Tactics

[melonhead]

i wa sprobably least comfiortable with the entire premise that we had just gone 4 nil up against arsenal in the cup
was utterly surreal

much more comfy with the ending
entirely readingesque

[ZacNaloen]

Mostly I just wanted to go to bed, I'd been up since early and on my feet all day

[Geekins]

Lawrenson's a bell.

[LoyalRoyal13]

As i said previously - 4-2 with 2 mins of the 90 to go and you take off Roberts and replace him with Church, another striker. IF he had got Pearce on there and played him in a back 5, then i don't think we would have conceded the corner for the 3rd goal which would have meant we didn't concede the 4th

I'm very sure we made that sub at 4-3... either way though I think it was a very naive decision to make that sub, surely he didn't think that time wasting tactic would work. At least we were getting the ball in the corner a couple of times. The ref should have only added about 30secs on but if I'm honest if we didn't make that sub there's no way the game would have extended long enough for the Arse to score.

[USA_Loyal_Royal]

As i said previously - 4-2 with 2 mins of the 90 to go and you take off Roberts and replace him with Church, another striker. IF he had got Pearce on there and played him in a back 5, then i don't think we would have conceded the corner for the 3rd goal which would have meant we didn't concede the 4th

I'm very sure we made that sub at 4-3... either way though I think it was a very naive decision to make that sub, surely he didn't think that time wasting tactic would work. At least we were getting the ball in the corner a couple of times. The ref should have only added about 30secs on but if I'm honest if we didn't make that sub there's no way the game would have extended long enough for the Arse to score.

i agree, the sub was unneeded and a useless tactic. i love bm but come on man, even i knew that wouldnt work.

[Toon Toon Blue army]

To be fair, even at 4-0 I was still thinking that Arsenal would get back into it. The game actually unfolded nearly exactly how I thought it would. I said to a friend just before they scored their first that it would finish 4-4 and they'll win it 4-5 in extra time.

[westongeezer]

We need WALLY back and a HOLDING MIDFIELD

[Elm Park Pasty]

To be fair, even at 4-0 I was still thinking that Arsenal would get back into it. The game actually unfolded nearly exactly how I thought it would. I said to a friend just before they scored their first that it would finish 4-4 and they'll win it 4-5 in extra time.

To be honest, this was my thought and many others I think. I get depressed by the fact that by not having access to Guthrie we don't have a Plan B. If our wingers are kept in check there is nothing else we can do apart from go 4-5-1 or swap the wingers from the bench (presumably they are on the bench because they are not as good as the two playing?). We need someone who can put their foot on the ball and keep hold of it. I haven't seen enough of Guthrie this season to say it's him (others may tell me?) but he is the only midfielder we seem to have that is not all huff and puff. Earlier this season people were saying that Elwood and Karacan were the defensive mdfielders we needed yet now some people are saying we need another defensive on top of those two, more huff and puff. Maybe we need to look at our whole system to see how it could be adjusted? Do we have the players to play 3 at the back and five in midfield with Guthrie (or A N Other) as the fulcrum? I can't help but think that when we play 4-5-1 it is with two wingers and three huff and puff midfielders. If you want to play this system then you need a midfielder who can run at people from the middle, and I am not sure we have one.

[ManchesterRoyals]

To be fair, even at 4-0 I was still thinking that Arsenal would get back into it. The game actually unfolded nearly exactly how I thought it would. I said to a friend just before they scored their first that it would finish 4-4 and they'll win it 4-5 in extra time.

To be honest, this was my thought and many others I think. I get depressed by the fact that by not having access to Guthrie we don't have a Plan B. If our wingers are kept in check there is nothing else we can do apart from go 4-5-1 or swap the wingers from the bench (presumably they are on the bench because they are not as good as the two playing?). We need someone who can put their foot on the ball and keep hold of it. I haven't seen enough of Guthrie this season to say it's him (others may tell me?) but he is the only midfielder we seem to have that is not all huff and puff. Earlier this season people were saying that Elwood and Karacan were the defensive mdfielders we needed yet now some people are saying we need another defensive on top of those two, more huff and puff. Maybe we need to look at our whole system to see how it could be adjusted? Do we have the players to play 3 at the back and five in midfield with Guthrie (or A N Other) as the fulcrum? I can't help but think that when we play 4-5-1 it is with two wingers and three huff and puff midfielders. If you want to play this system then you need a midfielder who can run at people from the middle, and I am not sure we have one.

I agree

But my problem is we get the lead we cant hang on to it, why not at 4-1 up half time go 4-5-1 which gives us different options

Because BM got a problem with Guthrie and wont play him or even have him on the bench

I felt if he was on the bench last night bring him on at half time plug the middle, but u cant if he isnt even on the bench

[Vision]

He could have done it with McAnuff if he'd wanted to. he's used him as a central midfielder before. I just think he wanted to keep 2 up front as it had served us well in the first half and he thought one more goal would have completely killed off the game. I can see the reasoning behind it.

My problem isn't that he didn't switch at half time as we actually created chances and should have had a penalty in the opening 10 minutes of the 2nd half. My issue is that he didn't /couldn't/wouldn't change as the half went on and we were getting increasingly overrun.

[Royal Lady]

I know the ideal person to help McD with his defending tactics etc - used to play with him at Arsenal and they still keep in touch - Schards knows him, so I'm going to suggest he throw out the suggestion to him and he can speak to McD, McD can ask Anton and Bob's your uncle!

[mr_number]

He could have done it with McAnuff if he'd wanted to. he's used him as a central midfielder before. I just think he wanted to keep 2 up front as it had served us well in the first half and he thought one more goal would have completely killed off the game. I can see the reasoning behind it.

My problem isn't that he didn't switch at half time as we actually created chances and should have had a penalty in the opening 10 minutes of the 2nd half. My issue is that he didn't /couldn't/wouldn't change as the half went on and we were getting increasingly overrun.

I think the thing with keeping 2 up front is that it makes it a lot more likely that you can hold on to the ball when you clear it - look at the first half at Liverpool for how 1 up front wasn't really working. Maybe it would work with Roberts, I don't know. There's just always a pay-off in switching formations, and it's easy with hindsight to say we got it wrong, but for most of the second half we were still holding our own.

[Vision]

He could have done it with McAnuff if he'd wanted to. he's used him as a central midfielder before. I just think he wanted to keep 2 up front as it had served us well in the first half and he thought one more goal would have completely killed off the game. I can see the reasoning behind it.

My problem isn't that he didn't switch at half time as we actually created chances and should have had a penalty in the opening 10 minutes of the 2nd half. My issue is that he didn't /couldn't/wouldn't change as the half went on and we were getting increasingly overrun.

I think the thing with keeping 2 up front is that it makes it a lot more likely that you can hold on to the ball when you clear it - look at the first half at Liverpool for how 1 up front wasn't really working. Maybe it would work with Roberts, I don't know. There's just always a pay-off in switching formations, and it's easy with hindsight to say we got it wrong, but for most of the second half we were still holding our own.

It's a fair point that we'll never know for sure and all changes have certain risks attached to them but having 2 up front for the last half hour of the 2nd half certainly wasn't working out. We weren't holding our own in my opinion, we were desperately hanging on which isn't the same thing. We needed to do something to try and change the momentum or try to prevent the wave of attacks coming our way and for some reason we did neither. We just left the tiring Tabb & Leigertwood to chase shadows.

[murof]

I have been a season ticket holder for a few years now and have been watching lots of football over the past 35 years and I have never ever seen a team that gives the ball away as much as Reading do (and so cheaply). Its as though the defenders (mainly) have been training specifically in that area, as all they ever seem to do is play ball straight to the opposition. Who else does this in the Premier League (or even the champions league)? I just don't get why we play like this, what is it supposed to achieve? The classic example is Gorkhs, from midway in our own half he will 99% of the time attempt to play a 30 yard pass to either no-one or some one on the other team. Isn't Brian McDermott and the training guys supposed to fix this sort of thing as its been going for a very long time. Are there any stats available to show how many passes are played to the opposition?
The other major flaw that I see with Reading is that we allow opposing players to advance from the halfway line to our penalty area completely unimpeded, especially through the middle of the pitch (the right back area is actually OK). Nobody seems to want to get a foot in or get out and face the opposition high enough up the pitch and the end effect is that we get squashed-in at the back and the opposing team can play around us very easily and then we also cannot play ourselves out. I wonder what they actually do in training, is there any signs of their training making any sort of difference to how they play?
Finally, some of our players are simply not good enough to be ever starting a Premier league game, namely Hal Robson Kanu and Jay Tabb. Sure, they can come on as a sub, but that is it. Running around the pitch for 90 minutes is good, and doing the odd thing here and there (maybe even scoring or creating a goal) is also good, but you need to be making more of a contribution that has an significant impact on the final result a lot more often than these guys do. As for Gorkks, don't even go there! How can he be the direct catalyst for so many goals scored against us and still be in the team? And McDermott needs to be a bit more like Simon Cowell and tell the players how it really is in matches by pulling off people like Jobie McAnuff when he is playing rubbish - and to be clear, Jobie cannot and should not be playing in the centre. If the wing position isn't available pull him off rather than restructure the whole shape of the team.
I was never really a fan of Noel Hunt before, but now I see he can play a valuable role with one of the big two up front, either Progregniyak or Roberts. Both the big guys don't work well together, they need either Noel or LeFondre playing alongside. (LeFondre and Hunt play well together too, but I suppose there is pressure to play at least one of the big guys as we have paid so much money for them).
This is not a reaction to last nights game, its stuff thats been brewing in my head for some time now and it needed to get out!!

Phew... What a rant!!

[Ian Royal]

Winning at chelsea - Brings on a striker - Lost that game
Fulham - Same scenario - Draw
Newcastle - Same scenario - Draw

Winning by two goals against and Arsenal side who dominated the second half and nearly got their 3rd on 4 or 5 chances. He brings on the saviour Mcanuff, Poggers and Church. If he took of ledge (Who looked shagged after 75) and brought someone on to calm the tempo we would have won.

But his persistence in bringing on strikers to 'win games' Is not working.

This isnt a dig at Mcdermott but his desire is costing us, his loyalty to players is costing us (Go on Churchy get 5 minutes, oh crap they have scored)

Just dont understand it and last night was not good enough, changes were wrong at the wrong time.

+ Swansea where he sat and watched us get absolutely hammered and only made a substitution when it was too late, rather than taking off a striker, suring up midfield and trying to see out the game.

[RoyalBlue]

As i said previously - 4-2 with 2 mins of the 90 to go and you take off Roberts and replace him with Church, another striker. IF he had got Pearce on there and played him in a back 5, then i don't think we would have conceded the corner for the 3rd goal which would have meant we didn't concede the 4th

I'm very sure we made that sub at 4-3... either way though I think it was a very naive decision to make that sub, surely he didn't think that time wasting tactic would work. At least we were getting the ball in the corner a couple of times. The ref should have only added about 30secs on but if I'm honest if we didn't make that sub there's no way the game would have extended long enough for the Arse to score.

I think there might have been mileage in bringing on Church earlier, as we had stopped defending from the front and, for all the criticism he receives, Church is very good at putting defenders under pressure and making it difficult for them to pass their way out of trouble. However, waiting until the last few moments of stoppage time was sheer lunacy.

[RoyalBlue]

I know the ideal person to help McD with his defending tactics etc - used to play with him at Arsenal and they still keep in touch - Schards knows him, so I'm going to suggest he throw out the suggestion to him and he can speak to McD, McD can ask Anton and Bob's your uncle!

Keown or prior to that?

Adams?

[MouldyRoyal]

I doubt Brian needs to be put in touch with Martin Keown somehow.

[RoyalBlue]

I doubt Brian needs to be put in touch with Martin Keown somehow.

I realise that but maybe he hasn't asked for his help.

[Once were Biscuitmen]

More pertinently do we need another thread on exactly the same topic?