Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
I don't get it ?
- Thread starter marshy68
- Start date
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
I accept that I'm probably in the minority on this but I thought our midfield play in the first half was quite good. The final ball was poor but from where I was sitting (south stand) we were exploiting the space we were creating quite well. Just a shame Dave's crosses were poor. Was impressed with Lingard too I have to say.
DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I said the same thing to my mate at the time. Perhaps if we'd started with that front line we wouldn't have been in the predicament we were.- Thread starter
- #5
Have to agree starting with 3 wide attacking players on the bench doesn't seem right to me!
1 of them wasn't going to get on so why bother?
Brighton Mod
Its All Too Beautiful
Good work rate and laid the ball off well, but had his chance to get away and bottled it in favour of not taking the man on and playing the safe backwards ball. I expected more from him in terms of heading for goal, looked exhausted after that run. Not dismissing him just was looking for more.
It would seem the new blue print is:-
- Be rock solid in defense.
- Nick a one goal lead.
- Then attack them in the last 30 minutes.
We're able to exploit the space the opposition have to leave while pushing for an equalizer.
As well as stopping them from all out attack.
- Be rock solid in defense.
- Nick a one goal lead.
- Then attack them in the last 30 minutes.
We're able to exploit the space the opposition have to leave while pushing for an equalizer.
As well as stopping them from all out attack.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Who actually promised it?
WHAT!!! You mean attack teams from the off
Maybe get a goal or two in front without the need for penalties or own goals to help us?? tutut......Defend defend defend .......that's the answer
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,221
We were woeful throughout. Reading moved the ball with far more purpose and tho I've not looked up the stats Reading must easily have had a couple of dozen shots off target. If they could have hit a cow's arse with a banjo the score would have been about 5-1 as a minimum. Just won't do. 
Sergei's Celebration
Well-known member
It probably has something to do with Reading pushing further up the field and take the win, so we then had a better chsnce on the counter attack with more space on their back line for Ulloa to exploit.
Footsoldier
Banned
- May 26, 2013
- 2,904
I said the same in the match day thread before the game started. Should play at least two wingers and take the game to the opposition. Our line up at home seems most of the time that we're the away team. Makes no sense to me what so ever.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
We were woeful throughout. Reading moved the ball with far more purpose and tho I've not looked up the stats Reading must easily have had a couple of dozen shots off target. If they could have hit a cow's arse with a banjo the score would have been about 5-1 as a minimum. Just won't do.
Any team that plays with ten men against a top six side i wouldn't call woeful throughout....just my opinion like
DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
But we were utter toilet with 11 men too.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,221
We were woeful when we had eleven men on the pitch IMHO. Seriously, in no way is that anywhere NEAR play-off form.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
ah well thats a tad different...40 mins with 10...during which time i saw it differently...
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,221
