thomasobDK said:
i dont agree.
with 2 games in 3 days, you have to rotate the players. the problem was not the rotation, it was that most of the players that got a chance, didn't take it.
you could make a valid point, that he rotated too much in this game, but the rotation itself was necessary...
didnt seem to be a lot of interest in this thread earlier, but i`m sorry the rotation was not necessary, and i partially agree the amount of rotation even less so.
rotation is necessary as a result of injury, suspension, tactical change and/ or loss of form. never, saving for a future game, ffs players can and do even get injured in training, what is the point in resting someone, who could still get injured prior to the next games.
More to the point, the argument over resting players is effectively blasted out of the water , initially by naming players on the bench, and totally by calling on them to (hopefully) rescue the situation, when things arent going according to plan b)
Nobody disagrees with changes when they virtually have to be made, but this point about 2 games in 48 hours, doesnt exactly happen every week, and certain players seem exempt from the rotation policy. Is anyone suggesting Kompany or YaYa put in any less effort, and is therefore any less tired and less in need of a rest.
Sure, i accept if this was right at the end of the season, and certain players played on bordering on exhaustion, they may well need a rest / rotation, but its not, any anyway that would be covered by fitness / injury. FFS Dzeko was rotated 3 games into the season after scoring 4 away from home, just the boost for an acknowledged confidence player.
to change / rest / rotate so many players in favour of a future fixture (albeit 48 hours hence) is tantamount to saying "this side , although missing 4/5 of our best players is good enough to beat Sunderland ". I agree it should have been, but on the day, for a variety of reasons the starting line up wasnt, and Mancini himself realised it by half time. I dont believe this policy does our players any favours, and certainly knocks the confidence of those rested / dropped (Dzeko springs to mind), furthermore it must boost the opposition, firstly because they dont have to play the "rested" players, and secondly along the lines of "cheeky tw*ts thinking they can beat us with their reserves, .....we`ll show em" and albeit fortuitously they did.
If we obviously (to Roberto) had players who were tired, struggling with form, needed a rest etc no problem, but this wasnt for that, it was rotation because a few super-fit athletes were deemed unsuitable of performing twice in 48 hours. I really dont buy it. Just because others often do it, and often get away with it, us included, doesnt make it right, and despite the proximity of the Liverpool fixture, the next game isnt until the rags 5 whole days later.
Everybody would have been rubbing their hands with glee,( had we won and i accept we should have), saying it was a masterstroke winning with a weakened side, and saving our big guns for better things, but it wasnt.
It was a dropped bollock, not helped by players missing chances, and switching off 20 seconds from the end, but instigated by team selection, and a rotation policy purely for the sake of it
