by Platypuss » 25 Sep 2006 22:38
by alad » 25 Sep 2006 22:39
Alan PartridgealadAlan PartridgealadAlan Partridgealad It's a fair report. Reading never threatened and only had one 'chance' in the whole game. They played to stop United, not to win a football match.
The fact the best Reading players were defenders say it all.
That's utter rubbish.
We tried to win the game, we started up 4-4-2 and tried to take the game to them. The fact is Man Utd have far better players than us and are a far better side, they restricted us and dominated the game as they will against nearly every side in this division, including teams that are better than us.
But to say we didn't try to win the game is utter nonsense.
I'm not having ago, as it worked and the job was done.
If you'd have said once it went to 1-1 that Reading tried to hang on for a point you would then be right, but to suggest we didn't try and win the game at the start is nonsense.
Oh and your fishing again!!![]()
Let's be fair, Sidwell and Harper may aswell have played in defence, as they never crossed the half way line except for corners.
.Ok I'll play along
James 'the crab' Harper never does anyway and Sidwell was stopped from doing that after the first half when Scholes was finding tons of room in front of our defense. He was going to win it for Man Utd so second half Sidwell stuck on him and he was slightly less effective.
United are too good a side for us to bomb on gung ho and leave tons of gaps.
Don't like unfair criticism of our side, even if it is wriggling away!
We can't be criticised in any way for the Man Utd game.
by Alan Partridge » 25 Sep 2006 22:39
aladThe Goat was fed Seem to recall the away side on Saturday played with only one up front.
Very adventurous. Presumably 4-4-2 was too risky against a team with our home record?
Formations mean very little at this level as top sides change shape during a game. The fact United dominated possession and chances are proof of this.
by Mr Optimist » 25 Sep 2006 22:41
by Alan Partridge » 25 Sep 2006 22:42
aladAlan PartridgealadAlan PartridgealadAlan Partridgealad It's a fair report. Reading never threatened and only had one 'chance' in the whole game. They played to stop United, not to win a football match.
The fact the best Reading players were defenders say it all.
That's utter rubbish.
We tried to win the game, we started up 4-4-2 and tried to take the game to them. The fact is Man Utd have far better players than us and are a far better side, they restricted us and dominated the game as they will against nearly every side in this division, including teams that are better than us.
But to say we didn't try to win the game is utter nonsense.
I'm not having ago, as it worked and the job was done.
If you'd have said once it went to 1-1 that Reading tried to hang on for a point you would then be right, but to suggest we didn't try and win the game at the start is nonsense.
Oh and your fishing again!!![]()
Let's be fair, Sidwell and Harper may aswell have played in defence, as they never crossed the half way line except for corners.
.Ok I'll play along
James 'the crab' Harper never does anyway and Sidwell was stopped from doing that after the first half when Scholes was finding tons of room in front of our defense. He was going to win it for Man Utd so second half Sidwell stuck on him and he was slightly less effective.
United are too good a side for us to bomb on gung ho and leave tons of gaps.
Don't like unfair criticism of our side, even if it is wriggling away!
We can't be criticised in any way for the Man Utd game.
I felt Reading could have won the game, especially at 1-0. The players need to have more self confidence and belief and go for it. If you sit back you invite pressure.
by alad » 25 Sep 2006 22:43
Platypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.
by starbug » 25 Sep 2006 22:44
by The Goat was fed » 25 Sep 2006 22:46
aladThe Goat was fed Seem to recall the away side on Saturday played with only one up front.
Very adventurous. Presumably 4-4-2 was too risky against a team with our home record?
Formations mean very little at this level as top sides change shape during a game. The fact United dominated possession and chances are proof of this.
by Sam Tubber » 25 Sep 2006 22:46
by 72 bus » 25 Sep 2006 22:47
aladThe Goat was fed Seem to recall the away side on Saturday played with only one up front.
Very adventurous. Presumably 4-4-2 was too risky against a team with our home record?
Formations mean very little at this level as top sides change shape during a game. The fact United dominated possession and chances are proof of this.
by MrMadMax » 25 Sep 2006 22:53
by alad » 25 Sep 2006 22:57
The Goat was fedaladThe Goat was fed Seem to recall the away side on Saturday played with only one up front.
Very adventurous. Presumably 4-4-2 was too risky against a team with our home record?
Formations mean very little at this level as top sides change shape during a game. The fact United dominated possession and chances are proof of this.
Thank you for the football education. I didn't realise formations mean very little at this level. How stupid of me. Clearly it's proof that the hatful of goals and chances the away side created was in the finest tradition of this wonderful side. Not. Apologies on behalf of the Reading team for having the nerve to grace the pitch with you. I'm sure Steve Coppell will learn that he too must change the team's shape if we are ever to be considered a top side.
Thank Goodness. I thought for one minute there might be a condescending Man United fan on this site....
by Millsy » 25 Sep 2006 23:01
aladPlatypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.
I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed. If a team dominates a game and has 10 shots go wide by an inch, yet the other team has 1 shot on target which team would you consider to have looked more threatening?
*The above stats are an example and do not reflect the game Saturday*
by alad » 25 Sep 2006 23:02
2 world wars, 1 world cupaladPlatypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.
I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed. If a team dominates a game and has 10 shots go wide by an inch, yet the other team has 1 shot on target which team would you consider to have looked more threatening?
*The above stats are an example and do not reflect the game Saturday*
Wow, such a passionate and woefully biased supporter of Man Utd.
Nice to know I sometimes miss out on wathcing my beloved hometown club by one who's loyalties are divided.
We support our local club.
by Platypuss » 25 Sep 2006 23:03
aladPlatypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.
I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed.
by alad » 25 Sep 2006 23:04
PlatypussaladPlatypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.
I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed.
Not an argument, just an observation.
quiet here, isn't it?
by Huntley & Palmer » 25 Sep 2006 23:06
by reading_fan » 25 Sep 2006 23:23
aladPlatypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.
I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed. If a team dominates a game and has 10 shots go wide by an inch, yet the other team has 1 shot on target which team would you consider to have looked more threatening?
*The above stats are an example and do not reflect the game Saturday*
Users browsing this forum: 78royal, Hove Royal, Royals and Racers and 183 guests