What the Papers say - West Ham Thrashing

[Stranded]

The Times


Substitutions
Reading: Oster (for Little, 53min), Bikey (for Sonko, 53), Seol (for Harper, 71) Not used: Long, Federici Booked: Harper
West Ham: Newton (for Bowyer, 19), Spector (for Harewood, 46), Cole (for Benayoun, 77) Not used: Carroll, Tévez.

we win 6-0 and only 4 players merit more than 6/10, with Hunt getting 5/10?

I think it's The Times way of saying we murdered them without having to get out of first gear.

Either that or that the win was more down to them being shit than us being good.

[Fluff]

and how did west ham score so high

[Royal Rother]

probably the same t**t who wrote the piece on Man u v reading......manu deserved their lead...my arse he was wathcing a different game.....first half reading just edged it...second man u were miles better and deserved to win but most of their shots came when we down to 10 men...their 1st and 3rd goal were def offside!

Let's get this straight - The 1st and 3rd goals were not offside. Excellent decisions by the lino.

Not to say they wouldn't have been disallowed if we'd scored them though.

By the letter of the law they were both offside, however they were close enough for the linesman to be forgiven in giving the benefit of the doubt to the atatcker.

I thought the letter of the law was if level with last defender then not offside. The frozen view I saw on Sky a couple of nights ago showed they were both dead level at the split second the passes were made.