelsea (having to buy players he didn't want, being told he couldn't buy a player he needed,having appointments of staff made against his wishes etc)

I think Maureen would have done better in the league than Rafa did this season(I think we would have challenged for, if not won the title), but maybe not as good in Europe (but who knows?) The reason I think he would have done better in the league is Rafa makes lots of changes/decisions/gambles and the more changes/decisions/gambles you make the more likely it is to make a mistake (and Rafa made too many mistakes this season)

Would Rafa have won 2 league titles if he had gone to Chelsea ? (who knows). Mourinho won 5
cups in 3 seasons - not bad.

Remember but for Mourinho the mancs would already have the record for the most titles

Question for you - do you believe we would have gone 4 seasons without a title challenge if Mourinho had been our manager ?

You want to be careful with the last line of your post Saint, people who won't hear a word against the manager will no doubt accuse you of starting a campaign to get rid of the manager and bring Mourinho in. My hunch is you're not doing that, merely trying to sift through the nonsense about the manager being irreplaceable as he's some sort of footballing God.

I could though follow up your question with two questions of my own. Firstly, had Rafa been in charge instead of Mourinhio at Chelsea, would he have won the title in his first two seasons in English football? Now I know many will say that Mourinho had huge funds which meant a huge quality squad which obviouisly he did, but I wonder whether the opportunity and temptation to "style" with such quality players, to baffle the football World with clever selections would have proved too much for Rafa. Would he have been able to find the consistency, the maddeningly repetitive consistency which Mourinho's Chelsea had and which won them two League titles?

My second question doesn't require anybody to remember back a couple of years it's more recent. Had Rafa taken over when Avram Grant did at Stamford Bridge, with those players, with the injuries, with the African Nations looming, with certain star players making it clear they were leaving in the Summer, would he have launched a title challenge from there. Once more the same temptations would apply, big quality squad making it the original stylers sweet shop, the opportunity to astound the football World with fairground rotation. Would he have gone for the "style" and if he did would it have it have worked?

It has taken so far four years and counting for rafa to work out that in English football some matches get a bit ugly and you need to be able to battle, show solidarity and have a strong team ethic if you are consistently going to get home. You need to win consistently, not draw, not stay unbeaten, not "don't concede", not consilidate, but win. He's probably got the idea now as this season we hardly got beat and were still a country mile behind. It didn't take Mourinho that long to work it out did it, indeed he made it his mission upon his arrival at Chelsea to instill that "togetherness", that team spirit which all successful teams have. He tended towards a style of play as well which had within its components an English philosophy, with Drogba up top and being very unafraid to go route one if necessary.

He may be a t!t, infact lets be honest he is a t!t and I'm not starting a campaign for him to be Liverpool manager either, but in answer to Saints question I think we would at some stage have launched a title challenge with Mourinho in charge for the last four seasons yes.

To answer my own two questions, I don't think Rafa would ahve won the title in his first season had he been Chelsea manager such would have been the random nature of his selection policy, although such ws their overwhelming financial muscle I would have thought that he ought to have won it the next year.

As for the Avram Grant question, no I don't think he would have got so close to winning it had he taken over at Chelsea no. Once again the styling would have cost them. For the record I don't want to start a campaign to get Grant as our manager either.

Can I ask you a question Mick.

Why do you have a picture of this egotistical, stubborn, replaceable, inadequate buffoon in both your signature and avatar ?

by **Igor Zidane** » Tue May 13, 2008 10:50 pm

It's all hypothetical, what if rafa did this ,what if jose did that , it's a totally unfair comparison to make (in respect of both managers) there are to many anomalies to get a fair answer .The financial constraints or not , the respective CEO's ,the fans , the owners , what's going on behind the scenes ,the power stuggles and so on and so forth.

One thing i can guarentee is if maureen was in charge ,the press wouldn't be talking about another great goal from torres or a wonder strike from gerrard , they would be waiting with baited breath for the next sound bite or mourinho's next smart@rse comment .

I for one am glad we have rafa as our manager ,and hopefully for many years to come. Imo we will (with the proper funding and proper owners) will win the league whilst he is manager.

by **NANNY RED** » Tue May 13, 2008 11:01 pm

Can someone please just tell me what Raffa has done wrong thats all.

by **Igor Zidane** » Tue May 13, 2008 11:03 pm

NANNY RED wrote:Can someone please just tell me what Raffa has done wrong thats all.

He didn't play torres for two games apparently .

by **Dundalk** » Tue May 13, 2008 11:05 pm

Igor Zidane wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:Can someone please just tell me what Raffa has done wrong thats all.

He didn't play torres for two games apparently .

Fecking Joke :no

by **NANNY RED** » Tue May 13, 2008 11:09 pm

Igor Zidane wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:Can someone please just tell me what Raffa has done wrong thats all.

He didn't play torres for two games apparently .

So he stopped him from Being top goal scorer in the prem,

by **Rush Job** » Tue May 13, 2008 11:11 pm

bigmick wrote:I don't know how to do that multiple quote thingy, but I've noticed the old "having said that it could be all down to rotation" (sarcasm) creeping into peoples responses. The last time I can remember it off the top of my head was by Rushie on I think page three EDIT-I TAKE THIS BIT BACK AS HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY IT ON THAT THREAD. MY MISTAKE SORRY!!!! of the "how do you score the season" yesterday. There have also been numerous occasions where I've noticed the old "but I just don't buy this "it's all down to rotation" argument".

Having said that, it's hardly irrefutable proof I admit and I've got no intention of spending an hour or so trying better to prove it beyond all reasonable. People can either take my word for that part of the post or dismiss it out of hand.

There was no sarcasm i was telling you the way i see it while acknowledging the impact that rotation COULD make but take it however you like mate.

by **Zi-Dan Agger** » Tue May 13, 2008 11:12 pm

NANNY RED wrote:
Igor Zidane wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:Can someone please just tell me what Raffa has done wrong thats all.

He didn't play torres for two games apparently .

So he stopped him from Being top goal scorer in the prem,

I heard he also stops Nando from taking penalties. He'd have definately caught Ronaldo had he have done so!

by **Rush Job** » Tue May 13, 2008 11:30 pm

NANNY RED wrote:Can someone please just tell me what Raffa has done wrong thats all.

I know nan, made me feel sick reading some of it, i wonder how he felt about Souness and Houllier? Supprised they wernt found dead in an alley way bludgeond to death by a dildo.

Liverpool FC Forum

My indictment of the rafa benitez regime

Who is online