Reading vs Liverpool: What the papers say

[Wycombe Royal]

Unfortunately, I was driving whilst the game was being played, so I haven't seen it. However, I was listening to 909 and both the commentator (Alan Green?) and Stan Colleymore were praising Sonko for keeping Torres quiet. Yet the newspapers say that Sonko had a shocker.

So, can anyone who was at the game tell me whether Sonks had a great game or a shocker?

He defended pretty well, stopped Torres from being effective and made two great challenges where just got the ball before taking Torres down. However his clearances and passing in general (apart from one excellent pass out to the wing) were shocking.

[papereyes]

Unfortunately, I was driving whilst the game was being played, so I haven't seen it. However, I was listening to 909 and both the commentator (Alan Green?) and Stan Colleymore were praising Sonko for keeping Torres quiet. Yet the newspapers say that Sonko had a shocker.

So, can anyone who was at the game tell me whether Sonks had a great game or a shocker?

Is it possible he had both?

He looked appalling. Yet, except for one moment when he got sucked wide misjudging a long ball, Torres was kept fairly quiet and didn't really look like doing much.

And yet, Sonko looked like he was really struggling and looked very uncomfortable.

[Stranded]

Anyone read the NOTW right-up??

Not only was ours obviously outside, but Torres should definately have had two...... do these people not watch the TV replays??

Even worse, not only did it say ours was outside the box but it moaned Bryn went down too easily under the challenge!!

Papers....

NOTW actually contradicts itself in the same article. The main body says that the second Torres penalty appeal certainly wasn't a penalty, but in the side bar (the Kitson V Torres bit) states that Torres should have had two penalties awarded to him.

[brendywendy]

wow, sonks has a couple of dodgy moments against one of the best strikers in the world
what has the world come to

[Skyline]

'Pathetically, the home fans abused the Liverpool captain intermittently, reminding him of his part in England’s failure to qualify
for the European Championship. They loved it when he was booked, and were in their element when he was taken off. '

Notice he didn't mention the Liverpool fans' chant of "We're not English we are Scouse", which to my mind is easily up there with the abuse the East Stand were giving Gerrard.

[BobKnows]

wow, sonks has a couple of dodgy moments against one of the best strikers in the world
what has the world come to

Be fair, I don't like to critisise players and am sure it was a temporary blip, but Sonko had the first touch of an elephant with a nervous twitch on Saturday. And I'm not sure marking Torres is really an excuse for that...

[SpaceCruiser]

Can't believe that the Observer didn't know who Carragher had fouled and assumed it was Kevin Doyle and not Gunnarsson.

[brendywendy]

wow, sonks has a couple of dodgy moments against one of the best strikers in the world
what has the world come to

Be fair, I don't like to critisise players and am sure it was a temporary blip, but Sonko had the first touch of an elephant with a nervous twitch on Saturday. And I'm not sure marking Torres is really an excuse for that...

??????

why not

most defenders in the world would struggle with torres

harsh harsh harsh

[Gordons Cumming]

Can't believe that the Observer didn't know who Carragher had fouled and assumed it was Kevin Doyle and not Gunnarsson.

Check out HNA report "Royals Earn Historic Win" you'll see that they aren't the only ones..............and they should know better.

[SpaceCruiser]

Can't believe that the Observer didn't know who Carragher had fouled and assumed it was Kevin Doyle and not Gunnarsson.

Check out HNA report "Royals Earn Historic Win" you'll see that they aren't the only ones..............and they should know better.

I can't believe that Hob Nob would get it horribly wrong!!!!

[brendywendy]

times compound their biased and innaccurate sunday article by publishing one on monday that is nearly as bad.
am changing my newspaper

[zac naloen]

Have the guardian done a match report yet?

There's are usually good.

[Huntley & Palmer]

I thought it was pretty spot on to be honest, though of course I don't really care if someone gets a name wrong or sees things far more neutrally than some on here. Liverpool losing rather than us winning was always going to be the lead story in all reports

[brendywendy]

I thought it was pretty spot on to be honest, though of course I don't really care if someone gets a name wrong or sees things far more neutrally than some on here. Liverpool losing rather than us winning was always going to be the lead story in all reports

no, even with that i expect at least a column at the end talking about reading, there was barely a sentence.
i would expect balanced unbiased journalism too,at the very least
i would expect someone to check on the videos, before writing up what i had heard on the setanta commentary.

and getting the players names wrong(especially confusing two england intl's) is prretty crap journalism in my book

we obviously have very different books

[Rawlie19]

Reading v liverpool Media Match reports, easy

Doesn't have quite the same ring to it somehow.


Sportinglife.com

Reading 3 Liverpool 1

By Jon West, PA Sport

http://tinyurl.com/3b7tbo

Liverpool began their most important week of the season with a defeat at Reading which suggests the Barclays Premier League
title will once again be heading away from Anfield this season.

Rafael Benitez's side must now fight for their Champions League lives in Marseille on Tuesday night before having their domestic
credentials put under intense scrutiny again by Manchester United at the weekend.

Reading recorded their first victory against one of the so-called 'big four' thanks to a Stephen Hunt penalty and second-half strikes
from Kevin Doyle and James Harper.

All Liverpool had to take away from Berkshire was Steven Gerrard's equaliser but referee Andre Marriner also had a big
part to play in the proceedings.

The official - who had sent off Chelsea's Michael Essien at Derby in his previous top-flight game - appeared to have called the
Reading penalty incorrectly and also failed to spot two occasions when Liverpool should have been awarded spot-kicks.

Liverpool should have been ahead in the seventh minute and it was a surprise when Fernando Torres, who had hit a hat-trick
on this ground in a Carling Cup tie in September, could not accept a simple chance.

John Arne Riise's long-throw eluded Ibrahima Sonko as he jumped with Peter Crouch and the Spaniard was left with the
simple task of slotting past goalkeeper Marcus Hahnemann. Instead he allowed the American to parry.

Reading seized on the let-off and produced their finest 20 minutes of the season so far, attacking their opponents with the
verve that had served them so well in the previous two campaigns but had been replaced by self-doubt during this one.

Their goal needed a large slice of fortune, however, as referee Marriner, having consulted a flag-waving linesman, called
Jamie Carragher's felling of Brynjar Gunnarsson wrongly as the pair thundered to the brink of the Liverpool box.

There was no question that the Icelander had been impeded but replays suggested contact had been made just outside the box
and Carragher howled his displeasure.

Hunt despatched the penalty with panache, however, and Reading continued to attack, with a Bobby Convey drive beating
Jose Reina and only just clearing his crossbar.

Reading's previous frailties were not long in reappearing and Gerrard took full advantage to put his side on level terms in
the 28th minute.

Torres eluded Sonko to take down a long ball and quickly set up his skipper with a sideways pass. Gerrard had little difficulty
shrugging off Hunt's challenge to reach the box and slot past the exposed Hahnemann.

That deflated Reading but fortune favoured them again when Liverpool were denied a much stronger penalty shout than the
one previously given to the hosts.

Ivar Ingimarsson's header straight to Gerrard not only surrendered possession cheaply but also allowed Torres to move
swiftly into space and when Sonko stuck out a boot in the box he tumbled. But play was allowed to continue.

Andriy Voronin fired in a couple of snapshots from the right of the box as Liverpool ended the half in the ascendancy, but when
Momo Sissoko went down in the box under yet another strong Sonko challenge, again no penalty was awarded.

Reading began the second period on the back foot and there was a let-off when Torres sent a diving header across goal after
Nicky Shorey's error had allowed Crouch to fire in a cross from the right.

The home defence then made a hash of their offside trap before yet another penalty decision went their way.

Torres's trailing leg was clearly caught by Sonko and this time the Spaniard also appeared to have been hurt.
Again television replays confirmed contact had been made.

If the home fans sensed it was to be their night, Doyle gave them concrete proof on the hour by sending a glancing
header past Reina to put Reading back in front.

Gerrard had been booked for felling Hunt on the run and when Shorey swung in the free-kick the Republic of Ireland striker
lost his marker to produce a slight but perfectly-aimed deflection.

Doyle then fired just over but again Reading were in luck when Gerrard saw a drive smack off the bar seconds before Harper
made it 3-1 at the other end.

Convey's pass enabled the hyperactive midfielder to scamper clear of the defence and any fears the home support had that he
would be unable to finish were wiped away by a cool side-step to get past Reina and a shot into the empty net.

Harry Kewell, who had come on for Torres, fired a good chance across goal and just wide at the other end.

It just was not Liverpool's day - as Crouch proved again in stoppage time with a drive that beat Hahnemann but rebounded back
to the goalkeeper off a post.

Teams

Reading Hahnemann, Murty (Cisse 90), Sonko (Bikey 81),Ingimarsson, Shorey, Hunt, Harper, Gunnarsson,Convey (Lita 88 ),
Doyle, Kitson.

Subs Not Used: Federici, Long.

Goals: Hunt 17 pen, Doyle 60, Harper 67.

Liverpool Reina, Arbeloa, Carragher (Hyypia 82), Hobbs, Riise,Gerrard (Babel 71), Mascherano, Sissoko, Voronin,
Torres (Kewell 61), Crouch.

Subs Not Used: Itandje, Kuyt.

Booked: Gerrard.

Goals: Gerrard 28.

Att: 24,022

Ref: Andre Marriner (W Midlands).

STAT ATTACK
Reading.....Liverpool
4 Shots On Target 5
3 Shots Off Target 10
10 Fouls (Conceded) 10
7 Corners 7
0 Yellow Cards 1
0 Red Cards 0

Sorry, I've only just read this. 3 penalty decisions for Liverpool turned down? 3? WTF? And in 2 of them contact might have been made, but seeing as he made contact with the ball first I fail to see where they were hard done by. And FFS, 'replays show'? he obviously wasn't watching the replays as replays show that ours WAS indeed a penalty.

[Huntley & Palmer]

I thought it was pretty spot on to be honest, though of course I don't really care if someone gets a name wrong or sees things far more neutrally than some on here. Liverpool losing rather than us winning was always going to be the lead story in all reports

no, even with that i expect at least a column at the end talking about reading, there was barely a sentence.
i would expect balanced unbiased journalism too,at the very least
i would expect someone to check on the videos, before writing up what i had heard on the setanta commentary.

and getting the players names wrong(especially confusing two england intl's) is prretty crap journalism in my book

we obviously have very different books

Well I'm reading today's Russell Kempson article and it has a decent write up on us and our performance in the last 1/3 of the report. There are also no spelling mistakes or misprinted people so perhaps you have a different copy of The Times to me?

[brendywendy]

I thought it was pretty spot on to be honest, though of course I don't really care if someone gets a name wrong or sees things far more neutrally than some on here. Liverpool losing rather than us winning was always going to be the lead story in all reports

no, even with that i expect at least a column at the end talking about reading, there was barely a sentence.
i would expect balanced unbiased journalism too,at the very least
i would expect someone to check on the videos, before writing up what i had heard on the setanta commentary.

and getting the players names wrong(especially confusing two england intl's) is prretty crap journalism in my book

we obviously have very different books

Well I'm reading today's Russell Kempson article and it has a decent write up on us and our performance in the last 1/3 of the report. There are also no spelling mistakes or misprinted people so perhaps you have a different copy of The Times to me?

no i was talking about the sunday one
i did say that todays was a touch more realistic, but not too much

[Huntley & Palmer]

In what respect, I am interested to know how the British media has slighted Reading so badly

[brendywendy]

In what respect, I am interested to know how the British media has slighted Reading so badly

they havent slighted reading

just wrote a shit article

they have slighted me, by taking my money, and not giving me what i wanted!

and i said in which respect

namely getting big details wrong
spouting off about wrong decisions when sonks took the ball both times
and by not even trying to be balanced and unbiased
IMESHO

im not saying you should agree with me however, you can love the articles as much as you like

i only mentioned it becuase i was looking forward to reading the report and was a tad miffed
its not ruined my life or anything

[SpaceCruiser]

My brother sent me this link: http://football.guardian.co.uk/news/mat ... 01,00.html

Some amusing comments there. in particular at 43 mins.

And why are they calling our goalkeeper Fred Durst?