The most embarrassing RFC result ever

[Zaretsky]

An atrocious game and agonising to watch but oddly, if used well, could be a massive motivation from Sunday onwards. As a professional, that must feel worse than for any fan and they've got a lot to prove.

[Zaretsky]

Also can't help but think Anton talking to NH behind his hand at the end is an ominous sign for someone...

[melonhead]

"i told you we should have positioned snipers on the roof"

[Extended-Phenotype]

To shoot Simon Church in the back of the head. Seems the only way we'll ever be rid of McDermotts fluffer.

[Snowball]

I think what people have to remember is there are two sides playing

Many of us have played (at whatever level) and pulled back "against the odds"

First you are playing just for pride, then there's a glimmer of hope, and then the other side backs
off defending 4-2. Arshavin's run was immense, Walcott was on fire all the game, the German kid
looked a huge prospect, the Morroccan had a lot to prove, as did Giroud who last season was awesome

When we saw that team at the start did anyone seriously expect us not to lose by a fair bit?

We left out Pog and McAnuff and Kebe and Marriappa and were playing our 4th-choice CB, huge but a kid.

I thought we were immense, first half and second half.

But Arsenal were making history and they had that powering through their veins.

Did we not all think at least a bit of that when Theo scored on HT?

I couldn't go so watched it on Sky. When we went 3-0 up I said to my Mrs that Arsenal would score at least 3 and we'd need at least 4.

When we got the fourth I thought we might win it but when Theo scored just before HT I was pretty certain we'd lose it.

That was a killer, but credit to THE MANAGER and the players, we really went for goal-five and had a stone-wall penalty denied when Hunt was flattened.

No manager can totally overcome human psychology. Arsenal knew that if they could get to 4-2 with 30 minutes to go
Reading (and 99% of teams in that position) would "freeze' and go into their shells.

And those criticising the tactics, well they really seemed to be working. I had been convinced at HT that we'd not go through
but the minutes ticked away and we really seemed to have done it. To let in those two goals in the 90th/96th was cruel and
again, almost any side in RFC's position would then fold. WE didn't. We let a poorish goal in ("Game Over") but, incredibly
dragged it back to 5-5.

Had the game finished then, even if we'd lost easily on pens, we'd've hailed it as a fantastic game, great result, a team to be proud of

The sixth goal, class and fire from a side that's got momentum versus VERY tired RFC legs. It took a winger who was brilliant two years ago
(and cost a fortune) and the probably fastest striker in England, to breach our defence for the sixth.

The 7th was just a silly one-off error from Gunter, typical of these kind of games and IMO makes the result look far worse.

Had he banged it back upfield and we been peppering their goal and lost 6-5, I think we would feel a lot different.

[melonhead]

gunter looked devastated at the end, like he was lost

[Man Friday]

You miss my point, I'm not blaming Church in any way - rather, I think Brian made a poor substitution in bringing Church on - at the time we made the substitution we were on the back foot, there were two likely outcomes - we either held on for the win in the three or so remaining minutes, or Arsenal equalised and we were into extra time. Why did he decide Church was the best option at that point? It's not like he's great at holding the ball to help us hold on for the win, at least no better than ALF, yet the other possibility was facing extra time with no substitutions and our least prolific striker on the pitch...

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I think Brian showed his inexperience in making that change (I'd have preferred it if he hadn't made it at all), and it ultimately limited our chances of being a significant threat in extra time.

It wasn't that he was bringing Church on specifically - he was making a substitution to slow down the play and hopefully waste time. So in his mind it didn't matter why it was being brought on - because if the strategy had worked there'd have been no time left.

But in the time added on because of that substitution, Arsenal equalised - so we were then left with the worst of all worlds - 30 minutes extra plus Simon Church and no Roberts.

But I have no doubts at all that Church wasn't brought on for extra time - a player (who happened to be Church) - was brought on just to make a substitution.

How many times does this ned to be explained?! The time that was LOST during the substitution process was ADDED on. Net gain = 0 MINUTES = Arsenal would have scored anyway!

Not 2 minutes' worth of extra time. That's 50% of thge original added time. If we played 50% added time normally, added time would be 22.5 minutes at the end of each half, you plonker.

[Snowball]

The Times today has a list of other amazing comebacks and they were all in 90 minutes.

1957 Top Division Charlton losing 5-1 with 30 minutes left, won 7-6 in 90 minutes (no ET)

1993 First Division. Swindon losing 4-1 with 30 minutes left, come back to win 6-4

1997 First Division. QPR losing 4-0, score 3 in the last 6 minutes to draw 4-4 at Port Vale (and in 1987 QPR drew 5-5 with Newcastle from 4-0 down)

2004 FA CUP. Man City losing 3-0 at Spurs at half-time but with only 10 men (Barton sent off). They pulled back to 3-3 then won 4-3 in the last minute.

[Ian Royal]

Don't forget that when we lost 6-0 to Bristol Rovers, it was 0-0 at half time.

Difference with getting slaughtered by large numbers of goals, say 4-0, 5-0, 5-1, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc etc, is that once you've let in a few and are clearly being beaten, heads go down and players give up, making it easier for the opposition to wrack up big scores easily.

But we were 4-0 up. At no point during the game were we being convincingly beaten (scoreline wise) for our heads to go down and us give up the game as a lost cause. And yet we still gave up the commanding lead, went behind, rescued it back to a draw and then capitulated again anyway, conceeding 7 goals.

Anyone who thinks a 6-0 or 6-1 beating is worse needs to understand that. We never looked like really beating BRovers, a frustrating draw was most likely. But we were winning by a massive margin against Arsenal and never far behind - that, for me, is absolutely unforgivable.

[AthleticoSpizz]

goals 3 & 4 for them should've never been allowed to happen, and for me, that's unforgiveable.

[melonhead]

Don't forget that when we lost 6-0 to Bristol Rovers, it was 0-0 at half time.

Difference with getting slaughtered by large numbers of goals, say 4-0, 5-0, 5-1, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc etc, is that once you've let in a few and are clearly being beaten, heads go down and players give up, making it easier for the opposition to wrack up big scores easily.

.

lolat not seeing the similarity in psychology as the goals came and we saw our lead slowly slip away

youre also ignoring that arsenals 55 million pound reserves are twenty times the team that bristol were

[winchester_royal]

I think what people have to remember is there are two sides playing

Fuck off you patronising tw@t

[Ian Royal]

Don't forget that when we lost 6-0 to Bristol Rovers, it was 0-0 at half time.

Difference with getting slaughtered by large numbers of goals, say 4-0, 5-0, 5-1, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc etc, is that once you've let in a few and are clearly being beaten, heads go down and players give up, making it easier for the opposition to wrack up big scores easily.

.

lolat not seeing the similarity in psychology as the goals came and we saw our lead slowly slip away

youre also ignoring that arsenals 55 million pound reserves are twenty times the team that bristol were

And our team should be 20 times what it was back then. We were still in the game, if their heads went down and they gave up because Arsenal had got three goals back to 4-3, they should be lined up and shot.

[Norfolk Royal]

Isn't the 'lined up and shot' analogy a bit overused now.

You'd think there were gun turrets in the floodlights.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Difference with getting slaughtered by large numbers of goals, say 4-0, 5-0, 5-1, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc etc, is that once you've let in a few and are clearly being beaten, heads go down and players give up, making it easier for the opposition to wrack up big scores easily.

.

lolat not seeing the similarity in psychology as the goals came and we saw our lead slowly slip away

youre also ignoring that arsenals 55 million pound reserves are twenty times the team that bristol were

And our team should be 20 times what it was back then. We were still in the game, if their heads went down and they gave up because Arsenal had got three goals back to 4-3, they should be lined up and shot.

We didn't give up and out heads didn't drop. It's not actually that rare for a team with a big early lead to let a goal in and see the whole complection of the game change. Remember, for example, us being torn to shreds in the FA Cup by Man Utd, 0-3 down after about five minutes, with everyone saying we'd be letting in 7 or 8? We get a goal back and suddenly everything changes, and it's them holding on for dear life at the death.


I'm sorry, but getting spanked 0-6 at home by a team who finished below us in the table was far more humiliating than losing a 4-0 lead to a side that were clear favourites to win anyway. It wasn't as public, true, but that's about it.

[Ian Royal]

Isn't the 'lined up and shot' analogy a bit overused now.

You'd think there were gun turrets in the floodlights.

No need to line them up if there were.

[Winnershroyal]

[quote="super darren caskey"]Its all a load of bollox

You can't argue with that.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

yeah - that's the worst part. Losing to a rag-tag bunch of nobodies who only cost £55 million.

err...that was kind of the point.

[Winnershroyal]

Btw I left at 4-4 last night, I might leave at half time at Rangers.

['lista]

Getting caught having a w@nk by my Mum was my most embarrassing moment.

I'm 45 and it was only last week.