Thoughts v Reading

Fox27 said:
Not giving him the ball is fine as long as Kelly then passes between the lines into the space that Cantwell has created. Unfortunately, Lloyd seems devoid of any sort of confidence, is slow driving out and then stops. For me it’s that bit which is stifling the attack. Playing short, across, backwards, forwards is fine if it is done at pace as it starts to draw the opposition and create space behind. I’m less sure it’s the tactics rather than the execution?
Click to expand...
Said on quote earlier . Phillips exactly the same with Lerma. He ignored Lermas run to play to the full back . It’s as if they are told not to play the ball down the middle
 
kirsikka said:
It wasn't the sub, it was the change in tactical setup.

First half Lerma was pushed forward alongside Cantwell. He even got a rather nice assist up there!

The sub could have left the system alone, with Christie filling the Cantwell role. Instead, Parker withdrew Lerma to a more defensive role.

I won't criticise him for trying it as there is arguable logic there.
Click to expand...

Apologies if this has already been added, I'm catching up on the thread...

The change also had a mind on the fact that around the half an hour mark, Reading tweaked their system to have someone a lot tighter to Lewis Cook. Not quite man-marking him, but very nearly so. Up to that point, everything was going through Cook and he was dictating our play brilliantly.

Dropping Lerma back meant that we hypothetically had another option centrally to keep play ticking.

That was the idea behind the switch anyway I think.
 
bpl234 said:
Said on quote earlier . Phillips exactly the same with Lerma. He ignored Lermas run to play to the full back . It’s as if they are told not to play the ball down the middle
Click to expand...

I’m not sure they are told not to play down the middle. It requires a modicum of jeopardy and as one of the guys sat next to me last night, that Kelly only ever takes the least risky ball (for him). It was a good point.
 
tucktoncherry said:
Ah the good old days...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1503861006270873604
Click to expand...

Two goals from shooting outside of the box and one from just inside and wide.....

A cross from one player to two in the box, not three wide to one in the box.....

One player with the confidence and will to drive forward at their central defence...

Players with smiles on their faces.......

We never, never shoot from outside the box.........criminal
 
Energy levels seemed to drop drastically. I watched Jeff for a while and he was sauntering for periods when you needed him to be closing down or, dare I say it, running with the ball.
We looked overwhelmed for long periods with tired and wretched passing.
Credit to Reading. Their wide play and crosses and set plays were first class and almost universally dangerous. Barring the first few minutes I never felt we imposed ourselves on them and failed to push them into making errors. Such an inexplicable surrender.
 
whilst it was fun & he contributed to a great goal, I did feel jeff was being somewhat wasted playing more forward. he is so effective & more involved when further back.
 
AFCBmattjamr said:
The saddest thing imo is I was buzzing to have three home games in a week and 2/3 of them were actually painful watch.
Honestly we'd be better off with anyone else as a manger for the last 10 games just to see us over the line
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to think the same, awful display last night and can't he see that some players just aren't consistent enough, and he still keeps playing them!
 
AFCB_Liam said:
Strange thing is I don't this is an unlikeable team (like a lot of the relegated team became).

Christie, Solanke, Lerma, Stacey, Cook, Travers, Anthony all put in an absolute shift week after week. I don't think it's a bunch of prima donnas, it's just the formation and the tactics are all wrong and seems to be finding a way to get the worst out of a very talented squad.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%
 
The team have to play like robots. No one can change anything on the pitch. Or so it seems.

If it continues we'll lose the talent and creativity of Cantwell.
 
wingsnwheels said:
OK we are second in the league with games in hand over just about everyone and their dog. Do we really deserve to be there? I'm tending to think not, we have been fortunate that teams who have been on good runs and start tailgating us for second place have had periods of poor results and fallen away. We can't rely on other team's results to keep us where we are, we need to play looking as if we really want that second place.
Click to expand...
Like it or not we are second because we deserve to be there. You may as well ask if Fulham deserve to be top, or Peterborough bottom. Whether we'll stay is another issue. I did think yes but after last night.

Still, I'm ready for Huddersfield.
 
What‘s Parker attempting to do once the match is underway? We have periods of attacking play (like the first 10 last night), then go in our shells, with negative, lateral or backward passing. As the interesting Dorset Live report has it, “as is if a light had gone out”. This happens so regularly that it can’t be coincidence. Does he have a strategy of containment - score and retreat in the hope of collecting the points? Is it about conserving energy? Is it about re-setting the rigid formation he seems to like, with wingers pinned to the touchline and a single striker upfront?

Whatever the intention, it brings the opposition into play, increases their confidence and - like last night - invites them onto our back four. Interviewed after the match, week by week Parker is unable to explain his tactics, the set-up and the team‘s glaring shortcomings. Anyone heard anything from him that accounts for these patterns of play? Is there some sort of logic?
 
langham said:
What‘s Parker attempting to do once the match is underway? We have periods of attacking play (like the first 10 last night), then go in our shells, with negative, lateral or backward passing. As the interesting Dorset Live report has it, “as is if a light had gone out”. This happens so regularly that it can’t be coincidence. Does he have a strategy of containment - score and retreat in the hope of collecting the points? Is it about conserving energy? Is it about re-setting the rigid formation he seems to like, with wingers pinned to the touchline and a single striker upfront?

Whatever the intention, it brings the opposition into play, increases their confidence and - like last night - invites them onto our back four. Interviewed after the match, week by week Parker is unable to explain his tactics, the set-up and the team‘s glaring shortcomings. Anyone heard anything from him that accounts for these patterns of play? Is there some sort of logic?
Click to expand...

I don't think the issue last night was negative unproductive possession. In fact that's what we needed in that second half to turn the tide in the game.
 
Agree with a lot of comments on here.

In addition we look like a mentally fragile team to me, confidence gets knocked very easily and we most likely (am assuming, but clearly don't know this for sure) don't have the leaders to drag us through, which results in a collective drop off in performance, territory, energy etc.

For what it's worth I think we need Cahill on the pitch, partner him with Phillips and give Kelly a rest. Too much of our game is dictated by a very casual approach from Kelly.

Formation won't change, Parker will stick to his principles but I really think 4-4-2 and back to basics might be worth a shot.

UTCIAD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;