MATCHWATCH : Blackpool (a)

[Simon's Church]

I'm glad Ince didn't risk Camara or Scott, god forbid they might show they have something to offer our threadbare squad and should have been included in preseason ahead of some of the god-awful trialists.

[Elm Park Kid]

Ultimately - I reckon that the players and management would have left this game frustrated and looking forward to doing better in the next one, rather than despondent and dreading playing again. Which is what we want this season - a team battling to get up to speed in the league, always in with a chance of winning matches (as we were today) and hopefully putting results together by the end of the season. I'm happier that we start off losing and improve than repeating last season.

[Snowflake Royal]

Have just read Ince's comments after the game and it was usual management speak about the odd mistake, we were better second half and deserved something from the game blah, blah.

What about the first half?
With 5 subs now permitted I agree with the posters that say why not use them when we are losing?
Even if Shane Long is not super fit surely he could at least have played for half an hour.

Fornah looks to be the new Dele-Bashiru and I suspect will lose his place once Loum looms large but he fills out the squad and Guinness-Walker had a tough time but so did Richards when he first came into the side so let's wait and see.

We did pass it around a lot in the second half without really threatening and that might now be the issue for this season-creativity and finishing whereas last season it was more about the poor defensive side.

Here's hoping that Loum is as good as his history indicates and that he is here to showcase his talents ahead of a move to a bigger club, otherwise it is difficult to understand why he would be coming to us.

1st half was mainly due to 2 players having to shift position due to Hutchinson's late injury and NGW starting when that wasn't the plan.

Fornah doing exactly as the reviews suggest and starting slowly, he'll adjust to the pace and show his worth IMHO.

Taking injury out of it, If Sarr had been signed off in time, the impact of having another CB in the back 3, would have lead to a more cohesive start as players would be playing where they had prepped and we would have got, at worst, a 0-0 out of yesterday.

You're saying this like a fact when as far as I can tell its your inference only. Do you know when the injuries occurred, or that was the actual plan? How?

Hutchinson's injury can't explain it the way you think it does.

Moving Hoilett from LWB to RWB to accommodate NGW and Yiadom centrally doesn't explain why the entire back 5 and central midfield sat so deep first half. Hoilett's role is essentially the same. NGW's role within the team would be exactly what he'd have expected. Yiadom knows how to play CB.

And we could easily have not moved anyone around and instead played Clarke. Or brought in Abrefa at RWB instead of NGW and shifting Hoilett - who reportedly was poor at LWB against Brighton anyway.

It's also just excuses stranded.

[URZZZZ]

Would actually argue that if we were to play a back 3/5, Yiadom is better equipped for the RCB role rather than the RWB role

Able to do what he does best, i.e bring the ball out but without the decisive action in the final third

[Snowflake Royal]

I think a much more likely explanation for our poor performance than chaos caused by 1 injury, is that Ince told them to sit deep, soak pressure and rely on Meite, Ince, NGW and Hoilett's pace on the break because Meite isn’t very good at holding the ball up the way we like to with Joao, and is much better running in behind.

[Hound]

Very encouraged to hear the commitment, fitness and competitiveness was all there

Realistically that’s the first thing we’ve all been asking for. Lack of quality is understandable but as long as we continue Bowen’s old mantra of being nasty to play against, we should be fine over the season

[Jagermesiter1871]

Thought Long looked class when he came on, could have done with him for longer than 7 minutes.

[Zip]

We did start pre season a bit earlier than lot if clubs which was good signing at least we won't run out of steam in the latter stages of games

[bcubed]

Have just read Ince's comments after the game and it was usual management speak about the odd mistake, we were better second half and deserved something from the game blah, blah.

What about the first half?
With 5 subs now permitted I agree with the posters that say why not use them when we are losing?
Even if Shane Long is not super fit surely he could at least have played for half an hour.

Fornah looks to be the new Dele-Bashiru and I suspect will lose his place once Loum looms large but he fills out the squad and Guinness-Walker had a tough time but so did Richards when he first came into the side so let's wait and see.

We did pass it around a lot in the second half without really threatening and that might now be the issue for this season-creativity and finishing whereas last season it was more about the poor defensive side.

Here's hoping that Loum is as good as his history indicates and that he is here to showcase his talents ahead of a move to a bigger club, otherwise it is difficult to understand why he would be coming to us.

Yep and I thought the most telling comment was this one

They made four or five substitutes today, we had Shane Long – who’s still a fair bit behind it - and a group of young men on the bench.

Which tends to support the idea that some have put forward that he's reluctant to put his faith in our youngsters

[Snowflake Royal]

Very encouraged to hear the commitment, fitness and competitiveness was all there

Realistically that’s the first thing we’ve all been asking for. Lack of quality is understandable but as long as we continue Bowen’s old mantra of being nasty to play against, we should be fine over the season

We were nothing like nasty to play against yesterday.

[Stranded]

Have just read Ince's comments after the game and it was usual management speak about the odd mistake, we were better second half and deserved something from the game blah, blah.

What about the first half?
With 5 subs now permitted I agree with the posters that say why not use them when we are losing?
Even if Shane Long is not super fit surely he could at least have played for half an hour.

Fornah looks to be the new Dele-Bashiru and I suspect will lose his place once Loum looms large but he fills out the squad and Guinness-Walker had a tough time but so did Richards when he first came into the side so let's wait and see.

We did pass it around a lot in the second half without really threatening and that might now be the issue for this season-creativity and finishing whereas last season it was more about the poor defensive side.

Here's hoping that Loum is as good as his history indicates and that he is here to showcase his talents ahead of a move to a bigger club, otherwise it is difficult to understand why he would be coming to us.

1st half was mainly due to 2 players having to shift position due to Hutchinson's late injury and NGW starting when that wasn't the plan.

Fornah doing exactly as the reviews suggest and starting slowly, he'll adjust to the pace and show his worth IMHO.

Taking injury out of it, If Sarr had been signed off in time, the impact of having another CB in the back 3, would have lead to a more cohesive start as players would be playing where they had prepped and we would have got, at worst, a 0-0 out of yesterday.

You're saying this like a fact when as far as I can tell its your inference only. Do you know when the injuries occurred, or that was the actual plan? How?

Hutchinson's injury can't explain it the way you think it does.

Moving Hoilett from LWB to RWB to accommodate NGW and Yiadom centrally doesn't explain why the entire back 5 and central midfield sat so deep first half. Hoilett's role is essentially the same. NGW's role within the team would be exactly what he'd have expected. Yiadom knows how to play CB.

And we could easily have not moved anyone around and instead played Clarke. Or brought in Abrefa at RWB instead of NGW and shifting Hoilett - who reportedly was poor at LWB against Brighton anyway.

It's also just excuses stranded.

Yes it is an inference based on fact. We are playing 3 at the back and had 3 available CBs, Sarr may have been available if the EFL had ratified it.

Hutchinson was key to our play and appeared to be first choice. Losing him meant either playing a youngster in an already young back 3 or shifting around players to compensate. We did the latter and whilst I get the reasoning, it backfired with the slow start but the players grew into it.

Re Clarke, assume you mean the defender. If he plays for the 1st team in the league, he is automatically a permitted player as we signed him after the EFL agreement (happy to be corrected here).You aren't going to waste a squad space on him at this stage.

[Snowflake Royal]

1st half was mainly due to 2 players having to shift position due to Hutchinson's late injury and NGW starting when that wasn't the plan.

Fornah doing exactly as the reviews suggest and starting slowly, he'll adjust to the pace and show his worth IMHO.

Taking injury out of it, If Sarr had been signed off in time, the impact of having another CB in the back 3, would have lead to a more cohesive start as players would be playing where they had prepped and we would have got, at worst, a 0-0 out of yesterday.

You're saying this like a fact when as far as I can tell its your inference only. Do you know when the injuries occurred, or that was the actual plan? How?

Hutchinson's injury can't explain it the way you think it does.

Moving Hoilett from LWB to RWB to accommodate NGW and Yiadom centrally doesn't explain why the entire back 5 and central midfield sat so deep first half. Hoilett's role is essentially the same. NGW's role within the team would be exactly what he'd have expected. Yiadom knows how to play CB.

And we could easily have not moved anyone around and instead played Clarke. Or brought in Abrefa at RWB instead of NGW and shifting Hoilett - who reportedly was poor at LWB against Brighton anyway.

It's also just excuses stranded.

Yes it is an inference based on fact. We are playing 3 at the back and had 3 available CBs, Sarr may have been available if the EFL had ratified it.

Hutchinson was key to our play and appeared to be first choice. Losing him meant either playing a youngster in an already young back 3 or shifting around players to compensate. We did the latter and whilst I get the reasoning, it backfired with the slow start but the players grew into it.

Re Clarke, assume you mean the defender. If he plays for the 1st team in the league, he is automatically a permitted player as we signed him after the EFL agreement (happy to be corrected here).You aren't going to waste a squad space on him at this stage.

I though I saw someone say the clarke on the bench was the defender... replace him with Dorsett.

You can only argue the poor start being caused by Hutch's injury if it was a late injury on the day, maybe the Friday. If it happened on Monday / Tuesday that's no excuse. And as I say, even if it was on the morning it really doesn't sufficiently explain the issues. He's just another CB, he's no more key than Holmes or McIntyre.

And I'm not having Sarr as an issue. You can't plan to use him until after he's signed.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Harsh on Hendrick. He made that pass because Meite told him to and a good playmaker trusts their striker. If I had a CM who chose to shoot from 20 yards instead of play the ball through to a striker (which Hendrick did very nicely I might add) I would not be thrilled.

It wasn't Hendricks fault Meite fluffed it.

I was a fair bit away with a restricted-ish view, but it looked like it opened up quite nicely and could argue that Meite made a sacrificial run which opened up more space to aim for the goal and bring it another yard or two closer for a strike.

I can fully understand the decision, I just didn't think it was the right one in hindsight. The pass wasn't necessarily poor, think Meite was knocked a little off balance by the Blackpool defender as he ran through.

In the moment yes, I agree, I thought he was going to pull it to his right and shoot as it was a totally free shot with all the defenders moving left and Hendrick with all the momentum but that's what you would expect a striker to do in that scenario, not a CM. Joao would do that. Hendrick playing in Meite was what I would want our mids to be doing every time. Imagine he played that ball to Joao for example? Thats exactly what we need. Someone to just play ball through to Joao for him to finish.

Too often last season those passes just never came. Mostly because Swift was just never in those positions for whatever reason.

Meite was knocked a little to be fair but I would still expect more power from him in the shot. It was very tame.

Yeah possibly. As I say, it wasn't necessarily a bad decision, I just thought he may have taken the shot from the position he was in, can understand the logic behind not having the belief a CM not wanting to shoot, but he must have been in some sort of confidence considering he's knocked a couple in during pre-season. I know it's only pre-season, but even still.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

You're saying this like a fact when as far as I can tell its your inference only. Do you know when the injuries occurred, or that was the actual plan? How?

Hutchinson's injury can't explain it the way you think it does.

Moving Hoilett from LWB to RWB to accommodate NGW and Yiadom centrally doesn't explain why the entire back 5 and central midfield sat so deep first half. Hoilett's role is essentially the same. NGW's role within the team would be exactly what he'd have expected. Yiadom knows how to play CB.

And we could easily have not moved anyone around and instead played Clarke. Or brought in Abrefa at RWB instead of NGW and shifting Hoilett - who reportedly was poor at LWB against Brighton anyway.

It's also just excuses stranded.

Yes it is an inference based on fact. We are playing 3 at the back and had 3 available CBs, Sarr may have been available if the EFL had ratified it.

Hutchinson was key to our play and appeared to be first choice. Losing him meant either playing a youngster in an already young back 3 or shifting around players to compensate. We did the latter and whilst I get the reasoning, it backfired with the slow start but the players grew into it.

Re Clarke, assume you mean the defender. If he plays for the 1st team in the league, he is automatically a permitted player as we signed him after the EFL agreement (happy to be corrected here).You aren't going to waste a squad space on him at this stage.

I though I saw someone say the clarke on the bench was the defender... replace him with Dorsett.

You can only argue the poor start being caused by Hutch's injury if it was a late injury on the day, maybe the Friday. If it happened on Monday / Tuesday that's no excuse. And as I say, even if it was on the morning it really doesn't sufficiently explain the issues. He's just another CB, he's no more key than Holmes or McIntyre.

And I'm not having Sarr as an issue. You can't plan to use him until after he's signed.

I think the reports are that Hutchinson sustained his injury 24-48 hours before the game, which is pretty lethal for us really. As said, it's "only" one injury but it's probably lead to 2/3 personnel changes in certain positions as well as potentially asking Holmes to do a different role entirely as the middle CB.

In fairness to P.Ince, I think he's said it pretty well in his press conference after the game, I agree with most things said there, particularly about being 4/5 starters down, this is where we are, need to be more ruthless in the box etc. Bodies in the door will be a massive one, particularly if players are going to be dropping like flies again.

[Stranded]

Yes it is an inference based on fact. We are playing 3 at the back and had 3 available CBs, Sarr may have been available if the EFL had ratified it.

Hutchinson was key to our play and appeared to be first choice. Losing him meant either playing a youngster in an already young back 3 or shifting around players to compensate. We did the latter and whilst I get the reasoning, it backfired with the slow start but the players grew into it.

Re Clarke, assume you mean the defender. If he plays for the 1st team in the league, he is automatically a permitted player as we signed him after the EFL agreement (happy to be corrected here).You aren't going to waste a squad space on him at this stage.

I though I saw someone say the clarke on the bench was the defender... replace him with Dorsett.

You can only argue the poor start being caused by Hutch's injury if it was a late injury on the day, maybe the Friday. If it happened on Monday / Tuesday that's no excuse. And as I say, even if it was on the morning it really doesn't sufficiently explain the issues. He's just another CB, he's no more key than Holmes or McIntyre.

And I'm not having Sarr as an issue. You can't plan to use him until after he's signed.

I think the reports are that Hutchinson sustained his injury 24-48 hours before the game, which is pretty lethal for us really. As said, it's "only" one injury but it's probably lead to 2/3 personnel changes in certain positions as well as potentially asking Holmes to do a different role entirely as the middle CB.

In fairness to P.Ince, I think he's said it pretty well in his press conference after the game, I agree with most things said there, particularly about being 4/5 starters down, this is where we are, need to be more ruthless in the box etc. Bodies in the door will be a massive one, particularly if players are going to be dropping like flies again.

That's my understanding that it was fairly late in the week, when work would have been well progressed on set up.

Ian is right that you don't count on a player who isn't registered yet, my point on Sarr is that it is a shame he wasn't registered in time but the same token shows that NGW wasn't planned to start as was only registered on Friday. Possible he wasn't even in the squad to start with but as an available LB/LWB given the late knock it made sense to try and minimise the square pegs in round holes - even if he wasn't fully involved in the tactical sessions for this match.

If Sarr had been registered as quickly as NGW was, then losing one of our CBs would have been less of an issue.

On Clarke, missed he was on the bench so accept I am wrong there. Maybe u21s simply don't count to squad numbers so he could be included on he had travelled for experience and was given a spot on the bench without really planning to use him. Probably the former.

[The Royal Forester]

Joint bottom.

We are not bottom. Stoke have conceded more goals than us. We are joint 20th. on goal difference/scored. at least we are above the dotted line.

We were when I posted it, Stoke were losing 1-0.

Apologies Windy. I read your post well after the match ended and should have realised the time of your posting.

[PieEater]

Back from a wet, windy and pretty grim weekend in Blackpool. You could spot the Reading fans in shorts and T shirts when you really needed a jumper and a raincoat.

Had a decent prematch in the Manchester that was rammed with Royals, the DJ played football chants to a disco beat that seemed to get everyone going. I wasn't looking forward to the game and our pre season optimism was shattered in 10mins, we were utterly dreadful and played like we'd just met up and had no practice. The goal was coming - they were pretty fortunate with the rebound - but he took the chance well. Otherwise both teams looked pretty poor, the difference being Blackpool worked harder and knew each other.

We only seemed to start to play for the last 30 mins when Blackpool stopped closing us down, then it looked like we'd get back into but apart from a couple of saves from the keeper and cross that needed tapping in there was very little. And we need to practice corners - 10 and I don't think we won a header.

I have to agree with the chant - "You have to live here, we get to go home" but that's now 3 games we've lost to Blackpool when they looked like a poor team.

[Orion1871]

Back from a wet, windy and pretty grim weekend in Blackpool. You could spot the Reading fans in shorts and T shirts when you really needed a jumper and a raincoat.

Had a decent prematch in the Manchester that was rammed with Royals, the DJ played football chants to a disco beat that seemed to get everyone going. I wasn't looking forward to the game and our pre season optimism was shattered in 10mins, we were utterly dreadful and played like we'd just met up and had no practice. The goal was coming - they were pretty fortunate with the rebound - but he took the chance well. Otherwise both teams looked pretty poor, the difference being Blackpool worked harder and knew each other.

We only seemed to start to play for the last 30 mins when Blackpool stopped closing us down, then it looked like we'd get back into but apart from a couple of saves from the keeper and cross that needed tapping in there was very little. And we need to practice corners - 10 and I don't think we won a header.

I have to agree with the chant - "You have to live here, we get to go home" but that's now 3 games we've lost to Blackpool when they looked like a poor team.

Which games were those? They were very good at the SCL last year and were all over us even before we fluked a two goal lead.

[windermereROYAL]

Back from a wet, windy and pretty grim weekend in Blackpool. You could spot the Reading fans in shorts and T shirts when you really needed a jumper and a raincoat.

Had a decent prematch in the Manchester that was rammed with Royals, the DJ played football chants to a disco beat that seemed to get everyone going. I wasn't looking forward to the game and our pre season optimism was shattered in 10mins, we were utterly dreadful and played like we'd just met up and had no practice. The goal was coming - they were pretty fortunate with the rebound - but he took the chance well. Otherwise both teams looked pretty poor, the difference being Blackpool worked harder and knew each other.

We only seemed to start to play for the last 30 mins when Blackpool stopped closing us down, then it looked like we'd get back into but apart from a couple of saves from the keeper and cross that needed tapping in there was very little. And we need to practice corners - 10 and I don't think we won a header.

I have to agree with the chant - "You have to live here, we get to go home" but that's now 3 games we've lost to Blackpool when they looked like a poor team.

What were the pies like?

[Coppells Lost Coat]

I read the Hutchinson injury as they were preparing to travel up - most probably the night before and Ince had to make a call on who will replace him. Caused a few last minute tweaks to an unexperienced side rocked the boat and it showed.

The performance was as fully expected. Several key positions filled with players that have probably only trained together for a few weeks max. As the game went on, they got used to playing with each other, seemed to be more logic in patterns of play etc. I would prefer T Ince not to be played centrally and for who ever plays at No10 not to be given a free roaming role.

No none in the first half deserved a rating more than 5 - second half no more than 7.
First game of the season, not going to shit the bed over 1 poor half of football.