It's an interesting point to debate. I want to start by making sure that we're not arguing over a semantic difference. When I use the word rotation I'm thinking of an overall philosophy incorporating two main things; One is to increase tactical flexibility by changing the emphasis on certain areas of the team to suit the opposition, the other is to try to prevent certain players from acquiring an injury through over-work. However, I think the latter is open to dispute, there's no reason to assume that the injury to say, Lucas, would have been prevented by rotation and I don't believe he's the sort of player who would benefit from that system. Rotation isn't really an ad-hoc system, whereby you change players that are showing signs of fatigue or of imminent wear and tear on their bodies or minds-any decent management team should do that anyway, it's more a long term philosophy to manage players generally rather than the needs of individuals at a specific time. Obviously you can't just rest certain players without having either a like-for-like replacement, or an alternative system to cope with the change. Rotation has its adherents, but has it's detractors as well. Therefore, rather than it being a fault of Rodgers for not employing the system. I see it as a strategic choice. Would rotation, with the possible benefits of avoiding an occasional injury, secure more points than a settled team operating as a cohesive unit and just changing when circumstances dictate? It's open to debate, but my opinion is that a settled team is the best option.
MITO makes a good point - Rafa did rotate and I would argue he did rotate well on the whole. He did overplay certain players which ruined Torres and Gerrard to some extent - which leads to another question, should we still rotate when the gulf between first teamer and replacement is massive? (i.e. Torres was world class and we simply could not afford to rotate him with a massively inferior player). Of course, you will always be rotating the first teamer with an inferior player because if they weren't inferior, they would be starting themselves. But it's about the gulf in quality. Rodgers doesn't rotate because he learnt under Mourinho and Van Gaal - both top class managers who do not rotate. Rodgers is fairly new to European football so it's natural that he will have to learn how to rotate.
For me, it's about avoiding injuries. We've seen over the years the impact of overplaying young talented players - Fowler, Owen, Gerrard, Torres etc. These players were unable to enjoy long careers (with the exception of Gerrard to some degree) because we overworked them at an early age. We have a young squad - Coutinho, Sterling Ibe, Sturridge, Markovic. Most of them rely on acceleration and speed. They're one injury away from losing a key part of their game.
I agree that there's always a risk of burning out young, athletic players. This is difficult to write, because it sounds so cynical, but isn't the aim of management to achieve the immediate success of the team over the long-term success of an individual? What I mean is, would we be prepared to sacrifice success now in order to ensure that a player can continue his career longer? Especially as most aren't likely to be with us for ever anyway. Although I doubt many would admit it, I suspect there's a philosophy of get the most out of them while you can, after all, there are always more in the pipeline. Put bluntly, are we going to risk losing trophies by resting say, Sterling, just so he's fit enough to swan off to Real in a few years?
Not really.... yes the job is to win as much as possible but when you are paying vast sums in wages knackering a talent you are paying 100k per week to means you end up paying more wages to others to take thier place. look at sturridge being out for what is 6 months thats supposedly 3mil in the bin in effect. this is not the NFL where you can throw a player on another list and not pay them. its guaranteed money to the player. If the point is if i get 5 years out of this guy and i work him like a dog then flog him off for glue at the end fine.... then ok work em.... but if you want them chances are you'll not have them when you need them IMO its not 100% form right up til the break they drop off in form markedly as they fatigue anyway so we need the players fit to give 100% is the message. SO for me; Henderson is a 5 year player. I can't see him sustaining what makes him good for longer. So give him a new deal sure but for 4 years then hock him. thats jus this style same for sterling... he is all pace, not much else so again get his best years and flog him off. Coutinho is all tricks so I can see him going into 30s. so plan accordingly.
Good point - conversely, should we ensure that the young players continue to develop and avoid injuries to ensure we get the most out of their careers (assuming they stay for 7-10 years). Personally, if we can keep this group of young players together - Sakho, Can, Markovic, Ibe, Sterling, Sturridge, Moreno, Manquillo Illori (I know Sakho and Sturridge are 25) - then we can become a top quality team. I suppose it's why people like Mourinho achieve a lot of success - they don't rotate. They just get the most out of their players, play them week in week out, don't give anything thought about the long term, and then leave after 3 years. Old, injured players become a problem for the next manager.
Moneybags teams also have so many players that they can field a like for like, high quality replacement and not change the system. It's taken us almost half a season to find a system that's working really well with the players we have, and I'd be afraid to change it atm. The team you listed looks good, but I think we have a lot of pressures on us to keep it together, not just questions of fitness. We really need to start winning things soon, and making a consistent challenge at the top, which is why I think short to medium term necessities prevail.
Going for 1-1. Billic is a sound coach, imho. It'll be won or lost in Turkey in the second leg, and we've been ****ing dire away from home in Europe this season (not much better at home, in all honesty), but with City at home the following sunday morning, I just hope we don't leave ourselves too much to do in the second leg.
Really looking forward to this and we have to get a good result. Should things go tits up on the weekend, we will need to go all out in this comp and that starts tonight.
Nice. We're on ITV. No pissing about trying to find a stream. Looking forward to the game now. We should be aiming to win this pot.
