MATCHWATCH : Leyton Orient (a)

[Sutekh]

When : Saturday October 7 2023, 3pm
Where : Brisbane Road, Leyton, London, E10 5NF
Capacity : 9,271

Another away debacle looms on the horizon which would be the 18th successive league failure to win away from home. Defeat would mean a record of 2 points collected from the last 54 possible on the road and the continuation of one of the few remaining 100% records still extant at this stage of the season.

Last Saturday the O's became the first team to lose to Fleetwood this season but that defeat is their only defeat in the last five and a poor start seems to have been turned around. Orient had their last game (home v Lincoln on Tuesday) abandoned after 82 minutes at 0-0 due to a medical emergency in the crowd so may well be a little fresher than Reading and maybe a bit charged up following on from the sad passing of an Orient supporter in that medical emergency on Tuesday.

Striker/winger Ruel Sotiriou is the one to watch, already bagged 4 in 11 league games this season and he is forming a decent partnership with one time alleged Reading target Joe Pigott. Darren Pratley is also on their books and has made 5 league appearances so far at the age of 38 so there's certainly experience there on the field.

Reading are 22nd in the table with just Wigan and Cheltenham below them but that's just a false 19th as league form so far shows that Reading are actually a place below and 1 point worse off than Leyton. Meanwhile god knows what side Selles will pick, especially with so many players suspended and injured. It isn't helped by the seeming cluelessness of the officials at the game at Northampton who seemed to book Mola then later in the game booked him again and rightfully sent him off only for the ref to do a most unlike referee thing and say he thinks there was a mistake and that he didn't actually book Mola the first time. Currently the club don't seem to have a clue exactly what has happened and are still waiting for confirmation from the FL but if the worst coms to the worst and Mola is eligible for the game I'm sure the club will do the right thing and appeal to have the decision overturned.

Definitely out is Yiadom after he said a naughty word or two in the direction of the officials after Azeez fell over (again) during an attack (though I'm sure if Reading could sit down with the FL and replay Azeez's highlights reel for this season to them that they could easily justify that Yiadom was being rude to Azeez and that the officials just happened to be in the line of sight at the time). As it's judged verbal abuse and not violent conduct it should only be a 1 game ban but if we keep our fingers crossed then maybe it might be more.

As a result of this and McIntyre's concussion protocol, which is likely to see him miss this one also, Selles might have to get really creative in the full/wing back arena. He certainly needs to do something different as things are desperate especially away from home.

Finally there will be a 1 minute's silence at the game in memory of the aforementioned Orient supporter.

Referee

Neil Hair

Previously

Nothing known

Historically

Reading haven't played a league game at Orient since 1994 when they drew 1-1 though they did visit for a League Cup game in 2000 which also finished 1-1.

There have been 32 league games played at Brisbane Road between the clubs since they met there for the first time in December 1926 (lost 5-1). Reading have won 7 of the 32 games and lost 15 so a Leyton Orient win would seem to be roughly twice as likely as a Reading win.

Note that as this is the last game before the next international break, with the Oxford game is postponed, getting some form of return on the trip would probably be of more benefit than usual over the 2 weeks off.

How to follow the game

1. Get a ticket and travel
2. Listen to Radio 5 Live and/or a myriad of other radio stations for score flashes
3. Ring/text a mate for updates
4. Use a RoyalsTV subscription
5. BBC Radio Berkshire (FM : 104.4, 104.1 or 95.4 depending where you are in the area)

[Snowflake Royal]

Selles has so many options to improve things right now.

Want to keep playing narrow, relying on fullbacks for width and mostly playing through yhe congested centre? 5-3-2.

Want to give your fullbacks more protection? 4-4-2.

Need more experience? Hutch, Holmes and NGW in for Bindon, Carson and Savage.

Need more movement and energy in midfield? Bring in Rushesha or Craig.

Players untainted by recent performances who will be keen to make an impact? Rushesha, Craig, NGW, Holmes, CBC, Wareham, Dorsett, Pereira.

Want to maximise your stat based chances to score? KelvE, Azeez, Ballard, Savage and Hutch should play. They produce the most shots and the most key passes.

Carson cannot keep being asked start games in front of hostile opposition fans with no protection. He's simply not up to it. He should be phased in gently under lower pressure circumstances as a sub and at home, with some actual defensive protection.

We should play one of the many players with actual RB experience at RB instead of Bindon. Or play with actual width and protection ahead of him so he can be more conservative and not have to try to be a wingback when he's a CB.

We need to stop trying to dribble and thread the eye of the needle through an incredibly congested central part of the pitch. We're doing the defensive team's work of trying to squeeze space for them.

[Hound]

I’d go with

Button
Rushesha Dean Abbey NGW
Knibbs hutch Wing Azeez
Ehibhatiomhan Ballard

Cbc Binden Carson Craig Savage Elliott Vickers

I don’t honestly think the formation makes a huge difference - Selles calls it 4-2-2-2 but it’s not hugely different to a basic 4-4-2 or the old midfield diamond shape

We just need to win that central mid battle. Hutch and Wing best bet to do that imo

Don’t think we’re miles off. First goal seems really impt with this side particularly

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Want to give your fullbacks more protection? 4-4-2.

How is 4-4-2 offering the full backs more protection when that's what we play now? It's not necessarily the formation that is the issue, it's the way the players are being asked to play and the players we have available.

No point trying to force players like Azeez or Knibbs 10 yards deeper when they are much better going forwards and the defensive side of the game isn't their strength.

If we want more protection for the full backs, we need to go with a 4-3-3 and have the midfield trio covering spaces laterally to themselves when the full backs go forward.

The only way I see 4-4-2 working is if we were to put NGW as a left sided player in front of the full back and then someone else, maybe an Azeez, on the right. But by that point, I'd rather just go for a 4-3-3.

[Snowflake Royal]

Want to give your fullbacks more protection? 4-4-2.

How is 4-4-2 offering the full backs more protection when that's what we play now? It's not necessarily the formation that is the issue, it's the way the players are being asked to play and the players we have available.

No point trying to force players like Azeez or Knibbs 10 yards deeper when they are much better going forwards and the defensive side of the game isn't their strength.

If we want more protection for the full backs, we need to go with a 4-3-3 and have the midfield trio covering spaces laterally to themselves when the full backs go forward.

The only way I see 4-4-2 working is if we were to put NGW as a left sided player in front of the full back and then someone else, maybe an Azeez, on the right. But by that point, I'd rather just go for a 4-3-3.

Because when you play 4-4-2 instead of a made up formation that's shit, you have some width ahead of them, meaning they don’t have to bomb on as high to give the team any attacking width, and the winger is nearer them to pair up defensively, rather than constantly leaving them out of position and isolated.

It's basic stuff YR.

[Hound]

You could quite easily make it a more defensive 4-4-2 playing say Rushesha right mid and Knibbs left mid. Or even Savage or Eliott

If you position then as old school right/left mid it definitely does offer more protection to the FBs than what we play now

[Millsy]

SeLLes' future hangs by a Hair.

Get it? Hair? Look at the ref's surname. Look at it. Oh, forget it....

[morganb]

SeLLes' future hangs by a Hair.

Get it? Hair? Look at the ref's surname. Look at it. Oh, forget it....

Also looking at the ref's name - do we still take the knee before kick-off?

[Millsy]

SeLLes' future hangs by a Hair.

Get it? Hair? Look at the ref's surname. Look at it. Oh, forget it....

Also looking at the ref's name - do we still take the knee before kick-off?

You've out-Millsied Millsy, good sir.

(Not sure if that's good or bad though tbf )

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Want to give your fullbacks more protection? 4-4-2.

How is 4-4-2 offering the full backs more protection when that's what we play now? It's not necessarily the formation that is the issue, it's the way the players are being asked to play and the players we have available.

No point trying to force players like Azeez or Knibbs 10 yards deeper when they are much better going forwards and the defensive side of the game isn't their strength.

If we want more protection for the full backs, we need to go with a 4-3-3 and have the midfield trio covering spaces laterally to themselves when the full backs go forward.

The only way I see 4-4-2 working is if we were to put NGW as a left sided player in front of the full back and then someone else, maybe an Azeez, on the right. But by that point, I'd rather just go for a 4-3-3.

Because when you play 4-4-2 instead of a made up formation that's shit, you have some width ahead of them, meaning they don’t have to bomb on as high to give the team any attacking width, and the winger is nearer them to pair up defensively, rather than constantly leaving them out of position and isolated.

It's basic stuff YR.

It's alright saying it's basic stuff on paper, but that doesn't mean it will work. Again, it comes back to what players you have available, not the formation you put on a tactics board and what you think should work. No use setting up with Azeez and Knibbs, for arguments sake, 10 yards deeper if their strength is going forward, again, you may as well put 3 in midfield and have them cover the lateral areas of the pitch, rather than 2 players who won't do the defensive side of the game well and pigeon-hole them into a system that looks better on paper. That's going back to the square pegs in round holes theory again.

[Hound]

How is 4-4-2 offering the full backs more protection when that's what we play now? It's not necessarily the formation that is the issue, it's the way the players are being asked to play and the players we have available.

No point trying to force players like Azeez or Knibbs 10 yards deeper when they are much better going forwards and the defensive side of the game isn't their strength.

If we want more protection for the full backs, we need to go with a 4-3-3 and have the midfield trio covering spaces laterally to themselves when the full backs go forward.

The only way I see 4-4-2 working is if we were to put NGW as a left sided player in front of the full back and then someone else, maybe an Azeez, on the right. But by that point, I'd rather just go for a 4-3-3.

Because when you play 4-4-2 instead of a made up formation that's shit, you have some width ahead of them, meaning they don’t have to bomb on as high to give the team any attacking width, and the winger is nearer them to pair up defensively, rather than constantly leaving them out of position and isolated.

It's basic stuff YR.

It's alright saying it's basic stuff on paper, but that doesn't mean it will work. Again, it comes back to what players you have available, not the formation you put on a tactics board and what you think should work. No use setting up with Azeez and Knibbs, for arguments sake, 10 yards deeper if their strength is going forward, again, you may as well put 3 in midfield and have them cover the lateral areas of the pitch, rather than 2 players who won't do the defensive side of the game well and pigeon-hole them into a system that looks better on paper. That's going back to the square pegs in round holes theory again.

Of course it would have to work. But it’s also incredibly basic to just say ‘we should dump 4-2-2-2 and got to 4-3-3’ or whatever, like just doing that would suddenly make us a different prospect

I’d strongly argue the formation doesn’t make much difference at all, it’s just the players fully understanding their roles and playing it properly - which we’re not doing at the moment and I something Selles needs to sort. I’m sure him and the coaches are fully aware that the FBs are being exposed too often and we’re weak as shit in the middle, and he doesn’t need to ‘learn’ from a few knobs on a message board (inc myself)

Just changing to 4-3-3 won’t make any difference other than chucking away the work they’ve been doing on 4-2-2-2 for the past 6 weeks

[South Coast Royal]

SeLLes' future hangs by a Hair.

Get it? Hair? Look at the ref's surname. Look at it. Oh, forget it....

Also looking at the ref's name - do we still take the knee before kick-off?

You've out-Millsied Millsy, good sir.

(Not sure if that's good or bad though tbf )

If we lose on Saturday could it mean the "parting" of the waves for Selles?
A case of Hair today, gone tomorrow.

[Royal_jimmy]

Surely things have to change after Tuesday. I'd still keep Button in goal, he had one bad game which happens. If he makes another howler then consider changing him for CBC.

Bindon shouldn't play RB, if Abrefa is fit he should start there. Azeez shouldn't start.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Because when you play 4-4-2 instead of a made up formation that's shit, you have some width ahead of them, meaning they don’t have to bomb on as high to give the team any attacking width, and the winger is nearer them to pair up defensively, rather than constantly leaving them out of position and isolated.

It's basic stuff YR.

It's alright saying it's basic stuff on paper, but that doesn't mean it will work. Again, it comes back to what players you have available, not the formation you put on a tactics board and what you think should work. No use setting up with Azeez and Knibbs, for arguments sake, 10 yards deeper if their strength is going forward, again, you may as well put 3 in midfield and have them cover the lateral areas of the pitch, rather than 2 players who won't do the defensive side of the game well and pigeon-hole them into a system that looks better on paper. That's going back to the square pegs in round holes theory again.

Of course it would have to work. But it’s also incredibly basic to just say ‘we should dump 4-2-2-2 and got to 4-3-3’ or whatever, like just doing that would suddenly make us a different prospect

I’d strongly argue the formation doesn’t make much difference at all, it’s just the players fully understanding their roles and playing it properly - which we’re not doing at the moment and I something Selles needs to sort. I’m sure him and the coaches are fully aware that the FBs are being exposed too often and we’re weak as shit in the middle, and he doesn’t need to ‘learn’ from a few knobs on a message board (inc myself)

Just changing to 4-3-3 won’t make any difference other than chucking away the work they’ve been doing on 4-2-2-2 for the past 6 weeks

In terms of the formation, that's what I'm saying, it's not what you play on paper it's what you're asking the players to do on the field. No point asking Azeez and Knibbs to play in a 4-4-2 as opposed to a 4-2-2-2 if you're asking to do things they aren't capable to do, or that isn't their strength. Dropping them 10 yards deeper and asking them to do more defensive work doesn't mean that will translate like that.

The 4-3-3 comment was more in response to, if we did want another body in the middle to help cover for the full backs, then that's what we should do. Again though, it all comes down to the personnel we have in the middle. Same principle, no point having 3 in midfield if we don't have anyone who can cover the spaces left by full backs if they aren't capable of doing that.

I agree, I think it's about trying to make the 4-2-2-2 work rather than abandoning it completely. It might mean tweaks in the system or different players in each position.

[Hound]

Fair enough

[Sutekh]

Bound to be a few hairy moments in this one.

[Sutekh]

Surely things have to change after Tuesday. I'd still keep Button in goal, he had one bad game which happens. If he makes another howler then consider changing him for CBC.

Bindon shouldn't play RB, if Abrefa is fit he should start there. Azeez shouldn't start.

Amen to that, really don't understand why Abrefa isn't getting ahead of an out of position centre back esp. at right back when he's looked pretty decent from the few games I've seen him play in that position.

[Millsy]

Also looking at the ref's name - do we still take the knee before kick-off?

You've out-Millsied Millsy, good sir.

(Not sure if that's good or bad though tbf )

If we lose on Saturday could it mean the "parting" of the waves for Selles?
A case of Hair today, gone tomorrow.

Millsyitis is spreading. Enjoy, HNA, enjoy.

[Crowbar6753]

Would like to see 4-2-3-1 personally. Two deep lying DMs giving the defense extra support when needed and the three AMs giving width and attacking support to the lone striker.
Both Ballard and Kelvin E seem to have the pace and strength to play the lone forward role, plus i think an attacking midfield role would be perfect for Vickers.

So it this:

Button

Abrefa Abbey Dean NGW

Hutch Craig

Vickers Wing Knibbs

Kelvin E

Savage and Azeez need a break as they're just not contributing atm and can be used as impact subs. Not saying this will work but it gives us more width and a stronger presence in midfield with Craig and Hutch. Vickers, Wing and Knibbs should have enough about them to get the ball in the Kelvin up front.
This could also be used in a 4-3-3

Button

Abrefa Abbey Dean NGW

Craig Hutch Wing

Vickers Kelvin E Knibbs

[Millsy]

Ok a more serious note why are they called Leyton Orient when they're based in the UK?

Surely should be Leyton Occident.