Home
Paul Tomkins 01 November 2006
It's official: rotation is the new zonal marking. One of the drawbacks of supporting a club with a forward-thinking manager is that it intimidates the old order, confuses some of the less astute pressmen, and leads to all sorts of crazy criticisms.
Last night's result coincided with the end of the run of 99 'rotated' team selections by Rafa Benítez. The victory will of course be attributed solely to keeping a settled side, even though Saturday's performance, with an altered side, was far more impressive.
Personally, I don't care whether the team is rotated or not; if you have a manager who has strong ideas and, more importantly, a long-term vision, and who has proven he can win major trophies with those methods, you have to trust him. If we had another proven top manager who didn't rotate, then he would have his own good reasons for that approach.
The facts actually suggest that Rafa's rotation policy works; not that the facts are ever allowed to get in the way of a good story.
Too much football punditry is based on snap assessments, tired old clichés and perpetuated myths. Falsehoods are presented as truths, simply because people don't bother to check the validity of what they are saying. Misconceptions are rife. This past week has seen the criticism of rotation intensify, and also seen the quality of the players called into question, amongst other things.
Rotation is part of the forward-thinking modern management that Rafa is all about. And the innovators in life are those who look forward, not backwards. Bill Shankly was an innovator. He did things his way. He changed things at Liverpool, updated them. There was no instant success, and there was also a seven-year hiatus between his 2nd and 3rd league titles, but boy did he deliver. Shankly didn't look to what won the league 20 years earlier, but what would win it this season, or the next.
The aim of joining Oliver Anderson to write The Red Review was to get a more accurate assessment of what goes on on the pitch. Things like comparing the Reds' results when Gerrard plays on the right to when he plays centrally; how the team defend set pieces; who tends to be most involved in the 'business end' of goals beyond a simple assist; how many mistakes players make that cost the team goals; which players help the team to better results; and so on.
It's about being better informed. It's not about meaningless stats, but detailed tactical assessments on what works and what doesn't. It's easy to mock zonal marking, slate rotation, say Steven Gerrard is wasted on the right, and call Luis Garcia a liability, but is any of it actually true?
Zonal marking
Let's start with the grand folly that is zonal marking – or so you might have been led to think. Or maybe you've read this column before, and discovered that Liverpool were actually the most successful team at defending set pieces last season? In 2005/06 the Reds conceded only four league goals from corners and indirect free-kicks; or one every nine games, compared with Chelsea, the next-best team, and their rate of one every six games.
This season the Reds' figure stands at one such goal conceded from ten league games, and that was way back on the opening day; so a further improvement. And yet still, despite all this, not a single game goes by without zonal marking being mentioned by commentators, with the inference that Liverpool are dodgy at set pieces.
Luis Garcia is a luxury suited only to European matches
Luis Garcia has now scored 28 goals in two and a bit seasons. All from open play. That's a great record, especially as he doesn't play every game, and is mostly a midfielder.
In his first season he scored the crucial Champions League goals, which no one can forget, and he's got three in this year's competition already. However, last season he was 'directly involved' in more Liverpool goals per-90 minutes of Premiership football than any other player (involvement being based on the final three players to touch the ball in the scoring of any goal). His best form was in the English game, to which some feel he is not suited. He also leads the club's standings in the league this season, with an even more impressive rate. He makes things happen.
Of course, he also has those days when nothing goes right. But isn't it time we learned to live with his faults, because it's the good things he does that ultimately make a difference, and often in big games?
It's also worth remembering that not once since his arrival has he given the ball away and it led directly to an opposition goal (it might have indirectly at times, further down the line in a move, but then that can be said of anyone who concedes possession).
Give me a Garcia over a player who only ever does the simple thing and never has the bottle to try something special - the kind of thing needed in the final third.
Steven Gerrard is better in the centre
Last season for Liverpool, Gerrard played over 1500 minutes on the right of midfield, compared with more than 2600 minutes centrally (split fairly evenly between a standard midfield role, and that of the second forward). He was productive wherever he played, scoring and creating aplenty, although his personal figures were slightly higher in a central role.
But Liverpool won by far the most points (in all competitions, using three points for cup wins as well) when he was on the right wing: 2.30 per game, compared with 1.89 when central. On the whole, the fixtures where he was used on the right were arguably tougher than average, and predominately away games.
Isn't it Benítez's job to win games, rather than make the side merely a showcase for Steven Gerrard's great talents? Isn't it about getting the best out of all eleven players, with the correct blend? Gerrard might catch the eye more centrally, but results tend to be better when he's on the right.
But the right wing is just a starting position. When Gerrard drifts inside he can quickly change the dynamics of a game; putting a defence under pressure with his movement and creating space for others, as he did for the third goal this weekend.
With Sissoko and Alonso the type of midfielders who rarely get ahead of the ball, it needs darting runs infield from the wings; so long as others cover the captain when he wanders, and that's down to the two central players a lot of the time. The bonus is that when Gerrard stays out wide he can deliver superb crosses, while also having the stamina, pace and tackling ability to do the ugly work, too.
Peter Crouch is not a goalscorer
Eight goals for Crouch for the Reds this season, and 21 in total. Add 11 for England, and you have 32 goals in a fraction less than 11 months. Include his Southampton goals since the start of 2005 and it takes him to 42 in two months short of two years.
When will people ever take him seriously as a goalscorer?
Rotation, and the new 'Tinkerman'
What I don't get is that going into last weekend's fixtures, Benítez had made only one change more than Alex Ferguson in the Premiership: 30, to 29. Chelsea were the third-most rotated team. So rotation, as a concept, doesn't work? Hmm...
Meanwhile, Arsenal kept the same team as the weekend before, and dropped two more points at home. No one blamed it on having a settled side. But why should they?
Another irritant is that rotation has been heavily criticised after Liverpool defeats this season – but the '99 games since last unchanged line-up' got brought up as a criticism too, as if it was been a problem for 99 games. Which, clearly, is insane. Why did no one actually bother to look at the results over those 99 games?
Let me remind people that despite the stuttering start to this season, Liverpool had won 60 out of the previous 100 games, which is easy to work out at 60%. Or in other words, the kind of win percentage that used to land Liverpool the league. (The average over those 18 league titles is also 60% of games won.)
Times have changed. As an example, the Reds secured the league in 1984 with a mere 52.4% win rating, drawing 14 games and losing six of the 42 matches. That many draws alone would be the same as losing more than eight games in the modern points system, and that's on top of the six actual defeats; so the dropped points would now be the same as 14 defeats in a season (or 12-13 in a 38 game season).
I don't wish to knock that great side's achievement, as it was a case of doing what was required at the time (not to mention it being part of a stunning treble). But that was back then. Alex Ferguson never rotated in 1986, when he took charge of Manchester United; but he has for the last decade or so. He moved with the times.
The Reds' 99 game run covered all competitions, of course, and included domestic cup games, which could be said to be easier. But in a bizarre quirk of the luck of the draw, Benítez has yet to face a side lower that mid-table in the Championship since his arrival, and has faced mostly Premiership sides. No lower or non-league opposition in the last two years, unlike Manchester United.
That run of 99 games also included an incredible ten games against Chelsea, that show how tough the fixture list has been in that time, plus four against United. And more importantly than anything else, it included the European Cup, World Club Championship and FA Cup finals, the former and latter of which were won. We're not talking easy games here.
Some say only rotate when you're winning. But rotate a winning side and lose, and you'd hear "you never change a winning team".
As I've said in recent weeks, there were a number of factors at work in the disappointing start: dips in individual form, silly mistakes, bad finishing, near misses (the Reds have now hit the woodwork a staggering 14 times this season), all leading to a dip in the collective confidence. You need luck, too. At the Reebok the officials turned the game in Bolton's favour, while at the weekend Luis Garcia was offside in a sublime team goal; neither of which had anything to do with rotation.
But in these days of pithy 200 word articles and rushed 30 second analyses, everything has to be distilled down into one issue, one great line, one snappy soundbite. And that doesn't give time to discuss proper ideas.
New players have been criticised without thought of what they are facing. As an example, Dirk Kuyt is trying to settle into a new league, with new tactics, and having to cope with a big money move to a massive-pressure club, while his dad recovers from a life-saving cancer operation back home. Are such difficulties ever taken into account?
The corner won't be turned for the Reds until the away form picks up, but a win against Reading and at least it can be approached with four straight victories, and with confidence significantly buoyed.
No need for comments... Just read and enjoy the facts
It's official: rotation is the new zonal marking. One of the drawbacks of supporting a club with a forward-thinking manager is that it intimidates the old order, confuses some of the less astute pressmen, and leads to all sorts of crazy criticisms.
Last night's result coincided with the end of the run of 99 'rotated' team selections by Rafa Benítez. The victory will of course be attributed solely to keeping a settled side, even though Saturday's performance, with an altered side, was far more impressive.
Personally, I don't care whether the team is rotated or not; if you have a manager who has strong ideas and, more importantly, a long-term vision, and who has proven he can win major trophies with those methods, you have to trust him. If we had another proven top manager who didn't rotate, then he would have his own good reasons for that approach.
The facts actually suggest that Rafa's rotation policy works; not that the facts are ever allowed to get in the way of a good story.
Too much football punditry is based on snap assessments, tired old clichés and perpetuated myths. Falsehoods are presented as truths, simply because people don't bother to check the validity of what they are saying. Misconceptions are rife. This past week has seen the criticism of rotation intensify, and also seen the quality of the players called into question, amongst other things.
Rotation is part of the forward-thinking modern management that Rafa is all about. And the innovators in life are those who look forward, not backwards. Bill Shankly was an innovator. He did things his way. He changed things at Liverpool, updated them. There was no instant success, and there was also a seven-year hiatus between his 2nd and 3rd league titles, but boy did he deliver. Shankly didn't look to what won the league 20 years earlier, but what would win it this season, or the next.
The aim of joining Oliver Anderson to write The Red Review was to get a more accurate assessment of what goes on on the pitch. Things like comparing the Reds' results when Gerrard plays on the right to when he plays centrally; how the team defend set pieces; who tends to be most involved in the 'business end' of goals beyond a simple assist; how many mistakes players make that cost the team goals; which players help the team to better results; and so on.
It's about being better informed. It's not about meaningless stats, but detailed tactical assessments on what works and what doesn't. It's easy to mock zonal marking, slate rotation, say Steven Gerrard is wasted on the right, and call Luis Garcia a liability, but is any of it actually true?
Zonal marking
Let's start with the grand folly that is zonal marking – or so you might have been led to think. Or maybe you've read this column before, and discovered that Liverpool were actually the most successful team at defending set pieces last season? In 2005/06 the Reds conceded only four league goals from corners and indirect free-kicks; or one every nine games, compared with Chelsea, the next-best team, and their rate of one every six games.
This season the Reds' figure stands at one such goal conceded from ten league games, and that was way back on the opening day; so a further improvement. And yet still, despite all this, not a single game goes by without zonal marking being mentioned by commentators, with the inference that Liverpool are dodgy at set pieces.
Luis Garcia is a luxury suited only to European matches
Luis Garcia has now scored 28 goals in two and a bit seasons. All from open play. That's a great record, especially as he doesn't play every game, and is mostly a midfielder.
In his first season he scored the crucial Champions League goals, which no one can forget, and he's got three in this year's competition already. However, last season he was 'directly involved' in more Liverpool goals per-90 minutes of Premiership football than any other player (involvement being based on the final three players to touch the ball in the scoring of any goal). His best form was in the English game, to which some feel he is not suited. He also leads the club's standings in the league this season, with an even more impressive rate. He makes things happen.
Of course, he also has those days when nothing goes right. But isn't it time we learned to live with his faults, because it's the good things he does that ultimately make a difference, and often in big games?
It's also worth remembering that not once since his arrival has he given the ball away and it led directly to an opposition goal (it might have indirectly at times, further down the line in a move, but then that can be said of anyone who concedes possession).
Give me a Garcia over a player who only ever does the simple thing and never has the bottle to try something special - the kind of thing needed in the final third.
Steven Gerrard is better in the centre
Last season for Liverpool, Gerrard played over 1500 minutes on the right of midfield, compared with more than 2600 minutes centrally (split fairly evenly between a standard midfield role, and that of the second forward). He was productive wherever he played, scoring and creating aplenty, although his personal figures were slightly higher in a central role.
But Liverpool won by far the most points (in all competitions, using three points for cup wins as well) when he was on the right wing: 2.30 per game, compared with 1.89 when central. On the whole, the fixtures where he was used on the right were arguably tougher than average, and predominately away games.
Isn't it Benítez's job to win games, rather than make the side merely a showcase for Steven Gerrard's great talents? Isn't it about getting the best out of all eleven players, with the correct blend? Gerrard might catch the eye more centrally, but results tend to be better when he's on the right.
But the right wing is just a starting position. When Gerrard drifts inside he can quickly change the dynamics of a game; putting a defence under pressure with his movement and creating space for others, as he did for the third goal this weekend.
With Sissoko and Alonso the type of midfielders who rarely get ahead of the ball, it needs darting runs infield from the wings; so long as others cover the captain when he wanders, and that's down to the two central players a lot of the time. The bonus is that when Gerrard stays out wide he can deliver superb crosses, while also having the stamina, pace and tackling ability to do the ugly work, too.
Peter Crouch is not a goalscorer
Eight goals for Crouch for the Reds this season, and 21 in total. Add 11 for England, and you have 32 goals in a fraction less than 11 months. Include his Southampton goals since the start of 2005 and it takes him to 42 in two months short of two years.
When will people ever take him seriously as a goalscorer?
Rotation, and the new 'Tinkerman'
What I don't get is that going into last weekend's fixtures, Benítez had made only one change more than Alex Ferguson in the Premiership: 30, to 29. Chelsea were the third-most rotated team. So rotation, as a concept, doesn't work? Hmm...
Meanwhile, Arsenal kept the same team as the weekend before, and dropped two more points at home. No one blamed it on having a settled side. But why should they?
Another irritant is that rotation has been heavily criticised after Liverpool defeats this season – but the '99 games since last unchanged line-up' got brought up as a criticism too, as if it was been a problem for 99 games. Which, clearly, is insane. Why did no one actually bother to look at the results over those 99 games?
Let me remind people that despite the stuttering start to this season, Liverpool had won 60 out of the previous 100 games, which is easy to work out at 60%. Or in other words, the kind of win percentage that used to land Liverpool the league. (The average over those 18 league titles is also 60% of games won.)
Times have changed. As an example, the Reds secured the league in 1984 with a mere 52.4% win rating, drawing 14 games and losing six of the 42 matches. That many draws alone would be the same as losing more than eight games in the modern points system, and that's on top of the six actual defeats; so the dropped points would now be the same as 14 defeats in a season (or 12-13 in a 38 game season).
I don't wish to knock that great side's achievement, as it was a case of doing what was required at the time (not to mention it being part of a stunning treble). But that was back then. Alex Ferguson never rotated in 1986, when he took charge of Manchester United; but he has for the last decade or so. He moved with the times.
The Reds' 99 game run covered all competitions, of course, and included domestic cup games, which could be said to be easier. But in a bizarre quirk of the luck of the draw, Benítez has yet to face a side lower that mid-table in the Championship since his arrival, and has faced mostly Premiership sides. No lower or non-league opposition in the last two years, unlike Manchester United.
That run of 99 games also included an incredible ten games against Chelsea, that show how tough the fixture list has been in that time, plus four against United. And more importantly than anything else, it included the European Cup, World Club Championship and FA Cup finals, the former and latter of which were won. We're not talking easy games here.
Some say only rotate when you're winning. But rotate a winning side and lose, and you'd hear "you never change a winning team".
As I've said in recent weeks, there were a number of factors at work in the disappointing start: dips in individual form, silly mistakes, bad finishing, near misses (the Reds have now hit the woodwork a staggering 14 times this season), all leading to a dip in the collective confidence. You need luck, too. At the Reebok the officials turned the game in Bolton's favour, while at the weekend Luis Garcia was offside in a sublime team goal; neither of which had anything to do with rotation.
But in these days of pithy 200 word articles and rushed 30 second analyses, everything has to be distilled down into one issue, one great line, one snappy soundbite. And that doesn't give time to discuss proper ideas.
New players have been criticised without thought of what they are facing. As an example, Dirk Kuyt is trying to settle into a new league, with new tactics, and having to cope with a big money move to a massive-pressure club, while his dad recovers from a life-saving cancer operation back home. Are such difficulties ever taken into account?
The corner won't be turned for the Reds until the away form picks up, but a win against Reading and at least it can be approached with four straight victories, and with confidence significantly buoyed.
No need for comments... Just read and enjoy the facts
Are you celtic fans in disguise, block out the bad stuff and just print the praises, Even that bore didnt attempt to show liverpool are not boring, it's an impossible task
