Hard to see any progress for the forseeable future

[Sun Tzu]

But you're still sticking with all the other claims made in the original post (which interestingly doesn't mention progress....)

Read the title of the thread.

I did.
But I referred to the post, not the title. There seems little connection between the two. Are you still sticking to the belief that the claims in the post are valid ?

[Royal Lady]

I'd be interested to see where I've ever actually come out and stated that I agree with everything Schards wrote! As stated previously, I have merely, at times, tried to explain what Schards has meant, I have never stated that they are also my beliefs 100%. Arguments would be so much better if some people actually read the threads properly instead of surmising things or jumping to conclusions.

[Sun Tzu]

Arguments would be so much better if some people actually read the threads properly instead of surmising things or jumping to conclusions.

There will be fits of laughter right across HNAland at the irony of that !!

[Franchise FC]

Arguments would be so much better if some people actually read the threads properly instead of surmising things or jumping to conclusions.

There will be fits of laughter right across HNAland at the irony of that !!

The trouble with HNA is that there's no lines to read between.

[Royal Lady]

Well, I'm sorry - but I stand by what I said just now. And if, for example, you go to page 17 - you'll see there was quite some discussion about what constituted progress. So, by reckoning, you're wrong on all counts. Though it doesn't surprise me.

[Sun Tzu]

Well, I'm sorry - but I stand by what I said just now. And if, for example, you go to page 17 - you'll see there was quite some discussion about what constituted progress. So, by reckoning, you're wrong on all counts. Though it doesn't surprise me.

Sorry, none of that really makes sense. No idea what page 17 has to do with anything and not sure what counts I've been judged wrong on.

Can you ask Schards (or if he's not available give us your view on what his thoughts would be) whether he still believes that the points he makes in the original post are still valid. It's not a difficult question, it's got nothing to do with the end of the season and nothing to do with whether we've made progress. It's just a matter of whether the factors which made him decide that we would make no progress have been shown to be correct or not.

[Royal Lady]

You asked whether we "both" stood by our original comments on the thread or something. I've tried to explain in words as simple as possible, that if you had read the thread properly, you would see that I have not stated at any time that I agreed wholeheartedly with Schards' comments - my main contributions to this thread have been to try and explain what Schards has been trying to say.

You said you couldn't see what "progress" had to do with the original post - the fact that it's in the thread title would surely give a clue to the more discerning reader that the reasons given in his post were the things that, in HIS opinion, would make it HARD TO SEE ANY PROGRESS FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE.

If you're going to try and be clever, you need to try harder than that.

[Sun Tzu]

Would you agree that the points made in the original post have not been shown to be valid ?

Easy question, asked many times and you seem unable to bring yourself to answer (either for yourself or on behalf of Schards)

And whether you have declared your views or not the fact that you only contribute to one side of the debate and haven't ever suggested anything Schards said may have been wrong does mean it's not a huge leap to reach the conclusion that you may have some sympathy for what he said. Otherwise why bother 'explaining' ? Why not just say you don't agree....

[Ian Royal]

Maybe this would be going better if you stuck to your opinions and not trying to explain schards' RL.

He's big enough and old enough to look after himself you know.

[Royal Rother]

This is getting oxf*rd tedious now.

[Ian Royal]

This is getting oxf*rd tedious now.

I say again, it has been for the last 60 odd pages

[Baines]

This is getting oxf*rd tedious now.

I say again, it has been for the last 60 odd pages

Are you agreeing with Rother or are you just explaining what you imagine his position to be?

[Royal With Cheese]

Those with memories longer than a goldfish will recall me being castigated for backing Reading to be relegated with £50 at 10/1.

And those with even longer memories will recall me betting £500 that Reading would finish 10 points or more ahead of Watford the previous season.

Kerr.....and indeed......ching

But that still doesn't change the fact that most of your claims at the start of this topic are bollocks.

You'll have to wait until the end of the season for a verdict on that.

Sorry - You nailed you colours to the mast. By my reconing we've had one really awful game (Ipswich away - coincidentally the game directly before you started the thread) and then, debatably, Forest (which we didn't lose). In all the others I truly believe we can, and have, taken positives from. Of the other 16 games we've won 10, drawn 3 and lost 3. Presuming you're not going to argue about the ability to be inspired by a win we'll break down the ones we didn't win:

Of the 4 we've lost we threw 1 away (Preston), battered Burnley for 90 minutes and somehow managed to lose (Burnley keeper MOM), missed a penalty and hit the post at Charlton and we got beat by Southampton (although, however good the Saints were int he first half they were hanging on in the second).

As for the draws - QPR at home (stonewall penalty should have secured the points), Watford (phantom goal, comedy defending and - again, stonewall penalty denied which could have given us 3 points) and Cardiff (Down to 10 men played them off the park in the second half)

Unfortunately, I can't get to as many games as I like but have managed to listen to all I haven't attended via Reading World. Here's an interesting thing - you get not only Reading 107 coverage but also (barring Southampton) the opposition commentary also.

This season I've loved listening to this commentary and the "praise and grumble" phone in's afterwards. We have had plaudits from almost all I've heard. It would appear we are a team that the majority of opposition clubs supporters and pundits aspire to be like.

So, nearly half the season gone. What percentage of games do we have to win/draw or lose to make it sucessfull or unsucessfull in your eyes? What percentage would you accept as being dull or uninspiring before the season becomes so. Does this count as progress? As RL says, will only a substantial period of Premiership football suffice?

I am genuinely interested in you trying to quantify this rather than bland statements.

[Archie's penalty]

Unfortunately, I can't get to as many games as I like but have managed to listen to all I haven't attended via Reading World. Here's an interesting thing - you get not only Reading 107 coverage but also (barring Southampton) the opposition commentary also.

This season I've loved listening to this commentary and the "praise and grumble" phone in's afterwards. We have had plaudits from almost all I've heard. It would appear we are a team that the majority of opposition clubs supporters and pundits aspire to be like.

A good idea to listen to the other sides' commentaries when they play us. Haven't thought of that.

[rabidbee]

The Forest commentators were litterally creaming their pants at the 'quality' of football they were seeing, whilst we were . They were amused that Geordie Gooding was so non-plussed by it; as they said at the time, it just shows what standard we had become used to, compared with what they had had to endure in League 1.

[Ian Royal]

I've had to listen to a couple of oppo or neutral commentaries before due to Berks and 107 contractual stuff. Generally they've been very complimentary as already said.

In fact the last game the 5live extra commentators were saying that the likes of Long & Gunnarsson would walk into most championship clubs. Even I think thats bollocks, but it shows how far from poor our squad is generally viewed in the wider world of football.

[bishbosh92]

Personally

if we go up this year it will be through the playoffs

which i wont mind as going to wembley would be qulity

but i could see us becomign a big like west brom and a yoyo team bewteen the prem and the championship what you tihnk?

[Whore Jackie]

[S09Royal]

Personally

if we go up this year it will be through the playoffs

which i wont mind as going to wembley would be qulity

but i could see us becomign a big like west brom and a yoyo team bewteen the prem and the championship what you tihnk?

I don't think we're anything like West Brom.
If the team don't try hard enough and become more consistant in the hope that Brum and/or Wolves slip up along the way, Playoffs could, in some way, be a devastating prospect-esspecially if we finish in 3rd! If we don't make the top 2, i would like us to either finish in 4th or 5th. Regarding being a yo-yo team in the PL, West Brom aren't, they aren't consistant and like losing all of their matches. I'd say Stoke are a yo-yo team. We won't know until the time and let's not get ahead of ourselves, we aren't there yet but lets hope and pray that we will be there come May 3rd!

[Sun Tzu]

A yo-yo team is one who keeps going between the Championship and the Prem.

WBA have done this over several seasons whereas Stoke are less of a yo yo team than we are having had one promotion and as yet no relegations.