Tomkins article

[shaq]

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N...071025-1458.htm

 

lots of sense, as per normal for a Tomkins article.

 

Slightly overanalysed I feel - don't go along with the 'alternate season' theory, as ourselves in the 80s and Man U in the 90s should surely have debunked that idea.

 

But the very valid point he makes is about Benitez having already demonstrated his mastery of European football, meaning that he should get some respect and leeway when one season things don't go as we expect.

[Knox_Harrington]

But the very valid point he makes is about Benitez having already demonstrated his mastery of European football, meaning that he should get some respect and leeway when one season things don't go as we expect.

Totally.

[mooks]

Totally.

This is getting scary now

[meepins]

The Rotation Rope Tightens

 

Give a man enough rope, the saying goes, and he will hang himself.

 

Or in other words, give him the opportunity and he will be the victim of his own folly.

 

But it's not Rafa who's hanging himself with rotation –– it's the short-sighted media doing it for him. Like a man wrongly identified as a paedophile by people who forgot to check their facts, an angry mob is gathering, their ire based on misinformation.

 

I can't stress enough how utterly out of control the anti-rotation rhetoric has become. It's frightening. Anytime anything –– any single thing –– goes wrong at Liverpool, it's the fault of rotation. It thwarts all proper debate.

 

Rafa's rotation is the root of all evil. I'm just waiting to hear that Rafa's rotation was riding a moped down the Pont d'Alma road tunnel in Paris in August 1997, or was stood with a rifle on a grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza, Texas, in 1963.

 

Only a few weeks ago Mark Lawrenson was laying all the blame of a bad result at the feet of rotation. On Football Focus in early October he said "I'm afraid it's the rotation system again".

 

Then, when Rafa keeps faith in the same two strikers who played at the weekend for the Beşiktaş game (and he only had three to choose from), Lawrenson says on Five Live: "Rafael Benitez got his selection policy completely wrong. You saw what Crouch did. Within a minute of coming on he made the goal for Gerrard."

 

Now, Lawrenson may be correct on either one of these assumptions. But he cannot be correct on both.

 

To me it is yet another example of punditry by hindsight –– of always being right and a manager wrong, by suggesting, after the event, the opposite of what the manager actually did, preferably with a condescending tone of superiority. It's inconsistent, hypocritical punditry that involves paying no attention to what you've said before. Any muppet can do that.

 

If Benítez had played Crouch in Turkey, he'd have been rotating. Had Liverpool still lost, or Crouch had a poor game, Lawrenson would no doubt have blamed the lack of continuity up front. "I'm afraid it's the rotation system again". But Rafa went with the two strikers who share nine goals this season, not the one who has just one (admittedly from limited chances). I mean, fancy doing something crazy like that?

 

A post by NeverWalkALone on 606 appeared on the main BBC football site: "I think Rafa needs to scrap his rotation policy once and for all ... or we need to scrap him. Anyone agree?" It's typical of the mood amongst many so-called fans. It's mob mentality, with the lowest possible IQ.

 

This came during a game where Benítez made just two changes following the derby, dropping Momo Sissoko, whom everyone said needed removing, to bring in Pennant, and replacing Benayoun with Babel, which, given both are flair players, is pretty much like-for-like. So, a more attacking team on balance, and one in which Babel, who was introduced to the side, did particularly well.

 

At first it was zonal marking that was Benítez's crazy continental folly, but most Liverpool fans have come to see that the team actually concede very few goals from set pieces delivered into the box. In fact, barely any.

 

But even now, to highlight the ignorance of pundits who only catch Liverpool games here and there, Andy Gray only ever says negative things like "there's the problem with zonal marking...".

 

He did this against Beşiktaş when a Turkish centre-back found himself with an incredibly difficult shooting chance towards the angle of the 18-yard box. "It could so easily have gone in the top corner," Gray said, as the ball sailed into space. Yeah, Andy, if it was Marco Van Basten shooting.

 

The only goal Pepe Reina has conceded from a corner of free-kick into the box this season was against Everton. The original corner was dealt with (to a degree), but the ball was put back in from the other side of the area. And even then, the problem wasn't an unmarked Evertonian because of zonal marking –– it was Sami Hyypia thinking he was Marco Van Basten. Hyypia was perfectly placed, but he scored an own goal when attempting to clear. s*** happens.

 

While the media hasn't been able to get a bandwagon going over zonal marking for a year or two now, the more complex and 'unprovable' issue of rotation rumbles on.

 

And yet the more I delve into rotation –– looking into the issue in infinitely more detail than I've seen anyone else in the media bother to –– the more proof I find that it works. Or, at the very least, that it's far from the folly so many would have us believe. I'm never going to say it's perfect, but then no team selection can ever be said to be perfect before any game; you can only make judgements afterwards, and that's a luxury a manager doesn't have.

 

Oliver Anderson, the statistician with whom I have been working for a couple of years (and who also posts on RAWK), is now producing stats on all Premier League teams, and trends within the entire division. For a compay called The Football Review, he has produced a book and a website that looks at a variety of statistics, most of which I think are very meaningful. In particular, the stuff on rotation.

 

From my own research, I was aware that, in the league last season, Liverpool won their most points, on average, when Rafa made three changes. And I'd also pointed out that Liverpool made the same amount of Premier League changes as Manchester United last season (118, at just over three per game), which was also the exact same amount made by Chelsea the year before.

 

And unlike all the media hacks, I had also previously pointed out that, when it comes to Alex Ferguson supposedly never rotating his main men while Rafa always tinkers with his, the fact was that Gerrard, Reina and Carragher all started more league games than any Man United player.

 

But it's interesting to look at the trend across the entire Premier League. Changes may also be due to injury or suspension, but it all goes to show the need for the "same XI this week lads" that so many old-timers suggest is essential is an utter myth when it comes to the modern game.

 

Last season there were 380 Premier League matches, which means 760 team line-ups. Only 83 of them were unchanged from the previous league game; 677 involved altered team-sheets.

 

Across the league as a whole, when managers kept an unchanged team they on average won 37% of matches. Managers who made none, one or two changes to their line-ups also won 37%.

 

But managers who made between three and seven changes won 41% –– a fairly significant improvement. Indeed, mirroring the amount of unchanged line-ups, there were also 83 times when managers made four changes, and the win-rate then was over 42%. Compare that with the 83 times no changes were made, and tell me this stat is irrelevant?

 

There could be a million reasons why all these results occurred, ranging from luck to inspired judgement, but it clearly shows that changing a team does not automatically lead to failure. Last season, a team was actually far more likely to win with four changes than with none. And Manchester United won the league with an average of more than three changes per game.

 

Now, perhaps Rafa has rotated too much this season. And on occasion he has got his line-up wrong, inasmuch as you can say we'd have done better had he made other selections (which, of course, you can't for certain).

 

But he's also had disruptive injuries to Gerrard, Carragher, Kewell (okay, he's always injured, but all the same he's a player Rafa wants to use), and more recently, Agger, Alonso and Torres. Now for me, they are six of the eight most talented footballers on the books. Gerrard and Carragher both lost their form with their injuries. Not because of rotation.

 

I'm sure Rafa would want to stick to a more settled core, or spine, to his side, as he did in recent seasons, but five of the six players I've just listed represent that spine. So how can he possibly find the consistency he wants if players are out injured, or struggling after injury? If the team is deprived of some of those key men who would play 80-90% of games, then perhaps it figures that 'mere squad players' will be switched between in their absence?

 

Rafa also lost his right-hand man, and while I feel that the club can recover from Pako Ayestaran's departure, and weren't exactly relying on him for every important decision, it was a shock to the system that, at the time, could not have helped. It coincided with the international break that disrupted the great form the Reds were showing, and also coincided with the loss of Agger and Alonso.

 

More recently, Torres had actually just played three games in a row before he went to Spain with his national team, and without Rafa's careful training regime which staves off a lot of muscle injuries, promptly got injured.

 

So how can you just blame rotation when there are clearly far more disruptive factors? How do you strip away these crucial factors, any of which on their own could cause problems, to leave you with the all-too-simple conclusion that "I'm afraid it's that rotation system again"?

 

It's becoming a cliché, but it needs saying: no-one blamed rotation when the Champions League was won and a final reached last season, or when the Reds were winning 10-12 games on the trot when reaching 82 league points. But of course, had Liverpool lost just one of those games, despite Rafa making changes each and every week, the lazy hindsight pundits would say "you never change a winning team".

 

How the f*** can Rafa win, then? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, by men who always know better after the event.

 

Does winning the league mean you are the best manager ever, but not winning it, when there are three other very strong rivals –– two of whom have spent more on their squads, and two of whose managers have been in their jobs for a combined 33 years –– make you a total idiot? And all this, while Liverpool are having the best league start for years, where they remain unbeaten. Points have been dropped, but the situation is hardly bleak, nor will it be even if the Reds lose against Arsenal. (Although it won't help, clearly). There's three-quarters of the season to go.

 

Make no mistake: Rafa is being hung out to dry by the media. The man has made mistakes, but then so too has every manager.

 

It's become a game of hangman, and I fear he won't win; more than anything, I fear the self-fulfilling prophecy of fans baying for blood. It doesn't help that this bloodlust is being served by men in the media who want to make money by criticising the club we love, for institutions that want to make money by by criticising the club we love.

 

The pressure is building, and much of it is down to the ludicrous criticism of a system too many people either don't understand, or who close their eyes to the facts. It sure ain't perfect, but what the hell is?

 

© Paul Tomkins 2007

 

http://www.paultomkins.com/blog.html

[blago]

I'm not a huge fan of Tomkins writing style but he does make some very good points in both those articles.

[Puskas]

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N...071025-1458.htm

 

lots of sense, as per normal for a Tomkins article.

 

Slightly overanalysed I feel - don't go along with the 'alternate season' theory, as ourselves in the 80s and Man U in the 90s should surely have debunked that idea.

 

But the very valid point he makes is about Benitez having already demonstrated his mastery of European football, meaning that he should get some respect and leeway when one season things don't go as we expect.

I've written an article about the over-analysis of football. Here it is:

 

 

The Over-Analysis of Football in Modern Sport Writing by Puskas

 

Football is over-analysed these days. Saying any more would be over-analysis.

 

The End.

[Guest Kaizer]

I think the article is meaningless, who is supposed to be his audience in that blog and why does he focus on what other people writes and says instead of looking at what actually happen on the pitch and write something about that instead.

 

If I was in Tomkins position I would have a lot of questions for Rafa about our style of play and the players involved, the day he start to ask these questions I might start to take notice of his writing again.

[cymrococh]

If I was in Tomkins position I would have a lot of questions for Rafa about our style of play and the players involved, the day he start to ask these questions I might start to take notice of his writing again.

Have to agree, fact of the matter is though that he's just a mouthpiece for the club now that his columns are on the official site.

[Woodsyla]

But even now, to highlight the ignorance of pundits who only catch Liverpool games here and there, Andy Gray only ever says negative things like "there's the problem with zonal marking...".

 

He did this against Beşiktaş when a Turkish centre-back found himself with an incredibly difficult shooting chance towards the angle of the 18-yard box. "It could so easily have gone in the top corner," Gray said, as the ball sailed into space. Yeah, Andy, if it was Marco Van Basten shooting.

 

I nearly kicked the TV in at that point. He a f***ing bluenose c***

[Guest Kaizer]

Have to agree, fact of the matter is though that he's just a mouthpiece for the club now that his columns are on the official site.

 

I thought his blog was supposed to be a scene where he could write a bit less restricted.

 

My point was more about what readers is it supposed to be for and would not most of these readers be able to see these things for themselves?

 

Tomkins is in a position with the club and he knows his football so why not take the chance and ask some critical questions that actually have bearing in reality, not this nonsense we read about in the media.

[Cobs]

The Rotation Rope Tightens

 

Give a man enough rope, the saying goes, and he will hang himself.

 

Or in other words, give him the opportunity and he will be the victim of his own folly.

 

But it's not Rafa who's hanging himself with rotation –– it's the short-sighted media doing it for him. Like a man wrongly identified as a paedophile by people who forgot to check their facts, an angry mob is gathering, their ire based on misinformation.

 

Rubbish and an appalling analogy

 

Only a few weeks ago Mark Lawrenson was laying all the blame of a bad result at the feet of rotation. On Football Focus in early October he said "I'm afraid it's the rotation system again".

 

Then, when Rafa keeps faith in the same two strikers who played at the weekend for the Beşiktaş game (and he only had three to choose from), Lawrenson says on Five Live: "Rafael Benitez got his selection policy completely wrong. You saw what Crouch did. Within a minute of coming on he made the goal for Gerrard."

 

Now, Lawrenson may be correct on either one of these assumptions. But he cannot be correct on both.

Yes, he can, Paul.

 

1) is dropping players in form

2) keeping partnerships together that clearly didn't and don't work

 

changing your team because a player is out of form is NOT rotation. Dropping players because you've decided to play 18 players in this weeks 2 games regardless of form/result/performance IS rotation.

 

 

 

blaming the media for everything is feckin embarassing, we can see with our own eyes what's happening with selections and what the players are producing on the pitch.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Cobs

[Mullah_Owen]

I think the article is meaningless, who is supposed to be his audience in that blog and why does he focus on what other people writes and says instead of looking at what actually happen on the pitch and write something about that instead.

 

If I was in Tomkins position I would have a lot of questions for Rafa about our style of play and the players involved, the day he start to ask these questions I might start to take notice of his writing again.

 

And I am sure your posts are 10 times more insightful. F*cking eegit.

[Guest chabby]

Great read that, if not a little over the top. There is a bit of media pressure around but it's nothing that a few wins would sort out. Highlighting it is just raising the hysteria.

[nitski]

Its funny how nobody mentions the zonal marking at set-pieces anymore... because it works now.

 

The players have to take some of the blame here - take Besiktas for example where we know Rafa took too long to sub one of the front two but the players were awful (Finnan, Mascherano, SG, Riise to name a few) well before Gerrard's goal. If we win 3 or 4 on the bounce in the league all the doom talk will be gone.

[Guest chabby]

Its funny how nobody mentions the zonal marking at set-pieces anymore... because it works now

 

Except for Gray and Martin Tyler, who seems obsessed with picking flaws in it, despite it being a major success for us.

 

I really despise Sky and all its minnions, but I'm weak and can't get rid of it.

[mooks]

I think the article is meaningless, who is supposed to be his audience in that blog and why does he focus on what other people writes and says instead of looking at what actually happen on the pitch and write something about that instead.

Kaizer, do you know how to read?

 

(Trick question, that)

[Guest Kaizer]

Kaizer, do you know how to read?

 

(Trick question, that)

 

Yes I do, I actually bought Paul`s first two books, but I have only managed to get to chapter 18 in his second one.

 

I need to be challenged as a reader, but Paul just not do it for me anymore, I enjoy having a debate with him because he is a knowledgable man, but these articles where he just see positives through rose tinted glasses without someone asking questions are about as interesting as a match between Fulham - Derby.

 

But each to their own.

[Guest chabby]

That's just his style, learn to live with it.

[Guest Kaizer]

That's just his style, learn to live with it.

 

I dont have a problem with it either, I usually just skip through them at the moment.

 

I had one point with my first post, a decont one as well I think.

 

Who reads Pauls blog?

 

My guess would be those that actually invest some time being updated on Liverpool on the web, and my second guess is that the majority of these people know that you cant take what the press say as gospel, so why write such a long piece on the obvious, why not focus on something interesting that might get some people start thinking instead?

 

Its like someone writing a 1000 words essay on the fact its Saturday tomorrow.

 

Like I`ve said I like to have a debate with Paul if and when we disagree on something and I wish he could try to write something innovative instead of the obvious.

[Walrus]

That's just his style, learn to live with it.

I like it.

[mooks]

Yes I do, I actually bought Paul`s first two books, but I have only managed to get to chapter 18 in his second one.

Given that he deals extensively with what happens on the pitch the question had to be asked.