The battle for fourth.........

[DannyMan2006]

TBH, i dont actually think anyone was particularly backing Everton finish 4th in any kinda emphatic way. We've always been favourites for it and rightly so.

Wasn't so emphatic at one stge in the season, and this poll was the 25/02/08:

http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=48194&highlight=everton+aston+villa

[DannyMan2006]

I dont think we actually WOULD have been 'much closer' TBH. The inclusion of Agger wouldnt have made a major difference in games where we havent been able to score enough, eg Brum and Wigan at home, City, Pompey and Blackburn away. He allows us to play with a higher line which i accept and this has an impact, but not enough to have made us 'much' closer IMO.

Rafa disagrees, but then he would I guess. I also disagree, his ability to bring the ball out, and squeeze teams up would have helped.

[Dhav]

Does that mean he doesnt actually think it's possible to pick up a good tally of points early on and STILL finish strongly?

That would worry me.

I wouldn't say that necessarily follows. I'm all for getting momentum going from the start of the season, look how far it has gotten Arsenal so far, but look at the other side of coin - the wheels appear to be coming off for them somewhat while we're hitting form. It is a difficult balance to strike.

If that's true, he's an idiot of a bookie...even more so in the fact that his prices would have obviously not matched his 'fancy'...

I agree, he's an idiot. May be he was thinking if he came out in support of Everton it may persuade punters to back them, making them quids in what with the prospects of Everton making 4th being less likely than us getting it? Fanciful

[dww]

I think Agger on his own would not have made the difference. However I do think he might have helped some of the others around him - the difference as I see it since when we were drawing those games is two fold: one we now break quicker and two we are breaking teams down in their own half more effectively and therefore starting attacks in better positions more often.

Agger would certainly have helped get the balls out of defence in terms of breaks and we would have played a higher line which would have helped the second part. However in order to take advantage of this we needed Babel to give pace to the attack from deep and to accommodate Gerrard in a role with freedom. Agger would have not had a huge effect on either of these things. In some ways at least with the later part the injury of Alonso and Agger at the same time made it harder to move to the formation/style of play we have now and if this is the cause of our improvement then we may well have been much better off if we had employed it earlier.

I still think the squad has only become correctly balanced now that Babel and Lucas have settled in, so in all likelihood we would have been better off but not greatly without Aggers injury IMO.

[Craig_H]

Wasn't so emphatic at one stge in the season, and this poll was the 25/02/08:

http://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/show...on+aston+villa

18%, a small minority.

[Craig_H]

Rafa disagrees, but then he would I guess. I also disagree, his ability to bring the ball out, and squeeze teams up would have helped.

I'd give it a value of maybe 2 or 3 points. Nothing that significant. I suppose if everything's all tight, you could argue the significance of 3 points, mind.

[Craig_H]

I wouldn't say that necessarily follows. I'm all for getting momentum going from the start of the season, look how far it has gotten Arsenal so far, but look at the other side of coin - the wheels appear to be coming off for them somewhat while we're hitting form. It is a difficult balance to strike.



I agree, he's an idiot. May be he was thinking if he came out in support of Everton it may persuade punters to back them, making them quids in what with the prospects of Everton making 4th being less likely than us getting it? Fanciful

It is a difficult balance to strike, but even for the wheels falling off, arsenal will probably finish above us. Furthermore, they dont have the size of squad to cope, if they lose a few. I'd argue that we're better equipped in such a situation.

[mersey86]

I think Agger on his own would not have made the difference. However I do think he might have helped some of the others around him - the difference as I see it since when we were drawing those games is two fold: one we now break quicker and two we are breaking teams down in their own half more effectively and therefore starting attacks in better positions more often.

Agger would certainly have helped get the balls out of defence in terms of breaks and we would have played a higher line which would have helped the second part. However in order to take advantage of this we needed Babel to give pace to the attack from deep and to accommodate Gerrard in a role with freedom. Agger would have not had a huge effect on either of these things. In some ways at least with the later part the injury of Alonso and Agger at the same time made it harder to move to the formation/style of play we have now and if this is the cause of our improvement then we may well have been much better off if we had employed it earlier.

I still think the squad has only become correctly balanced now that Babel and Lucas have settled in, so in all likelihood we would have been better off but not greatly without Aggers injury IMO.

I think I'm going to adopt a new policy of waiting for dww to give his opinion on a subject, then agreeing. Usually makes more sense than what I was going to write. While I accept that we will not win the league this year (and I'll be very happy to accept 4th at this stage), I think we have come closer. The "surge too late" syndrome has hit us again, but we looked in prime position until our horrrific start to the year (City, Wigan, Middlesbrough, West Ham - thinking about those games has me reaching for the tissue box) and who knows how much the behind-the-scenes turmoil contributed. Six more points (maybe even four) and we'd be right in the mix. Maybe Agger or Skrtel at that time would have made a difference.
Another point, for alll those who claim how right they were all along in denouncing rotation, we would not be as strong now had we not rotated, Rafa traditionally stops rotation at this stage anyway because the players should be fresh enough to see through the season and we have had a very nice run of fixtures.

[Craig_H]

Another point, for alll those who claim how right they were all along in denouncing rotation, we would not be as strong now had we not rotated, Rafa traditionally stops rotation at this stage anyway because the players should be fresh enough to see through the season and we have had a very nice run of fixtures.

But by this logic, we cannot ever win the league, because we apparently HAVE to rotate early, and this always leaves us with too much ground to make up.

[dww]

But by this logic, we cannot ever win the league, because we apparently HAVE to rotate early, and this always leaves us with too much ground to make up.

Surely that logic relies on the idea that rotation intrinsically leaves us an unbridgeable gap behind the top teams? I think that is a fallacy - I do think we need to establish more of a team pattern and have the right players to make rotation work better though.

[Dhav]

But by this logic, we cannot ever win the league, because we apparently HAVE to rotate early, and this always leaves us with too much ground to make up.

That's if you necessarily accept early season rotation is the direct cause of the dropped pts, which I don't.

I'd attribute our dropped pts this season more to player error than Rafa not playing a settled line-up or his "best team":-

• the missed chances in game v Spurs at home, Blackburn & Man City away etc
• their failure to show up v Wigan, Birmingham etc,
• the pathetically sloppy goals we've conceded from set plays v Villa, Reading etc.

Missed chances and poor performances are pretty much par for the course in any season, but those sloppy set piece goals have killed us. And in past seasons under Rafa we've been excellent at defending them.

[Craig_H]

Surely that logic relies on the idea that rotation intrinsically leaves us an unbridgeable gap behind the top teams? I think that is a fallacy - I do think we need to establish more of a team pattern and have the right players to make rotation work better though.

Obviously there's no set rule that rotating leaves us with too big a gap, but that's basically how it works out every single time.

So until there's evidence to say it's not happening, i'm going by the argument that it in fact DOES - because it has done.

[Craig_H]

That's if you necessarily accept early season rotation is the direct cause of the dropped pts, which I don't.

I'd attribute our dropped pts this season more to player error than Rafa not playing a settled line-up or his "best team":-

• the missed chances in game v Spurs at home, Blackburn & Man City away etc
• their failure to show up v Wigan, Birmingham etc,
• the pathetically sloppy goals we've conceded from set plays v Villa, Reading etc.

Missed chances and poor performances are pretty much par for the course in any season, but those sloppy set piece goals have killed us. And in past seasons under Rafa we've been excellent at defending them.

I do, and emphatically so.

People may or may not accept it, but impartial observers will basically always agree that disrupting a settled side will have a detrimental impact on performances.

[dww]

Obviously there's no set rule that rotating leaves us with too big a gap, but that's basically how it works out every single time.

So until there's evidence to say it's not happening, i'm going by the argument that it in fact DOES - because it has done.

It could be that we are just not good enough as a squad yet. I think in general there was little in numbers of rotations between us and United in the last few seasons pre-Christmas. I think the focus on us and not other teams that do rotate is where your evidence is less strong.

[Craig_H]

It could be that we are just not good enough as a squad yet. I think in general there was little in numbers of rotations between us and United in the last few seasons pre-Christmas. I think the focus on us and not other teams that do rotate is where your evidence is less strong.

It's not simply about rotating in itself, as i've said before, it's about intelligent rotating - rotating the right players in the right matches. Rafa's ability to do this properly hasnt looked water-tight this season.

Furthermore, the amount of changes from one game to the next is crucial. 2-3 changes between games is normal. 4, 5 or even 6 (which rafa has been guilty of previously) opens up enormous potential for disruption to team fluidity.