Wenger & Rotation

[Craig_H]

what makes you so sure that we'd have won when torres had been on the pitch? we were on course for a draw the week after - with torres being particulary guilty of wasting great chances - only for yossi to step in and rescue the points with a brilliant individual goal... it's not that definite, is all i'm saying...

Torres is vastly better than the other strikers and including him in the starting XI would have, without ANY shadow of a doubt, increased our chances of winning. Fact.

[Craig_H]

i don't think it did cost them in europe. they had key players injured and milan played excellent footie that night. it wasn't due to them being knackered.

one last time: arse, chelsea, udt - they all rotated just as much as we did. even their key players didn't play more games in the prem than ours.
why is that constantly overlooked?

It's simple though fred, there's rotation and then there's intelligent rotation.

I very much doubt Chelsea left out Lampard & Drogba for their visit to Pompey. I doubt Fergie dropped Rooney and Ronaldo and i doubt Wenger would drop Fabregas and Van Persie/Adebayor.

It's not complicated mate, for MOST away games (especially at places like Pompey), it's hard enough to win. So what you DONT do, is significantly weaken your team and reduce your chances.

Well not if you want to be winning the title anyway.

It's not about the NUMBER of rotations he makes, it's the CHOICES of players to rotate and games in which he rotates them.

Please try to understand this.

[Craig_H]

It's constantly overlooked because it doesn't suit the agenda of some feeble-minded journalists who don't like a few facts to get in the way of their paranoia; and it also seems to be beyond the wit or perception of some posters on here who seem to be convinced that Man U and Arsenal always play their best XI, whereas every time I see them on TV they've both brought in a number of different players compared with their previous line-up. I suppose that's called using your squad prudently whereas with Rafa it's the the dreaded "r" word - rotation.

Read my previous post.

[Pacman]

Torres is vastly better than the other strikers and including him in the starting XI would have, without ANY shadow of a doubt, increased our chances of winning. Fact.

Not this old chestnut.

We DON'T know what happens day in day out at melwood RAFA and his team DO. The players are tested, monitored and assessed before every game how do we know that Torres was suffering from fatigue or a slight niggle - WE DON'T.

Stevie said HIMSELF said that he rushed back from his broken toe injury TO SOON which has affected his performances ever since. So Rafa not playing him against Pompey is a no brainer.

[Craig_H]

Not this old chestnut.

We DON'T know what happens day in day out at melwood RAFA and his team DO. The players are tested, monitored and assessed before every game how do we know that Torres was suffering from fatigue or a slight niggle - WE DON'T.

Ok, i'll take that viewpoint...

Torres was on the bench.

What would've happened if a striker got injured 2 mins into the game?

Would Torres have come on? Highly likely.

Rafa is known for being all meticulous etc, so i doubt he'd have had a half fit torres on the bench. Any sub needs to be able to get on the pitch early if need be, that's what subs are there for.

So no, i dont buy that. If torres wasnt capable of playing, he wouldnt have been on the bench.

Stevie said HIMSELF said that he rushed back from his broken toe injury TO SOON which has affected his performances ever since. So Rafa not playing him against Pompey is a nor brainer.

In which case, having him on the bench was a mistake.

For the record, both Torres and Gerrard came on late, changed the game and gave us more attacking threat in those 15 mins than we'd had for the entire game. And they came close to winning it for us, but unfortunately we drew.

That ultimately shows, beyond any shadow of a doubt that we'd have been very likely to win had they started.

Rafa tried to blag it without them and it didnt work.

The concept of Rafa being wrong about something IS possible, i promise you.

[Pacman]

Ok, i'll take that viewpoint...

Torres was on the bench.

What would've happened if a striker got injured 2 mins into the game?

Would Torres have come on? Highly likely.

Rafa is known for being all meticulous etc, so i doubt he'd have had a half fit torres on the bench. Any sub needs to be able to get on the pitch early if need be, that's what subs are there for.

So no, i dont buy that. If torres wasnt capable of playing, he wouldnt have been on the bench.



In which case, having him on the bench was a mistake.

For the record, both Torres and Gerrard came on late, changed the game and gave us more attacking threat in those 15 mins than we'd had for the entire game. And they came close to winning it for us, but unfortunately we drew.

That ultimately shows, beyond any shadow of a doubt that we'd have been very likely to win had they started.

Rafa tried to blag it without them and it didnt work.

The concept of Rafa being wrong about something IS possible, i promise you.

Of course Rafa can be wrong we just have to look at his team selection in the 2005 CL for a prime example.

Torres was on the bench on Wednesday against Besiktas but never came on and RAFA has already said the reason he didn't come on was because he still WASN'T fully fit however I'm sure if we needed him in that game he would of taken a punt on him. When he say's fully fit I might be wrong in my assumption but I don't take that as Torres still having a dodgy groin more he hasn't been very sharp in training and his fitness levels are low.

If GERRARD tells Rafa and the medical team that his toe is fine then all they can do is take his word for it. Again WE DON'T KNOW the full story we are purely putting 1+1 together and coming up with an answer to FIT OUR OWN agenda.

[Diego]

Torres is vastly better than the other strikers and including him in the starting XI would have, without ANY shadow of a doubt, increased our chances of winning. Fact.

rafa doesn't rotate Gerrard or Carra, he hardly ever rotates Agger, he hardly ever rotated Alonso until we got mascherano. i think he will hardly ever rotate torres, yes he will give him a break every now and then, but thats his philosophy, he won't ware them out, he likes his players to be 100% fit, and if drooping him for a few games over the course of the season will help keeping his fitness levels up by the end of the season i see no problem with it...

our biggest problem is that we don't have good enough players to surround these players. not good enough players to fill in these few games to keep our stars from tiring. pennant, riise, crouch, voronin, hyypia, kewel, kuyt, sissoko, arent good enough...

[Craig_H]

Of course Rafa can be wrong we just have to look at his team selection in the 2005 CL for a prime example.

Torres was on the bench on Wednesday against Besiktas but never came on and RAFA has already said the reason he didn't come on was because he still WASN'T fully fit however I'm sure if we needed him in that game he would of taken a punt on him. When he say's fully fit I might be wrong in my assumption but I don't take that as Torres still having a dodgy groin more he hasn't been very sharp in training and his fitness levels are low.

If GERRARD tells Rafa and the medical team that his toe is fine then all they can do is take his word for it. Again WE DON'T KNOW the full story we are purely putting 1+1 together and coming up with an answer to FIT OUR OWN agenda.

It's not about agendas though, it's about the fact that it is MORE LIKELY that we'd have won at Pompey with Gerrard and Torres in from the start, or even on at HT.

If they werent 100% fit, they could've played 45 mins or an hour and would've been capable of making the game safe.

Your argument relies on the notion that neither of them could've managed much more than 20 mins - a HUGE assumption, given that Rafa put them BOTH on the bench. If neither were able to play 30 mins or more, having them BOTH on the bench would've been stupid.

Rafa is many things, but a risk-taker, he is not.

It's fairly logical to assume that at least one, if not both of them, had 45 mins to an hour in them. You'll argue that, but it's simply a rational viewpoint.

Some posters will never, regardless of logic, ever just come to the conclusion that Rafa simply got it wrong. There's always a million other conclusions before that. It's daft really.

[Craig_H]

rafa doesn't rotate Gerrard or Carra, he hardly ever rotates Agger, he hardly ever rotated Alonso until we got mascherano. i think he will hardly ever rotate torres, yes he will give him a break every now and then, but thats his philosophy, he won't ware them out, he likes his players to be 100% fit, and if drooping him for a few games over the course of the season will help keeping his fitness levels up by the end of the season i see no problem with it...

our biggest problem is that we don't have good enough players to surround these players. not good enough players to fill in these few games to keep our stars from tiring. pennant, riise, crouch, voronin, hyypia, kewel, kuyt, sissoko, arent good enough...

The problem with it is that it leaves us with too few points to make any kind of title challenge. As we've seen in every year of his reign.

If those other players arent good enough, then who do you blame? Rafa bought half of them, so maybe he should be accountable?

And in any case, those players ARE good enough to beat most of the other teams in the league at ANFIELD.

So what do you do? Obviously, you select the right games to rest the stars. Derby at home, Sunderland at home, Wigan at home etc.

Not PORTSMOUTH BLOODY AWAY.

WHY CANT ANYONE SEE THIS???

[Pacman]

It's not about agendas though, it's about the fact that it is MORE LIKELY that we'd have won at Pompey with Gerrard and Torres in from the start, or even on at HT.

If they werent 100% fit, they could've played 45 mins or an hour and would've been capable of making the game safe.

Your argument relies on the notion that neither of them could've managed much more than 20 mins - a HUGE assumption, given that Rafa put them BOTH on the bench. If neither were able to play 30 mins or more, having them BOTH on the bench would've been stupid.

Rafa is many things, but a risk-taker, he is not.

It's fairly logical to assume that at least one, if not both of them, had 45 mins to an hour in them. You'll argue that, but it's simply a rational viewpoint.


Some posters will never, regardless of logic, ever just come to the conclusion that Rafa simply got it wrong. There's always a million other conclusions before that. It's daft really.

He MIGHT have got it wrong and we MAY have won if they had both started but as someone pointed out earlier they BOTH started in an EASIER game against wigan and it took a different player to win that game for us.

You seem to think that it's clear cut that if they are on the bench then they MUST be fit enough to start the game which IMO is MISSING the point.

Rafa works with these boys DAY IN DAY OUT he is privy to things WE ARE NOT. I also remember that before the Pompey game Torres was away with Spain and took a knock on his hip maybe he was feeling a bit of pain from that and wasn't fit enough to start the game.

I am making a lot of assumptions but then again so are YOU and I think it is extremely stupid to be so blinkered and to think there couldn't have been other reasons as to why both didn't start the game.

[Diego]

The problem with it is that it leaves us with too few points to make any kind of title challenge. As we've seen in every year of his reign.

If those other players arent good enough, then who do you blame? Rafa bought half of them, so maybe he should be accountable?

And in any case, those players ARE good enough to beat most of the other teams in the league at ANFIELD.

So what do you do? Obviously, you select the right games to rest the stars. Derby at home, Sunderland at home, Wigan at home etc.

Not PORTSMOUTH BLOODY AWAY.

WHY CANT ANYONE SEE THIS???

i see your point, i really do, but i don't agree with it all the way. but Rafa isn't flawless and he can be criticized, Portsmouth decision can be disputed. but we don't have all the facts, Rafa has every players fitness levels and injury record, he knows them probably better than they do them selves, he said it after the game that even though it might seem like this wasn't the time to rest Torres, it really was and it will pay off later in the season, unfortunately Torres got injured so we will never know. the problem i had with the portsmouth game had more to do with how we played rather than torres not playing, although i would have wanted him to start...

as for the palyers, yes he bought them, but most of those players are squad players at best, and rafa had limited budget to fill certain positions, if he had more money no one in the world could convince me that he would have gone for pennant, crouch or kuyt...

[fred_plasticine]

Torres is vastly better than the other strikers and including him in the starting XI would have, without ANY shadow of a doubt, increased our chances of winning. Fact.

while i agree with you there's only thing left to consider: his fitness on that very day. do you remember the cl game against porto (if i'm not mistaken) where torres was a passenger at best? it's all good and well to say a certain player would have made the difference if he had been given a little more time. if some players are only half fit i'd rather have them on later in the game against tiring defenders than right from the start ... it didn't work in that game i agree.

[fred_plasticine]

It's simple though fred, there's rotation and then there's intelligent rotation.

I very much doubt Chelsea left out Lampard & Drogba for their visit to Pompey. I doubt Fergie dropped Rooney and Ronaldo and i doubt Wenger would drop Fabregas and Van Persie/Adebayor.

It's not complicated mate, for MOST away games (especially at places like Pompey), it's hard enough to win. So what you DONT do, is significantly weaken your team and reduce your chances.

Well not if you want to be winning the title anyway.

It's not about the NUMBER of rotations he makes, it's the CHOICES of players to rotate and games in which he rotates them.

Please try to understand this.

right, he didn't. they still lost there last season.

[Pacman]

right, he didn't. they still lost there last season.

drew

[fred_plasticine]

drew

lost away to portsmouth, 1-2