Oli Winton's View - a fair one I think

User avatar
Platypuss
Hob Nob Moderator
Posts: 8203
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 21:46
Location: No one cares about your creative hub, so get your fukcin' hedge cut

by Platypuss » 25 Sep 2006 22:38

Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.

User avatar
alad
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 517
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:37
Location: The footballing equivalent of a HarLOLem GLOLobetrotter..

by alad » 25 Sep 2006 22:39

Alan Partridge
alad
Alan Partridge
alad
Alan Partridge
alad It's a fair report. Reading never threatened and only had one 'chance' in the whole game. They played to stop United, not to win a football match.

The fact the best Reading players were defenders say it all.


That's utter rubbish.

We tried to win the game, we started up 4-4-2 and tried to take the game to them. The fact is Man Utd have far better players than us and are a far better side, they restricted us and dominated the game as they will against nearly every side in this division, including teams that are better than us.

But to say we didn't try to win the game is utter nonsense.


I'm not having ago, as it worked and the job was done.


If you'd have said once it went to 1-1 that Reading tried to hang on for a point you would then be right, but to suggest we didn't try and win the game at the start is nonsense.

Oh and your fishing again!! :lol: :wink:


Let's be fair, Sidwell and Harper may aswell have played in defence, as they never crossed the half way line except for corners.

.


:lol: Ok I'll play along

James 'the crab' Harper never does anyway and Sidwell was stopped from doing that after the first half when Scholes was finding tons of room in front of our defense. He was going to win it for Man Utd so second half Sidwell stuck on him and he was slightly less effective.

United are too good a side for us to bomb on gung ho and leave tons of gaps.

Don't like unfair criticism of our side, even if it is wriggling away! :lol:

We can't be criticised in any way for the Man Utd game. :mrgreen:


I felt Reading could have won the game, especially at 1-0. The players need to have more self confidence and belief and go for it. If you sit back you invite pressure.

User avatar
Alan Partridge
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 7368
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 13:25
Location: In a daft little ground, watching a silly game so fcuk off

by Alan Partridge » 25 Sep 2006 22:39

alad
The Goat was fed Seem to recall the away side on Saturday played with only one up front.

Very adventurous. Presumably 4-4-2 was too risky against a team with our home record?


Formations mean very little at this level as top sides change shape during a game. The fact United dominated possession and chances are proof of this.


The fact Utd dominated posession is because they are a world class side with world class players and we are not. They did not dominate chances, unless shots from Ronaldo that threatened JM up in the directors box count as chances?

Mr Optimist
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2134
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 13:31
Location: Colwyn Bay Royals - Membership no.000001,

by Mr Optimist » 25 Sep 2006 22:41

I like the "we support our local team" comment. It is perfectly true...

I was reading the report of the match in the NOTW and did anyone else see the Your Shout question to some of the Man Yoo fans at the game?

Duncan Savage - Seaford
Eamonn Ruane - Leeds (?)
Richard Heathcote - Bordon
Shaun Hollis - Plymouth
Rob Graham - Watford
Peter Gimpsuit - Henley

When they sing United Road do you think they actually have a clue where OT is?

User avatar
Alan Partridge
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 7368
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 13:25
Location: In a daft little ground, watching a silly game so fcuk off

by Alan Partridge » 25 Sep 2006 22:42

alad
Alan Partridge
alad
Alan Partridge
alad
Alan Partridge
alad It's a fair report. Reading never threatened and only had one 'chance' in the whole game. They played to stop United, not to win a football match.

The fact the best Reading players were defenders say it all.


That's utter rubbish.

We tried to win the game, we started up 4-4-2 and tried to take the game to them. The fact is Man Utd have far better players than us and are a far better side, they restricted us and dominated the game as they will against nearly every side in this division, including teams that are better than us.

But to say we didn't try to win the game is utter nonsense.


I'm not having ago, as it worked and the job was done.


If you'd have said once it went to 1-1 that Reading tried to hang on for a point you would then be right, but to suggest we didn't try and win the game at the start is nonsense.

Oh and your fishing again!! :lol: :wink:


Let's be fair, Sidwell and Harper may aswell have played in defence, as they never crossed the half way line except for corners.

.


:lol: Ok I'll play along

James 'the crab' Harper never does anyway and Sidwell was stopped from doing that after the first half when Scholes was finding tons of room in front of our defense. He was going to win it for Man Utd so second half Sidwell stuck on him and he was slightly less effective.

United are too good a side for us to bomb on gung ho and leave tons of gaps.

Don't like unfair criticism of our side, even if it is wriggling away! :lol:

We can't be criticised in any way for the Man Utd game. :mrgreen:


I felt Reading could have won the game, especially at 1-0. The players need to have more self confidence and belief and go for it. If you sit back you invite pressure.


Well now you make a fair point......finally.

Noises from the players and staff afterwards backed that up, they were gutted that they didn't win having been in front. United HAD to go at them and with the 4 strikers they had on at the end they were always going to be dominant in that area, Ronaldo came up with a bit of class and we got done. That's the way it goes.

I think this game will give them that belief and it will be interesting to see how we geton in the next couple of home games that are against similar opposition.


User avatar
alad
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 517
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:37
Location: The footballing equivalent of a HarLOLem GLOLobetrotter..

by alad » 25 Sep 2006 22:43

Platypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.


I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed. If a team dominates a game and has 10 shots go wide by an inch, yet the other team has 1 shot on target which team would you consider to have looked more threatening?

*The above stats are an example and do not reflect the game Saturday*
Last edited by alad on 25 Sep 2006 22:44, edited 1 time in total.

starbug
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: 22 Jun 2006 09:01

by starbug » 25 Sep 2006 22:44

I wonder what else Oli can see with his Red spectacles on, I get the feeling he has also missed Chelsea winning the title the last 2 seasons :lol:

The Goat was fed
Member
Posts: 407
Joined: 10 May 2004 15:59
Location: Looking a right tool on TV

by The Goat was fed » 25 Sep 2006 22:46

alad
The Goat was fed Seem to recall the away side on Saturday played with only one up front.

Very adventurous. Presumably 4-4-2 was too risky against a team with our home record?


Formations mean very little at this level as top sides change shape during a game. The fact United dominated possession and chances are proof of this.


Thank you for the football education. I didn't realise formations mean very little at this level. How stupid of me. Clearly it's proof that the hatful of goals and chances the away side created was in the finest tradition of this wonderful side. Not. Apologies on behalf of the Reading team for having the nerve to grace the pitch with you. I'm sure Steve Coppell will learn that he too must change the team's shape if we are ever to be considered a top side.

Thank Goodness. I thought for one minute there might be a condescending Man United fan on this site....

User avatar
Sam Tubber
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 16 Apr 2006 10:38
Location: On a jibbing jamboree

by Sam Tubber » 25 Sep 2006 22:46

RA posts a balanced assessment of Saturday's game and you all wet yourselves. Reading FootbaLOLLOL CLOLub. :lol:


User avatar
72 bus
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2148
Joined: 16 Mar 2005 11:01

by 72 bus » 25 Sep 2006 22:47

alad
The Goat was fed Seem to recall the away side on Saturday played with only one up front.

Very adventurous. Presumably 4-4-2 was too risky against a team with our home record?


Formations mean very little at this level as top sides change shape during a game. The fact United dominated possession and chances are proof of this.


And they still could not beat Reading, 4-5-1 says it all, no bottle

MrMadMax
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 21:56
Location: The Centre of Everywhere

by MrMadMax » 25 Sep 2006 22:53

Ronaldo wan't that great either. I remember he kept miss hitting his long range shots, which went well over the bar. What that guy kept saying about him ripping Reading apart was rubbish- anyway i thought Murty did very well agains him. Sonko was world class aswell, that tackle on the half way line was great!

User avatar
alad
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 517
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:37
Location: The footballing equivalent of a HarLOLem GLOLobetrotter..

by alad » 25 Sep 2006 22:57

The Goat was fed
alad
The Goat was fed Seem to recall the away side on Saturday played with only one up front.

Very adventurous. Presumably 4-4-2 was too risky against a team with our home record?


Formations mean very little at this level as top sides change shape during a game. The fact United dominated possession and chances are proof of this.


Thank you for the football education. I didn't realise formations mean very little at this level. How stupid of me. Clearly it's proof that the hatful of goals and chances the away side created was in the finest tradition of this wonderful side. Not. Apologies on behalf of the Reading team for having the nerve to grace the pitch with you. I'm sure Steve Coppell will learn that he too must change the team's shape if we are ever to be considered a top side.

Thank Goodness. I thought for one minute there might be a condescending Man United fan on this site....


United were very much like Arsenal, plenty of possession but very little penetration, although they created the majority of the chances. No one can argue with that. It's also proof that despite the different formations the teams deployed, only one side really went at it. It was clear that despite United's dominance, they weren't on top form and the game was there for the taking.

I apologise for expressing a view that you don't agree with :mrgreen:

BallRoyal
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 00:20
Location: Bristol

Oli

by BallRoyal » 25 Sep 2006 22:59

Can't be bothered to read all posts on this thread, but Oli, you seem to have a little bit of sour-grapes mate.
Agreed Man utd played pretty fast attacking football, but realistically apart from Ronaldo, your team weren't much better than any team I saw at the Mad last season.
It pleases me that Man Utd didn't know how to break down a pretty solid unit. Bring on the other big teams.
By the way Iam not a newbie, just changed my username.


Millsy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10058
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: Running from The Left

by Millsy » 25 Sep 2006 23:01

alad
Platypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.


I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed. If a team dominates a game and has 10 shots go wide by an inch, yet the other team has 1 shot on target which team would you consider to have looked more threatening?

*The above stats are an example and do not reflect the game Saturday*


Wow, such a passionate and woefully biased supporter of Man Utd.

Nice to know I sometimes miss out on wathcing my beloved hometown club by one who's loyalties are divided.

We support our local club.

User avatar
alad
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 517
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:37
Location: The footballing equivalent of a HarLOLem GLOLobetrotter..

by alad » 25 Sep 2006 23:02

2 world wars, 1 world cup
alad
Platypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.


I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed. If a team dominates a game and has 10 shots go wide by an inch, yet the other team has 1 shot on target which team would you consider to have looked more threatening?

*The above stats are an example and do not reflect the game Saturday*


Wow, such a passionate and woefully biased supporter of Man Utd.

Nice to know I sometimes miss out on wathcing my beloved hometown club by one who's loyalties are divided.

We support our local club.


Incorrect on all counts son :mrgreen:

User avatar
Platypuss
Hob Nob Moderator
Posts: 8203
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 21:46
Location: No one cares about your creative hub, so get your fukcin' hedge cut

by Platypuss » 25 Sep 2006 23:03

alad
Platypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.


I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed.


Not an argument, just an observation.

quiet here, isn't it?

User avatar
alad
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 517
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:37
Location: The footballing equivalent of a HarLOLem GLOLobetrotter..

by alad » 25 Sep 2006 23:04

Platypuss
alad
Platypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.


I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed.


Not an argument, just an observation.

quiet here, isn't it?


RA will be most pleased, this will be upto 5 pages by tomorrow :mrgreen:

User avatar
Huntley & Palmer
Hob Nob Moderator
Posts: 4424
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 11:02
Location: Back by dope demand

by Huntley & Palmer » 25 Sep 2006 23:06

Have you been relegated to assistant fisherman? :wink:

User avatar
alad
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 517
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:37
Location: The footballing equivalent of a HarLOLem GLOLobetrotter..

by alad » 25 Sep 2006 23:07

Hung up my rod awhile back, just speak sense now :mrgreen:

User avatar
reading_fan
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 733
Joined: 11 May 2004 10:32
Location: Birmingham

by reading_fan » 25 Sep 2006 23:23

alad
Platypuss Still struggling to think if more than 3 shots on target though. Please help.


I expected better from you. Your arguement is flawed. If a team dominates a game and has 10 shots go wide by an inch, yet the other team has 1 shot on target which team would you consider to have looked more threatening?

*The above stats are an example and do not reflect the game Saturday*


Correct alad, but you have to admit that many of the shots from Ronaldo (in particular) were speculative at best, particularly when flying high and wide over the bar - the weakest part of his game on Saturday I thought, in an otherwise very good performance from him

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 482 guests

It is currently 26 Apr 2024 02:11