BFTG United (A)

[SCIAG]

Even a ‘makeshift’ Man U team should’ve been capable of smashing us, they didn’t.

Perhaps Ole isn't the new Messiah then. I doubt a Mourinho team would have put in such a limp performance. With no improvement at half time.

Must have been a long time since we've had three naturally left footed players on the pitch at the same time. Aluko, Richards and Harriott. We looked far better balanced today as a unit. Wonder if this was a contributing factor.

We started with Aluko, Barrow, and Richards against Swansea and QPR. We had Richards, Barrow, and Blackett against Millwall, albeit not for very long, and Middlesbrough. So that's the fifth game on the bounce. At Rotherham we had two left-footers on the pitch - it's just they were both playing centre back! Don't know which foot Meite prefers - isn't he left-footed?

Actually don't think having only two left footers on the pitch is at all unusual. Worth remembering that some of our best teams didn't have many left footed players. The 2005/06 side only had Convey and Shorey, although Kitson and Harper were good with both feet. We went a good few weeks with Makin at left back and didn't look any worse off. McDermott's playoff side only had Harte. He added Gorkss to the promotion side. Stam's side was spoiled for left footers, but his main left winger was Beerens, who was right-footed. The England team at the World Cup didn't contain a single left-footer (only Rose and Delph made the squad iirc), the great Barcelona sides only had Messi and a left back, the Invincibles only had Ashley Cole, the 1966 side only had Wilson...

[John Madejski's Wallet]

So Bod then.

Don't think Gomes likes the idea of a tall striker

Well I’d play Meite and Bod up front, tell them to smash up the defenders, really get fcuking stuck in and bust some heads, bang crosses in. Cause mayhem.

Why not? All this clever, clever pissing about with the ball is getting us nowhere fast. And we need results.

How can you right off a new style after just 3 league games?

This is the most attractive and attacking football we’ve played for at least 6 years and Jose’s made that change almost instantaneously.

It’s very impressive and needs to be stuck with to allow the training ground work to come off in the final third.

There's nothing new about this style. Just the latest iteration of the same crap the previous coaches have been trying. Maybe Jose will be the man to succeed where other failed......

But until I see decent shots on goal and not being powderpuff at the back I'll remain sceptical.

[Sutekh]

I agreed that we looked like a team that has the skill and pace to become a real attacking force.

But then it's hard to know how much of that is 'real'; we were playing against a completely make-shift team that was happy to let us have the ball and run as they knew that they could take us apart at the back at any point. Compare that to a hardened Championship side that plays together week in, week out and will be quick to close us down and kick legs at every opportunity.

Man Utd pretty much showed us as little respect as possible and still beat us without getting out of first gear.

The issue is that in the Championship you don’t get teams with players of the quality of ManU who will be largely happy to let a team like Reading have the ball. Most teams in the Championship will come and get you and that is the bit that Reading struggle badly with. That is what Gomes and his team need to sort out and it won’t be easy as no players will want to come permanently to Reading given their current position.

[SCIAG]

1) Penalty: I don't fully get to be honest... if we foul whilst they are fouling does it count? Like, for the pass just before Lukaku was in an offside position and the pass itself was offside as the foul came in... my head is hurting. But yeah they deserved the pen and the goal anyway.

What matters is which offence is committed first. As far as I can tell, the foul was committed before Fred touched the ball, so it is a penalty. A "pass" cannot be offside, only a player. It's not an offence to pass to someone in an offside position, it's an offence to interfere with play, interfere with an opponent, or gain an advantage having been in an offside position when a team mate was the last person to play the ball.

Sequence of events was like this:

1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence.
2) Mata plays a pass to Fred, who is in an offside position.
3) Richards trips Mata. Foul.
4) Fred controls the ball and scores.

As Fred was offside, it is correct to disallow the goal. This means that there is no advantage following the foul, which happened before Fred interfered with play in an offside position. That means that it is a penalty.

Both decisions correct, and pretty much only possible due to VAR.

I broadly agree with this.

However, I overheard someone discussing about whether Lukaku was interfering from Richards as he fouled Mata. To me, it looks like he brushes Richards' arm just before he slides in.

That would mean that Lukaku is offside as Mata plays the pass, and interferes by affecting Richards' challenge. Therefore, an offside offence takes place before the foul by Richards.

I must admit I don't know the minutiae of the laws of the game well enough to know how much this analysis holds true. TBH I would've given a pen had I been the VAR.

Haven't read the laws recently although don't think offside has changed (except for the position where free kicks are taken). I don't think brushing someone's arm is likely to count as "interfering with an opponent". The most common time you see that is if a forward is stood in front of the goalkeeper and blocks his view of the ball. Obviously it's not restricted to that situation.

[Ranty McRantface]

Despite the scoreline and the negative dross from some of the blinkered dinosaurs on this thread I was very pleased with what I saw today.

We created chances, we had chances and we looked a threat. We won't be playing Man Utd in the Championship so if we can play like that I'm certain we will stay up.

But....we so, so need a striker. I like Loader and I thought his link up play was excellent. He held his own too. But he lacks experience amd that was evident with a couple of opportunities he had today. For me, this was the perfect opportunity for Novakovic to play with his experience and show Jose what he can do.

[Millsy]

3) Loader. He's only young, but very promising with his movement and his pace. BUT WE NEED A STRIKER (or three). Anyone remember Roberts changing our fortunes overnight?

4) WE NEED A LEFT BACK. I'm shocked that since I started a new thread on this years ago we STILL DONT HAVE ONE. Anyone remember how simply getting a (relatively) good left back (Robinson for Gurney) Pardew's pants team was changed overnight? Obita was turned into one and tbf he is a good one, but he's not around. RIchards is currently even more of a liability than Blackett is/was (2 Swansea goals and today penalty and AWOL for their second) and hopefully needs more time.

We need to work with the players that we've got. Unless they play regularly not going to regain fitness nor match experience. When Nicky Shorey first arrived was often caught out of position and in possession, likewise Kevin Doyle couldn't hit a barn door. We are a long term work in progress. Nor do we have the money to splash around. That's if anyone would come anyway.

I hear you.

It's just that I'm not sure a relegation scrap is the best time to give have too many youngsters getting experience.

Having said that we don't want (asuming we can afford it) too many new people upsetting things I guess.

[Millsy]

the spirit, the tenacity, the fight.

I see what you almost did there...

And why you changed it...

Hahaha good man!!!

[The Real Sandhurst Royal]

Great spirited team performance played with tempo, movement and a desire to win the ball.

The five in midfield were very effective with Rinomhota and Kelly standing out for me.

[sandman]

First time I've been proud of this Reading team. They gave it a right go and played United off the park at times. No complaints with the decision from the VAR but I don't like how it's only used in certain ties and not all of them.

Have to say, having been to some of the best stadiums in England and Europe that Old Trafford never fails to disappoint. Obviously a lot of it comes down the standard of opposition they're playing but the atmosphere there is terrible, despite their little version of Club 1871. The less said about charging people for taking bags in under the guise of charity the better.

Jaakkola - Couple of decent saves. Although didn't face much other than the penalty and the Lukaku goal. 6

Yiadom - Did well at both Right back and centre back. One shot well saved and one where he blazed over when he should have taken a touch Hopefully this will help him get over his recent blip. 7
Moore - Good return to the team. 7
Illori - What to say? One good thing and three bad. Need a replacement in this month but doubt it will happen. 5
Richards - Good going forward but defensively needs to up his game. One very good saving tackle in the first half. 6

McCleary - Surprised at some of the comments on here. Thought he ran himself into the ground. 7
Rinomhota - This guy is a star. Started off a bit nervy giving the ball away a couple of times but after that brilliant, both at centre back and full back. If he doesn't go in this transfer window then he will in the next whether we stay up or not. 8 motm
Kelly - Stepped up to the plate and had one of his best games in ages. 7
Swift - Played well. Unfortunately let himself down by giving the ball away for the second. 6
Harriott - Think he might be staying now. Caused problems, particularly in the first half. Hope he steers clear of injury. 7

Loader - If only he'd taken that chance we might have got something. Although the keeper did well to force him wide. He'll learn from it. Other than that some nice touches and passing. Really want to see him play off Bodvarsson or Meite. 6

Subs:

Aluko - He did well with some nice passing. 6
Barrow - Did ok but not much of an impact. 5
Meite - Provided a presence up front. 5

[Millsy]

1) Penalty: I don't fully get to be honest... if we foul whilst they are fouling does it count? Like, for the pass just before Lukaku was in an offside position and the pass itself was offside as the foul came in... my head is hurting. But yeah they deserved the pen and the goal anyway.

What matters is which offence is committed first. As far as I can tell, the foul was committed before Fred touched the ball, so it is a penalty. A "pass" cannot be offside, only a player. It's not an offence to pass to someone in an offside position, it's an offence to interfere with play, interfere with an opponent, or gain an advantage having been in an offside position when a team mate was the last person to play the ball.

Sequence of events was like this:

1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence.
2) Mata plays a pass to Fred, who is in an offside position.
3) Richards trips Mata. Foul.
4) Fred controls the ball and scores.

As Fred was offside, it is correct to disallow the goal. This means that there is no advantage following the foul, which happened before Fred interfered with play in an offside position. That means that it is a penalty.

Both decisions correct, and pretty much only possible due to VAR.

Cheers SCIAG. But now I think it should not have been given. Bear with me please....

I haven't rewatched it since your reply but I guess for me the confusion is whether or not Fred is fouling by being in an offside position and clearly looking to accept the ball (which he then did), and so clearly interfering in play. As you know, offside is given even before, or even without recipients touching the ball, which is why this is so confusing and interesting. So the *moment* Mata touches the ball that whole snapshot of a situation i.e. Mata has touched the ball with the intention for it to get to Fred, who is clearly interfering in play just by being where he is, in the offside triangle, and clearly with the intention of touching the ball, so that snapshot of a situation is a foul whether or not Fred touches the ball... in that moment a foul has occurred. It is THEN that Richards floors Mata.

So really, it should not have been given, arguably.

And this makes more sense because one could argue that RIchards, in that split second of a stressful scenario saw that Fred was in a dangerous position, saw that Mata was just about to pass to him, and - credit to the lad who after Swansea I argued shouldn't wear a Reading shirt again! - therefore having the presence of mind and foresight to see what was going on had little option but to risk a foul by doing everything he could to prevent that. Good man! Actually in my mind a brilliant move and I forgive the young lad for his Swansea lapses. So yeah Fred was clearly interfering in play by causing this confusion in the receiving position he was in. To put it more simply... I'm not sure subconsciously Richards would have gone in if Fred wasn't where he was. His offside foul positioning clearly interfered in play and lead to the foul tackle.

Interesting....

[Royal Rother]

We’re decent at working the balm out to the wingers....

That would be pretty slick.

[Millsy]

We’re decent at working the balm out to the wingers....

That would be pretty slick.

Would certainly oil the wheels of our recovery.

[yuomi]

We’re decent at working the balm out to the wingers....

That would be pretty slick.

Would certainly oil the wheels of our recovery.

And salve our shattered confidence.

[Lower West]

Even a ‘makeshift’ Man U team should’ve been capable of smashing us, they didn’t.

Perhaps Ole isn't the new Messiah then. I doubt a Mourinho team would have put in such a limp performance. With no improvement at half time.

Must have been a long time since we've had three naturally left footed players on the pitch at the same time. Aluko, Richards and Harriott. We looked far better balanced today as a unit. Wonder if this was a contributing factor.

We started with Aluko, Barrow, and Richards against Swansea and QPR. We had Richards, Barrow, and Blackett against Millwall, albeit not for very long, and Middlesbrough. So that's the fifth game on the bounce. At Rotherham we had two left-footers on the pitch - it's just they were both playing centre back! Don't know which foot Meite prefers - isn't he left-footed?

Actually don't think having only two left footers on the pitch is at all unusual. Worth remembering that some of our best teams didn't have many left footed players. The 2005/06 side only had Convey and Shorey, although Kitson and Harper were good with both feet. We went a good few weeks with Makin at left back and didn't look any worse off. McDermott's playoff side only had Harte. He added Gorkss to the promotion side. Stam's side was spoiled for left footers, but his main left winger was Beerens, who was right-footed. The England team at the World Cup didn't contain a single left-footer (only Rose and Delph made the squad iirc), the great Barcelona sides only had Messi and a left back, the Invincibles only had Ashley Cole, the 1966 side only had Wilson...

Barrow is naturally right footed. Some games this season we've had none on the pitch. Swift for one struggles when's he asked to play on the left. Even Kelly tends to play the ball backwards (i.e. with his right foot) than attempt a left footed pass. Hence my comment. As was noticable today how much better our passing was. Compared to the recent run of games.

[Nameless]

1) Penalty: I don't fully get to be honest... if we foul whilst they are fouling does it count? Like, for the pass just before Lukaku was in an offside position and the pass itself was offside as the foul came in... my head is hurting. But yeah they deserved the pen and the goal anyway.

What matters is which offence is committed first. As far as I can tell, the foul was committed before Fred touched the ball, so it is a penalty. A "pass" cannot be offside, only a player. It's not an offence to pass to someone in an offside position, it's an offence to interfere with play, interfere with an opponent, or gain an advantage having been in an offside position when a team mate was the last person to play the ball.

Sequence of events was like this:

1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence.
2) Mata plays a pass to Fred, who is in an offside position.
3) Richards trips Mata. Foul.
4) Fred controls the ball and scores.

As Fred was offside, it is correct to disallow the goal. This means that there is no advantage following the foul, which happened before Fred interfered with play in an offside position. That means that it is a penalty.

Both decisions correct, and pretty much only possible due to VAR.

Cheers SCIAG. But now I think it should not have been given. Bear with me please....

I haven't rewatched it since your reply but I guess for me the confusion is whether or not Fred is fouling by being in an offside position and clearly looking to accept the ball (which he then did), and so clearly interfering in play. As you know, offside is given even before, or even without recipients touching the ball, which is why this is so confusing and interesting. So the *moment* Mata touches the ball that whole snapshot of a situation i.e. Mata has touched the ball with the intention for it to get to Fred, who is clearly interfering in play just by being where he is, in the offside triangle, and clearly with the intention of touching the ball, so that snapshot of a situation is a foul whether or not Fred touches the ball... in that moment a foul has occurred. It is THEN that Richards floors Mata.

So really, it should not have been given, arguably.

And this makes more sense because one could argue that RIchards, in that split second of a stressful scenario saw that Fred was in a dangerous position, saw that Mata was just about to pass to him, and - credit to the lad who after Swansea I argued shouldn't wear a Reading shirt again! - therefore having the presence of mind and foresight to see what was going on had little option but to risk a foul by doing everything he could to prevent that. Good man! Actually in my mind a brilliant move and I forgive the young lad for his Swansea lapses. So yeah Fred was clearly interfering in play by causing this confusion in the receiving position he was in. To put it more simply... I'm not sure subconsciously Richards would have gone in if Fred wasn't where he was. His offside foul positioning clearly interfered in play and lead to the foul tackle.

Interesting....

Why are you saying being offside is a foul ? That’s just nonsense !
Most of the rest of your analysis is just crazy.
The officialsgot it right and trying to rewrite the offside law whilst seemingly under the influence of mind altering substances isn’tgoing to change that.

[Kitsondinho]

What matters is which offence is committed first. As far as I can tell, the foul was committed before Fred touched the ball, so it is a penalty. A "pass" cannot be offside, only a player. It's not an offence to pass to someone in an offside position, it's an offence to interfere with play, interfere with an opponent, or gain an advantage having been in an offside position when a team mate was the last person to play the ball.

Sequence of events was like this:

1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence.
2) Mata plays a pass to Fred, who is in an offside position.
3) Richards trips Mata. Foul.
4) Fred controls the ball and scores.

As Fred was offside, it is correct to disallow the goal. This means that there is no advantage following the foul, which happened before Fred interfered with play in an offside position. That means that it is a penalty.

Both decisions correct, and pretty much only possible due to VAR.

Cheers SCIAG. But now I think it should not have been given. Bear with me please....

I haven't rewatched it since your reply but I guess for me the confusion is whether or not Fred is fouling by being in an offside position and clearly looking to accept the ball (which he then did), and so clearly interfering in play. As you know, offside is given even before, or even without recipients touching the ball, which is why this is so confusing and interesting. So the *moment* Mata touches the ball that whole snapshot of a situation i.e. Mata has touched the ball with the intention for it to get to Fred, who is clearly interfering in play just by being where he is, in the offside triangle, and clearly with the intention of touching the ball, so that snapshot of a situation is a foul whether or not Fred touches the ball... in that moment a foul has occurred. It is THEN that Richards floors Mata.

So really, it should not have been given, arguably.

And this makes more sense because one could argue that RIchards, in that split second of a stressful scenario saw that Fred was in a dangerous position, saw that Mata was just about to pass to him, and - credit to the lad who after Swansea I argued shouldn't wear a Reading shirt again! - therefore having the presence of mind and foresight to see what was going on had little option but to risk a foul by doing everything he could to prevent that. Good man! Actually in my mind a brilliant move and I forgive the young lad for his Swansea lapses. So yeah Fred was clearly interfering in play by causing this confusion in the receiving position he was in. To put it more simply... I'm not sure subconsciously Richards would have gone in if Fred wasn't where he was. His offside foul positioning clearly interfered in play and lead to the foul tackle.

Interesting....

Why are you saying being offside is a foul ? That’s just nonsense !
Most of the rest of your analysis is just crazy.
The officialsgot it right and trying to rewrite the offside law whilst seemingly under the influence of mind altering substances isn’tgoing to change that.

Even Jose had the class to say the decision was correct. It was.....just VAR took bloody ages!!

[biff]

Lukaku was offside in the first instance, and was interfering with play as Richards had to go round him to tackle. Wrong decision.

[Millsy]

What matters is which offence is committed first. As far as I can tell, the foul was committed before Fred touched the ball, so it is a penalty. A "pass" cannot be offside, only a player. It's not an offence to pass to someone in an offside position, it's an offence to interfere with play, interfere with an opponent, or gain an advantage having been in an offside position when a team mate was the last person to play the ball.

Sequence of events was like this:

1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence.
2) Mata plays a pass to Fred, who is in an offside position.
3) Richards trips Mata. Foul.
4) Fred controls the ball and scores.

As Fred was offside, it is correct to disallow the goal. This means that there is no advantage following the foul, which happened before Fred interfered with play in an offside position. That means that it is a penalty.

Both decisions correct, and pretty much only possible due to VAR.

Cheers SCIAG. But now I think it should not have been given. Bear with me please....

I haven't rewatched it since your reply but I guess for me the confusion is whether or not Fred is fouling by being in an offside position and clearly looking to accept the ball (which he then did), and so clearly interfering in play. As you know, offside is given even before, or even without recipients touching the ball, which is why this is so confusing and interesting. So the *moment* Mata touches the ball that whole snapshot of a situation i.e. Mata has touched the ball with the intention for it to get to Fred, who is clearly interfering in play just by being where he is, in the offside triangle, and clearly with the intention of touching the ball, so that snapshot of a situation is a foul whether or not Fred touches the ball... in that moment a foul has occurred. It is THEN that Richards floors Mata.

So really, it should not have been given, arguably.

And this makes more sense because one could argue that RIchards, in that split second of a stressful scenario saw that Fred was in a dangerous position, saw that Mata was just about to pass to him, and - credit to the lad who after Swansea I argued shouldn't wear a Reading shirt again! - therefore having the presence of mind and foresight to see what was going on had little option but to risk a foul by doing everything he could to prevent that. Good man! Actually in my mind a brilliant move and I forgive the young lad for his Swansea lapses. So yeah Fred was clearly interfering in play by causing this confusion in the receiving position he was in. To put it more simply... I'm not sure subconsciously Richards would have gone in if Fred wasn't where he was. His offside foul positioning clearly interfered in play and lead to the foul tackle.

Interesting....

Why are you saying being offside is a foul ? That’s just nonsense !
Most of the rest of your analysis is just crazy.
The officialsgot it right and trying to rewrite the offside law whilst seemingly under the influence of mind altering substances isn’tgoing to change that.

Calm down dude.

If you can't handle the idea of discussion on a discussion forum then perhaps the internet ain't for you.

I repeat that overall they deserved a goal there, and the win.

[Nameless]

Cheers SCIAG. But now I think it should not have been given. Bear with me please....

I haven't rewatched it since your reply but I guess for me the confusion is whether or not Fred is fouling by being in an offside position and clearly looking to accept the ball (which he then did), and so clearly interfering in play. As you know, offside is given even before, or even without recipients touching the ball, which is why this is so confusing and interesting. So the *moment* Mata touches the ball that whole snapshot of a situation i.e. Mata has touched the ball with the intention for it to get to Fred, who is clearly interfering in play just by being where he is, in the offside triangle, and clearly with the intention of touching the ball, so that snapshot of a situation is a foul whether or not Fred touches the ball... in that moment a foul has occurred. It is THEN that Richards floors Mata.

So really, it should not have been given, arguably.

And this makes more sense because one could argue that RIchards, in that split second of a stressful scenario saw that Fred was in a dangerous position, saw that Mata was just about to pass to him, and - credit to the lad who after Swansea I argued shouldn't wear a Reading shirt again! - therefore having the presence of mind and foresight to see what was going on had little option but to risk a foul by doing everything he could to prevent that. Good man! Actually in my mind a brilliant move and I forgive the young lad for his Swansea lapses. So yeah Fred was clearly interfering in play by causing this confusion in the receiving position he was in. To put it more simply... I'm not sure subconsciously Richards would have gone in if Fred wasn't where he was. His offside foul positioning clearly interfered in play and lead to the foul tackle.

Interesting....

Why are you saying being offside is a foul ? That’s just nonsense !
Most of the rest of your analysis is just crazy.
The officialsgot it right and trying to rewrite the offside law whilst seemingly under the influence of mind altering substances isn’tgoing to change that.

Calm down dude.

If you can't handle the idea of discussion on a discussion forum then perhaps ain't internet ain't for you.

I repeat that overall they deserved a goal there, and the win.

I can handle discussion.
But the only reasonable response to someone who posts nonsense is to point out they are posting nonsense !
Feel free to carry on with it, but it will still be nonsense !

[URZZZZ]

A few extra points :

I've seen a lot of posts crying out for a striker. But is that the main priority? In the 4-2-3-1 formation we play, look at the 3 behind the striker. These players include Aluko, Barrow, Swift, McCleary, Sims and maybe a couple of others
In the whole of 2018 (league goals)
Aluko - 1 goal
Swift - 0 goals ( ones against Brentford awarded to Bod)
Barrow - 4 goals
Clement - 0 goals
Sims - 0 goals
McCleary - 0 goals

That's 5 goals from our "attacking midfield three" in the whole of 2018. Now you can obviously count Meite for example, because he has played out on the wing for us this season, but he has predominantly been used as a striker. Now look at Bod's record, Meite's, even Baldock has chipped in with a few. Are the strikers really the problem?

Add to that it's not like they're that creative anyway, how many clear cut chances have we had since Boro at home? For all our endeavour today and against QPR, did we ever really threaten the goalie in either game. How many times today did Gmac or Swift or whoever mess up the final pass

On the subject of strikers, Loader isn't ready. He has potential but he really needs a league 1/2 move. The U23's is a completely different ballgame to the senior squad and I don't think he realises the difference yet, the time on the ball is severely reduced

This style is so similar yet so far away from Stam's. Stam's football was passing without a purpose, ultimately just "keeping the ball" at whatever cost. This seems to be a lot more progressive style, actually playing with a purpose, I'm generally impressed so far, apart from the "final third"

I think we're missing Blackett, him and Moore could forge a really strong partnership, rumours are that Ilori wants to leave anyway. I don't think Ilori is a particularly bad "footballer", he's just not a very good "championship footballer" and I always thought he'd suit the foreign leagues like Portugal or the Dutch league a lot better

Finally, corners, can someone please tell me the point of short corners. I know our team isn't blessed with height but short corners always result in the opposition getting the ball off us