by royalsroyalsroyals92 » 17 Feb 2014 23:14
by leon » 17 Feb 2014 23:52
Basingstoke Royal 54% possession and the first goal were very unMcdermott like.
by melonhead » 18 Feb 2014 10:33
Basingstoke Royal 54% possession and the first goal were very unMcdermott like.
by Royal Biscuitman » 18 Feb 2014 10:35
At times, a neutral would have difficultly working out which was which and that is a positive.KDRF We have two strikers that not only work bloody hard, but one is a clinical finisher and the other is good at holding the ball up.
by Woodcote Royal » 18 Feb 2014 11:11
bcubedWoodcote Royalbcubed First half possession was 54% to Reading
Doesn't sound like typical Reading
Just maybe we are playing the Adkins way and maybe it involves possession plus high tempo and maybe it works!
Just perhaps you need to watch rather than listen.
That sentence is not your best work
And i was there thanks - the stats supported what i saw
by LoyalRoyalFan » 18 Feb 2014 11:33
BenReadingFC "We don't care about Anton,
He don't care about me,
All we care about,
Is Reading FC"
Love it
by philM » 18 Feb 2014 12:40
by floyd__streete » 18 Feb 2014 12:42
Woodcote Royal I welcome the fact that this team is a little better on the ball than most of it's predecessors and I'm happy to give Nige some credit for it.
However, we are now playing in the style and formation adopted by all of Pardew, Coppell and McDermott as opposed to the one Adkins was trying to inflict on us throughout the first half of the season and, frankly, it's rather daft to suggest this is not the case.
by If you still hate Futcher » 18 Feb 2014 13:00
philM "SOME MORE, YOU SHOULD HAVE SPENT SOME MORE"
Great day out.
by winchester_royal » 18 Feb 2014 13:05
floyd__streeteWoodcote Royal I welcome the fact that this team is a little better on the ball than most of it's predecessors and I'm happy to give Nige some credit for it.
However, we are now playing in the style and formation adopted by all of Pardew, Coppell and McDermott as opposed to the one Adkins was trying to inflict on us throughout the first half of the season and, frankly, it's rather daft to suggest this is not the case.
Yep.
And don't forget, some Adkinistas - during that trying first half of the season - were trying to tell us that 4-4-2 was somehow a prehistoric way of playing football as we persisted buggering about with one up top. In the league we are currently in it works very nicely indeed, thanks very much
by bcubed » 18 Feb 2014 13:12
Woodcote Royalbcubed First half possession was 54% to Reading
Doesn't sound like typical Reading
Just maybe we are playing the Adkins way and maybe it involves possession plus high tempo and maybe it works!
I welcome the fact that this team is a little better on the ball than most of it's predecessors and I'm happy to give Nige some credit for it.
However, we are now playing in the style and formation adopted by all of Pardew, Coppell and McDermott as opposed to the one Adkins was trying to inflict on us throughout the first half of the season and, frankly, it's rather daft to suggest this is not the case.
by Vision » 18 Feb 2014 13:19
by Wycombe Royal » 18 Feb 2014 13:56
Vision One of the many impressive things about the performance was the way we played out the last 20-25 minutes with 10 men. We didn't take unnecessary chances but we remained pretty composed at a time when the pressure really could have been building.
Mind you I suppose we had 80 minutes to practice it last week.
by If you still hate Futcher » 18 Feb 2014 17:38
bcubedWoodcote Royalbcubed First half possession was 54% to Reading
Doesn't sound like typical Reading
Just maybe we are playing the Adkins way and maybe it involves possession plus high tempo and maybe it works!
I welcome the fact that this team is a little better on the ball than most of it's predecessors and I'm happy to give Nige some credit for it.
However, we are now playing in the style and formation adopted by all of Pardew, Coppell and McDermott as opposed to the one Adkins was trying to inflict on us throughout the first half of the season and, frankly, it's rather daft to suggest this is not the case.
I may be getting carried away with what was a fantastic day out, but it was a superb controlled performance and I think it is possibly something better than we had before under Mc D and something that would help us survive if promoted
by Loyal royal 247 » 18 Feb 2014 19:02
LoyalRoyalFan :lol:
All those highly paid mercenaries did a good job didn't they? Plus, all the fighting in the home end, what a lovely club.
by Winnershroyal » 18 Feb 2014 19:35
Loyal royal 247LoyalRoyalFan :lol:
All those highly paid mercenaries did a good job didn't they? Plus, all the fighting in the home end, what a lovely club.
We can't forget about qpr players fighting between themselves!
by Lower West » 18 Feb 2014 22:06
Woodcote Royal
However, we are now playing in the style and formation adopted by all of Pardew, Coppell and McDermott as opposed to the one Adkins was trying to inflict on us throughout the first half of the season and, frankly, it's rather daft to suggest this is not the case.
by Ian Royal » 18 Feb 2014 22:25
Lower WestWoodcote Royal
However, we are now playing in the style and formation adopted by all of Pardew, Coppell and McDermott as opposed to the one Adkins was trying to inflict on us throughout the first half of the season and, frankly, it's rather daft to suggest this is not the case.
Remember Pardews love of the 4-5-1 formation.
by roberto_11 » 19 Feb 2014 16:34
Ian Royal --------------Forster
--------------Hughes
Salako, Sidwell, Harper, Chadwick
wasn't it?
We're playing Adkins brand of football now. It's not too dissimilar from McDermott's in the same way that McDermott's was not too disimilar from Coppell's the difference being that Coppell and Adkins had / have some threat through the middle and McDermott focussed almost solely on spoiling there.
It constantly amazes me how our fans are incapable of seeing any difference between McDermott, Pardew and Coppell or Adkins and Rodgers. It's just showing up how little understanding they have of the nuonces of football.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 169 guests