F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Where fellow sufferers gather to share the pain, longing and unrequited transfer requests that make being a Wanderer what it is...

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
boltonboris
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 14101
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by boltonboris » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:20 am

CAPSLOCK wrote:Indeed

High risk passes are often the high reward ones and sometimes need to be attempted

Especially when your team isn't packed with 'footballers'

What you don't want is high risk passes with a potentially low return
Not really high risk 70 yards up the pitch. It's Timothy the defensive 'creator' I worry about.
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"

EverSoYouri
Reliable
Reliable
Posts: 673
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:01 am

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by EverSoYouri » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:52 am

CAPSLOCK wrote:Indeed

High risk passes are often the high reward ones and sometimes need to be attempted

Especially when your team isn't packed with 'footballers'

What you don't want is high risk passes with a potentially low return

For example, volleyed cross-field back heel just outside your own box, like JayJay did v Manchester United, (which sent SA apoplectic!) :oyea:

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 28832
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:19 am

boltonboris wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:It wasn't terrible, they were definitely trying with more awareness than of recent years, but the pass selection was frequently poor - Chungy in particular lost the ball four or five times by trying and failing to turn his man rather than laying off to a bystanding team-mate.
I can forgive Chungy for this personally. Now I know everyone lives a cliched 'play the simple pass' I sometimes think its a load of bollocks.

Every team should have one or two players with the license to affect the game by ignoring the simple things. Ultimately those players win you more games than they lose.

Nothing more frustrating than seeing a good player move a 5 yard square pass just for the sake of it. What's it going to achieve?
Oh I agree, Boz, I get bored watching unpenetrative tiki-taka, but that's not what I'm suggesting. There were a couple of instances in which Chungy was double-marked, with Clayton unattended five yards to the side and Vela free five yards behind him, in which case the sensible option was to lay off and move. Instead, Chungy tried to turn inside, ran into a wall of opponents, lost the ball and Reading were on the front foot. Trust me, if you'd been that full-back, you'd have had a go at him.

There were also a couple of cases in which, by excellence of movement, he found himself running at the defence with space to play a pass into - to Feeney, or Clayton, or whichever centre-forward was on at the time - but didn't select the right option, or didn't execute it well enough.

I admire Chungy, by the way: this isn't a character assassination. He made some things happen in a way no other (fit, current) Bolton player could, and which must have made Prats rub his eyes. I'm just saying that he's far from immune to what I see as our next big problem: choosing which pass to make. We're now having majority possession and look much more solid (notwithstanding Caps' correct concerns on crosses), but we lack a cutting edge and it's not entirely down to inefficiency of taking chances: we should have made more chances too.

Chungy wasn't alone in making the wrong choices: in the second half, Clayton was gingerly progressing toward goal when Vela powered past him on an excellent unchecked overlap, but Max held on to the ball instead of laying it into Josh's path. Vela threw his hands up in the air in exasperation, not look-at-me vainglory but an opportunity missed. It's not as if we're lethal in chance conversion, but I also think we're missing a lot of opportunities by not creating them.

Enoch
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:08 pm
Location: The Garden of England.

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by Enoch » Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:30 am

This thread title didn't seem to deliver the expected result.

I'm not convinced thread titles really affect match results if I'm honest.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by thebish » Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:46 am

Enoch wrote:This thread title didn't seem to deliver the expected result.

I'm not convinced thread titles really affect match results if I'm honest.
^ meanwhile, in one devastating and shattering blow....

:D

jaffka
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8439
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: uk

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by jaffka » Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:17 am

Such innocence!

Whatever next will be learnt?

The world isn't flat...no!!!

F**k me!

Armchair Wanderer
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1925
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:36 am

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by Armchair Wanderer » Mon Dec 08, 2014 12:38 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:Chungy wasn't alone in making the wrong choices: in the second half, Clayton was gingerly progressing toward goal when Vela powered past him on an excellent unchecked overlap, but Max held on to the ball instead of laying it into Josh's path. Vela threw his hands up in the air in exasperation, not look-at-me vainglory but an opportunity missed. It's not as if we're lethal in chance conversion, but I also think we're missing a lot of opportunities by not creating them.
Thought I might have been a bit harsh when I noticed something similar in the Huddersfield game... but if someone else noticed it that makes me feel better :) Being played out-of-position and not wanting to cross is fine, but please hit it to a fullback if they join you on the wing!
The players you fail to sign never lose you any money.

boltonboris
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 14101
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by boltonboris » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:13 pm

Fair enough DSB, but full backs don't overlap so they can receive the ball.

Agree that he can be careless at times (Chungy), but I'd rather him try things..
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 28832
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:44 pm

boltonboris wrote:Fair enough DSB, but full backs don't overlap so they can receive the ball
Tell it to Vela. Or for that matter Pablo Zabaleta.

If you say "Full-backs don't always overlap so they can receive the ball," we might be in agreement...

Beefheart
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2918
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 6:36 pm

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by Beefheart » Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:47 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
boltonboris wrote:Fair enough DSB, but full backs don't overlap so they can receive the ball
Tell it to Vela. Or for that matter Pablo Zabaleta.

If you say "Full-backs don't always overlap so they can receive the ball," we might be in agreement...
Have to say I thought Clayton and Vela worked really well together when he switched to that side, and was impressed generally with Vela defensively he seems to read things well and cut out the danger. He'll get better with more experience in the position. Couldn't help but wonder why we didn't keep Chris Eagles though.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43357
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by TANGODANCER » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:14 pm

Beefheart wrote: Couldn't help but wonder why we didn't keep Chris Eagles though.
Two words: Dougie Freedman.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

boltonboris
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 14101
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by boltonboris » Mon Dec 08, 2014 5:12 pm

Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
boltonboris wrote:Fair enough DSB, but full backs don't overlap so they can receive the ball
Tell it to Vela. Or for that matter Pablo Zabaleta.

If you say "Full-backs don't always overlap so they can receive the ball," we might be in agreement...
Alright, alright.. What I meant was when they go past, they go past with the intention of taking a defender away and letting the winger 1 v 1, or inside.

They should expect that they might receive the ball, but that's not the reason they go up
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by thebish » Mon Dec 08, 2014 5:52 pm

Beefheart wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
boltonboris wrote:Fair enough DSB, but full backs don't overlap so they can receive the ball
Tell it to Vela. Or for that matter Pablo Zabaleta.

If you say "Full-backs don't always overlap so they can receive the ball," we might be in agreement...
Have to say I thought Clayton and Vela worked really well together when he switched to that side, and was impressed generally with Vela defensively he seems to read things well and cut out the danger. He'll get better with more experience in the position. Couldn't help but wonder why we didn't keep Chris Eagles though.
I'm not sure he wanted to stay, did he? maybe I'm misremberising!

User avatar
Dave Sutton's barnet
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 28832
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
Contact:

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by Dave Sutton's barnet » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:20 pm

boltonboris wrote:
Dave Sutton's barnet wrote:
boltonboris wrote:Fair enough DSB, but full backs don't overlap so they can receive the ball
Tell it to Vela. Or for that matter Pablo Zabaleta.

If you say "Full-backs don't always overlap so they can receive the ball," we might be in agreement...
Alright, alright.. What I meant was when they go past, they go past with the intention of taking a defender away and letting the winger 1 v 1, or inside.

They should expect that they might receive the ball, but that's not the reason they go up
Yeah, agreed. Although in this case Clayton was already 1v1 and Vela wasn't being tracked by anyone so it was essentially a free pass - again, wrong selection.

CAPSLOCK
Icon
Icon
Posts: 5790
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:35 am

Re: F*ck these Royals c*nt's arses - Reading (A) 06/12/14

Post by CAPSLOCK » Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:00 am

TANGODANCER wrote:
Beefheart wrote: Couldn't help but wonder why we didn't keep Chris Eagles though.
Two words: Dougie Freedman.
Have another four

Seventeen thousand pounds, Blackpool
Sto ut Serviam

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 125 guests