The countdown to Ian Harte scoring 10+ league goals

[Big Foot]

Ian Harte, best ever Reading FC left back.

[Victor Meldrew]

Ian Harte, best ever Reading FC left back.

[Big Foot]

Ian Harte, best ever Reading FC left back.

Certainly better than Shorey.

[facaldaqui]

His pace still causes us problems, because he is spectacularly slow and we don't have much anywhere else accross the back. This means that the defence gets pulled out of position regularly covering for him when someone beats him. Because he can't even keep up well enough to try and put them off let alone hold them up or tackle them.

His set piece delivery in recent games ('Boro excepted) has also not been up to his best by a long way. We all know (Ideal excepted) he's a class player who can really deliver... but he also gives us a pretty big weakness when he isn't on the top of his game and there's a decent winger with any amount of pace up against him.

2 goals and an assist does not cancel out all the poor things he's done this season. It does mean he's not worth writing off as useless no matter what though. 8 goals is a brilliant return, even if, well especially because most are freekicks... seeing as we don't have another fk goalscorer really.

Players at this level are imperfect. Harte lacks in pace but makes up with it in goals and in reading of the game. That freekick against Everton was inches away from being genius. People assume McDermott just bought Harte to replace Williams, but in my opinion he bought him also to replace a part of Gylfi's contribution. If we were playing a faster left back than Harte, would he have saved, made, and scored more goals this season than Harte has saved, scored, and made? He might have saved more, but the rest? Harte isn't the only one who makes mistakes in our defence--yes, we've let in five in our last two league games, but none of those were down to Harte. In general, our defensive record isn't too bad; so I am happy to give McDermott the benefit of the doubt on Harte.

[Big Foot]

His pace still causes us problems, because he is spectacularly slow and we don't have much anywhere else accross the back. This means that the defence gets pulled out of position regularly covering for him when someone beats him. Because he can't even keep up well enough to try and put them off let alone hold them up or tackle them.

His set piece delivery in recent games ('Boro excepted) has also not been up to his best by a long way. We all know (Ideal excepted) he's a class player who can really deliver... but he also gives us a pretty big weakness when he isn't on the top of his game and there's a decent winger with any amount of pace up against him.

2 goals and an assist does not cancel out all the poor things he's done this season. It does mean he's not worth writing off as useless no matter what though. 8 goals is a brilliant return, even if, well especially because most are freekicks... seeing as we don't have another fk goalscorer really.

Players at this level are imperfect. Harte lacks in pace but makes up with it in goals and in reading of the game. That freekick against Everton was inches away from being genius. People assume McDermott just bought Harte to replace Williams, but in my opinion he bought him also to replace a part of Gylfi's contribution. If we were playing a faster left back than Harte, would he have saved more goals this season than Harte has been responsible for letting in, plus the ones Harte has scored? Harte isn't the only one who makes mistakes in our defence--yes, we've let in five in our last two league games, but none were down to Harte. In general, our defensive record isn't too bad. I am happy to give McDermott the benefit of the doubt on Harte.

^^ This

[Snowball]

Players at this level are imperfect. Harte lacks in pace but makes up with it in goals and in reading of the game. That freekick against Everton was inches away from being genius. People assume McDermott just bought Harte to replace Williams, but in my opinion he bought him also to replace a part of Gylfi's contribution. If we were playing a faster left back than Harte, would he have saved, made, and scored more goals this season than Harte has saved, scored, and made? He might have saved more, but the rest? Harte isn't the only one who makes mistakes in our defence--yes, we've let in five in our last two league games, but none of those were down to Harte. In general, our defensive record isn't too bad; so I am happy to give McDermott the benefit of the doubt on Harte.

Agreed.

It would be interesting to list goals down to clangers by any defender. Zurab and Mills and Feds certainly are guilty.

Then there is this vague "Compensating for Harte" makes the rest of the defence play less well.

Yet Harte has played in TEN clean sheets (out of 11) and we've conceded in all the games where he hasn't played

Torquay (0) Scunthorpe (2), Portsmouth (1), Forest (1), Northampton (3), Leicester (1), Bristol (1), Millwall (1) 10 in 8 an average of 1.25 goals per game

32 Games 35 Goals Conceded = 1.09 goals per game conceded with Harte playing. Also scored 7 Goals.
08 Games 10 Goals Conceded = 1.25 goals per game conceded without Harte. Replacement LB scored ZERO goals.

[Ian Royal]

Who's talking about perfect? And for what it's worth I think Harte has played a part in at least two of the goals we've conceeded in the last 4 league games, not including M'bro.

And you are also missing the point totally that Harte is not necessarily directly at fault in a lot of cases (though he is in some), but that his lack of pace and the need for the centrebacks to be able to cover him makes us weaker as a unit.

Is he as bad as some have said recently? No.

Would we be better off with a different player there? Quite possibly.

But I completely agree that one of the reasons he was bought, and plays so much, is the contribution he makes from freekicks... although please note, I do not think he has yet (pre-M'bro) managed a league assist. And to be honest I don't think he's even played a key role in more than about three goals in addition to the seven he has scored. Which by my reckoning puts him around +1 in the for / against stakes.

[Snowball]

Who's talking about perfect? And for what it's worth I think Harte has played a part in at least two of the goals we've conceeded in the last 4 league games, not including M'bro.

And you are also missing the point totally that Harte is not necessarily directly at fault in a lot of cases (though he is in some), but that his lack of pace and the need for the centrebacks to be able to cover him makes us weaker as a unit.

Is he as bad as some have said recently? No.

Would we be better off with a different player there? Quite possibly.

But I completely agree that one of the reasons he was bought, and plays so much, is the contribution he makes from freekicks... although please note, I do not think he has yet (pre-M'bro) managed a league assist. And to be honest I don't think he's even played a key role in more than about three goals in addition to the seven he has scored. Which by my reckoning puts him around +1 in the for / against stakes.

Explain this then, Ian.

32 Games 35 Goals Conceded = 1.09 goals per game conceded with Harte playing. Also scored 7 Goals.
08 Games 10 Goals Conceded = 1.25 goals per game conceded without Harte. Replacement LB scored ZERO goals.

The guy is our second-top scorer fer Chrissakes, and we concede LESS when he plays than when he doesn't.

[Royal Rother]

[Ian Royal]

I doubt it very much.

[RoyalBlue]

I've been a fierce critic of Ian Harte but yesterday was by far the best game I've seen him play for us. Not only was did his deadball execution (with the exception of one really overhit corner) worthy of his reputation but defensively he looked strong, particularly in the air. He also pushed forward well in support of HRK, passed the ball well - the pass to Long for his first was sublime - and his lack of pace wasn't shown up.

Long may it continue.

[West Stand Man]

His pace still causes us problems, because he is spectacularly slow and we don't have much anywhere else accross the back. This means that the defence gets pulled out of position regularly covering for him when someone beats him. Because he can't even keep up well enough to try and put them off let alone hold them up or tackle them.

His set piece delivery in recent games ('Boro excepted) has also not been up to his best by a long way. We all know (Ideal excepted) he's a class player who can really deliver... but he also gives us a pretty big weakness when he isn't on the top of his game and there's a decent winger with any amount of pace up against him.

2 goals and an assist does not cancel out all the poor things he's done this season. It does mean he's not worth writing off as useless no matter what though. 8 goals is a brilliant return, even if, well especially because most are freekicks... seeing as we don't have another fk goalscorer really.

Thank you for reminding me why I have you on my ignore list.

[Snowball]

32 Games 35 Goals Conceded = 1.09 goals per game conceded with Harte playing. Also scored 7 Goals.
08 Games 10 Goals Conceded = 1.25 goals per game conceded without Harte. Replacement LB scored ZERO goals.

The guy is our second-top scorer fer Chrissakes, and we concede LESS when he plays than when he doesn't.

Harte's figures are more interesting when you realise that such a high proportion of conceded goals came in so few games

1-3 Boro (Goal after 24 seconds)
4-3 Doncaster (Defence went AWOL)
3-3 Norwich (Defence went AWOL)
1-3 QPR (Outplayed, bad pen given away by Howard
3-3 Palace (Goal in first couple of minutes)
2-2 Cardiff (Fedders gift to Bothroyd)
5-2 Boro (Another gift and a dumb penalty given away by Mills)

07 Games 19 Goals Conceded
25 Games 16 Goals Conceded, less than two-thirds of a goal per game

[Snowball]

Gylfi got 20 Goals last season, Betrand got 1, Total 21. Strikers got 12+9+2 = 23 Total 44

Long has 19, Harte has 7, total 26 with 12 games to go. Add Strikers 12 = 38/44 with 12 games to go


We are currently 56-41 having scored 9 more goals and conceded 9 less compared to the 35-game position last season 47-50


So not only have we replaced Gylfi's goals, but we have a much better defence and a
GD EIGHTEEN goals better, that's better than half a goal a game, 23 per season.

[Victor Meldrew]

Gylfi got 20 Goals last season, Betrand got 1, Total 21. Strikers got 12+9+2 = 23 Total 44

Long has 19, Harte has 7, total 26 with 12 games to go. Add Strikers 12 = 38/44 with 12 games to go


We are currently 56-41 having scored 9 more goals and conceded 9 less compared to the 35-game position last season 47-50


So not only have we replaced Gylfi's goals, but we have a much better defence and a
GD EIGHTEEN goals better, that's better than half a goal a game, 23 per season.

So how come we are only in 10th position?

[Big Foot]

Ian Harte has got to be player of the season

[Victor Meldrew]

Ian Harte has got to be player of the season

After one good game?
How about HRK being runner up for showing that he MIGHT have a future as a footballer?

[URZZ]

Ian Harte has got to be player of the season

I think Shane Long would cry.

[Ian Royal]

POTS? Ranks as one of the stupidest suggestions on here ever... even as a wind up.

Long & Leigterwood are complete shoe ins ahead of him. And I'd argue that Federici, Karacan, McAnuff & Kebe are all ahead too.

[AthleticoSpizz]

POTS? Ranks as one of the stupidest suggestions on here ever... even as a wind up.

Long & Leigterwood are complete shoe ins ahead of him. And I'd argue that Federici, Karacan, McAnuff & Kebe are all ahead too.

Yes (agree) Ian

But would you not consider Harte for Motm yesterday at least?