gerrards form and everton substitution

[Neil Young]

Stevie was our best player and you don't take off your best player if he isn't injured or tired.

It was a decision based on what the team needed long term more than what the team needed in that game IMO.

Rafa showed who is the boss and he needed to do that at that time. It's Rafa's team not Gerrard's team.

I don't know if I would have said that we would have been unlucky if we had lost the game. That totally depends on how the goal is scored and how we had played, if we had dominated the game or not.

Speculative, at best.

[Jazzmaster]

Stevie was our best player and you don't take off your best player if he isn't injured or tired.

It was a decision based on what the team needed long term more than what the team needed in that game IMO.

Rafa showed who is the boss and he needed to do that at that time. It's Rafa's team not Gerrard's team.

I don't know if I would have said that we would have been unlucky if we had lost the game. That totally depends on how the goal is scored and how we had played, if we had dominated the game or not.

Do you really thinks rafa would jeopardise the team just to make a point to show who is boss?

[red g]

Well, he was lucky to get it right but you need some luck or you won't win anything. Sometimes you need to take a gamble.

It's easy to say now when everyone know that Lucas can replace Gerrard without that much problem that it was the right decision.

but it took a big set of balls to do that, there are very few managers in world football who would have done that

[AFII]

Fergie and Wenger will make the same sorts of gamble when they rest key players like Ronaldo or Fabregas. It may or may not pay off but they need to do it to rest the player so he will get a better chance to stay fit and perform better long term.

You can only hope that the replacement will perform almost as good as him but you can't expect him to do that. It's a gamble but a gamble you must take.

[AFII]

but it took a big set of balls to do that, there are very few managers in world football who would have done that

As I said, It was a gamble and you need a big set of balls to make a gamble like that.

Lucas isn't as good as Gerrard yet and he may or may not have performed, not even Rafa could know that.

Stevie won't let you down, he will perform at a high level even if he have a bad game.

[kewellnthegang]

Speculative, at best.

but more like bollocks

[Jazzmaster]

not even Rafa could know that.

Rafa is not god

Or is he.......

[Woobus]

It's easy to say now when everyone know that Lucas can replace Gerrard without that much problem that it was the right decision.

Thats the point Rafa did know Lucas could step in and replace him, it wasnt luck it was down to Rafa knowing his players better than some internet users and useless pundits.

[Rocket]

but more like bollocks

as you would expect

[cobain]

When Rafa substituted Gerrard with Lucas, it showed that he had an enormous amount of faith in the young lad.

But if Liverpool lost that day, Rafa would get butchered in the media. Luckily though we won and I don't see a point arguing about this ****, because the points are all that matter

So, 3 tomorrow against Reading, please

[The_weatherman]

Stevie won't let you down, he will perform at a high level even if he have a bad game.

Can't agree with that I can agree that his bad are games are maybe not as bad other players' bad games but he can be anonymous as well as others.

[red g]

Can't agree with that I can agree that his bad are games are maybe not as bad other players' bad games but he can be anonymous as well as others.

i would actually say his bad games are a lot worse than other peoples, When he is bad he is f'in awful !! and becuase of his position it is highlighted more. players like riise get away with being ****e most of the time as its a less important position

[dww]

Stevie was our best player and you don't take off your best player if he isn't injured or tired.

It was a decision based on what the team needed long term more than what the team needed in that game IMO.

Rafa showed who is the boss and he needed to do that at that time. It's Rafa's team not Gerrard's team.

I don't know if I would have said that we would have been unlucky if we had lost the game. That totally depends on how the goal is scored and how we had played, if we had dominated the game or not.

But the point is that by saying Rafa was lucky you imply that there is no method to his substitution and that it was purely based on a supposed desire to show Gerrard who was boss.

Even using that assumption he could have made another change (i.e. bringing on a forward for Stevie) but he made a change which did improve the way we played as the style of Lucas was the type of player we needed at that point, in that game.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say Gerrard was our best player. In that game he had done one really good thing (run for the penalty) and played okay but was not fluidly linking defence and attack consistantly. We did need to take more time and play more considered football and Gerrard for Lucas naturally does that to the team.

Then you have to see whether in light of the fact Lucas played the defensive role in the last match whether he could have replaced Momo. To me the explanation for not doing that is that Momo wins back the ball and mops up counter attacks and even if his passing is poor as Everton were not pressing forward much it is likely others will be about to get the ball. However if Gerrard wastes the ball while we are creating an attack we loose far more in terms of the fact it is likely to happen in a situation in which against 10 men we should get a chance out of the position.

So while there is a risk in every substitution I think it is reasonable to say that Rafa made a logical change and that the success of the change was down to making a good analysis/decision rather than being lucky.

[tomasjj]

But the point is that by saying Rafa was lucky you imply that there is no method to his substitution and that it was purely based on a supposed desire to show Gerrard who was boss.

Even using that assumption he could have made another change (i.e. bringing on a forward for Stevie) but he made a change which did improve the way we played as the style of Lucas was the type of player we needed at that point, in that game.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say Gerrard was our best player. In that game he had done one really good thing (run for the penalty) and played okay but was not fluidly linking defence and attack consistantly. We did need to take more time and play more considered football and Gerrard for Lucas naturally does that to the team.

Then you have to see whether in light of the fact Lucas played the defensive role in the last match whether he could have replaced Momo. To me the explanation for not doing that is that Momo wins back the ball and mops up counter attacks and even if his passing is poor as Everton were not pressing forward much it is likely others will be about to get the ball. However if Gerrard wastes the ball while we are creating an attack we loose far more in terms of the fact it is likely to happen in a situation in which against 10 men we should get a chance out of the position.

So while there is a risk in every substitution I think it is reasonable to say that Rafa made a logical change and that the success of the change was down to making a good analysis/decision rather than being lucky.

Exactomundo!

[Rocket]

So while there is a risk in every substitution I think it is reasonable to say that Rafa made a logical change and that the success of the change was down to making a good analysis/decision rather than being lucky.

exactly, saying a decision is "lucky" is giving Rafa no credit what so ever.