Page 15 of 16
Posted:
Thu May 01, 2008 12:20 pmby account deleted by request
I have thought for a while that we seem to tire more than our opponents towards the end of tough games. Going all the way back to the fa cup final against West Ham and the CL FINAL against Milan. Certainly in the 3 CL semi's against Chelsea we have looked the more tired. I think in part this is because the way our system works, our players run harder and further in games than most other teams. Possibly another reason why Rafa believes so strongly in rotation? I don't believe we make the ball do the work as well as the other top sides at the moment, and we make up for this by effort and hard running.
Posted:
Thu May 01, 2008 12:24 pmby bigmick
laza wrote:Well on the other side of the coin, the other team that is in the CL Final and still in the box seat for the league has had what sort of rotation program ?
They've done it "Fergie style" I think it's fair to say. That is largely playing your strongest team or pretty close to it for the fist half of the seaon until momentum was fully established. Strong teams in the early matches of the Champions league leading to comfortable qualification. Then a programme of rotation from around the half way point of the season unti the final quarter, followed by largely settled teams for the final push for trophies. They haven't been averse to the odd piece of silliness either, losing games eemingly whenever Ronaldo doesn't play, but in the main there has been a difference with the way we've done it.
We've been kind of the opposite way round. Lots of rotation for the first two thirds of the season followed by a largely settled team in the last third.
Ultimately though, we are significantly outgunned financially by both Chelsea and Manchester United and therefore must concentrate as much of our resources as possible on the first team. It's OK for Man Utd to pay 17 million quid for Nani and 16 million for anderson and then stick them on the bench becasue they can afford it. We on the other hand need to concentrate our funds on the team, and then play it whenever and wherever possible.
Posted:
Thu May 01, 2008 12:28 pmby account deleted by request
Ultimately though, we are significantly outgunned financially by both Chelsea and Manchester United and therefore must concentrate as much of our resources as possible on the first team. It's OK for Man Utd to pay 17 million quid for Nani and 16 million for anderson and then stick them on the bench becasue they can afford it. We on the other hand need to concentrate our funds on the team, and then play it whenever and wherever possible.
Top point Mick. Couldn't agree more.
Posted:
Thu May 01, 2008 12:30 pmby Sabre
Bigmick is right, should we had won in the extra time, I would have brought the issue to this thread, only because I know that if we lost, someone else would. Which has happened 
I think that when it comes to ending a match physically, the most important thing is how much you have run. Normally, when you don't have the ball and the oppo passes it and you run after the ball, you get tired much easier. So how you play (and yesterday we didn't defend as we use to) is very important to discuss why Chelsea indeed ended the game better. Much more important than the delayed gazelled theory.
Rotation has not been and is not key for our success and problems. I do think though that the point BM is rising as of late about no more "options" and "possibilities" is valid. I agree that and we have to be spot on when we sign this summer.
Posted:
Thu May 01, 2008 6:09 pmby Owzat
Isn't the truth with the mancs that they may leave out Ronaldo, but Nani's a way better replacement than anything we could bring in to replace a key player. There is plenty to be said for continuity, we play games pre-season to build up match fitness and then we let players kick their heels every other match during the season ahead of a big game. While manager whinge constantly about fixtures, maybe the players should have more input - that is if they can do so sensibly. Maybe our players were suffering from NOT having played at the weekend, there is a school of thought that suggests players on form in any sport want to keep playing while they're in form. Well how can Gerrard, Torres, Kuyt or anyone else get into form if they're effectively dropped every other game?
And the team is pretty young, average age was about 26 the last two games. players around and below 26 shouldn't need constant resting, players getting towards 30 and over perhaps. Only THREE of our main squad are over 30 - Carragher (30), Hyypia (34) and Finnan (32). About a third of our squad are under 24, well short of the point at which fitness usually becomes a problem and when form tends to peak. Or in other words most of our players should be at prime fitness and hitting their peak in the next season or three. Our players are only just over a year older, on average, than Arsenal's. They get constant plaudits for young players, only Man City and Boro's are also younger squads
Posted:
Thu May 01, 2008 9:39 pmby god_bless_john_houlding
good god, we lose a game and straight away the old "we can't compete finacially" arguement comes to life. 
makes me chuckle if nothing else. United can afford to put Anderson on the bench because they have Paul Scholes (a local lad who cost them NOTHING) playing instead. Nani is on the bench because they have Giggs (a lad who came through their ranks and cost them NOTHING)
Lets be honest 150 million, should be bringing in 10 world stars considering Reina and Agger cost less than 15 million between them. Reina, Agger, Alonso, Mascherano, Torres. 5 world stars...value of those 5 is 64 million. So with around 90 million to spend...can anybody honestly tell me he hasn't had the money to bring in another 5 world stars? Crouch/Pennant/Skrtel/Babel/Lucas all good to very good players cost between them 34 million. So he's got a further 30 million there to spend on a world star...not Yossi Benayoun, not Dirk Kuyt, not Alvaro Arbeloa, not Charles Intandje, not this that and the other. So how people still say we can't compete is beyond me. So we can't fork out 30 million on a flop like Shevchenko...we can't fork out 20 million for a pretty average Owen Hargreaves...no we can just throw 30 million down the drain on 10/11 other players collectively. If Benitez took the time to look, we could easily be spending 30 million, the truth is he's buying too many poor players rather than few world stars.
Posted:
Thu May 01, 2008 10:56 pmby JoeTerp
We got Gerrard and Carra for nothing, so that cancels Giggs and Scholes out
Posted:
Thu May 01, 2008 11:07 pmby JoeTerp
if you only have one shot at a big time player in the 25+ range, that is a big risk if the player is a flop because you chose to improve the team in basically only one area for that window, and there is always a chance that you can find a diamond in the rough with the cheaper players. Although I agree that in general we need to shift towards less for more, I can understand why Rafa has bought that way. He must have thought, If I don't qualify for CL, I will be fired, and if I go after big money risky players and they flop or get hurt and there is no quality in depth, I could be in danger of missing out. Seems like he has bought enough quality in large enough depth to ensure that we could survive an injury or flop crisis and still qualify for the CL.
I hope the Torres signing has now increased Rafa's confidence in his ability to go big and get the big reward. I can't imagine the squad having any more players than it does right now, it wouldn't make any sense for him to continue to target 5million pound buys from West Ham anymore
Posted:
Thu May 01, 2008 11:31 pmby god_bless_john_houlding
so its ok to have a squad that can compete in europe, but not the premiership...now i understand. the premiership isn't important as long as our squad is good enough for europe and here's me thinking the premiership was number one priorirty. how silly of me.
Posted:
Sat May 03, 2008 1:54 pmby account deleted by request
Rafa has mainly stuck with the same preferred CB pairings since he came, first Carra and Hyypia and then Carra and Agger. Was this through choice or because of limited options? Next season I think we will find out, as for the first time since Rafa came we have real options at the back . Carra and Agger - Carra and Skrtel - Agger and Skrtel - even Sami may get thrown into the mix?
Will we see Rafa using them tactically - Agger and Skrtel against sides when we want to play with a high line - Carra and Skrtel against the more physical sides. Hyypia and Skrtel against teams with big strikers who pose a real threat from headers? Or will he perm two from 4 and stick with them for the majority of the games?
Rotation is not dead!
Posted:
Sat May 03, 2008 2:08 pmby Judge
wish crouch had been rotated back into the squad at the expense of kuyt last wednesday, then babel for benayoun, not torres 
Posted:
Sat May 03, 2008 11:08 pmby bigmick
s@int wrote:Rafa has mainly stuck with the same preferred CB pairings since he came, first Carra and Hyypia and then Carra and Agger. Was this through choice or because of limited options? Next season I think we will find out, as for the first time since Rafa came we have real options at the back . Carra and Agger - Carra and Skrtel - Agger and Skrtel - even Sami may get thrown into the mix?
Will we see Rafa using them tactically - Agger and Skrtel against sides when we want to play with a high line - Carra and Skrtel against the more physical sides. Hyypia and Skrtel against teams with big strikers who pose a real threat from headers? Or will he perm two from 4 and stick with them for the majority of the games?
Rotation is not dead!
Well I can say here and now that in my opinion, if we are seriously intending to "style" the centre-halves next season while attemtpting to build any kind of defensive cohesion, it will be utter madness.
Posted:
Mon May 05, 2008 5:12 pmby ConnO'var
bigmick wrote:s@int wrote:Rafa has mainly stuck with the same preferred CB pairings since he came, first Carra and Hyypia and then Carra and Agger. Was this through choice or because of limited options? Next season I think we will find out, as for the first time since Rafa came we have real options at the back . Carra and Agger - Carra and Skrtel - Agger and Skrtel - even Sami may get thrown into the mix?
Will we see Rafa using them tactically - Agger and Skrtel against sides when we want to play with a high line - Carra and Skrtel against the more physical sides. Hyypia and Skrtel against teams with big strikers who pose a real threat from headers? Or will he perm two from 4 and stick with them for the majority of the games?
Rotation is not dead!
Well I can say here and now that in my opinion, if we are seriously intending to "style" the centre-halves next season while attemtpting to build any kind of defensive cohesion, it will be utter madness.
I'd never have guessed you'd felt that strongly against rotation, mate!
agree with you btw.....
Posted:
Mon May 05, 2008 9:28 pmby god_bless_john_houlding
anybody in their right mind knows to leave the centre half pairing alone for as much as they can. Every great side is built from the back. Even shitty sides are built from the back.
Every side in the league next year barring two or three will know their first choice centre halves. The three I don't think will are Liverpool, Newcastle and Tottenham. Look at the biggest spenders and biggest underachievers in premiership history...Liverpool, Newcastle and Tottenham.
I don't care who Benitez picks, as long as their his first choice centre halves and as long as he picks them together as often as he can. My choice is Carra and Agger, Benitez may choose San Jose and Hobbs. That doesn't really bother me as long as Benitez picks his first choice reguarlly.
Posted:
Mon May 05, 2008 10:01 pmby LFC2007
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:My choice is Carra and Agger, Benitez may choose San Jose and Hobbs. That doesn't really bother me as long as Benitez picks his first choice reguarlly.
That'd certainly bother me.