BFTG Port Vale

[CountryRoyal]

After leaving it a night to reflect, I can accept we're still in catchup mode and these results will happen. I suppose it was all the more frustrating after travelling all the way there to start brightly and then just fade horribly yet again. It was also really disappointing to see none of the youngsters involved in the demolition of Millwall retain their place.

Apart from:

Knibbs
Azeez
Ehibhationhan
Guinness Walker
Savage

Subs used:
Carson
Wing
Camara
Vickers

Do you know what “retained their place?” means? Because that only applies to Knibbs and Ehibatiomhan (not sure either truly count in this context as both started v posh too) so it was more playing the same players rather than rewarding them specifically for their work v Millwall.

And I wouldn’t really call NGW, Knibbs and to a lesser extent Azees, young players. Not sure why you included Wing there too, he’s almost 30 lol

[Snowflake Royal]

The one thing I will say, which sounds obvious but in the moment people forget is that only a few weeks ago most (on here) seemed to be magnanimous and accepting that we won’t be challenging for promotion and that a mid table finish would be fine. The problem with that is that on the way to a mid table finish you’re going to get some really ugly, shitty performances and results. The two go hand in hand. Despite what people say do our fans actually have the stomach for that? If we play well we will probably win more often than not then we’d be challenging.

It’s still such early days though and we didn’t really have a pre season.

It's a good point. Both second halves have been dreadful, but the Posh 1st half was genuinely exciting stuff and Vale was ok.

We've only lost 1-0 on both occasions. We were expecting a slow start and Selles obviously hasn't done enough homework on how the players perform in games.

Couple of results and confidence should increase and performances improve. Worrying how quick we tire and lose all ideas though.

[CountryRoyal]

Couple of results and confidence should increase and performances improve. Worrying how quick we tire and lose all ideas though.

That second half looked no different from all the other dross we’ve seen in years go by, only difference is the opposition was even worse than usual, and we still couldn’t lay a glove on them.

[Clyde1998]

So that was a downer, especially after the win at Millwall, but it certainly wasn't as apocalyptic as I've seen people suggest on Twitter or elsewhere.

Before the game, it was bizarre to see only two or three turnstiles open, compared to the eight(?) suggested on the match tickets. This led to long queues of people attempting to get into the ground; not helped with the delays due to traffic on the roads and strikes on public transport.

The match started positively: there was intensity, players were supporting each other, the away atmosphere was great. With the performance up until the penalty, we were completely dominant in our play (even without creating many actual chances). Scoring the penalty would've given us a deserved lead with our performance by that stage and probably would've changed the entire complexion of the day. The penalty itself was poor: not in the corner; good height for the keeper. The penalty should've been retaken, given there were around four Port Vale players encroaching and the keeper was clearly off his line when the kick was taken (albeit none of these things don't take away from the shot being poor).

After the penalty, it appeared our confidence had started to decline and Port Vale's had grown. The game evened out after the penalty, but we were still the better side throughout the rest of the first half. Port Vale's only sustained period of causing us problems came in first half stoppage time, albeit they did have a goal disallowed halfway through the first half (I'm guessing it was the player who won the header who was offside, as opposed to the player who put the ball in the net).

The second half was awful. Early on a couple of dangerous balls towards goal was dealt with by their keeper, but there was very little to trouble Port Vale following that.

When the first substitution was made, it really should've been Andy Carroll coming off. He was being wrestled consistently throughout the game (I feel this was poor refereeing to not punish this; the officiating was poor throughout the game), was ineffective as a result and with the increasing frustration was at risk of being sent off. I also feel Ehib linked up very well with Vickers at Millwall and would've been another test of this partnership and seems more suited to the style of play Selles seems to want to play than Carroll. That said, with Ehib starting both games this season, it's possible he didn't have enough in the tank to continue.

The goal we conceded was horrifically bad defending. The initial shot was not under any pressure and, following Wing's block, the ball fell to a Port Vale player who was left in five yards of space (in an onside position). He was closed down by three players: Holmes and Hutchinson, who were both back tracking, and McIntyre, who'd deserted the Port Vale player who ended up scoring. Once the ball fell to the scorer, Carson was dragged across to close him down (which left another Port Vale player unattended in the box) and the resulting shot deflected off of Carson into the goal. I don't know if Button could've done much better with it, given the trajectory of the ball.

For me, the goal was primarily caused by Holmes. McIntyre was forced to leave his position by this player being left in as much space as he was; Holmes was level with our central midfielders in the initial phase - not our defenders. The result was others being forced to react to Port Vale attackers being left in free space.

From here, we never looked like getting back into the game; the atmosphere turned deeply negative in the away end following the Port Vale goal, which I'm sure gave our players a boost. I'd say the players, especially those who were regulars last season, became scared of making any mistake. Of the chances, Button just about tipped the ball onto the bar from a Port Vale break - I'd say that was much more luck than judgement in the save. Dean hitting the bar was the only really moment we could've got a goal in the second half and that from with an over hit cross.

For me, it was only really the second half performance that was problematic. I can understand the frustration people have, especially in the context of the Millwall result and with Port Vale's result last week. However, both teams are League One sides: this is our level. We don't have a right to beat anyone in this division. We didn't play well enough over the whole game - it doesn't matter who we play, if we don't play well enough, we can't expect to get results. Port Vale are probably going to be mid-table, they're reflective of the sort of side we have to perform well against on a regular basis to have a serious chance of being at the top end of the league.

I'd want to see Camara start ahead of Azeez on Tuesday; Holmes dropped (Dean to start if fit enough); Carroll replaced by Vickers. We lacked the pace in attack from Tuesday - Camara and Vickers would help with that.

[CountryRoyal]

Before the game, it was bizarre to see only two or three turnstiles open, compared to the eight(?) suggested on the match tickets. This led to long queues of people attempting to get into the ground; not helped with the delays due to traffic on the roads and strikes on public transport.

Also not helped by away tickets not getting to the turnstiles until like quarter to or so for collections.

[Clyde1998]

Before the game, it was bizarre to see only two or three turnstiles open, compared to the eight(?) suggested on the match tickets. This led to long queues of people attempting to get into the ground; not helped with the delays due to traffic on the roads and strikes on public transport.

Also not helped by away tickets not getting to the turnstiles until like quarter to or so for collections.

I wondered what was happening with that - as there was an ever increasingly long line of people waiting for tickets by the time I got into the ground (perhaps 25 mins before kick-off). And that was a separate queue to the long one with those who had their tickets.

[Sutekh]

So that was a downer, especially after the win at Millwall, but it certainly wasn't as apocalyptic as I've seen people suggest on Twitter or elsewhere.

Before the game, it was bizarre to see only two or three turnstiles open, compared to the eight(?) suggested on the match tickets. This led to long queues of people attempting to get into the ground; not helped with the delays due to traffic on the roads and strikes on public transport.

The match started positively: there was intensity, players were supporting each other, the away atmosphere was great. With the performance up until the penalty, we were completely dominant in our play (even without creating many actual chances). Scoring the penalty would've given us a deserved lead with our performance by that stage and probably would've changed the entire complexion of the day. The penalty itself was poor: not in the corner; good height for the keeper. The penalty should've been retaken, given there were around four Port Vale players encroaching and the keeper was clearly off his line when the kick was taken (albeit none of these things don't take away from the shot being poor).

After the penalty, it appeared our confidence had started to decline and Port Vale's had grown. The game evened out after the penalty, but we were still the better side throughout the rest of the first half. Port Vale's only sustained period of causing us problems came in first half stoppage time, albeit they did have a goal disallowed halfway through the first half (I'm guessing it was the player who won the header who was offside, as opposed to the player who put the ball in the net).

The second half was awful. Early on a couple of dangerous balls towards goal was dealt with by their keeper, but there was very little to trouble Port Vale following that.

When the first substitution was made, it really should've been Andy Carroll coming off. He was being wrestled consistently throughout the game (I feel this was poor refereeing to not punish this; the officiating was poor throughout the game), was ineffective as a result and with the increasing frustration was at risk of being sent off. I also feel Ehib linked up very well with Vickers at Millwall and would've been another test of this partnership and seems more suited to the style of play Selles seems to want to play than Carroll. That said, with Ehib starting both games this season, it's possible he didn't have enough in the tank to continue.

The goal we conceded was horrifically bad defending. The initial shot was not under any pressure and, following Wing's block, the ball fell to a Port Vale player who was left in five yards of space (in an onside position). He was closed down by three players: Holmes and Hutchinson, who were both back tracking, and McIntyre, who'd deserted the Port Vale player who ended up scoring. Once the ball fell to the scorer, Carson was dragged across to close him down (which left another Port Vale player unattended in the box) and the resulting shot deflected off of Carson into the goal. I don't know if Button could've done much better with it, given the trajectory of the ball.

For me, the goal was primarily caused by Holmes. McIntyre was forced to leave his position by this player being left in as much space as he was; Holmes was level with our central midfielders in the initial phase - not our defenders. The result was others being forced to react to Port Vale attackers being left in free space.

From here, we never looked like getting back into the game; the atmosphere turned deeply negative in the away end following the Port Vale goal, which I'm sure gave our players a boost. I'd say the players, especially those who were regulars last season, became scared of making any mistake. Of the chances, Button just about tipped the ball onto the bar from a Port Vale break - I'd say that was much more luck than judgement in the save. Dean hitting the bar was the only really moment we could've got a goal in the second half and that from with an over hit cross.

For me, it was only really the second half performance that was problematic. I can understand the frustration people have, especially in the context of the Millwall result and with Port Vale's result last week. However, both teams are League One sides: this is our level. We don't have a right to beat anyone in this division. We didn't play well enough over the whole game - it doesn't matter who we play, if we don't play well enough, we can't expect to get results. Port Vale are probably going to be mid-table, they're reflective of the sort of side we have to perform well against on a regular basis to have a serious chance of being at the top end of the league.

I'd want to see Camara start ahead of Azeez on Tuesday; Holmes dropped (Dean to start if fit enough); Carroll replaced by Vickers. We lacked the pace in attack from Tuesday - Camara and Vickers would help with that.

Good write up, would agree with the changes needed. Personally I've never really rated Holmes, McIntyre has more about him but is still unconvincing when I've seen him play. Certainly think Camara (who should have been more of a regular last season) and Vickers are far more threatening at this level than an aging striker who, because of his reputation/career to date is going attract all the attention. Carroll should have been replaced instead of WiFi as that would have given the Vale defence more of an issue as they would have had to work out who was going to mark who and that period of adjustment/indecision might have made the difference.

The biggest issue remains however the fact that Reading seem to "run out of puff" in the second halves of games and there, so far, doesn't seem to be much of a change within the management to counter it.

Finally, for the record, Selles hasn't overseen a league win since 4th March which is now, like Reading, a run of 15 games.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

The remaining senior players here, particularly at the back, appear drained of confidence and their careers, after early promise, have regressed.

Maybe they all believe what Ince told the press week after week about not being good enough.

[Snowflake Royal]

Couple of results and confidence should increase and performances improve. Worrying how quick we tire and lose all ideas though.

That second half looked no different from all the other dross we’ve seen in years go by, only difference is the opposition was even worse than usual, and we still couldn’t lay a glove on them.

I thought the tedious passing round the back was different to last year at least. No better than hoofball under Ince though

[The Green Programme]

Total sh@t result and a very poor performance.

The game is always about taking chances.

The missed penalty changed the game.

One of the things that I have always disliked intensely is the fickle love and hate displayed towards players.

We’ve not won in 15 games.

Our new manager has been im charge of two of them; both of which we lost by a single freak goal after missing enough chances to have been two goals up beforehand.

We really have to get a grip and if we are too half after 15 games; we will have a good opportunity to make the play offs.

Our youngsters have great promise.

We are missing our new striker.

And the financial position is not ideal.

We have had one great performance out of three.

Tuesday is a big game.

Win by three goals and we’ll have a plus goal difference- and the season starts.

McIntyre and Holmes are still young and Harley Dean will hopefully bring some stability.

[72 bus]

Win by three goals and we’ll have a plus goal difference- and the season starts.



McIntyre and Holmes are still young and Harley Dean will hopefully bring some stability.

[Hound]

Couple of results and confidence should increase and performances improve. Worrying how quick we tire and lose all ideas though.

That second half looked no different from all the other dross we’ve seen in years go by, only difference is the opposition was even worse than usual, and we still couldn’t lay a glove on them.

I thought the tedious passing round the back was different to last year at least. No better than hoofball under Ince though

Don’t think there was actually a lot of pointless passing round the back - once or twice it was overdone but it was certainly no Stam ball

It was generally a couple of passes, play the full back who then punted an aimless long ball down the line to no one rather than 8 or 9 passes before the aimless hoof

[Clyde1998]

That second half looked no different from all the other dross we’ve seen in years go by, only difference is the opposition was even worse than usual, and we still couldn’t lay a glove on them.

I thought the tedious passing round the back was different to last year at least. No better than hoofball under Ince though

Don’t think there was actually a lot of pointless passing round the back - once or twice it was overdone but it was certainly no Stam ball

It was generally a couple of passes, play the full back who then punted an aimless long ball down the line to no one rather than 8 or 9 passes before the aimless hoof

Agree with this; the passing around the back only really started when the midfield weren't making moves for the ball too.

[Snowflake Royal]

That second half looked no different from all the other dross we’ve seen in years go by, only difference is the opposition was even worse than usual, and we still couldn’t lay a glove on them.

I thought the tedious passing round the back was different to last year at least. No better than hoofball under Ince though

Don’t think there was actually a lot of pointless passing round the back - once or twice it was overdone but it was certainly no Stam ball

It was generally a couple of passes, play the full back who then punted an aimless long ball down the line to no one rather than 8 or 9 passes before the aimless hoof

The Toms had almost twice as many passes as any other Reading player. Each.

We were back to playing the game in our own half.

[blueroyals]

We were shite for only 70 minutes which is an improvement vs 90 minutes in most matches last season

[Royals and Racers]

Anyone who travelled on the delayed 9.15am Cross Country train from Reading to Stoke can claim delay compensation. I had split tickets and was able to claim Banbury to Birmingham and Brum to Stoke as the train was over 30 mins late. I claimed around 8pm last evening and they agreed it within 5 hours !!

[Hound]

I thought the tedious passing round the back was different to last year at least. No better than hoofball under Ince though

Don’t think there was actually a lot of pointless passing round the back - once or twice it was overdone but it was certainly no Stam ball

It was generally a couple of passes, play the full back who then punted an aimless long ball down the line to no one rather than 8 or 9 passes before the aimless hoof

The Toms had almost twice as many passes as any other Reading player. Each.

We were back to playing the game in our own half.

Don’t think that’s especially out of the ordinary looking at other games. Button didn’t get that many touches for example. Was lots of insipid passing between the pair of them but no change there

[stealthpapes]

So that was a downer, especially after the win at Millwall, but it certainly wasn't as apocalyptic as I've seen people suggest on Twitter or elsewhere.

Before the game, it was bizarre to see only two or three turnstiles open, compared to the eight(?) suggested on the match tickets. This led to long queues of people attempting to get into the ground; not helped with the delays due to traffic on the roads and strikes on public transport.

The match started positively: there was intensity, players were supporting each other, the away atmosphere was great. With the performance up until the penalty, we were completely dominant in our play (even without creating many actual chances). Scoring the penalty would've given us a deserved lead with our performance by that stage and probably would've changed the entire complexion of the day. The penalty itself was poor: not in the corner; good height for the keeper. The penalty should've been retaken, given there were around four Port Vale players encroaching and the keeper was clearly off his line when the kick was taken (albeit none of these things don't take away from the shot being poor).

After the penalty, it appeared our confidence had started to decline and Port Vale's had grown. The game evened out after the penalty, but we were still the better side throughout the rest of the first half. Port Vale's only sustained period of causing us problems came in first half stoppage time, albeit they did have a goal disallowed halfway through the first half (I'm guessing it was the player who won the header who was offside, as opposed to the player who put the ball in the net).

The second half was awful. Early on a couple of dangerous balls towards goal was dealt with by their keeper, but there was very little to trouble Port Vale following that.

When the first substitution was made, it really should've been Andy Carroll coming off. He was being wrestled consistently throughout the game (I feel this was poor refereeing to not punish this; the officiating was poor throughout the game), was ineffective as a result and with the increasing frustration was at risk of being sent off. I also feel Ehib linked up very well with Vickers at Millwall and would've been another test of this partnership and seems more suited to the style of play Selles seems to want to play than Carroll. That said, with Ehib starting both games this season, it's possible he didn't have enough in the tank to continue.

The goal we conceded was horrifically bad defending. The initial shot was not under any pressure and, following Wing's block, the ball fell to a Port Vale player who was left in five yards of space (in an onside position). He was closed down by three players: Holmes and Hutchinson, who were both back tracking, and McIntyre, who'd deserted the Port Vale player who ended up scoring. Once the ball fell to the scorer, Carson was dragged across to close him down (which left another Port Vale player unattended in the box) and the resulting shot deflected off of Carson into the goal. I don't know if Button could've done much better with it, given the trajectory of the ball.

For me, the goal was primarily caused by Holmes. McIntyre was forced to leave his position by this player being left in as much space as he was; Holmes was level with our central midfielders in the initial phase - not our defenders. The result was others being forced to react to Port Vale attackers being left in free space.

From here, we never looked like getting back into the game; the atmosphere turned deeply negative in the away end following the Port Vale goal, which I'm sure gave our players a boost. I'd say the players, especially those who were regulars last season, became scared of making any mistake. Of the chances, Button just about tipped the ball onto the bar from a Port Vale break - I'd say that was much more luck than judgement in the save. Dean hitting the bar was the only really moment we could've got a goal in the second half and that from with an over hit cross.

For me, it was only really the second half performance that was problematic. I can understand the frustration people have, especially in the context of the Millwall result and with Port Vale's result last week. However, both teams are League One sides: this is our level. We don't have a right to beat anyone in this division. We didn't play well enough over the whole game - it doesn't matter who we play, if we don't play well enough, we can't expect to get results. Port Vale are probably going to be mid-table, they're reflective of the sort of side we have to perform well against on a regular basis to have a serious chance of being at the top end of the league.

I'd want to see Camara start ahead of Azeez on Tuesday; Holmes dropped (Dean to start if fit enough); Carroll replaced by Vickers. We lacked the pace in attack from Tuesday - Camara and Vickers would help with that.

I'd agree with much of this. Mentioned the Button fumbles elsewhere, not great.

The other RFC thing I noticed - and it is not a complaint of the player at all - that Savage went from being everywhere and wanting the ball to essentially a passenger in a very small space of time before his substitution. Lad looked goosed. We need to be careful with over-using some of the youngsters. That was also when Port Vale put the pressure on and we looked increasingly clueless.

Final game notes, it was about a 9km walk from Stoke station to Vale Park, along the canal. That wasn't awful. Burslem town centre was hardly a rhythm and tempo place. Some big old buildings that had seen better days. PieEater has already mentioned the Home Fans only signs . Bus back chatting to a couple of fans from both sides, then missed the 1800ish train to find no trains from there to 1925. At least the station pub was a solid one (Titanic Brewery).

This 'iconic' pub sadly closed:

[RG30]

That train had been cancelled from first thing Saturday morning, surprised you didn't bother checking. By contrast the 18:03 was rammed.

[stealthpapes]

That train had been cancelled from first thing Saturday morning, surprised you didn't bother checking. By contrast the 18:03 was rammed.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't really all that bothered. Away days are more about a nice wander, a bit of food, a good pint etc.