Reading (H)

[Tombwfc]

25 minutes ago, barrycowdrill said:

Can see why Schuey did make like for like changes but can also see the argument of changing shape and trying to see the game out. 
 

But it’s not as though we were under a barrage of pressure and riding our luck. The team just sat off and allowed Reading to be a bit more adventurous. Going Like for like he probably just thought by replacing the leggy players with fresh ones keeping the same formation, we would wrestle control back by keeping the ball better again like the previous 70 minutes or so. 
 

the ball doesn’t loop in and it’s a totally different conversation today and his changes are being applauded. It’s one of them 

 

Reading were on top for the five/ten minutes prior to scoring. So it wasn't a total fluke. We'd lost control of the game. And of course, if Burstow's shot had hit the defender and gone wide we wouldn't have scored either. We were shit in that final 20mins and got punished for it.

[gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Casino said:

better striker won't make any difference if youre right the wingers can't pick the pass

Exactly.

Burstow was in acres of space plenty last night pointing in front of him. As he even said, send it and I'll be there. 

Dubs and Cissoko decided to drive in to near post and shoot instead.

Can't take that willingness from Dubs game but christ not every single time. He's like a under 7s player who's the best player on the pitch.

The one time he found Burstow we scored.

Even the pundit during first half said get the ball in quicker. 

[Tombwfc]

1 hour ago, Wanderlust said:

A lot of folk were writing Reading off before the match, predicting daft scorelines and viewing it as if everything our players were going to do would come off and that Reading would fold.

It pisses me off, but tbh bigging us up and dismissing the opposition happens almost every week. It wouldn’t be so bad if the same people were honest about where we are at in terms of our development, recognising our weaknesses and areas in need of improvement - and also the vagaries of a football match where it can turn on a bad decision, bad referee or a worldy out of the blue. And then they’re angry and look for individual players, refs and in Evatt’s case, managers to blame when we don’t win by a landslide every week.

Evatt had more than a fair share of opportunities to get us promoted and no doubt Schumacher will be given the same, but there will always be teams with bigger budgets, always be teams fighting for survival and always be the randomness of events during a game of football to contend with.

At least we are entertained every game, but I wish folk would stop counting their chickens before every game. 

 

There are also four or five posts on here referencing that we could or should be on 12 points now. We lost one game 2-0 and scored a late equaliser against 10-men in another. So it's not just pre-match we're being overrated.

[Rizlar]

SS needs to have a word with our wingers get the ball in the box stop going for glory and we will win this league.

[desperado]

2 minutes ago, boltonboris said:

I mean last season under Schumacher. I feel like we’re almost a good team and I don’t know if it’s mentality, or still not having good enough players in key areas, but we’ve been nearly men too often 

I think it’s harsh folk jumping on yours and others opinions who are frustrated and concerned. You’re hardly writing us off for the season or giving up on us, just offering thoughts on why you are concerned, which after a relatively poor start, which none of us wanted or predicted, is not ridiculously misplaced.

Going off his interview yesterday I suspect SS isn’t too far away from agreeing with you! 

But I’ll try and put the alternative case over to you which hopefully will allay your concerns, or at least give you some hope that the tide will turn soon.

Going off your points, I don’t think it’s mentality, SS has gone big on trying to  get rid of those who were frail and  keep those he trusts. And the players he’s brought in all look like they have a bit more grit about them, in particular Erhahon and Simons, which will be required moving forward.

These two and the other newbies are all still really fresh. It’s been a massive overhaul and while patience is understandably thin after last season, it’s not magically going to click into goals, results and  performances. This will improve week by week, either with this squad or with a couple more additions.

But there’s plenty in our play and approach to be positive about. New exiting players, new approach, looking comfortable with and without the ball, a good spine, some toughness about us that we’ve not had for years.

Like you say, we’re almost a good team. It won’t take much to tip the scale into that coming to fruition. 

[thebells]

49 minutes ago, barrycowdrill said:

Can see why Schuey did make like for like changes but can also see the argument of changing shape and trying to see the game out. 
 

But it’s not as though we were under a barrage of pressure and riding our luck. The team just sat off and allowed Reading to be a bit more adventurous. Going Like for like he probably just thought by replacing the leggy players with fresh ones keeping the same formation, we would wrestle control back by keeping the ball better again like the previous 70 minutes or so. 
 

the ball doesn’t loop in and it’s a totally different conversation today and his changes are being applauded. It’s one of them 

Completely agree @barrycowdrill. Seen a lot of talk about the subs and them being like for like.

Players have been coached a system. Changing shape after 70 mins, to play a system they don't train for, is highly risky. At this level, i doubt many managers will change shape and system at 1-0 up. SS did the right thing last night, and the players who went off needed to be taken off. They got a deflected goal from one of the very few errors we made. It happens! Bigger issue to sort is at the other end, where we need to kill teams off when dominating. But that will come over time as this team gels, new and returning players get fitter, and a couple of new faces come in.

We'll be reet.

[ianofcleveleys]

32 minutes ago, Casino said:

better striker won't make any difference if youre right the wingers can't pick the pass

Spot on, they're all back frothing on Twitter about 'we're not clinical enough, sign a 20 goal striker' because we only scored 1 last night. Harry Kane wouldn't score 20 for us unless the wingers learn to get their head up and play a colleague in. 

Burstow would have most likely had 4 in 4 by now and the topic be dead if he hadn't been pulled back at Stockport and he'd been played in when in open space at least twice last night and v Plymouth. 

[thebells]

31 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

There are also four or five posts on here referencing that we could or should be on 12 points now. We lost one game 2-0 and scored a late equaliser against 10-men in another. So it's not just pre-match we're being overrated.

I'm one of those that said that. And it's based purely on performance. Results come from doing things right consistently. So we 'could' have 10 or 12 points and, based on performances, i think we should. However, we aren't yet doing everything right consistently.

But we also aren't far off. It's easy, and lazy, to look at results in isolation. If we're still dropping points after 10-12 games in the same manner, i'll be inclined to agree with the more pessimistic side of this forum. Until then, I've seen enough to say we aren't far off from it clicking and us putting a string of good results together.

Feel free to put me in my place in mid October, but i think by then we will be in the top 6, and not far off top 2. 

[Burndens Bogs]

99 times out of 100 we win that game last night, just a freakish set of circumstances led to their equaliser.

The deflection and loop over our keepers head very rarely happens.

We always needed that 2nd goal that never came.

[barrycowdrill]

45 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

Reading were on top for the five/ten minutes prior to scoring. So it wasn't a total fluke. We'd lost control of the game. And of course, if Burstow's shot had hit the defender and gone wide we wouldn't have scored either. We were shit in that final 20mins and got punished for it.

Hence the reason he went like for like. To drag the team further up the pitch with fresh legs and get the ball again.  They’d all sat off which resulted in Reading getting more of a foot hold and territory. Whether that was a conscious decision or due to tiredness or a thought the game was won who knows. 
 

when your under pressure and you make changes to the formation and say for example go 4-3-3 there’s also the argument that you compound the situation and make the pressure on you even greater as you then can’t get out to relieve it as your extra midfielders just blocks a gap in a defensive set up 

not all substitutions will work but I don’t think pinning the fact we conceded a goal on which ones he made is justified. 

Edited August 21, 2025 by barrycowdrill

[marple whites]

The delivery let us down massively last night.

time after time we didn’t beat the first man, or hit it too long.

Good strikers need decent balls into the box and that is what we are failing with at the moment.

the flurry of late changes certainly made us worse.  The midfield 2 were dominating and Randell and burscow worked tirelessly.

if we were 2 or 3 up I get a few changes, but at 1-0 with 10 left you stick with what’s working, take your 3 points and then make changes to Saturdays squad.  Play and win 1 game at a time - don’t need to try and be clever.

overall we are moving the ball better and faster - but ultimately we aren’t converting that into goals so the end result is the same as last season.

 

 

[Ani]

33 minutes ago, barrycowdrill said:

Hence the reason he went like for like. To drag the team further up the pitch with fresh legs and get the ball again.  They’d all sat off which resulted in Reading getting more of a foot hold and territory. Whether that was a conscious decision or due to tiredness or a thought the game was won who knows. 
 

when your under pressure and you make changes to the formation and say for example go 4-3-3 there’s also the argument that you compound the situation and make the pressure on you even greater as you then can’t get out to relieve it as your extra midfielders just blocks a gap in a defensive set up 

not all substitutions will work but I don’t think pinning the fact we conceded a goal on which ones he made is justified. 

I do think it is justified.

Reading changed how they were playing and gradually got on top. The subs can be criticised simply because they did not work. The 2 in midfield were being swamped. We had very little ball and the defence had no time on the ball when we had it. 
 

Of course changing the formation might not have helped but if you can not win possession changing your left winger , centre forward and number 10 is not likely to solve that. We all got fed up with IE doing the same thing and hoping for different results. 
 

It is not as though we would be bringing squad fillers in with Morley and Sheehan. In 2 of the four games we have played we have been on top but when their manager changed things round we have not reacted and we got 1 point from those games. On Saturday Eranhon played left side of midfield Morley could do same on the right. 
 

The more I see the more I think the biggest need we have is a more dynamic player in the 10 role. Neither JR or JM do enough in games to convince me the job suits them. 

The biggest positive I have is that we are heading in the right direction and a couple of small tweaks could see us go on a very good run 

 

[Eddie]

ACD got played through about 2 minutes after we’d scored, he decided to take the shot on with his right foot and pulled it wide. If he’d have played a simple square ball to Burstow then it would have been 2-0 and game over. However, that directness and selfishness is also part of what makes him so dangerous and if he could find the balance of a better final ball vs shooting then he wouldn’t be playing in L1.

Our wingers will be the reason why win on far more occasions than why we don’t.

On the subs point. I agree that the players that came off had to. Personally I’d have brought Morley on for Randall and given one of the 3 CMs the specific job of stopping their No.4, who changed the game for them. He was the issue down that right hand side 5/10 mins before our subs and poor Conway currently has no sufficient back up when his legs are gone. He was a sitting duck and I’m not sure why one of the subs wasn’t specifically aimed at helping him out - they really didn’t have much else and Forino/GJ had mopped anything up that was more direct all game.

Robust and dynamic whites are currently in gelling mode - you don’t want to be playing us from October.

Edited August 21, 2025 by Eddie

[deeane Koontz]

It looked as if the shoot on sight bit got slightly too contagious yesterday 

[desperado]

31 minutes ago, marple whites said:

The delivery let us down massively last night.

time after time we didn’t beat the first man, or hit it too long.

Good strikers need decent balls into the box and that is what we are failing with at the moment.

the flurry of late changes certainly made us worse.  The midfield 2 were dominating and Randell and burscow worked tirelessly.

if we were 2 or 3 up I get a few changes, but at 1-0 with 10 left you stick with what’s working, take your 3 points and then make changes to Saturdays squad.  Play and win 1 game at a time - don’t need to try and be clever.

overall we are moving the ball better and faster - but ultimately we aren’t converting that into goals so the end result is the same as last season.

 

 

Good summary pal. Agree with the majority of that.

There’s only the penultimate paragraph I disagree with you on.

While you make the valid point that the subs didn’t make us better yesterday, we’d lost the initiative before the subs. Erhahon, Burstow and Randall were all tiring and were becoming less effective. It was right to replace them. The subs being less effective is a separate debate I think.  

[gonzo]

Up the sturdy and energetic whites.

[Whitesince63]

2 hours ago, Stig said:

He definitely needed to make the subs, the questions on here are could he have made them a bit earlier and could he have changed the team shape slightly to counter their threats? Not major formation change but maybe Morley for Randall to give us 3 in midfield or even a midfielder out left for Cissoko as a more defensive option to help Conway as the threat was coming down his side.

These suggestions are obviously with the benefit of hindsight, but what I liked when SS first came in was that he would make these tactical tweaks mid game. I'm hoping he keeps that flexibility because I was fed up with Evatt's like for like subs for the last few years.

Sorry but what tactical tweaks did SS make last night because all I saw was like for like when actually a tactical tweak was exactly what was needed? We were ahead we didn’t need another goal so instead of bringing on known weak players like Sheehan, Gale and McAtee and a totally unfit Dalby to the same positions why not shut up shop because even after their subs Reading were still poor? I agree we needed to sub tired players but Schu got it completely wrong for me and cost us the two points.

[ianofcleveleys]

38 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Robust and dynamic whites are currently in gelling mode - you don’t want to be playing us from October.

We are, and SS has engineered a lot more surgery to the squad than many of us would have envisaged back in May. Two of the first of those new additions have barely kicked a ball yet. A slowish start isn't unexpected if a touch frustrating.

There's certainly scope for more improvement in more positions, and still 10 days or so to do it, but if SS and co do manage to ease out another 2 or 3 and replace them with upgrades they really will have overseen a major and rapid turnaround. Some more gelling may be  needed, over another month or two, before it all takes full and lasting shape. Hopefully the rest of the season will be one of sustained progress. 

Edited August 21, 2025 by ianofcleveleys

[gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

Sorry but what tactical tweaks did SS make last night because all I saw was like for like when actually a tactical tweak was exactly what was needed? We were ahead we didn’t need another goal so instead of bringing on known weak players like Sheehan, Gale and McAtee and a totally unfit Dalby to the same positions why not shut up shop because even after their subs Reading were still poor? I agree we needed to sub tired players but Schu got it completely wrong for me and cost us the two points.

Shut up shop how?

Go 5 at the back?

Imagine the furore

[thebells]

6 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

Sorry but what tactical tweaks did SS make last night because all I saw was like for like when actually a tactical tweak was exactly what was needed? We were ahead we didn’t need another goal so instead of bringing on known weak players like Sheehan, Gale and McAtee and a totally unfit Dalby to the same positions why not shut up shop because even after their subs Reading were still poor? I agree we needed to sub tired players but Schu got it completely wrong for me and cost us the two points.

Nobody in the stadium (that i heard) questioned the subs at the time.

It was so obvious players were tiring, and we'd lost control of the game around the 70 min mark.

Reading scored from a deflected shot! They didn't threaten at all apart from that, even when we'd lost control of the game. 

Would your summary of the subs have been the same if we'd won 1-0 and they hadn't scored a deflected goal?

[Leyther_Matt]

6 minutes ago, thebells said:

Nobody in the stadium (that i heard) questioned the subs at the time.

It was so obvious players were tiring, and we'd lost control of the game around the 70 min mark.

Reading scored from a deflected shot! They didn't threaten at all apart from that, even when we'd lost control of the game. 

Would your summary of the subs have been the same if we'd won 1-0 and they hadn't scored a deflected goal?

What if we hadn’t scored a deflected goal?

[Whitesince63]

1 minute ago, thebells said:

Nobody in the stadium (that i heard) questioned the subs at the time.

It was so obvious players were tiring, and we'd lost control of the game around the 70 min mark.

Reading scored from a deflected shot! They didn't threaten at all apart from that, even when we'd lost control of the game. 

Would your summary of the subs have been the same if we'd won 1-0 and they hadn't scored a deflected goal?

We didn’t win though did we and I don’t think one person on here has claimed the substitutions actually made us better so we won’t know what we would have said if we’d won would we? Good coaches change teams shape all the time to react to the situation and the opposition but last night Schu didn’t change anything just stayed like for like. If you’re saying that we should never make tactical switches to see out a game then I think you’re in the small minority of muppets on here who think the same. It’s a coaches job to tweak things and change the course of what’s happening and whilst I’ve absolutely no doubt that SS thought he was doing the right thing with his changes in hindsight it’s obvious he wasn’t.

[thebells]

11 minutes ago, Leyther_Matt said:

What if we hadn’t scored a deflected goal?

Nobody knows! But as the point here is about the subs, I can only ask him about what happened after that point, not before!

[desperado]

26 minutes ago, thebells said:

Nobody in the stadium (that i heard) questioned the subs at the time.

It was so obvious players were tiring, and we'd lost control of the game around the 70 min mark.

Reading scored from a deflected shot! They didn't threaten at all apart from that, even when we'd lost control of the game. 

Would your summary of the subs have been the same if we'd won 1-0 and they hadn't scored a deflected goal?

Good post.

You mentioned in an earlier post about Conway. It was arguably the only thing he “got wrong” all night and what happens… we go and get punished! 

All ifs and buts, but if he intercepts that pass, Gale is front of him and we’re away 4v3. Two nil instead of 1-1 wouldn’t have been unfair and arguably a just scoreline for what had gone on in the previous 80 mins.

And as for our deflected goal @Leyther_Matt it was just one of our 20 efforts. We need to do better. But the least we deserved I think.

I’m pretty sure it was Reading’s only shot on goal. Just typical of things at the moment that it flies in with a deflection over the keeper. 
 

Edited August 21, 2025 by desperado

[thebells]

9 minutes ago, Whitesince63 said:

We didn’t win though did we and I don’t think one person on here has claimed the substitutions actually made us better so we won’t know what we would have said if we’d won would we? Good coaches change teams shape all the time to react to the situation and the opposition but last night Schu didn’t change anything just stayed like for like. If you’re saying that we should never make tactical switches to see out a game then I think you’re in the small minority of muppets on here who think the same. It’s a coaches job to tweak things and change the course of what’s happening and whilst I’ve absolutely no doubt that SS thought he was doing the right thing with his changes in hindsight it’s obvious he wasn’t.

"...you're in the small minority of muppets..." - and this is why I shan't waste any more breath having a 'discussion' with you.

Amazes me how people can't engage in grown up discussion without throwing out insults.