Liverpool FC Forum

by **Scottbot** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:39 pm

bigmick wrote:All that said though, if we don't for whatever reason pick up the pieces of where we were before the Pompey game fairly quickly, we will drop points at Spurs. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if we aren't right on it to see us draw, or even worse get beat. I still think the selection against Pompey was unnecessarily stylie, and we may pay a belated price for it at the weekend.

But where were we before Pompey mate? Granted it was an excellent performance to go and beat Chelsea on their patch, the best under Benitez in the league since he's been at the club for me. But our win against Wigan a couple of games prior and the draw with Stoke (using a largely un-rotated side) were VERY similar to last nights performance, surely? The win against City with an un-rotated side probably wouldn't have happened were it not for the sending off (same for the Wigan game). We haven't been playing all that amazing for most of the season. We can talk about gtting away with it but last nights performance/result was (pretty much) in keeping with what's gone on before. I wouldn't have played Lucas last night, I would have gone with Masch and I guess you could say that was rotation for rotation's sake. I didn't see a problem with Pennant and I guess he had to play if Keane was still struggling up-front. Hyppia, no problem, made sense and if Riera is carrying a knock and struggling then I guess we have to take the manager's word for it.

by **DanAn** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:44 pm

bigmick wrote:He looks to me like he's got "brace by Dirky boy" written all over him. A mishit shot, or a header off the shoulder, or one off the knee. This fella won't stop 'em

by **GYBS** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:43 am

Scottbot wrote:
bigmick wrote:All that said though, if we don't for whatever reason pick up the pieces of where we were before the Pompey game fairly quickly, we will drop points at Spurs. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if we aren't right on it to see us draw, or even worse get beat. I still think the selection against Pompey was unnecessarily stylie, and we may pay a belated price for it at the weekend.

But where were we before Pompey mate? Granted it was an excellent performance to go and beat Chelsea on their patch, the best under Benitez in the league since he's been at the club for me. But our win against Wigan a couple of games prior and the draw with Stoke (using a largely un-rotated side) were VERY similar to last nights performance, surely? The win against City with an un-rotated side probably wouldn't have happened were it not for the sending off (same for the Wigan game). We haven't been playing all that amazing for most of the season. We can talk about gtting away with it but last nights performance/result was (pretty much) in keeping with what's gone on before. I wouldn't have played Lucas last night, I would have gone with Masch and I guess you could say that was rotation for rotation's sake. I didn't see a problem with Pennant and I guess he had to play if Keane was still struggling up-front. Hyppia, no problem, made sense and if Riera is carrying a knock and struggling then I guess we have to take the manager's word for it.

Think pretty much you got that spot on - Lucas i expect was played to keep him involved and sharp and you can never know when he might be needed and the guy actually had a decent game .

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:48 am

I'm still curious what people think about some of the 'performances' of the lads that were rotated in on Wednesday. From where I sat, I thought Sami was good, Lucas okay, Babel a few degrees below okay and Pennant out and out poor. How does that reflect on the theory that players should be hungry after a long time on the bench when we go with a formula that, broadly speaking, focuses on playing our best available 11 week in, week out?

Sabre's always contended that one of the benefits of rotation is that it keeps more players at or near match fitness/sharpness, such that an injury or two does not see a player introduced who hasn't gotten the tracky off in weeks. Some in the "rotation? err, no thanks, mate, cheers" camp have posed the counter-argument that playing a settled side not only breeds cohesion among the starters but gives those on the bench extra incentive to prove themselves when they do get their chance. Rotation, they'd say, offers little incentive to players because they know they'll be back on the bench soon regardless of performance.

Well, most of us would agree we've played a fairly settled side all season and that the 4 players brought into the mix on Wednesday have all been on the outside looking in so far. So why didn't we see more spirited performances from them (bar Sami)? Is it simply down to the player not being good enough or is there something more to it that we can link back to the rotation discussion?

by **GYBS** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:53 am

The players (well mainly pennant ) didnt grab their chance and yeah they should be hungry and grabbing their chance when they get it - maybe it comes down to the mindset of that player .

by **Judge** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:41 pm

better to have a settled first 11, and the odd change, 1 or 2 maximum, now and again

liverpool of old did that, and were winning countless championships

by **Bam** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:59 pm

Bad Bob wrote:I'm still curious what people think about some of the 'performances' of the lads that were rotated in on Wednesday. From where I sat, I thought Sami was good, Lucas okay, Babel a few degrees below okay and Pennant out and out poor. How does that reflect on the theory that players should be hungry after a long time on the bench when we go with a formula that, broadly speaking, focuses on playing our best available 11 week in, week out?

Sabre's always contended that one of the benefits of rotation is that it keeps more players at or near match fitness/sharpness, such that an injury or two does not see a player introduced who hasn't gotten the tracky off in weeks. Some in the "rotation? err, no thanks, mate, cheers" camp have posed the counter-argument that playing a settled side not only breeds cohesion among the starters but gives those on the bench extra incentive to prove themselves when they do get their chance. Rotation, they'd say, offers little incentive to players because they know they'll be back on the bench soon regardless of performance.

Well, most of us would agree we've played a fairly settled side all season and that the 4 players brought into the mix on Wednesday have all been on the outside looking in so far. So why didn't we see more spirited performances from them (bar Sami)? Is it simply down to the player not being good enough or is there something more to it that we can link back to the rotation discussion?

Well I agree in the main with the 'hungry cheetah' effect always have done always will do when compairing it to the more modern day thinking of rotation.

Concerning the performances of the four brought in, I have to say its definately the ability of each individual and the role he has to play in the side.

For instance Hyypia has hardly played this season, but we know from experiance that he is a quality defender even at the ripe old age of 35 ? He slotted into the side, and didnt look like a man who has been on the sidelines for most of the season. Why is this, because he still has the ability to fill in and do a tip top job. Of course there is always the need for a player to get 'match fitness' and the odd bit of rust out of the way if an extended run in the side goes.

Simply if Babel, Lucas or Pennant were really that good (like Hyypia but in their respective roles) they wouldnt of looked as mediocre as they did. Their performances didnt resemble the fact that they hadnt had too many games recently, more of the fact they looked out of their depth imo.

Babel wouldnt of accomplished too much more out on the left even if he'd of been playing that role for ten games running. The three of them didnt look rusty to me, they looked pretty fit to me in terms of their physical approach. Their decison making, touches, passing and movement looked average, but having seen them all before its nothing new.

Lucas out of all the players did have the 'hungry' look about him, but it isnt good enough if the composure in possesion and overall quality isnt there.

So all in all whether we keep them fresh for every other game ala the 'Delayed Gazelle' theory. Or keep them sidelined for a lenghty period ala the 'hungry Cheetah' theory. To much wont change, they'll still have the same abilities albeit limited.

As far as the hunger thing goes though, only Lucas really looked hungry. I suspect thats part of his natural game anyway, so really the hunger theory didnt seem to work. But in the long term thats only a slight negative (even though it depends on each players own mentality). But in the bigger picture of things I'd rather have this to deal with because at the end of the day the players who are playing on a regular basis can build up that momentum, cohesion and confidence which is much more important.

by **Scottbot** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:10 pm

Bad Bob wrote:I'm still curious what people think about some of the 'performances' of the lads that were rotated in on Wednesday. From where I sat, I thought Sami was good, Lucas okay, Babel a few degrees below okay and Pennant out and out poor. How does that reflect on the theory that players should be hungry after a long time on the bench when we go with a formula that, broadly speaking, focuses on playing our best available 11 week in, week out?

I don't really think there is a debate here to be honest. Players are always being accused of 'lacking hunger' when they play poorly. It gets thrown at the England team all the time and (for me) most of the time it is typical 'white van-man' tabloid paper rubbish. Players like Pennant and Babel are in the side to create chances and score goals and they are rightly judged on whether they achieve this. Hunger doesn't make you more equipped to to beat a man or put in a perfect cross, it doesn't help you pick a pass or find the top corner. If it did, our 'deadly' Dirk (surely the hungriest player on the planet) would score a perfect ten every game. Some players wear their heart on their sleeve, the Dirks, Carra's and Mascheranos of this world. We all assume they are hungrier for success than their counterparts but that isn't necessarily the case.

by **Judge** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:19 pm

kuyt looks hungry to me

by **Judge** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:23 pm

pennant obviously can score

by **GYBS** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:31 pm

Judge wrote:better to have a settled first 11, and the odd change, 1 or 2 maximum, now and again

liverpool of old did that, and were winning countless championships

yeah mate but the game has changed a hell off a lot since then.

by **redtrader74** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:42 pm

Bad Bob wrote:I'm still curious what people think about some of the 'performances' of the lads that were rotated in on Wednesday. From where I sat, I thought Sami was good, Lucas okay, Babel a few degrees below okay and Pennant out and out poor. How does that reflect on the theory that players should be hungry after a long time on the bench when we go with a formula that, broadly speaking, focuses on playing our best available 11 week in, week out?

Sabre's always contended that one of the benefits of rotation is that it keeps more players at or near match fitness/sharpness, such that an injury or two does not see a player introduced who hasn't gotten the tracky off in weeks. Some in the "rotation? err, no thanks, mate, cheers" camp have posed the counter-argument that playing a settled side not only breeds cohesion among the starters but gives those on the bench extra incentive to prove themselves when they do get their chance. Rotation, they'd say, offers little incentive to players because they know they'll be back on the bench soon regardless of performance.

Well, most of us would agree we've played a fairly settled side all season and that the 4 players brought into the mix on Wednesday have all been on the outside looking in so far. So why didn't we see more spirited performances from them (bar Sami)? Is it simply down to the player not being good enough or is there something more to it that we can link back to the rotation discussion?

If we are honest we have not played that well all season, bar the obvious few occassions, we have been functional, just as we were against Pompey. Even some of those who have been playing fairly regularly in the league side have been poor during the first 9 games, hence why we have had to come back so often from being behind.

The 'its working now' because we have not rotated so much in the league games is fair enough, the league results could bear that out so far (before the POmpey game anyway!). It has long been contested by posters who loathe rotation that a settled side is required to build rhythm and cohesion etc. etc. and there may be some truth in that, what I find hard to understand is why we then is it OK to have mass changes for league cup games and CL games? wouldn't that also ruin the new found momentum?

by **Judge** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:44 pm

GYBS wrote:
Judge wrote:better to have a settled first 11, and the odd change, 1 or 2 maximum, now and again

liverpool of old did that, and were winning countless championships

yeah mate but the game has changed a hell off a lot since then.

they still kick a 32 paneled spherical leather ball on a stretch of grass, trying to put it in the oppo's net, while both teams start with 11 players

how has it changed?

by **GYBS** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:47 pm

Judge wrote:
GYBS wrote:
Judge wrote:better to have a settled first 11, and the odd change, 1 or 2 maximum, now and again

liverpool of old did that, and were winning countless championships

yeah mate but the game has changed a hell off a lot since then.

they still kick a 32 paneled spherical leather ball on a stretch of grass, trying to put it in the oppo's net, while both teams start with 11 players

how has it changed?

Number of games played throughout the season - level of competition from other teams, level of fitness and stamina required throughout the season , pace of the game overall.

by **Judge** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:05 pm

the games faster coz the lads are fitter, eat better, have better medical care, earn more money.

so in fairness, its relative to what i said

Liverpool FC Forum

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

Who is online