If a team is winning, and there are no injuries, some players are likely to be unhappy.This is the time you get players especially those that are good complaining, even those that are not good enough would complain. My question: Why do you think a manager should change winning team.? (a). Keep every one happy.! (b). Try to prevent injuries.! (c). Keep every one fit.!
With no Europa to worry about, do not change the winning team. It breeds lack of confidence I have always felt, I remember with Rafa and rotation and he finally played the same team back to back and the players all came out with a sense of relief. So if I score 2 goals I am on the bench? what? That is the thinking that can start to happen. You end up not keeping anyone happy by changing the team around too much, prevent injuries you might but the form will eventually dip I feel.
I don't think a manager should change a winning team unless something unforeseen happens ie injuries. It adds motivation to the player that are in the team and the ones that aren't. Its like ''Lets see how long you can keep x out of the team'' and ''show me you should be in the team instead of x''.
Exactly how I feel. Make the rest of them work harder during training to get on the field. And if they work harder than current starters, then you have reason to switch them. Otherwise, barring injuries, keep the winning XI on the pitch!
Rafa was known by the media for his ''rotation policy'' another manager and I won't name names,actually rotated more than Rafa did and actually didn't keep the same 11 for approximately 199 games.His initials are SAF.
YES, you do change a winning team. What Kenny is building is not a winning first 11 with a bench of spares, he's building a winning SQUAD, From the squad he'll selct the best 11 to minimise the opponents strengths and maximise our abilities to exploit their weaknesses. In addition he will have substitiues to change the strategy if need be as well as cover injuries. This isn't rotation in the classic form (ie to reat players), it's about using the squad to the best of its potential. It's a totally different strategy. It means that opponents can never be certain just how we will approach the game either home or away. It also makes good business sense as every player in the squad has to be ready to add something to the 11 when called upon to do it - there's no free rides as a spare
Dave. I was watching LFCTV a little while back and there was a suggestion that Lucas played in games that he probably shouldn't have. He wasn't needed as such. We would have won without him. I know there is games when we need a Lucas to do what Lucas does. However why he was used was because we didn't have an alternative. We now however have alternatives and I reckon there will be occasions when we can in fact leave Lucas out. We have the personel to win without him, he won't be needed. There will be games when Lucas won't be needed in the same way there will be games when Lucas will be one of the most important players in the first 11.
To answer the question, no. If the team is winning, you shouldn't really change it. Regarding players complaining about not playing, they should be trying to force their way into the team by working hard in training and taking advantage of the chances they get in the team.
yes, you pick the side best suited to beat the opposition in the next match. If that means changing all XI so be it.
Let me get this right if we win all the games untill Gerrard is fit again, then we just leave him on the bench for the rest of the season! I think you pick a team/formation for a particular game, Rafa's only problem was that he didn't have enough attacking options so we tended to be a little negative agaist teams that we should have been comfortably beating.
It does differ game to game; tactics, players returning from injury and the percieved quality of the opposition.
there are many answers to this. 1. take benayoun. this is an example of a guy who has been quoted about being dropped to the bench no matter what he did. Now if you are a manager and feel a player is just a squad player and that player feels he's a first team player you have a problem... again if a guy waits 5 games for his chance takes it by socring goals then is dropped again its not good. 2. next i thought about the tactical and next team thought. A manager simply has to have the right tactics, the right team to play stoke are not the same team to play chelsea for example.most players should be but not necessarally all. 3. the argument that ranieri or rafa were tinkermen are ONLY valid i nthe context of ferguson who rotates just as much going and actually winning things. Ferguson doesn't get the press heat simply as he's got the titels and the press look stupid when the go after him. they try form time to time when they start slow..... the arguement about tinkermen is moot in my opinion. the opinion of the press matters little, only the results achieved matter.... so for example mr holloway changing 10 players for that villa game and losing means he's the fool even if he thought it was reasonable at the time. he lost. he got relegated by such a cloase margin! 4. my final thought is that in a 25 man squad scenario you shold be allowed to pick any team you want out of it... however to change more than say 3 players at any one time Is very foolish. (unless forced) in the end your key first teamers are your first teamers. If a player like benayoun who is considered a squad player is "in form" then he should play. If a manager decides a tired or half fit player like say gerrard is so vital he drops a player in form for him... well that manager will stand or fall by the result.
