Wenger & Rotation

[dww]

That was last season

They drew 1-1 this season.

I hope you have re-read the thread now. He was talking about last season.

[Craig_H]

wenger and fergie were prepared to play their big players (straight after the 1st international) despite playing two internationals in a week rafa wasn't.
for example tevez and masherano flew round the world to play an international tevez played at the weekend masherano didn't.

rafa wasn't prepared to risk gerrard's toe and like I said torres had played two games in a week.
I can 'understand' rafa's caution with gerrard but for pity sake with regards to torres this was just the 5th league game ffs the irony being despite rafa's kid gloves torres has been injuried ANYWAY and again ironically enough he rushed torres back early to play arsenal.

It all goes back to the same thing - Rafa is cautious by nature. He doesnt take risks, he doesnt 'go for it'...and he hasnt won the title.

[Pacman]

On 2nd thoughts I can't be arsed.

[dww]

No it doesnt remain the same, because with their strongest side, they'd win more often than not. Nobody will ALWAYS win, but it's percentages.

But we were using a specific example where people said it was a mistake to rotate. We then went to a team who didn't and are more succesful in general - therefore you would expect them to have better results in the specific match up. As it happens by rotating we do as well as Manchester United in the specific example being talked about. Unless United did better then the point that they didn't do better by not rotating remains the same - no matter whether you want to relate it to a larger body of data.

You can't work on pure percentages when what you claim is that it is not the number of rotations but the type and timing and most objective observers would say that Uniteds team is better than ours and so irrelevant of rotation would win more. As we don't have access to parallel universes in which LFC rotate and don't we have to resort to imperfect forms of analysis.

In discussion both case studies like this and broader statistical(ish) approach being valid.

[Craig_H]

But we were using a specific example where people said it was a mistake to rotate. We then went to a team who didn't and are more succesful in general - therefore you would expect them to have better results in the specific match up. As it happens by rotating we do as well as Manchester United in the specific example being talked about. Unless United did better then the point that they didn't do better by not rotating remains the same - no matter whether you want to relate it to a larger body of data.

You can't work on pure percentages when what you claim is that it is not the number of rotations but the type and timing and most objective observers would say that Uniteds team is better than ours and so irrelevant of rotation would win more. As we don't have access to parallel universes in which LFC rotate and don't we have to resort to imperfect forms of analysis.

In discussion both case studies like this and broader statistical(ish) approach being valid.

Of course you can work on percentages. The fact is, if you drop key players in tricky games, you'll have less chance of winning. United dont do it and generally speaking, do better than us in those kind of games. In that ONE specific example they didnt, but generally they do. What else, if not winning points that we dont, do you think wins them titles?

[Pacman]

Of course you can work on percentages. The fact is, if you drop key players in tricky games, you'll have less chance of winning. United dont do it and generally speaking, do better than us in those kind of games. In that ONE specific example they didnt, but generally they do. What else, if not winning points that we dont, do you think wins them titles?

Better players maybe.

[Guest]

[dww]

Of course you can work on percentages. The fact is, if you drop key players in tricky games, you'll have less chance of winning. United dont do it and generally speaking, do better than us in those kind of games. In that ONE specific example they didnt, but generally they do. What else, if not winning points that we dont, do you think wins them titles?

See the point is that the rotation has to be seperated from the general quality of players to make your argument that we loose more points because of rotation rather than because we have less quality in our team/squad generally.

The fact we finish seasons better than other teams who do better over the whole season would appear to imply that the situation is complicated by other factors to.

Basically you can't use the fact that one team wins more to prove the reason other than to make the facile observation that they had the best combination of players and way of deploying them.

[Craig_H]

Better players maybe.

We've got good players.

The difference is, their's are usually on the pitch, as opposed to the bench.

[Craig_H]

See the point is that the rotation has to be seperated from the general quality of players to make your argument that we loose more points because of rotation rather than because we have less quality in our team/squad generally.

The fact we finish seasons better than other teams who do better over the whole season would appear to imply that the situation is complicated by other factors to.

Basically you can't use the fact that one team wins more to prove the reason other than to make the facile observation that they had the best combination of players and way of deploying them.

Whatever you wish to say, playing superior players gives you a better chance of winning. Stevie Wonder can see that.

[dww]

Whatever you wish to say, playing superior players gives you a better chance of winning. Stevie Wonder can see that.

Yes but the point is that over a season the quality of the player is almost certainly a function of talent, fitness and form. Rotation may potentially help to maximise the later two thus meaning that for a given group of players with a given maximum ability over a season rotating might be better.

United as it has been shown many times make numerically a similar number of rotations over a season, although I am yet to see a distribution of them. Therefore it is a reasonable assumption that the difference in the two teams overall results is either a function of overall player ability or the types of rotation. Due to not being things which have an easy metric representation we cannot disentangle the two factors.

Note that both points of view assume that better teams will over a period of time win more games. You simply refuse to listen to any arguments because you have already made up your mind.

[Le Chacal]

Wenger and Feruson's kind of rotation is totally different from Rafa's...
Wenger or Feruson would never bench their best striker for a home league game.
Rafa's biggest problem is not rotation though because this season he's got a big and talented squad enough to change players without seeing a big difference.
The biggest mistake is when he changes his formation every game. Gerrard on the left, right, middle, as a 2nd striker etc, playing with 1, 2 or 3 strikers in less than 2 weeks.
Thats the main problem and I was happy to see the same formation with the same players 2 games in a row. The Spine Reina-Carra-Hyypia(Agger)-Mascher-Gerrard-Torres has to play every League and CL game. Mascher + Gerrard behind 2 strikers is vital. Babel, Benayoun, Crouch, Voronin, Kewell, Riise, Pennant will all have a big role to play as starters or as impact players, Rafa has just to play the same formation as we saw in the last 2 games on a constant basis.

[Craig_H]

Yes but the point is that over a season the quality of the player is almost certainly a function of talent, fitness and form. Rotation may potentially help to maximise the later two thus meaning that for a given group of players with a given maximum ability over a season rotating might be better.

United as it has been shown many times make numerically a similar number of rotations over a season, although I am yet to see a distribution of them. Therefore it is a reasonable assumption that the difference in the two teams overall results is either a function of overall player ability or the types of rotation. Due to not being things which have an easy metric representation we cannot disentangle the two factors.

Note that both points of view assume that better teams will over a period of time win more games. You simply refuse to listen to any arguments because you have already made up your mind.

I'm not disputing the fitness issue.

But you can rotate for fitness when you have home games against Wigan, Sunderland, Derby, Boro etc...not away at Pompey.

[spider-neil]

I read rafa's interview and it made perfect sense - rotate when the players are fit because rotation when the players are ****ed is pointless, good idea...in thoery

okay you are going to rotate but there are the competitions

the league
the champions league
the fac
the league cup

I put them in that order I have absolutely no doubt in my mind the board but
the CL top of the pile but there you go.

a) identify the best players, the most important players, the spine, partnerships. imho there are - pepe/agger/carra/finnan/arbeloa/gerrard/alonso/masherano/torres
that leaves two places up for grabs

b) plays as many of them as human in league fitness permitting and rotate in OTHER competitions. in the first part of the season in the build attempt to build momentum with consistancy to personnel

c) in the fa cup play the spine of pepe/carra/gerrard

d) in the league cup play the kids when ELSE are they going to get a sniff of first team football

e) try and use like for like if torres doesn't play then partner crouch/kuyt/voronin with babel so there is always an element of pace.
when alonso is out play lucas as he seems just as accomplished at pass the ball and keeping possesion. don't rotate for rotation ske as the team will not know whether they are coming or going. have a system and make the players fit the system don't make the system fit the players, players come and go.

f) when players are of form drop them - don't drop inform players, I would have thought this was common sense.

[akjs123]

It all goes back to the same thing - Rafa is cautious by nature. He doesnt take risks, he doesnt 'go for it'...and he hasnt won the title.

You mean like playing Alonso and Torres vs arse, putting Crouch for a defender against Chelsea and putting Lucas for Gerrard in the derby.