What the papers say: Stoke

[LongThrowSpecialist]

Quite frankly blinkered on here.


I'll say something, it's a rare occurrence that the papers give us praise. We weren't amazing but we were better overall and looked very comfortable most of the game, only a few times cranking up the gears in attack though.

Not going to say anything about the penalty, not seen it yet. Pulis does need to stop moaning about refs though, I hate it when managers publicly criticise refs and their decisions.

[LoyalRoyal22]

Quite frankly blinkered on here.


I'll say something, it's a rare occurrence that the papers give us praise. We weren't amazing but we were better overall and looked very comfortable most of the game, only a few times cranking up the gears in attack though.

Not going to say anything about the penalty, not seen it yet. Pulis does need to stop moaning about refs though, I hate it when managers publicly criticise refs and their decisions.

Apart from your two quality centre backs, you were poor all over the pitch. We didnt create much, but were clearly the better side, passing and moving the ball quicker. If it hadnt of been for a goalkeeping error, you wouldnt have scored. Personally hope you go down.

[Man Friday]

Stoke City: The New Bolton Wanderers.

Lumping it forward. Wasting time when ahead. Generally cheating. Hope they go down.

[royalsteve]

what a load of rubbish!

stoke dominate the game, WTF!!!!!

honestly this review must have been written by stevie wonder - he was clearly not at the game. reading dominated possession, but we didnt create alot with it and were nervous. Stoke were awful. In fact it looked like 2 mid table championship sides slugging it out.

[royalsteve]

But it was a rare effort from the hosts, with Stoke proving far more lively.

Can't remember in which parts Stoke looked far more lively... But for 5 min here and they I thought they were unimpressive.

Though Walters is in good form.

if the review was the opposite then i could believe it. what a terrible report - stoke rarely did anything except foul our players and parked the bus in front of the goal - we didnt create alot but i was shocked how bad stoke were, we werent much better though but we deserved at least a point, if not the win

[royalsteve]

The BBC's review says much the same as this report - ie. massively unimpressed with Reading and full of praise for Stoke. I wasn't at the game (live on the other side of the planet) but that's clearly the take of the press. It's only when I came on here that I read a very different take on things.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19221348

i was clearly at a different game. I always take an unbiased view. we werent great but we dominated possession in their half, they had alot of possession but in their half. dont remember crouch doing a thing with only walters and their scorer proving a remote threat

[royalsteve]

The Guardian's take was a bit more accurate;

Reading stepped back into the Premier League limelight after a four-year absence and ran straight into the mean machine that is Stoke City. In a predictably dour match – for years, Stoke have successfully suffocated and stifled many better opponents – Reading needed a dramatic late equaliser to escape defeat.

Garath McCleary, a jack-in-the-box substitute, drove into the Stoke area in the 89th minute and was felled by Dean Whitehead, who collected a second yellow card – and then red – for his clumsy challenge. Adam le Fondre thumped the spot kick past Asmir Begovic to rescue a draw and, with a visit to Chelsea on Wednesday, a welcome point. Perhaps it should have been all three, such was Reading's dominance for sustained periods, but it was always an uphill slog after Adam Federici's first-half howler. That Stoke showed such a startling lack of ambition, after being gifted the opener, did not help, either.

Last season, Federici was so often the saviour as Reading secured the Championship title. This time, faced with a rare effort on target by Stoke – a tame mis-hit shot into the ground by Michael Kightly – the Australian goalkeeper went to gather the ball but succeeded only in allowing it to squirm through his grasp.

For Kightly, a £2m summer buy from Wolves, the joy. For Federici, the embarrassment. "We all make errors," Brian McDermott, the Reading manager, said. "I make errors most days. Adam's a great character, he was upset about it, but it's just part of life. I suppose I can't be too disappointed with a point. I thought that was the least we deserved. We kept going, as we always do, even though the temperatures weren't conducive to good football. Stoke have been in the Premier League for a long time so maybe we now know that we can compete [at this level]."

Tony Pulis, the Stoke manager, did not contest the penalty, given by the referee, Kevin Friend, or the dismissal of Whitehead. "It could have gone either way," Pulis said. "And if the referee has seen it, he has to book Dean, who has already been booked, and has to send him off." However, Pulis did question the time-lapse between Whitehead's foul and the awarding of the penalty. Friend had tried to play advantage, which resulted in Begovic saving a close-range Le Fondre effort, before going back to point to the spot. "It's a good rule, it gives advantage to the attacking team," Pulis said. "But we have to be consistent. When do you start it? When do you stop?"

Pulis will try to clarify the issue with Mike Riley, general manager of the referees' governing body. Even at this early stage of the season, he might have to join a queue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... ier-league

spot on review, dour match, rarely getting out of 1st gear until the last 5-10 mins when mccleary came on

[royalsteve]

Guardian report more like the game I watched which was largely bossed by Reading.

If Fed had not made the howler I think we might have won the game but a stirring comeback can only do good for morale and so I came away happy.

One can only think that the Telegraph writer was not actually at the game.

the telegraph writer defo didnt go to the game, otherwise he should go to specsavers

[PremAddict]

I really don't think we should fool ourselves - yesterday was a disappointing performance against a team that we need to finish above if we are to stay up. Sure we had the better of the opening exchanges and were the better team until they scored but after that we let them back in and showed precious little until McCleary came on and we certainly were on top at the end. Despite good performances from Ledge and Guthrie, we looked toothless up front and the Pog in particular was a let down. There was at least one occasion when he fell to the ground appealing for a pen that he was never going to get when he could have stayed on his feet and kept the attack going. It was no surprise when he was subbed rather than Alf.

What is at issue here is that the reports are not reflective of the game. I agree with a lot of what you say though and I don't think most on this thread would disagree either; we really need to address the lack of a goal threat.

We did boss the game and the commentators consistently reflected that. And we also had major problems even betting the ball into the box.

BUT, Stoke are designed to shut down offenses that are better than ours...

[Arch]

I only got to see the first half before the streams were all shot down (watching Reading's going to be harder than I thought this season), but I'd take a issue with a report that claimed either team bossed the match. the ball spent a lot more time in Stoke's half and we started out with more urgency, but fizzled out even before their goal. Sounds like the second half may have been the reverse.

[LongThrowSpecialist]

Quite frankly blinkered on here.


I'll say something, it's a rare occurrence that the papers give us praise. We weren't amazing but we were better overall and looked very comfortable most of the game, only a few times cranking up the gears in attack though.

Not going to say anything about the penalty, not seen it yet. Pulis does need to stop moaning about refs though, I hate it when managers publicly criticise refs and their decisions.

Apart from your two quality centre backs, you were poor all over the pitch. We didnt create much, but were clearly the better side, passing and moving the ball quicker. If it hadnt of been for a goalkeeping error, you wouldnt have scored. Personally hope you go down.

Heard that so many times over the last 4 years. We are the team that nobody can bear not to beat. We weren't amazing but our better quality team was obvious to see. With it being your first game back up, you showed a level of grit and determination that matched us which rarely happens.

Despite what you say though, I really do hope you stay up, it's impossible to hate everybody that wants us to go down

[Ian Royal]

the telegraph

Reading 1 Stoke City 1: match report

By Gordon Simpson, Madejski Stadium

6:00PM BST 18 Aug 2012

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... eport.html


Brian McDermott had cited Stoke as role models for Premier League newcomers Reading in the build-up to this game.

For much of this contest, though, it looked like the Royals had a long way to go if they were to emulate their more established opponents.

Stoke, embarking on their fifth consecutive season in the top flight, have done a fine job of silencing their doubters in recent years.

Yesterday, they again displayed enough strength and tenacity to suggest their unbroken run among the elite can continue. The inspirational return of Robert Huth from viral meningitis was testament to that.

For Reading, who were watched by new owner Anton Zingarevich, the challenge is perhaps greater.

The winners of last season’s Championship were second best for much of this opening fixture, making the jump in divisions look large.

But a stirring late display silenced some of their own doubters, as Adam Le Fondre’s last-minute penalty cancelled out Michael Kightly’s first-half effort to earn them a point that could eventually prove extremely valuable.

“Psychologically it’s important we got that result today,” said McDermott. “We know we can compete.

“I thought that was the least we deserved. We would have been disappointed to have lost the game.”

Stoke had been boosted before kick-off by the surprise return of centre half Huth, just over a week after he had been in hospital.

He displayed no ill-effects, though, turning in a commanding performance at the back.

“He trained Monday,” said Pulis. “We’re very, very pleased to have him back. He’s a great player for us.”

It was Huth’s counterpart, Royals defender Kaspars Gorkss, who had the first real chance, flashing a header from a Danny Guthrie corner just wide of the top corner.

But it was a rare effort from the hosts, with Stoke proving far more lively.

Jon Walters angled a header from Kightly’s free kick just wide of the far post, before the visitors made the breakthrough in the 34th minute.

Royals keeper Adam Federici would not have been tuning in to see the highlights of this one.

Summer signing Kightly pounced as the hosts failed to clear Glenn Whelan’s ball into the box. The ex-Wolves man dropped a shoulder to create space and hit a shot that spun off Gorkss.

It looked to be a comfortable save for Federici down at his near post, but he somehow let the ball squirm past him.

“We all make errors,” said McDermott. “He works really hard each and every day. He’s saved us many times before and he will do again in the future.”

Reading could have been handed a route back into the game just after the hour.



Dean Whitehead, already booked for an earlier foul on Guthrie, brought down Pavel Pogrebnyak on the edge of the area.

But, despite the home crowd’s protests, referee Kevin Friend refused to issue a second yellow.

Poghrebnyak headed straight at Asmir Begovic in the 71st minute – Reading’s first shot on target.

It looked like Reading’s hopes had faded, before sub Garath McCleary was brought down as he combined with Adam Le Fondre.

Friend had let play continue, as the ball spilt to Noel Hunt, whose shot was saved by Begovic. But he called play back for the penalty. Whitehead was the culprit, and this time couldn’t escape a second yellow.

“My biggest issue with this is he’s actually played on when it’s come to the lad and Asmir’s saved it and it’s been cleared then he’s called it back for the penalty,” said Pulis.

“But if he’s seen it and he thinks it’s a penalty then he’s got to book Deano.”

Wow, you can't tell that report was mostlywritten before the game started, can you!