BFIFollow

[10539.4 Miles Away]

Cabral - 6 didn't have a lot to do to get a higher score tbf
Gunter - 7 occasional Gunter moments but generally decent
Richards - 6 fine, bit wobbly in defence not much in attack
Moore - 8 top draw for the most part
Morro - 7 solid, good fall over foul at least once.
Swift - 7 so close, in and out the game
Ejaria - 6 decent, some lovely inter play at times but only patchy and didn't deliver
Olise - 8 just a joy to watch. Sometimes flashy, sometimes simple. Still a bit naive and weak at times, but some of our best moments came through him. Always looking to produce
Meite - 7 always a threat and unsettled teams. He's not pretty but he's effective
Obita - 6 didn't have the legs at the end, couldn't quite get a couple of crosses in, but decent
Joao - 7 looked dangerous and was linking with Meite fairly well. Real shame about the injury, would score higher if he played longer

Puscas - 7 still seems on his heels too often, but much better passing and touch
McCleary - 7 almost a great through ball, some nice moments
Rinomhota - 6 solid, but couldn't quite make a couple of breaks happen
Adam - 6 a couple of moments of good experience but also gave away the corner and a couple too many ambitious forward balls


Ref - 5 few major decisions wrong, but not great.

Overall disappointing, but always felt vulnerable at just 1 and could almost feel it coming at that corner. Pretty good display on the whole. Joao a big loss though.

Ian, I am incredibly impressed you've resisted the urge to tell people they are not allowed to comment as they weren't at the game

[10539.4 Miles Away]

With no home crowd. There's no longer a home advantage.

Let's get to a secure position. Then start to focus on the future.

Genuine suggestion: Why can't we have one of the staffers / youth team sitting in the PA box with a soundboard and get them to press the relevant crowd noises at the right times, sure it won't be easy and could have some hilarious missteps but go for it I reckon!

[Snowflake Royal]

Cabral - 6 didn't have a lot to do to get a higher score tbf
Gunter - 7 occasional Gunter moments but generally decent
Richards - 6 fine, bit wobbly in defence not much in attack
Moore - 8 top draw for the most part
Morro - 7 solid, good fall over foul at least once.
Swift - 7 so close, in and out the game
Ejaria - 6 decent, some lovely inter play at times but only patchy and didn't deliver
Olise - 8 just a joy to watch. Sometimes flashy, sometimes simple. Still a bit naive and weak at times, but some of our best moments came through him. Always looking to produce
Meite - 7 always a threat and unsettled teams. He's not pretty but he's effective
Obita - 6 didn't have the legs at the end, couldn't quite get a couple of crosses in, but decent
Joao - 7 looked dangerous and was linking with Meite fairly well. Real shame about the injury, would score higher if he played longer

Puscas - 7 still seems on his heels too often, but much better passing and touch
McCleary - 7 almost a great through ball, some nice moments
Rinomhota - 6 solid, but couldn't quite make a couple of breaks happen
Adam - 6 a couple of moments of good experience but also gave away the corner and a couple too many ambitious forward balls


Ref - 5 few major decisions wrong, but not great.

Overall disappointing, but always felt vulnerable at just 1 and could almost feel it coming at that corner. Pretty good display on the whole. Joao a big loss though.

Ian, I am incredibly impressed you've resisted the urge to tell people they are not allowed to comment as they weren't at the game

[NewCorkSeth]

Yep

The good thing about this season coming to a close in midtable is that we can afford to give the likes of Olise, Richards, McIntyre, Osho, Andresson, maybe East, Frost and Nevers etc minutes to get under their belt.

I think it's safe to say few people would have called Richards, Rino or Olise as the next three to break through before they did. Hell, even after he did in Richards case! So you never know who might surprise you and just fit in well. Rino for example, isn't the most talented player by any stretch of the imagination, he's good sure, but his strength lies in the decisions he makes and his commitment more than his technical skill.

Frost is all but gone.

I’d love to see Holsgrove and Conor Lawless get some game time. Difficult to see them breaking into the current midfield with Olise doing so well, but I think we should be prepared to accept offers for Swift in the summer.

Think the best opportunity for a young player would be as a winger. Real shame Nolan left.

Working on the suggestion Holsgrove can't play this season. Lawless not listed on first team squad, but I do recognise his name... not seen him play I don't think.

Lawless came up a few times in conversation, interestingly he also plays LB iirc.

[RoyalBlue]

3) Zonal marking. If talking about their equaliser then I would normally have agreed with you but when I genuinely posed the question here a few months back to those more in the know the response from SCIAG et al were educational for me i.e. zonal marking is the norm at this level for set pieces. I don't agree/fully get it but if a non-pro like me doesn't agree then it probably means it's the right thing for pros to do! I'm not happy that they fell asleep though.

Yeah, I still don't get zonal marking. What happens/is meant to happen when the opposing team loads a particular zone with players? When they scored from the corner, they appeared to have three players in one area whereas we only had one. As was shown, that significantly increased their odds on winning the loose ball.

[URZZZZ]

Yeah puscas hold up was massively improved

Delighted Bowen is playing Olise. Fair play to him for that and he is putting in the performances to warrant it

The midfield 5 - obita, swift, Ejaria, Olise and Meite - all young and with the exception possibly of Obita, all likely to get better with experience

Could be exciting times if we can keep them together with Rino in the mix as well

Not sure about the midfield trio, too similar, missed Rino on Saturday or even Pele

Need to shift one of Olise or Ejaria out wide, preferably Ejaria who is a bigger threat out wide

[Snowflake Royal]

Yeah puscas hold up was massively improved

Delighted Bowen is playing Olise. Fair play to him for that and he is putting in the performances to warrant it

The midfield 5 - obita, swift, Ejaria, Olise and Meite - all young and with the exception possibly of Obita, all likely to get better with experience

Could be exciting times if we can keep them together with Rino in the mix as well

Not sure about the midfield trio, too similar, missed Rino on Saturday or even Pele

Need to shift one of Olise or Ejaria out wide, preferably Ejaria who is a bigger threat out wide

Yeah the obvious switch would be Rino in for Obita with Olise or Ejaria wide.

But that does offer a fair bit less protection for Richards

[Sutekh]

Headlines in the media today, Reading get point as fans locked out

Most irritating thing about this situation is the atmosphere “track” clubs are putting in their games, even to the extent of having a “boo button” whenever an opponent goes down in a dodgy manner (which in itself is something I would have thought the leagues would be bringing a disrepute charge against clubs for).

Quite frankly I think it’s like a laugh track to one of those crappy US sitcoms.

[Jackson Corner]

I am getting really p.....d off with Puscas he is useless with his back to goal. All of Stokes best moments came from him giving the ball away cheaply. We’re as Jaol is different class big strong plays people in we would be higher in the table if he had played more.

[Hound]

I am getting really p.....d off with Puscas he is useless with his back to goal. All of Stokes best moments came from him giving the ball away cheaply. We’re as Jaol is different class big strong plays people in we would be higher in the table if he had played more.

that happened once when he tried to keep the ball in and he was actually very good at his hold up play

[Hendo]

I am getting really p.....d off with Puscas he is useless with his back to goal. All of Stokes best moments came from him giving the ball away cheaply. We’re as Jaol is different class big strong plays people in we would be higher in the table if he had played more.

that happened once when he tried to keep the ball in and he was actually very good at his hold up play

+1 to Hound. Thought Puscas did pretty well when he came on, he harried the opposition, made them give the ball away twice (IIRC), which led to chances, albeit one of those chances was the Swift one where he had his legs taken away from him as he was about to shoot.

[NewCorkSeth]

I am getting really p.....d off with Puscas he is useless with his back to goal. All of Stokes best moments came from him giving the ball away cheaply. We’re as Jaol is different class big strong plays people in we would be higher in the table if he had played more.

that happened once when he tried to keep the ball in and he was actually very good at his hold up play

Yeah. +1. Even Mick didn't criticise him this much which says a lot.

[Snowflake Royal]

And another. I think it tailed off a bit as the second half went on, but he was much improved.

[Millsy]

3) Zonal marking. If talking about their equaliser then I would normally have agreed with you but when I genuinely posed the question here a few months back to those more in the know the response from SCIAG et al were educational for me i.e. zonal marking is the norm at this level for set pieces. I don't agree/fully get it but if a non-pro like me doesn't agree then it probably means it's the right thing for pros to do! I'm not happy that they fell asleep though.

Yeah, I still don't get zonal marking. What happens/is meant to happen when the opposing team loads a particular zone with players? When they scored from the corner, they appeared to have three players in one area whereas we only had one. As was shown, that significantly increased their odds on winning the loose ball.

Agreed. I really don't get the logic of it or how it's beneficial. Mick Gooding questions it a lot and he obviously knows what he's talking about, so it's not a foregone conclusion that it's a good idea, but I'm not qualified enough to say. It just seems ludicrous to me for a corner as nobody was on the man who had the free header. // And ok now I'm confused again because reading about it again, it seems that for corners man marking is more widely used than zonal (not what I read earlier I'm sure!). Then I'm reading that it's a mtter of great debate. Ok so perhaps it's not that clear cut and I've forgotten what people told me here! But anyway, in my amateur (college level!) football knowledge the idea of zonal for corners was totally alien. I think the argument was that it doesn't matter how many players there are the point is there is only one ball. So if the ball is descending in the area where the chap scored then if it's in your zone you have to go for that ball. The only thing I'd say to that is it can sometimes not be clear in the heat of the moment, and what if you can't get to it in time as there are several opposition players jumpign into that space denying you the chance. It still makes sense to me that each man being marked makes most sense, and had we adopted that against Stoke we wouldn't have lost 2 points.

[Snowflake Royal]

Man marking relies in you staying with your man. That's hard in a crowded box with blocking runs, good movement etc.. Makes you potentially more prone to giving away a pen from grabbing, holding etc whilst staying with them. Often means you're running towards your own goal if they start from deeper which could make it easier to miscue it in yourself.

Zonal means you're defending areas. You're better able to attack the ball and you're typically facing away from your goal and better able to clear it.

You can't really compare a shit attempt at zonal when it goes wrong with your ideal of man marking being done right.

[RoyalBlue]

I am getting really p.....d off with Puscas he is useless with his back to goal. All of Stokes best moments came from him giving the ball away cheaply. We’re as Jaol is different class big strong plays people in we would be higher in the table if he had played more.

that happened once when he tried to keep the ball in and he was actually very good at his hold up play

Exactly. In fact Gooding and Dellor repeatedly complimented him on his hold up play. Trouble is once a player gets a 'reputation' an element of our fan base appear reluctant to let it go.

[RoyalBlue]

3) Zonal marking. If talking about their equaliser then I would normally have agreed with you but when I genuinely posed the question here a few months back to those more in the know the response from SCIAG et al were educational for me i.e. zonal marking is the norm at this level for set pieces. I don't agree/fully get it but if a non-pro like me doesn't agree then it probably means it's the right thing for pros to do! I'm not happy that they fell asleep though.

Yeah, I still don't get zonal marking. What happens/is meant to happen when the opposing team loads a particular zone with players? When they scored from the corner, they appeared to have three players in one area whereas we only had one. As was shown, that significantly increased their odds on winning the loose ball.

Agreed. I really don't get the logic of it or how it's beneficial. Mick Gooding questions it a lot and he obviously knows what he's talking about, so it's not a foregone conclusion that it's a good idea, but I'm not qualified enough to say. It just seems ludicrous to me for a corner as nobody was on the man who had the free header. // And ok now I'm confused again because reading about it again, it seems that for corners man marking is more widely used than zonal (not what I read earlier I'm sure!). Then I'm reading that it's a mtter of great debate. Ok so perhaps it's not that clear cut and I've forgotten what people told me here! But anyway, in my amateur (college level!) football knowledge the idea of zonal for corners was totally alien. I think the argument was that it doesn't matter how many players there are the point is there is only one ball. So if the ball is descending in the area where the chap scored then if it's in your zone you have to go for that ball. The only thing I'd say to that is it can sometimes not be clear in the heat of the moment, and what if you can't get to it in time as there are several opposition players jumpign into that space denying you the chance. It still makes sense to me that each man being marked makes most sense, and had we adopted that against Stoke we wouldn't have lost 2 points.

It's the point about the presence of multiple opponents making it difficult for our player who is responsible for that zone to get to the ball that seems to me to be the biggest weakness with zonal marking.

[SCIAG]

3) Zonal marking. If talking about their equaliser then I would normally have agreed with you but when I genuinely posed the question here a few months back to those more in the know the response from SCIAG et al were educational for me i.e. zonal marking is the norm at this level for set pieces. I don't agree/fully get it but if a non-pro like me doesn't agree then it probably means it's the right thing for pros to do! I'm not happy that they fell asleep though.

Just to clarify as I’ve been namechecked:

- Zonal marking is the norm outside of set pieces. During set pieces is by far the most likely time that you’ll see elements of man marking.

- The evidence doesn’t show a difference between the effectiveness of man and zonal marking at set pieces.

Personally I think man marking is probably a better bet because players are more familiar with it, so you can spend more time focusing on other aspects - but you do have to decide who marks who every week.

If the opposition put three men in one zone then you only need one man to deal with all of them, it’s not like all three of them can head then all at the same time. Also means that they don’t have players in other zones, so the ball in has to be very targeted.

Don’t really mind which system we use but the mindless bashing of zonal marking every time a team concedes a goal while using it got old about 12 years ago.

[Millsy]

3) Zonal marking. If talking about their equaliser then I would normally have agreed with you but when I genuinely posed the question here a few months back to those more in the know the response from SCIAG et al were educational for me i.e. zonal marking is the norm at this level for set pieces. I don't agree/fully get it but if a non-pro like me doesn't agree then it probably means it's the right thing for pros to do! I'm not happy that they fell asleep though.

Just to clarify as I’ve been namechecked:

- Zonal marking is the norm outside of set pieces. During set pieces is by far the most likely time that you’ll see elements of man marking.

- The evidence doesn’t show a difference between the effectiveness of man and zonal marking at set pieces.

Personally I think man marking is probably a better bet because players are more familiar with it, so you can spend more time focusing on other aspects - but you do have to decide who marks who every week.

If the opposition put three men in one zone then you only need one man to deal with all of them, it’s not like all three of them can head then all at the same time. Also means that they don’t have players in other zones, so the ball in has to be very targeted.

Don’t really mind which system we use but the mindless bashing of zonal marking every time a team concedes a goal while using it got old about 12 years ago.

Thanks SCIAG, appreciated. So it's not as clear cut as I thought for set pieces then, which has always been the issue. Good to know you favour man-marking too.

The bashing isn't mindless. It might a long a tired and debate but it isn't without merit especially as if we're bashing it it's not to bring up an old general debate but to discuss how it applies to our specific situation. *If* as we seem to be observing (I'm not sure there is.. Snowball?) there is a trend that we are letting quite a few goals because of zonal marking it suggests the current players with the current set up and current training isn't optimised for zonal marking at set pieces, however good the evidence shows how good (or equivalent to man marking) it may be for other teams. Having said that, the unintended consequences of going man-marking may be that we then don't hit as effectively on the break from a set piece, so we'd have to factor that in too. Again, way above my head, I'm just a layperson speculating and I'm sure the professionals at Madejski look at this in detail from every angle.

It'd be very cynical of me to suggest that we are continuing pigheadedly with a policy that doesn't suit our players, like we did with Stamball.

[Hound]

why would you blame zonal marking for that goal out of interest?

Its not like we lost the ball because we were outnumbered in an area. Don't you think the players just didn't make their zones correctly?