Opposition fans back from the game - 24/25 page 225 onwards

[windermere_royal]

Last post on the Boro forum

On another day we would have won, minus the two goals I thought we were the much better side

[From Despair To Where?]

Last post on the Boro forum

On another day we would have won, minus the two goals I thought we were the much better side

I like Boro and think they are a good, attacking team but they created next to nothing. It's the classic "look at the possession stats, we must have been better" argument. When I think of possession football at Reading, I think of Tommy Burns, Brendan Rodgers and Nigel Adkins, pretty passing triangles going absolutely nowhere. Give me fast, flowing, counter attacking football any day of the week.

[Lenny The Tramp]

Despair, agree that quick counter (with swift, purposeful passing) is much more exciting. But I think out defensive power just nullified everything for Boro in the final third. They've cut open a few teams with that style this season and we made them look toothless.

Liking your avatar by the way. Saw PIL at Sub 89 the other day. Very good.

[Royalwaster]

There are narrow margins in football matches though - they didn't have a couple of chances and if they'd gone in we'd probably be talking a completely different game. I'm thinking in particular of the header that was misplaced and the shot from distance that just missed the post - don't think Al H would have saved either of those if they'd gone in ..... on the other hand, I can think of several similar chances that we had, so maybe my argument doesn't hold water after all ...

[JC]

There are narrow margins in football matches though - they didn't have a couple of chances and if they'd gone in we'd probably be talking a completely different game. I'm thinking in particular of the header that was misplaced and the shot from distance that just missed the post - don't think Al H would have saved either of those if they'd gone in ..... on the other hand, I can think of several similar chances that we had, so maybe my argument doesn't hold water after all ...

Sa had 2 golden opportunites. The one that was headed off the line was actually a scuffed shot. He hit it into the ground where a clean strike would almost certainly have gone in. He and Mcshane both had free headers that they could have converted.

[Pepe the Horseman]

There are narrow margins in football matches though - they didn't have a couple of chances and if they'd gone in we'd probably be talking a completely different game. I'm thinking in particular of the header that was misplaced and the shot from distance that just missed the post - don't think Al H would have saved either of those if they'd gone in ..... on the other hand, I can think of several similar chances that we had, so maybe my argument doesn't hold water after all ...

Sa had 2 golden opportunites. The one that was headed off the line was actually a scuffed shot. He hit it into the ground where a clean strike would almost certainly have gone in. He and Mcshane both had free headers that they could have converted.

Harsh. A clean strike would have probably sailed over the bar. He hit it into the ground to keep it down.

[TFF]

don't think Al H would have saved either of those if they'd gone in

nods

[tidus_mi2]

There was also the situation where Sa didn't pass it to a player who would have been clean through on goal, possibly Blackman.

[Pepe the Horseman]

That was to do with the fact that Hello John passed it to Sa instead of Blackman.

[From Despair To Where?]

What I was getting at was that for all their possession (63% according to the BBC), they had 6 shots. We had 14 shots. I think the Boro fan was confusing dominating possession with being the better side. They may have had almost twice as much of the ball, be we created over twice as many chances. It's not about possession of the ball, it's about what you do, or are allowed to do with it.

[CountryRoyal]

There are narrow margins in football matches though - they didn't have a couple of chances and if they'd gone in we'd probably be talking a completely different game. I'm thinking in particular of the header that was misplaced and the shot from distance that just missed the post - don't think Al H would have saved either of those if they'd gone in ..... on the other hand, I can think of several similar chances that we had, so maybe my argument doesn't hold water after all ...

Sa had 2 golden opportunites. The one that was headed off the line was actually a scuffed shot. He hit it into the ground where a clean strike would almost certainly have gone in. He and Mcshane both had free headers that they could have converted.

Harsh. A clean strike would have probably sailed over the bar. He hit it into the ground to keep it down.

Agree with this. Same with headers, in the box they are taught to head/volley down, as it makes it harder to defend. Yes it takes the pace off the effort but it makes trying to judge where it will come off the ground harder. No complaints at all with his shot, just good defending having a man back on the line. Overall that was a decent passage of play from both sides. (Apart from their left back who got turned too easily by Blackman, even if it was a nice bit of skill)

[windermere_royal]

Just had a read through the Boro forum and have to say it`s like a breath of fresh air to me, no abuse and name calling unlike a couple of London/SE forums I could mention. just a realisation that they came up against a very good Reading side on the day.

Overall, it's not a terrible catastrophe. We're still second and only two points off the top. We can't afford to lose against promotion rivals again though. I do give credit to Reading because they're a very good side and I fully expect that to be in the hunt for promotion this season, they got out of the blocks quickly and executed a good game plan

[PremAddict]

What I was getting at was that for all their possession (63% according to the BBC), they had 6 shots. We had 14 shots. I think the Boro fan was confusing dominating possession with being the better side. They may have had almost twice as much of the ball, be we created over twice as many chances. It's not about possession of the ball, it's about what you do, or are allowed to do with it.

Agreed and it's the same with most sports: Time of possession, first downs, steals, rebounds, hits, runners left on base, shots on goal. Who cares. The only stat that matters is the score at the end.

[Extended-Phenotype]

It's the same pcunts responsible for those that gave us the 'assist'.

The most bogus shit-flan of a stat going.

[NewCorkSeth]

Its not about how much you've got, its what you do with it. The possession game has failed as much as it succeeded. Bodgers once said that having loads of possession is great because it means the opposition cant play. Clearly this footballing myth needs to be amended. Imo it can be foolish to pursue possession as we've seen under Adkins. The players were so intent on keeping the ball they didn't know what to do with it.

[Nameless]

It's the same pcunts responsible for those that gave us the 'assist'.

The most bogus shit-flan of a stat going.

It's 50% more valid than the half assist though...

Of course Brentford have based their whole philosophy around detailed statistical analysis and have proved that it is indeed the way to achieve long term success.

[Forbury Lion]

Last post on the Boro forum

On another day we would have won, minus the two goals I thought we were the much better side

I like Boro and think they are a good, attacking team but they created next to nothing. It's the classic "look at the possession stats, we must have been better" argument. When I think of possession football at Reading, I think of Tommy Burns, Brendan Rodgers and Nigel Adkins, pretty passing triangles going absolutely nowhere. Give me fast, flowing, counter attacking football any day of the week.

+1
Brian McDermot actually said his side was built to perform that way and letting the opposition have possession in areas where they can not do you damage was acceptable.

[melonhead]

What I was getting at was that for all their possession (63% according to the BBC), they had 6 shots. We had 14 shots. I think the Boro fan was confusing dominating possession with being the better side. They may have had almost twice as much of the ball, be we created over twice as many chances. It's not about possession of the ball, it's about what you do, or are allowed to do with it.

and where that possession is.

passing around your back 4 and keeper for 90 mins will win you bugger all

[melonhead]

Bodgers once said that having loads of possession is great because it means the opposition cant play

tbf to him, that bit of the philosophy is actually correct.

[MoorgateRoyal]

I see both sides of the possession argument.

When you have the ball, the other team are always less dangerous. However, when you get to the final third, you need to make the chances you get count.

Counter-attacking football isn't always kick and run. Sometimes it is just having less of the ball, but having it in the right areas and taking your chances when you get them. We did that to 'Boro, but we also played the ball on the floor and held it when possible.

Ultimately, you need a pragmatic approach to possession. Sometimes you'll have all of the ball but will be contained and have no chances. Other times, you can pass the ball around the other team without much hassle and create lots of chances.

Stats are designed to be objective records of things that can be quantified. There's no 'quality' stat after each game. Breaking them down into areas of the pitch help paint a picture but they still don't point out a deft touch or great run to open space and create a chance. People interpret stats in their own way.