by I was there at Elm Park » 03 Oct 2009 19:24
03 Oct 2009 19:24On the other hand if McAnuff had scored just after half time the game would have been over. We just about deserved to win on Tuesday, it was not a vintage performance and you could still see our weaknesses which unfortunately have reared their ugly head again today!Terminal Boardom wrote:
And how many times on Tuesday night did Fed pull off an important save or they hit the post or bar? Being realistic and objective (which for HNA will be a novelty), what could the final score have been Tuesday?
by John Madejski's Wallet » 03 Oct 2009 19:26
03 Oct 2009 19:26^^^ ThisRoyalBlue wrote:Where's the fitness?
by Terminal Boardom » 03 Oct 2009 19:27
03 Oct 2009 19:27But there was no pressure on them at all today. The atmosphere was at best flat. No-one getting on the players backs. It was like a library.Archie's penalty wrote:Well they could have got another three goals but we could have had another two - so 4-4Terminal Boardom wrote:And how many times on Tuesday night did Fed pull off an important save or they hit the post or bar? Being realistic and objective (which for HNA will be a novelty), what could the final score have been Tuesday?Archie's penalty wrote:Wasn't there today but it's obvious the same problems are there from last year. We were great away then and poor at home.
If some of you had been to Preston you would have seen a completely different performance.
F*ck knows how we're going to sort it out at home. We need a win soon but our away form should see us into mid-table.
But that was Tuesday. Next game, same line up, shambolic attempt. WTF is going on? Where's the motivation? Where's the passion?![]()
I really don't know how it could be so different in four days, but it could have something to do with the motivation factor, and the fact that there is so much pressure on them to do well at the Madejski.
See my Jekyll and Hyde thread.
by Archie's penalty » 03 Oct 2009 19:30
03 Oct 2009 19:30It's a mystery to me as well mate. As it was last year. *Throws up his hands in frustration.*Terminal Boardom wrote: But there was no pressure on them at all today. The atmosphere was at best flat. No-one getting on the players backs. It was like a library.
You swapped out two motherboards before checking the memory? Sounds like you made some poor tactical decisions on subs. What'd you do, phone BR for advice?strap wrote:Bloody hell, was it really as bad as you're all suggesting? 9 out of 10 messages suggest we're absoutely dire. Speak the whole match trying to repair my laptop that went tits up on me, and only managed a few snippets from BBRB pre- and post-match.
Oh, and the laptop? After swapping over 2 motherbaords, found out it was just a loose memeory module. Not sure if that was more of a waste of an afternoon than being at the Mad House?!
Think we're in the poo. Phone call to SSC I think Mr Mad.
^^^ THIS.Schards#2 wrote:Just shit, just absolute shit. There is simply nothing positive to take from that garbage.
Yet again, Rodgers changes make the team perform worse with immediate effect, you have to seriously question whether this guy has the first idea of what he is doing or whether he's the managerial equivalent of that bloke who blagged a game for Southampton by pretending he was George Weah's cousin.
At no stage did we look like being anything other than soundly beaten by an out of form side and, end the end, we got off lightly at 2-0
The interesting thing is that if most other clubs' supporters were witnessing what we are having too, they would have been on the backs of manager, players and board a long, long, time ago. Reading fans have shown an incredible amount of restraint at games to date but I suspect that it won't be too long before this starts to change, unless we start to see some wins.coyrls wrote:Well, he's lost the crowd; the indifference was overwhelming.
by weybridgewanderer » 03 Oct 2009 19:46
03 Oct 2009 19:46Watching form the north stand we didn't have a shot on target till the 89th minuteIan Royal wrote:Stats on RW had us with 5 shots on first half. Surprised to see Floyd say we didn't have one 'til the 90th.
weybridgewanderer wrote:Watching form the north stand we didn't have a shot on target till the 89th minuteIan Royal wrote:Stats on RW had us with 5 shots on first half. Surprised to see Floyd say we didn't have one 'til the 90th.
were RW reproting shots or shots on target?
We had about 2 shots in the 44 minutes of the second half before we finally had a shot on target
by holsgrove breaks a leg » 03 Oct 2009 19:49
03 Oct 2009 19:49Their goalie made his first save at 89.40 minutes.Ian Royal wrote:weybridgewanderer wrote:Watching form the north stand we didn't have a shot on target till the 89th minuteIan Royal wrote:Stats on RW had us with 5 shots on first half. Surprised to see Floyd say we didn't have one 'til the 90th.
were RW reproting shots or shots on target?
We had about 2 shots in the 44 minutes of the second half before we finally had a shot on target
Had us with 5 on target and 6 off target first half, then about 3 all second half for both combined. Although by that point I wasn't really paying much attention anymore.
by The Real Sandhurst Royal » 03 Oct 2009 19:51
03 Oct 2009 19:51by weybridgewanderer » 03 Oct 2009 19:56
03 Oct 2009 19:56Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 300 guests