Liverpool FC Forum

by **bigmick** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:12 pm

Couple of things here. Firstly, if people who have a problem with rotation mention it only when we lose a match then you get absolutely slaughtered for coming on the forum to "spout bile" and the like. Your very presence "disgusts real fans" if you do things like that, so the only sensible thing to do is also to mention when the team has actually won the game. It's also only fair that way, if rotation is "only a problem for you when we lose" and "you never mention it when we win" then plenty of people are very quick to point out the fact.

One or two people seemed to think the line up on Wednesday was a bit over rotated. I agreed with them but whatever, we won the match 1-0, Fergie rotates and we're ahead of them so so what? Well if we hadn't just endured four seasons of Rafa style, I'd probably be in the "so what" camp myself. As we know though, far from being the exception, the team selection against Pompey at Home would have been a typical mishmash from the previous four seasons. During that four season period, we also won plenty of football matches it's absolutely fair to say, just like we did this time. We didn't though unfortunately win sufficient numbers of them to enable us to mount a title challenge. Not once, not for three weeks, not for two weeks, not even for one match were we ever, ever, in with a shout at the title.

Now this season so far has been different. We've played a settled team and despite not playing that great, we have had sufficient resilience, team spirit, stickability, togetherness and the rest to come from behind three or four times and have had the best start ever in the Premiership, by anyone. Now I know it's either "nothing whatsoever to do with rotation"/"if it is anything to do with rotation it's not very fecking much", but given the situation and what's gone before, you can hardly be surprised that one or two people are a tad nervous that we revert back to our old ways. See I think we've already given mass rotation a good try, God knows we've tried it. I suppose it could be argued that we've never tried it whilst being at the top of the league after 9 games, but I haven't seen an awful lot in the past, and didn't see an awful lot on Wednesday which convinced me it's the way to go.

Last few points. St Mike, why do you absolutely always mention zonal marking when rotation comes up? The inference being that those who opposed rotation also opposed zonal marking and are a bunch of clueless knee jerkers. I was the main proponent of zonal marking on here, boring the whole forum senseless with the jargon and as I saw it the technical theory behind it. The link between the two simply doesn't hold up.

Secondly or fifthly or whatever it is, this idea that Fergie rotates just as much as Rafa used to. So many people said it that I believed it and started using it in my posts, until I got pulled up by a poster last year who categorically proved it wasn't the case. Also, those who tell you that Chelsea and Man Utd rotate the same amount as us, will in the next breath tell you that both clubs have got better squads and therefore better replacement players (which of course they have). Well here's an idea then-LETS NOT ROTATE THE SAME AMOUNT AS THEM THEN IF WE HAVEN'T GOT THE PLAYERS TO MAKE IT WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Revolutionary I know but there you go, I'm in one of those moods this morning.

Lastly, and this is something which will begin to come up more and more as time goes on, is people talking about not wanting to "do an Arsenal". By that they mean leading the league for three quarters of the way through, before failing because "they didn't rotate enough". This particular subject probably deserves a thread of it's own, but I would personally accept a "doing an Arsenal" as a top effort this season. They were right in it with five games to go, came within a couple of minutes and a disputed penalty or two of putting us out of the Champions League, and but for the bounce of a ball here and there might have won it. It's probably worth remembering that despite "falling in a hole" they still finished above us at the end of the day, even though by then our "delayed gazelles" were positively leaping about the pitch (well apart from in the Champions League semi where we got outrun in extra time by an unrotated Chelsea team anyway).

Anyway, morning all. Oh and last thing, the "hungry cheetah" only works if the players are actually hungry to maximise their talents and potential. I would venture you could put Babel and Pennant on hunger strike and they still wouldn't fit the bill. That one really is nothing to do with rotation.

by **SupitsJonF** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:36 pm

The only reason Rafa is called the rotator is because Ferguson and Wegner don't have good alliteration with Rotate. But Rafa the Rotator, that's got newspaper headlines all over it, they love that alliteration nonsense.

Oh, and for clarification,

by **LFC2007** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:42 pm

I really can't see how - in light of knocks to Riera and Keane - Rafa's 'styling' on Wednesday inibhited our momentum ahead of the game at the weekend. He made four changes, (two forced, one influenced by absentees, and one entirely independent). Of the two he had control over, I didn't think they were all that significant in the end. The inclusion of Hyypia was neither here nor there IMO. I probably would've kept Agger in, but given that Skrtel's a long-term absentee, keeping Agger fit is even more essential - especially after coming off the back of a nigh on year-long absence. Add to that Portsmouth pose something of an aerial threat, and I can see plausible reasons for the change. Hyypia coming in for one game in ten or whatever it is, isn't IMO, excessive.

Since we didn't really have many options up front, Rafa chose to stick Gerrard off Kuyt, with Lucas in behind. The only other options were sticking Gerrard on the right, i.e. a complete system change, play Benayoun off Kuyt, or play Babel up top and Benayoun on the left. I doubt very much whether adopting one of the three other options would've made a significant impact to the way we played. What upset the balance of the team, for me, was the absence of Riera in particular, but also Keane as well as the inclusion of Pennant who I thought was very poor. Had Riera and Keane been fully fit, then I would be questioning the selection. Riera for the reason that he's simply miles ahead of anyone else on the left, and Keane because he's a player who needs goals to gain some confidence - and Pompey at home is one such game where you'd expect him to do just that. I don't think we lost any significant amount of momentum by playing Hyypia instead of Agger for one game in ten, nor do I think leaving Mach out for Lucas in a game where we're on the attack had any great significance to the way we played, or in a broader context, to our momentum.

If we're regularly going to make four changes in a game with the squad we have now, I would expect it to impact our momentum, but if we have the quality in reserve, it becomes MUCH less of a factor IMO. And if we did have that quality in previous seasons, I would have expected Rafa to have kept a more settled side anyway. It's no coincidence that the areas of our team that have seen the most rotation are those which are our weak points. Simply, now that we have a second striker who is far more capable than our others (or at least has proven to be at other clubs),and a left winger who is streets ahead of anyone else, they have to play more often than not, because the standard is so different to before. In the past, we've had sh!t as a starter and sh!t in reserve (or Kewell who just crocked). Now, we have good/very good as a starter, and sh!t in reserve (sh!t - purely to emphasise the point). Still though, we haven't seen a consistent starter at LB so far - because there isn't light years between Aurelio/Dossena (and if you think there is - Dossena still has to be given a crack). If we had an Evra, would he nail down the position as his own? I certainly think so. Riera's near enough nailed down his position on the left by virtue of good performances. Alonso has started more often than last season (in those he wasn't injured in), partly by virtue of good performances. Skrtel started, and continued to start matches at the start of the season by virtue of good performances. Agger will no doubt start against Spurs, and continue to start for games therafter, by virtue of good performances. If Keane starts scoring sack loads, I've no doubt he'll continue to start by virtue of good performances. Now, there has been the odd occasion where a player is playing well and hasn't played (i.e. Crouch - but bear in mind Kuyt was coming off legendary status from previous season), but by and large if they play well, over and above the quality in their respective position, they will play and won't be one of the three or four changes per game we've seen in the past.

This doesn't mean I don't think he's made errors concerning selection policy in the past, I do, but more in respect of playing players out of positions, which has usually meant altering our system to leave it completely unbalanced. Add to that some poor buys in key areas, and I think they would form my key criticisms of Rafa. Equally though, he's made some exceptional buys, and outfoxed many teams with astute tactics.

So, going into the game at Spurs, I don't think we've lost an opportunity to gain momentum (or at least not a significant one). The impact of Keane and Riera's absence due to injury for one game won't be significant because they've played as a group for several games prior to the Portsmouth match, and in that time they've developed an understanding with their teammates, they also train together week in week out (but this is less of a factor). That understanding doesn't deteriorate after one match, IMO. If we do happen to rotate them though, two games here, two games there continually, then I think there's a case to suggest that we're missing an opportunity to gain momentum.

by **Bam** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:00 am

stmichael wrote:It's truely bizarre that Wenger still seems to avoid the kind of criticism Benitez often comes in for, despite us sitting top of the table unbeaten (and having beaten United and Chelsea) whilst Arsenal have lost away to Fulham, at home to Hull and have thrown away two points to a woeful Spurs side in the most suicidal display of killing a game I've ever seen.

I thought maybe the "rotator" name tag would all but disappear if we were winning, only being reeled out after a defeat. It seems I was wrong. Isn't it strange how you never hear much of the infamous "zonal marking" system anymore? We have one of the best defensive records in the country, yet as soon as we concede one goal from a set play, then out come the Richard Keyes and Andy Gray's of this world to criticise zonal marking, without addressing the fact that it is this zonal marking system that has helped create one of the best defences in the country. Take them blinkers off gentlemen and actually think about what you're saying.

It's as if the nation's media and press have a few basic rules to follow for each club. For Liverpool they always refer back to Gerrard not being played in the middle, despite having his two best seasons wide right and behind the front man. The next one is the zonal marking each time we concede from a corner, and the rotation policy costing us all chance of a league title challenge; forgetting the fact that other sides at the top also rotate, but have just been doing so with superior players than ourselves. Is it too much to ask for journalists to actually think about what they're putting into print and feeding to the nation? The readers that believe all this nonsense are as lazy as they are.

St. Mike I've just read Nannys valid article on rotation, now unless you wrote that article and your name is Paul Jones. You've copied a bit of that article and made it as your own.

Terry-Bubble Mickey boy.

by **Bad Bob** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:26 am

Bam wrote:
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.

I broadly agree with that (while sharing Scott's concern that it's a bit of a red herring when applied to the likes of Stevie and other top players when they have an off day). Babel and Pennant, in particular, do my head in. Both seem up for it when we play the big sides but then just seem to coast against lesser teams. I expected to see a bit more commitment from them on Wednesday given how much time they've spent on the bench but I suppose that's not in their nature. As Mick says, it's a real waste of talent to see these two fanny about.

by **maguskwt** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 4:50 am

Bam wrote:
stmichael wrote:It's truely bizarre that Wenger still seems to avoid the kind of criticism Benitez often comes in for, despite us sitting top of the table unbeaten (and having beaten United and Chelsea) whilst Arsenal have lost away to Fulham, at home to Hull and have thrown away two points to a woeful Spurs side in the most suicidal display of killing a game I've ever seen.

I thought maybe the "rotator" name tag would all but disappear if we were winning, only being reeled out after a defeat. It seems I was wrong. Isn't it strange how you never hear much of the infamous "zonal marking" system anymore? We have one of the best defensive records in the country, yet as soon as we concede one goal from a set play, then out come the Richard Keyes and Andy Gray's of this world to criticise zonal marking, without addressing the fact that it is this zonal marking system that has helped create one of the best defences in the country. Take them blinkers off gentlemen and actually think about what you're saying.

It's as if the nation's media and press have a few basic rules to follow for each club. For Liverpool they always refer back to Gerrard not being played in the middle, despite having his two best seasons wide right and behind the front man. The next one is the zonal marking each time we concede from a corner, and the rotation policy costing us all chance of a league title challenge; forgetting the fact that other sides at the top also rotate, but have just been doing so with superior players than ourselves. Is it too much to ask for journalists to actually think about what they're putting into print and feeding to the nation? The readers that believe all this nonsense are as lazy as they are.

St. Mike I've just read Nannys valid article on rotation, now unless you wrote that article and your name is Paul Jones. You've copied a bit of that article and made it as your own.

Terry-Bubble Mickey boy.

by **maguskwt** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 5:45 am

bigmick wrote:Couple of things here. Firstly, if people who have a problem with rotation mention it only when we lose a match then you get absolutely slaughtered for coming on the forum to "spout bile" and the like. Your very presence "disgusts real fans" if you do things like that, so the only sensible thing to do is also to mention when the team has actually won the game. It's also only fair that way, if rotation is "only a problem for you when we lose" and "you never mention it when we win" then plenty of people are very quick to point out the fact.

One or two people seemed to think the line up on Wednesday was a bit over rotated. I agreed with them but whatever, we won the match 1-0, Fergie rotates and we're ahead of them so so what? Well if we hadn't just endured four seasons of Rafa style, I'd probably be in the "so what" camp myself. As we know though, far from being the exception, the team selection against Pompey at Home would have been a typical mishmash from the previous four seasons. During that four season period, we also won plenty of football matches it's absolutely fair to say, just like we did this time. We didn't though unfortunately win sufficient numbers of them to enable us to mount a title challenge. Not once, not for three weeks, not for two weeks, not even for one match were we ever, ever, in with a shout at the title.

Now this season so far has been different. We've played a settled team and despite not playing that great, we have had sufficient resilience, team spirit, stickability, togetherness and the rest to come from behind three or four times and have had the best start ever in the Premiership, by anyone. Now I know it's either "nothing whatsoever to do with rotation"/"if it is anything to do with rotation it's not very fecking much", but given the situation and what's gone before, you can hardly be surprised that one or two people are a tad nervous that we revert back to our old ways. See I think we've already given mass rotation a good try, God knows we've tried it. I suppose it could be argued that we've never tried it whilst being at the top of the league after 9 games, but I haven't seen an awful lot in the past, and didn't see an awful lot on Wednesday which convinced me it's the way to go.

Last few points. St Mike, why do you absolutely always mention zonal marking when rotation comes up? The inference being that those who opposed rotation also opposed zonal marking and are a bunch of clueless knee jerkers. I was the main proponent of zonal marking on here, boring the whole forum senseless with the jargon and as I saw it the technical theory behind it. The link between the two simply doesn't hold up.

Secondly or fifthly or whatever it is, this idea that Fergie rotates just as much as Rafa used to. So many people said it that I believed it and started using it in my posts, until I got pulled up by a poster last year who categorically proved it wasn't the case. Also, those who tell you that Chelsea and Man Utd rotate the same amount as us, will in the next breath tell you that both clubs have got better squads and therefore better replacement players (which of course they have). Well here's an idea then-LETS NOT ROTATE THE SAME AMOUNT AS THEM THEN IF WE HAVEN'T GOT THE PLAYERS TO MAKE IT WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Revolutionary I know but there you go, I'm in one of those moods this morning.

Lastly, and this is something which will begin to come up more and more as time goes on, is people talking about not wanting to "do an Arsenal". By that they mean leading the league for three quarters of the way through, before failing because "they didn't rotate enough". This particular subject probably deserves a thread of it's own, but I would personally accept a "doing an Arsenal" as a top effort this season. They were right in it with five games to go, came within a couple of minutes and a disputed penalty or two of putting us out of the Champions League, and but for the bounce of a ball here and there might have won it. It's probably worth remembering that despite "falling in a hole" they still finished above us at the end of the day, even though by then our "delayed gazelles" were positively leaping about the pitch (well apart from in the Champions League semi where we got outrun in extra time by an unrotated Chelsea team anyway).

Anyway, morning all. Oh and last thing, the "hungry cheetah" only works if the players are actually hungry to maximise their talents and potential. I would venture you could put Babel and Pennant on hunger strike and they still wouldn't fit the bill. That one really is nothing to do with rotation.

bigmick fights on...

b-i-g-m-i-c-k...prepare to get assimilated... resistance is futile...

by **bigmick** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:19 am

I was just thinking that any poor fecker who wandered aimlessly and cluelessly onto this subject is going to walk headlong into the "delayed gazelle" theory, "hungry cheetahs", "Styling", "over styling", "names in a hat", "the seeing of the light", "the partial seeing of the light", the "reaching for the sunglasses", "Fergie style", "Wenger style", "options and possibilities players", the "farce of Fratton park", "blips which become bliiiiiiiiiiiiips", "playing between the lines", the "score a goal and sit on yer erse" syndrome, "rotating players out of form", "dildo sellers", "OOters" and "cocktail barmen" who think they know what they're on about, "real fans", "plastic fans", "bandwagon jumpers", "ladyboy lovers", "burger flippers", "phone shop workers" and everything else in between. If they have the cheek to come up with what they think is an original theory, somebody points out that it was actually already mentioned on the seventh post of page 44. So feck off. Newbie.

I suppose I shouldn't on reflection be so surprised that on occasion it becomes bit much for some people and they resort to talking utter b0ll0cks. I don't know where they get it from, it's certainly not from us lot anyway

by **Effes** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:40 am

I personally can't stand rotation or "resting" - it's a fecking joke.

I don't recall Chelsea doing it much last season, yet did you see how much energy
they had in the Champs League semi final 2nd leg? They were running round like
gazelles in extra time.

I thought the changes on Wednesday made sense - for a change!
Keane and Riera were carrying knocks, Sami was in for the aerial threat.
Masch had been all over the place with Argentina.

Ive got a feeling Rafa has reduced his rotation this season and long may it continue,
let's hope Sammy Lee keeps having a word.

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:27 pm

One thing I have often wondered about rotation, does it take more out of the players who are left in the side to win a game? Obviously when players are brought in that arn't up to the job, or who affect the balance of the team, the other players have to work harder, fight harder and raise their game in order to achieve a win, which maybe a full strength team would have achieved relatively easily (or easier anyway).

Often in the Liverpool side of the 70' and 80's you could see the difference in performance between the first and second halves as once we had a decent lead 2 or 3-0 it was a case of "job done" and just playing out the rest of the game, taking no unnecessary risks and just keeping possession rather than forcing a game already "won".

I also think that when we rest a player, maybe he should be given a "proper" rest, and not put on the bench, especially in away games and more especially long away trips in Europe.. The player who is rested but benched, still has the tiring travelling to cope with, the mentally tiring build up to and preparation to cope with, and then the disappointment of finding out only 60mins before a game that he is not playing. He then sits on a bench trying to keep warm for 70mins or so before being brought on and expected to make an impression or change a game.

The player is then supposedly rested and eager for the next match?

by **Scottbot** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:51 pm

bigmick wrote:Last few points. St Mike, why do you absolutely always mention zonal marking when rotation comes up?

I think on closer inspection you might find that St.Mick hasn't actually (personally!) mentioned zonal marking in any previous rotation debates

by **Sabre** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:58 pm

redtrader74 wrote:
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?

Good to see you back.

I didn't understand well how this disruptions of momentum work, If I have to be perfectly honest.

That is, we've seen how a team that was playing and winning with Torres upfront, and Gerrard as a pure CM, was considered to have momentum and cohesion.

Then we lost Torres, we moved Kuyt upfront, we put Gerrard as attacking midfielder, we bring Mascherano, and the team keeps winning and being consistent. I didn't see accusations of styling there.

But why? because it was a situation forced by Torres' injury and there was no option?

If Rafa had decided that with Torres available it would have been then a "mad" decission and selectorial sillyness? a decission that could be paid in next weeks? a disruption of momentum?

It seems to me that members on here do not have that much problems with changes being done, because I've seen changes, and they were not considered styling because there was no other best option. Members seem to have problems with changes when they deem it's not the strongest eleven available, which is fair enough, but an important detail.

And I'd link that with your question of the last paragraph. IMHO if you rotate massively in a domestic cup game you won't disrupt anything when returning to your regular starting eleven. At the end of the day the players of that team have been playing together, winning, and have match fitness. The only difference being the keeper and a few players more playing a mid week game, which they also could play in Melwood anyway if there wasn't a official game.

by **bigmick** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:12 pm

S@ints post is an excellent one and unbelieveably, he's managed to find a nuance on rotation which hasn't previously been discussed. He may actually join LFC as having pointed out something which is far too complex to just name after an African mammal, and therefore it becomes the S@int factor, after his good self.

by **Igor Zidane** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:23 pm

Ok so the question is. Did the styling from the WIN in midweek against pompey cause our shots or headers to be off target by an inch in acouple of cases? Discuss.

by **maguskwt** » Sat Nov 01, 2008 9:24 pm

maguskwt wrote:
bigmick wrote:sixthly-the styling which we did in midweek arguably backfired. You can argue all day long that it didn't do us any bharm, but I certainly wouldn't think there'd be too much arguments that it didn't appear to do us any discernable good.

the man with the agenda...

tell me bigmick how did the 'styling' in midweek affect us because we outplayed them in the first half and outplayed them for 15-20mins in the second half... we had lots of chances to put the game away like you said... then rafa brought keane off and babel in... babel didn't do anything at all and we were put under pressure and conceded from an own goal... so how did the 'styling' in midweek affect us when we were outplaying them for 65-70 mins...

nTake it to the rotation thread Magus. While your there, check out my posts in the aftermath of the Pompey game as it's not a new-found, after the event notion I'm touching on here. Also, re-read the original post you've quoted. I said it (the styling) ARGUABLY backfired. I also made the point that it didn't appear to do us any discernable good. Like I say, take it over there and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

As for the "man with the agenda" stuff, no need for that really. Just pop over there and we'll talk about it all nice like

fair enough bigmick... "the man with the agenda" phrase might have been a bit too strong but... when I've watched the game and see us passing very well and dominating an away game in the first half and 15-20 mins of the second half, when we've created half a dozen chances at the start of the 2nd half alone only to have been let down by our finishing, when the game seemingly turned on its head only after the substitution of keane for babel, I really cannot see why on earth anyone would even have 'rotation' on their minds... that's all... I just personally think that you are indeed abit too obsessed with 'rotation'... that's not to say that you have to take it personal though... if our failure today shows anything then it probably is lack of rotation that's responsible for our loss... because babel's been in decline compared to last season when he had more game time... same goes for benayoun... both of them did absolutely nothing to help the team out and looked lost...

Liverpool FC Forum

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

Who is online