Back from the game - Palace

[wingnut]

Care to explain oh wise one or at least express a view-how is this bullshit?
Don't you want us to play a style of football to get promoted and the next time stay there for a bit longer?
Aren't you interested in the type of side Brian builds this time?
Care to do your own analysis or is it beyond you and the limit of your insight is to just call somebody's view "bullshit" and offer zilch yourself?

For two reasons:
1. For the umpteenth time, we are not playing long ball. A few over-hit balls to Cox doesn't mean we're now playing route one. Personally, I've absolutely no problem with adopting a more direct style - it has brought us the most success after all, and endless sideways passes amongst our back four bores the tits off me.
2. And chiefly, it's the utter bullshit phrase "progressive football". It's just completely meaningless - the sort of corporate horseshit Adkins used to come out with.

Re(1)
Just because you use the bullshit term "umpteenth"time doesn't make it right.
Let's call it "hit and hope football" which better describes the way we play under Brian which is playing it long and as quickly as possible to get into the other half and so often means giving the ball away.
For this to work (have you noticed it isn't working?) we need a big hold-up striker with a secondary striker playing close to him whereas we have 2 playing wide (or at least we did v Palace but maybe not last night) who are too far away to feed off whatever the central striker does.

Re(2)Is "bullshit" your favourite word? No, I see "horseshit" now features in your extensive vocabulary.
As I see it "progressive" football is simply playing through the midfield which most of the more successful sides do, e.g. Barcelona, Arsenal, Bayern Munich,Spurs-in fact most teams.
If we played "hit and hope" successfully then it would be a sound argument to say fine-I don't disagree with you about tippy-tappy at the back but I would prefer seeing much more of the midfield taking the ball off the defenders and moving forward rather than seeing our central defenders and Gunter just launching the ball into no-man's land.

The Palace game highlighted for me how bad we have become in giving the ball way and surely you don't want to see our side do that?
If so, we are at total cross-purposes over what we perceive to be entertaining football.
At the moment I feel that there is little entertainment (look at how many goals we have scored in the league)whether that be long-ball or progressive and (As I said in my earlier post) it will be interesting to see what Brian does with HIS team eventually (something that for some reason you described as "bullshit") and if he will look to play more like what he has been watching at Arsenal these past few years.

Oh dear, Vic, it really does look like your eyesight is failing.

Yes, we did used to play a more "hit and hope" style under Brian, particularly in our premiership season. I have seen no evidence of a return to that style. Brian is still trying to get us to play it through the midfield. I have seen no games since Brian came back where we're hitting endless balls into the channels for our wingers or strikers to chase.

Friday's first half (in particular) did see some rather hopeful punts aimed at Cox, but that was down to there being a too-large gap between him and our midfielders and it was tried as a way of trying to relieve the pressure. I can't believe that was the game plan before kick-off. Yep, we were giving the ball away far too cheaply but this was down to inaccurate passing rather than a particular long-ball tactic and is something that has plagued us now for 3 seasons - that and poor movement when we do have the ball. As Vision said a few pages back, we needed to be at the top of our game to win on Friday and too many of our players weren't.

As for entertainment, yep it's been bad this season but it's been that way for at least three years now - for all of which we've been trying to play the short passing game, through the midfield.

As, I think, E-P put it some months ago, it doesn't really matter what style you play, if you're not effective at it, it tends to look bad.

[Victor Meldrew]

For two reasons:
1. For the umpteenth time, we are not playing long ball. A few over-hit balls to Cox doesn't mean we're now playing route one. Personally, I've absolutely no problem with adopting a more direct style - it has brought us the most success after all, and endless sideways passes amongst our back four bores the tits off me.
2. And chiefly, it's the utter bullshit phrase "progressive football". It's just completely meaningless - the sort of corporate horseshit Adkins used to come out with.

Re(1)
Just because you use the bullshit term "umpteenth"time doesn't make it right.
Let's call it "hit and hope football" which better describes the way we play under Brian which is playing it long and as quickly as possible to get into the other half and so often means giving the ball away.
For this to work (have you noticed it isn't working?) we need a big hold-up striker with a secondary striker playing close to him whereas we have 2 playing wide (or at least we did v Palace but maybe not last night) who are too far away to feed off whatever the central striker does.

Re(2)Is "bullshit" your favourite word? No, I see "horseshit" now features in your extensive vocabulary.
As I see it "progressive" football is simply playing through the midfield which most of the more successful sides do, e.g. Barcelona, Arsenal, Bayern Munich,Spurs-in fact most teams.
If we played "hit and hope" successfully then it would be a sound argument to say fine-I don't disagree with you about tippy-tappy at the back but I would prefer seeing much more of the midfield taking the ball off the defenders and moving forward rather than seeing our central defenders and Gunter just launching the ball into no-man's land.

The Palace game highlighted for me how bad we have become in giving the ball way and surely you don't want to see our side do that?
If so, we are at total cross-purposes over what we perceive to be entertaining football.
At the moment I feel that there is little entertainment (look at how many goals we have scored in the league)whether that be long-ball or progressive and (As I said in my earlier post) it will be interesting to see what Brian does with HIS team eventually (something that for some reason you described as "bullshit") and if he will look to play more like what he has been watching at Arsenal these past few years.

Oh dear, Vic, it really does look like your eyesight is failing.

Yes, we did used to play a more "hit and hope" style under Brian, particularly in our premiership season. I have seen no evidence of a return to that style. Brian is still trying to get us to play it through the midfield. I have seen no games since Brian came back where we're hitting endless balls into the channels for our wingers or strikers to chase.

Friday's first half (in particular) did see some rather hopeful punts aimed at Cox, but that was down to there being a too-large gap between him and our midfielders and it was tried as a way of trying to relieve the pressure. I can't believe that was the game plan before kick-off. Yep, we were giving the ball away far too cheaply but this was down to inaccurate passing rather than a particular long-ball tactic and is something that has plagued us now for 3 seasons - that and poor movement when we do have the ball. As Vision said a few pages back, we needed to be at the top of our game to win on Friday and too many of our players weren't.

As for entertainment, yep it's been bad this season but it's been that way for at least three years now - for all of which we've been trying to play the short passing game, through the midfield.

As, I think, E-P put it some months ago, it doesn't really matter what style you play, if you're not effective at it, it tends to look bad.

I will watch with great interest the intricate passing game that you believe we play in these remaining pointless fixtures.

[Victor Meldrew]

You have an uncanny ability to only read one sentence of a post and ignore the rest.

Kes isn't the only one, there are plenty on here who do the same.

[Hoop Blah]

We aren't the direct, percentage football, side that McDermott built last time around, but at the same time I wouldn't say that a midfield of Hector, Quinn and Norwood/Williams is set up to be an Adkins style passing midfield.

I've said elsewhere, I'm not convinced our midfield has anywhere near the right balance and I think we look like a side that doesn't yet have the confidence or belief in a shape or style. I think we're probably in a state of limbo in that respect as well as with the personnel within the squad.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Fair enough E-P, but I'll say it again, I don't think anyone has said Palace deserved to win because they'd created more chances and looked the more threatening team, just that perhaps they should've scored more goals by the time of the dodgy penalty decision.

Fine, I just disagree that ''should have'' has any relevance in deciding a winner.

I'm a big believer that performances, over time, get reflected by results/goals

Agreed. But over the course of a fair game, if you don't score more goals than your opponent, you don't deserve to win.

Seeing that palace couldn't score without unfair intervention, the result for me is unfair.

Likewise, if we had nicked it through a dodgy pen given our way, I'd have said that was unfair too. And if Palace scored the winner through their own merit, I'd have been disappointed but would've agreed they deserved the win and were the better team.

I think that's clear enough and I can probably stop repeating myself in different ways now.

[CountryRoyal]

I've never seen you say anything positive about Reading. Or side with Reading on something. Or defend them. Or seem remotely pleased or praiseworthy when the win or play well, however rare that may be. Or seem anything but gleefully delighted when something doesn't go their way.

It's weird. I mean there's critical. And there's trying to be impartial and balanced. Or realistic and outspoken. But with you its just constant flaming. Worse than how a rival fan would be.

The only person on here I've ever seen you agree with is someone who doesn't support Reading, and supports Chelsea.

I just find it a bit odd. Why would anyone support a team they just loathe so completely and relentlessly? I mean, it just seems such a waste of your time, m8?

I don't mean to be a dick E-P but this was really hard to read.

Sorry for being a grammar nazi.

No worries. I could pretend I was going for a Samuel Becket alienating prose style circa 1969 'Lessness' but I think I had just got home from a run and was a bit out of breath.

Fair enough. I knew a normally articulate fellow like yourself must have had a good reason.

[Hoop Blah]

Nobody had said anything about them deserving it or it being fair that they won in the end through a dodgy penalty.

What a few of us have said is that Palace could, and probably, should have been out of sight based on the balance of play and the chances they created. You and Mags poo-poo'd such an idea, I've just tried to comment on that being a pretty fair reflection of reality.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I just don't get what point you are trying to make by repeatedly stating they 'should have been out of sight' if it isn't to somehow justify the result

[Snowball136]

When we play a game, totally dominate have 10 shots on target
and fail to score, then they break and score, what do people say?

Finishing is the hardest thing of all.

Defenders may not stop the shot but they make make it less-easy
or block. The keeper may do his job. It happens.

We clearly deserved 0-0 at 85 minutes, and it so very easily could
have been 0-0 at the end, but that's football

[Victor Meldrew]

I just don't get what point you are trying to make by repeatedly stating they 'should have been out of sight' if it isn't to somehow justify the result

I think Hoop's point is that generally teams that have most of the play win matches.
There are exceptions and they are just that, exceptions rather than the rule with Leicester possibly being the exception as was Mourinho's Inter Milan and Chelsea when those teams won the European Champs League.
In our game v Palace they had most of the play so it was likely that they would win-we hung in there and if Bolassie had been sent off instead of Cooper Reading might have snatched an unlikely win.
With the chances Palace created and the pressure applied they could have been "out of sight" (maybe could rather than should) but on the day their finishing was poor and they needed a helping hand from the ref.

[Armadillo Roadkill]

If you know someone who smokes 60 fags a day and doesn't die until they're 90 and who doesn't develop cancer, you might well say they were lucky.

If Reading let Crystal Palace dominate possession and force our goalkeeper into at least a dozen really good saves, whilst only really creating one clear cut scoring opportunity, you have to conclude we would have been really lucky to escape with a draw.

[Hoop Blah]

I just don't get what point you are trying to make by repeatedly stating they 'should have been out of sight' if it isn't to somehow justify the result

It's not to justify the result, and certainly not to justify the injustice of the penalty decision. It's just a comment on the way the game had gone.

You questioned the validity of handbags comment that they probably should have been out of the game at that point due to the weight of chances and efforts on our goal. I'm sure he didn't mean it was fair for them to be given the hand that Dean gave them, just that, simply, they could easily have had us beaten at that point with a bit more composure in front of goal or some less competent keeping from Al Habsi.

[leon]

Nobody had said anything about them deserving it or it being fair that they won in the end through a dodgy penalty.

What a few of us have said is that Palace could, and probably, should have been out of sight based on the balance of play and the chances they created. You and Mags poo-poo'd such an idea, I've just tried to comment on that being a pretty fair reflection of reality.

So you're poo pooing Mags and E-Ps poo poo?

[Extended-Phenotype]

Whole forum!
Totally destroyed!

By poo poo!

[download]

I can't but feel a little sad, that we all accept Bolaise's fall to the ground quite so readily. Leaving aside whether or not Jake impeded him, there is no way that his actions would cause any body to fall to the ground so easily.

I know its the modern game and something that we have accept and its one benefit of not being in the Premiership that we have to put with so much of what is plain and simple cheating.

Referees have the power to give yellow cards but its the rare exception that it happens. If it was a regular occurrence, I'm sure we would see less of it. The same with dissent and surrounding referees. I would love to see a top referee just go ahead and give a yellow card to a Man Utd or Chelsea when they get surrounded.

Sorry, gone off on a tangent, thank you for listening.

Agreed in its entirety. The only caveat I would put to that is when contact is made, it is sometimes difficult to judge whether a player has fallen despite the contact, or fallen because of the contact. Sadly it happens at all levels of the game, I have had it in U15's football matches this season that I have officiated in. Part of the referee's territory I suppose, but you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, and if you don't give consistent decisions you're perceived to be weak or poor. Giving decisions based on the merits of what you can see doesn't necessarily equate to consistency. I just wish some coaches and supporters would understand this.

Its even sadder to hear that U15's are doing this sort of thing now. Shows just engrained it is.

[floyd__streete]

Three Reading games in recent times in which I can recall us being totally battered and emerging with an important result:

01/02 Swindon 0-0 Reading
05/06 Southampton 0-0 Reading
11/12 Brighton 0-1 Reading

Did anyone come out of those matches and say "well we got totally murdered tonight, it would have been just if the opposition had been given a free penalty right at the end for absolutely nothing in order to have provided a more reflective result". Of course not As much as for reasons of the opposition's profligacy we earned those above results with guts and hard work, as we deserved to earn a 0-0 last Friday

[No Fixed Abode]

But you didn't deserve a 0-0 last Friday. You deserved a 2-0 defeat. It was a penalty. Reading had to push up to try and get a goal which left room for Palace to break and get a 2nd.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Three Reading games in recent times in which I can recall us being totally battered and emerging with an important result:

01/02 Swindon 0-0 Reading
05/06 Southampton 0-0 Reading
11/12 Brighton 0-1 Reading

Did anyone come out of those matches and say "well we got totally murdered tonight, it would have been just if the opposition had been given a free penalty right at the end for absolutely nothing in order to have provided a more reflective result". Of course not As much as for reasons of the opposition's profligacy we earned those above results with guts and hard work, as we deserved to earn a 0-0 last Friday

Agreed.

And no amount of ''well, they probably would have won on another day because the goals they couldn't score in this game they would have scored in any other game because they looked like the type of goals they could score usually or something" weird logic is going to change that.

[Silver Fox]

I'm fairly sure Al-Habsi is one of our players and his excellent performance contributes to what sort of result we may or may not deserve

[Ian Royal]

The fact is Palace had the majority of chances and can reasonably have expected to win that game the majority of the time if the same basic pattern of play was repeated 10 - 100, whatever many times.

We had almost done enough to get a draw, but they could easily have scored anyway in the last 5-10 minutes given the pressure we were under. It was a soft penalty and they weren't imepeded in any chance to score, but Reading are just as deserving of it being given as Palace were undeserving of it being awarded. We'd invited pressure in our box and relied on last ditch tackles, blocks and saves to stay un the game. On top of that Cooper took a completely unnecessary action to give Bolasie the chance to go down and the ref to make a soft soft call.

The gutting thing is there was no actual danger, we'd done 95% of the hard work and Palace were given a gift.

You can't really say it was a travesty of a result. If roles were reversed and there was no penalty incident we'd be moaning about how we'd had all the play and somehow conspired to draw a game we should be winning comfortably, with Palace smug about pulling off a desperate rearguard draw against the odds.