Aquilani

[Charly]

Surely he is fit enough to play longer than he has been given?

HE should be getting a good 10-15 mins a match if we hope to build up his fitness or confidence (psychology being the one thing that I dont think Rafa truely understands about players)

[DannyMan2006]

Surely he is fit enough to play longer than he has been given?

HE should be getting a good 10-15 mins a match if we hope to build up his fitness or confidence (psychology being the one thing that I dont think Rafa truely understands about players)

If Liverpool had been winning games by clear margins, or at least in control of games, then he would be getting 25 minutes every game.

But when involved in a close game it is not always the best idea to take of a player involved in the midfield battle and bring one on who is obviously not capable of playing to his best level. If you read Rafa's comments prior to the Everton game you would see that this is exactly what Rafa is thinking.

[Guest]

Well said Danny. Some people defy logic on here. As you say, now it's the 'Aquilani show'. Tomorrow they'll be banging on Babel to be played more often.

[Tee]

Well said Danny. Some people defy logic on here. As you say, now it's the 'Aquilani show'. Tomorrow they'll be banging on Babel to be played more often.

Listen Fredo, it is all about opinions and to many of us we might have been asking all the questions of Everton if Aquilani was on the pitch. Simple logic!!!

To have Aquilani fit and ready to go but not even giving him any game time, even if it is aspecially arranged reserve game or similar, defies logic to many of us!!!

Get real and understand that Rafa can be every bit as frustrating as some of ourt players.

[Guest]

Listen Fredo, it is all about opinions and to many of us we might have been asking all the questions of Everton if Aquilani was on the pitch. Simple logic!!!

To have Aquilani fit and ready to go but not even giving him any game time, even if it is aspecially arranged reserve game or similar, defies logic to many of us!!!

Get real and understand that Rafa can be every bit as frustrating as some of ourt players.

Get real.

Aquilani fit is a great 'option' for us.

[cream]

I think he'll get about 20 mins against Blackburn and then 60 mins from the start against Fiorentina.

[red g]

I think he'll get about 20 mins against Blackburn and then 60 mins from the start against Fiorentina.

not sure we will see him against blackburn, likely to be tight......1-0 up twenty to go.....rafa thinks hold what we got

[Bender]

this rate he'll never make an appearance............we should all have a sweepstake how many minutes will he get on the pitch

[Guest]

this rate he'll never make an appearance............we should all have a sweepstake how many minutes will he get on the pitch

He's just an option mate. Rafa sees his players as subjects on a chess board, nothing more nothing less.

The control freak.

[saj]

Can't disagree with much of this...

How RAFA BENITEZ contradicted himself over ALBERTO AQUILANI'S fitness levels

In an interview prior to the Everton game, the ever-cautious Rafa Benitez explained how the physical nature of the Premiership was the main reason Alberto Aquilani was persistently warming the bench. In the same interview, he blatantly contradicted himself over the state of the player's fitness, something that arguably sheds light on the real reason the Italian is being held back.

In the interview with the Liverpool Post, Benitez was asked about the level of Aquilani's fitness, to which he declared:

"The player is fit. He is training".

The player is FIT.

It seems ridiculous to examine the meaning of unambiguous words, but I think it's safe to assume that if Benitez says he's fit, then he's fit, right? What else does 'the player is fit' mean? It doesn't mean he's unfit, does it? In a footballing context, saying 'the player is fit' means he is strong enough to play football.

Later in the interview, Benitez was asked whether Aquilani would feature in the Merseyside Derby, to which he replied:

"The derby game is a physical one and everyone knows that when you are not fully fit they can be difficult to manage so you have to think about what’s best for the player and the best for the team.

"He hasn’t played for months so he has to be ready and fully fit if he is to be able to play at the level that he can play in England".

So, in one breath Benitez says Aquilani is fit; in the next, he backtracks and suggests he's not fully fit.

Which one is it? Is Aquilani fit or not?!

LFC superfans and the pro-Benitez brigade are trying their best to shout down anyone who questions the manager's excessive caution over Aquilani, using excuses like 'Benitez talks to the physios - you don't' and 'He was rushed back by Roma so Liverpool are not making the same mistakes'.

Liverpool fans have a right to question the club's stance over Aquilani for the following reasons:

* The constant moving of goal-posts re his recovery time.

* The large fee being paid out for the player's services.

* The fact that Aquilani has been out of action for almost 9 months now.

* The fact that almost 4 months into the season he is yet to make a league appearance.

* The fact that Benitez's decision to sign an injured player left a huge hole in the team, something that has contributed to the club's horrible run of form over the last 3 months.

* The fact that players who are seemingly MORE injured that Aquilani gets time on the pitch.

Benitez's contradiction concerns me because it suggests that:

a) He is either not being entirely upfront about the nature and extent of Aquilani's injury, or more likely:

b) The player is fit and able to play but is not doing so because Benitez is being his usual ultra-cautious self, arguably to the detriment of the team.

In the same interview, Benitez stated:

"Why have I not been playing him? Because the games are so close that if you put a player on the pitch who is not physically ready [then] maybe he cannot settle down in time".

Another contradiction. If he is 'not physically ready' then how can he be fit?!

Benitez added the following:

"If it is 1-0 like it was the other day and they are attacking a bit more and you changed Lucas, Gerrard or Mascherano to play him, maybe you are making a mistake because you will lose the control. If we were winning 3-0 in the first half of every game he would be playing because it would be easier for him to settle down".

So - If it's 1-0 and we are attacking more then it would be mistake to replace Lucas with Aquilani because Liverpool might 'lose control'?!

And the only time Aquilani is guaranteed playing time will be on the extremely rare occasions that Liverpool is winning 3-0 IN THE FIRST HALF of a game?!

Does this make any logical sense to anyone? Of course, the pro-Benitez brigade will regale us with all kinds of convoluted reasons why this all makes sense, but the reality is clear to see: Aquilani's continued absence from the team has nothing to do with his fitness levels and everything to do with Benitez's ultra-cautious sensibilities.

If Benitez was so worried that an injury-prone player like Aquilani might not be able to cut it physically in the Premiership, WHY DID HE SIGN HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE?

[Bender]

He's just an option mate. Rafa sees his players as subjects on a chess board, nothing more nothing less.

The control freak.

[Reece]

I'd say that website name is suitably apt. What the **** is it with so called "experts" picking apart absolutely everything Rafa says/does to the minutest ****ing detail.

[Guest]

Can't disagree with much of this...

How RAFA BENITEZ contradicted himself over ALBERTO AQUILANI'S fitness levels

In an interview prior to the Everton game, the ever-cautious Rafa Benitez explained how the physical nature of the Premiership was the main reason Alberto Aquilani was persistently warming the bench. In the same interview, he blatantly contradicted himself over the state of the player's fitness, something that arguably sheds light on the real reason the Italian is being held back.

In the interview with the Liverpool Post, Benitez was asked about the level of Aquilani's fitness, to which he declared:

"The player is fit. He is training".

The player is FIT.

It seems ridiculous to examine the meaning of unambiguous words, but I think it's safe to assume that if Benitez says he's fit, then he's fit, right? What else does 'the player is fit' mean? It doesn't mean he's unfit, does it? In a footballing context, saying 'the player is fit' means he is strong enough to play football.

Later in the interview, Benitez was asked whether Aquilani would feature in the Merseyside Derby, to which he replied:

"The derby game is a physical one and everyone knows that when you are not fully fit they can be difficult to manage so you have to think about what’s best for the player and the best for the team.

"He hasn’t played for months so he has to be ready and fully fit if he is to be able to play at the level that he can play in England".

So, in one breath Benitez says Aquilani is fit; in the next, he backtracks and suggests he's not fully fit.

Which one is it? Is Aquilani fit or not?!

LFC superfans and the pro-Benitez brigade are trying their best to shout down anyone who questions the manager's excessive caution over Aquilani, using excuses like 'Benitez talks to the physios - you don't' and 'He was rushed back by Roma so Liverpool are not making the same mistakes'.

Liverpool fans have a right to question the club's stance over Aquilani for the following reasons:

* The constant moving of goal-posts re his recovery time.

* The large fee being paid out for the player's services.

* The fact that Aquilani has been out of action for almost 9 months now.

* The fact that almost 4 months into the season he is yet to make a league appearance.

* The fact that Benitez's decision to sign an injured player left a huge hole in the team, something that has contributed to the club's horrible run of form over the last 3 months.

* The fact that players who are seemingly MORE injured that Aquilani gets time on the pitch.

Benitez's contradiction concerns me because it suggests that:

a) He is either not being entirely upfront about the nature and extent of Aquilani's injury, or more likely:

b) The player is fit and able to play but is not doing so because Benitez is being his usual ultra-cautious self, arguably to the detriment of the team.

In the same interview, Benitez stated:

"Why have I not been playing him? Because the games are so close that if you put a player on the pitch who is not physically ready [then] maybe he cannot settle down in time".

Another contradiction. If he is 'not physically ready' then how can he be fit?!

Benitez added the following:

"If it is 1-0 like it was the other day and they are attacking a bit more and you changed Lucas, Gerrard or Mascherano to play him, maybe you are making a mistake because you will lose the control. If we were winning 3-0 in the first half of every game he would be playing because it would be easier for him to settle down".

So - If it's 1-0 and we are attacking more then it would be mistake to replace Lucas with Aquilani because Liverpool might 'lose control'?!

And the only time Aquilani is guaranteed playing time will be on the extremely rare occasions that Liverpool is winning 3-0 IN THE FIRST HALF of a game?!

Does this make any logical sense to anyone? Of course, t`he pro-Benitez brigade will regale us with all kinds of convoluted reasons why this all makes sense, but the reality is clear to see: Aquilani's continued absence from the team has nothing to do with his fitness levels and everything to do with Benitez's ultra-cautious sensibilities.

If Benitez was so worried that an injury-prone player like Aquilani might not be able to cut it physically in the Premiership, WHY DID HE SIGN HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Mate, no disrespect to you but where do you fish for these kind of bollocks?

[Tee]

Mate, no disrespect to you but where do you fish for these kind of bollocks?

Please give us an explanation as to how the article is 'bollocks'.

[Guest]

Please give us an explanation as to how the article is 'bollocks'.

Firstly it's got no reason to exist as we won on Sunday.

Secondly Aquilani has been injured since the start of the season and he's only been 'fully fit' since a couple of weeks ago.

Do you also want to indulge into a semantically nuanced discussion about being 'fully fit' with me?