Which was worse

Is this really the worst period watching Reading in 40 years

Watching Jaap’s “plan”
24
52%
Watching Ian’s hoofball
3
7%
Watching Tommy’s nothingness
8
17%
Watching Terry’s clue hunt
11
24%
 
Total votes: 46
Hound
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6254
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: Which was worse

by Hound » 13 Jan 2018 22:17

Lower West wrote:
Hound wrote:
Lower West wrote:To be a true supporter one needs to be eternally optimistic. There's a foundation of a good team for the future. Could be far far worse.


Of course it could. But it could, and should, be so much better


Perhaps your expectations of some of the players is too high then.


Not just my expectation looking at our wage bill

User avatar
tmesis
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1480
Joined: 16 Aug 2013 20:26

Re: Which was worse

by tmesis » 13 Jan 2018 22:46

I think there have been plenty of much worse teams than the current one.

I don't think there's ever been one more boring though - well at least not in the 30 years or so that I've been going.

When you combine boring football with poor results, you do start to question why you even bother going to the games.

SpaghettiHoop
Member
Posts: 390
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 13:53

Re: Which was worse

by SpaghettiHoop » 13 Jan 2018 23:39

Have we forgotten Rodgers, Adkins and Clarke?

User avatar
Caversham Royal
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 19:16
Location: Still somewhere in Caversham.....

Re: Which was worse

by Caversham Royal » 14 Jan 2018 02:20

Things are extremely poor at the moment but none of those options, for me, are as bad as the period of having Clarke in charge. Still, again for me......., the worst Reading manager in the 20+ years I've supported them. But having said that, it doesn't take away from how awful our current plight is.

Mr Optimist
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2214
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 14:31
Location: Colwyn Bay Royals - Membership no.000001,

Re: Which was worse

by Mr Optimist » 14 Jan 2018 09:28

Sorry Spizz because I normally agree with you but the last 12 months of Ian's hoofball was worse than Ian porterfield's two years old mid table meh.

People tolerate hoofball if the results come and there seems to be a plan, the right personnel and there is 100% commitment shown by limited battlers. When that is replaced by clueless hoofball by players massively out of their depth and with no redeeming features, passion, commitment etc, and a manager with disdain for the supporters, that is worse. At least under Porterfield, helped by cameos from better quality loan players at the time, we managed to string a few passes together passing the ball on the floor, and not with it coming down with snow on it.

I think that McGhee would've taken a lot longer to get our 92-94 side playing the way it did if it wasn't for the two year shift in style of play by Porterfield directly beforehand, so for that reason alone I would cut Mr Porterfield's reign some slack.


Top Flight
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3913
Joined: 02 Jun 2006 22:46

Re: Which was worse

by Top Flight » 14 Jan 2018 10:44

I have never been more bored watching Reading FC than I am now. I think it is more than Stam and his football that makes me feel like that though.

I am optimistic however that it wouldn't take a lot of tweaking and we can be a side challenging for the goodies again. We are not far away. The Championship is so tight that a small change can make a huge difference.

AthleticoSpizz
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 21280
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 19:49
Location: A Hicks Hoof from Coley Park

Re: Which was worse

by AthleticoSpizz » 14 Jan 2018 14:57

Mr Optimist wrote:Sorry Spizz because I normally agree with you but the last 12 months of Ian's hoofball was worse than Ian porterfield's two years old mid table meh.

People tolerate hoofball if the results come and there seems to be a plan, the right personnel and there is 100% commitment shown by limited battlers. When that is replaced by clueless hoofball by players massively out of their depth and with no redeeming features, passion, commitment etc, and a manager with disdain for the supporters, that is worse. At least under Porterfield, helped by cameos from better quality loan players at the time, we managed to string a few passes together passing the ball on the floor, and not with it coming down with snow on it.

I think that McGhee would've taken a lot longer to get our 92-94 side playing the way it did if it wasn't for the two year shift in style of play by Porterfield directly beforehand, so for that reason alone I would cut Mr Porterfield's reign some slack.
no worries Mr O, we all see (and recall things) differently sometimes....all interpretations are welcome.

The game and the way we view it has changed since the IP days.....the further I think back, the bleaker it can sometimes seem...justifiably or not. One things for sure, nobody (other than Jaap) is happy watching us at the moment. Thankfully, I’ve not quite reached the Rodgers boredom levels (of reading my match day programme cover to cover mid game) just yet.....getting close tho’ :wink:

User avatar
Ascotexgunner
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1635
Joined: 07 Jan 2012 17:23
Location: Ascot

Re: Which was worse

by Ascotexgunner » 14 Jan 2018 17:01

For me this is worse. I go back to the days of Charlie Hurley and rightly as many say, we have seen some awful football, but for me this is the worst for the simple reason that we create bugger all and we score bugger all, I would rather we played hooferball than this.....

User avatar
tmesis
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1480
Joined: 16 Aug 2013 20:26

Re: Which was worse

by tmesis » 14 Jan 2018 17:21

SpaghettiHoop wrote:Have we forgotten Rodgers, Adkins and Clarke?

I never saw us win a league game under Rodgers, being away for the win v Blackpool, but back then we still had some decent players, and it wasn't as dull as it is now.

Adkins' era was quite dull, but again, not a bad as this.

There was certainly a spell under Clarke where goals were similarly in short supply, but at least the team showed a sense of urgency at times. The slow pace under Stam is a real killer.


Maybe Stam is suffering from us being ground down by a succession of dull managers, and we've hit the point where patience has worn so thin for many that it's snapped. It's got to the point where fans expect games to be boring, with no atmosphere, and probably no goals either.


Denver Royal
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 959
Joined: 02 Jun 2004 10:58
Location: Between Emmer Green duck pond and The White Horse

Re: Which was worse

by Denver Royal » 14 Jan 2018 18:16

tmesis wrote:Maybe Stam is suffering from us being ground down by a succession of dull managers, and we've hit the point where patience has worn so thin for many that it's snapped.


Well, maybe. And if true, it doesn't sound too enticing for prospective new hire's, does it? Which is partly why I question the wisdom of us keep chopping and changing managers, because when we do, its not long before the boo-boys start up again.

I mean, whatever you think of Stam, it was utterly ludicrous to me for the 'In/Out' thread to be started eight games in to this season. What if other managers hear about that? Plus they see what I quoted you on above, and you wonder if they'd really want to come here, or at least they might think twice about it.

Another thing that worries me is the boo-boys rarely offer up a list of candidates, who are available and would really want to come here, and who they know for sure would play 'exciting' footy.

Hound
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6254
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: Which was worse

by Hound » 14 Jan 2018 18:44

Denver Royal wrote:
tmesis wrote:Maybe Stam is suffering from us being ground down by a succession of dull managers, and we've hit the point where patience has worn so thin for many that it's snapped.


Well, maybe. And if true, it doesn't sound too enticing for prospective new hire's, does it? Which is partly why I question the wisdom of us keep chopping and changing managers, because when we do, its not long before the boo-boys start up again.

I mean, whatever you think of Stam, it was utterly ludicrous to me for the 'In/Out' thread to be started eight games in to this season. What if other managers hear about that? Plus they see what I quoted you on above, and you wonder if they'd really want to come here, or at least they might think twice about it.

Another thing that worries me is the boo-boys rarely offer up a list of candidates, who are available and would really want to come here, and who they know for sure would play 'exciting' footy.


Most people commented at the time it was ludicrous to start an in/out thread. It’s certainly going to stop any potential managers coming here

There’s always an extreme on social media. I suspect many clubs are far far worse than us.

TBH Readings fans are a pretty gentle bunch. We’ve been utter dog poo for the last month and against Brentford even if we lose there’ll be no more than an odd chant, a few boos and a lot of sighing

Mid Sussex Royal
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1042
Joined: 02 Nov 2008 18:56

Re: Which was worse

by Mid Sussex Royal » 14 Jan 2018 19:09

I would say the season before last - Clarke/Mcdermott was worse than this - unless we go down of course.

Victor Meldrew
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6061
Joined: 12 Apr 2005 19:22
Location: South Coast

Re: Which was worse

by Victor Meldrew » 14 Jan 2018 19:33

I agree with those that say this is the most boring - last season when he implemented the system it was fine (with the unexpected but ultimately very disappointing finale) because we thought it would evolve from "pass and watch" to "pass and move". and passing for passing's sake is pointless especially with some of the worst passers having so much of the ball.
Unfortunately the "move" bit just hasn't happened.

The rubbish in the past was rubbish produced by journeymen lower division players-the rubbish now is produced by international players and for that reason is unforgivable as well as being sterile with no end product.

If Stam wants to play a passing game then he and his players should study the sides that work so hard to make space and move the ball at pace.
This side is lazy with players happy to pass on responsibility to somebody else and then just stand and watch that player or point.
The side lacks drive ( as well as concentration) with everybody expecting somebody else to take responsibility which leads to so little creativity in midfield and slow and dangerous play at the back.

Stam probably has this season left as long as we don't get dragged into the bottom 3 - the natives are restless but mainly non-reactive because of being bored to tears and Stam is a very lucky man that he is not managing a side in any of the hotbeds of football as the whispers that come from our very subdued supporters would be 10 or 20 times louder and he would be receiving much more in terms of personal abuse.


User avatar
Gunny Fishcake
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1223
Joined: 04 Nov 2005 13:41
Location: West Berkshire

Re: Which was worse

by Gunny Fishcake » 14 Jan 2018 19:55

Without doubt the most boring load of shite seen in my long lifetime supporting the club.....yes we’ve been so much worse regarding football ability but at least we had a bit of fun losing and had a go .

User avatar
From Despair To Where?
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10201
Joined: 19 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: With grace we will suffer, with grace we shall recover

Re: Which was worse

by From Despair To Where? » 14 Jan 2018 20:19

AthleticoSpizz wrote:
Mr Optimist wrote:Sorry Spizz because I normally agree with you but the last 12 months of Ian's hoofball was worse than Ian porterfield's two years old mid table meh.

People tolerate hoofball if the results come and there seems to be a plan, the right personnel and there is 100% commitment shown by limited battlers. When that is replaced by clueless hoofball by players massively out of their depth and with no redeeming features, passion, commitment etc, and a manager with disdain for the supporters, that is worse. At least under Porterfield, helped by cameos from better quality loan players at the time, we managed to string a few passes together passing the ball on the floor, and not with it coming down with snow on it.

I think that McGhee would've taken a lot longer to get our 92-94 side playing the way it did if it wasn't for the two year shift in style of play by Porterfield directly beforehand, so for that reason alone I would cut Mr Porterfield's reign some slack.
no worries Mr O, we all see (and recall things) differently sometimes....all interpretations are welcome.

The game and the way we view it has changed since the IP days.....the further I think back, the bleaker it can sometimes seem...justifiably or not. One things for sure, nobody (other than Jaap) is happy watching us at the moment. Thankfully, I’ve not quite reached the Rodgers boredom levels (of reading my match day programme cover to cover mid game) just yet.....getting close tho’ :wink:


1990-91 was the season Porterfield put me off football. The last straw was an insipid 1-0 loss to Bolton. I vowed never to watch another game whilst he was in charge. Little did I know the club couldn't afford to sack him and it took 2 months, a new owner and a drink drive conviction to see the back of him.

That season, particularly after Christmas, was just awful beyond words. We got about 15 points and scored about 10 goals in out last 20 league fixtures and that included McGhee's first game in charge when we beat Hull.
Last edited by From Despair To Where? on 14 Jan 2018 20:21, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tmesis
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1480
Joined: 16 Aug 2013 20:26

Re: Which was worse

by tmesis » 14 Jan 2018 20:20

Denver Royal wrote:
tmesis wrote:Maybe Stam is suffering from us being ground down by a succession of dull managers, and we've hit the point where patience has worn so thin for many that it's snapped.


Another thing that worries me is the boo-boys rarely offer up a list of candidates, who are available and would really want to come here, and who they know for sure would play 'exciting' footy.

I don't think that's the big issue that commentators like to make out it is.

How many Reading managers, after all, have been ones that fans would have named as likely candidates before getting the job?

Other than McDermott's 2nd stint at the club, I actually can't think of many. Nobody would have suggested Stam would have come here. Nobody would have thought about Clarke. Adkins, maybe at a push. If anyone named Rodgers, it would purely have been due to being an ex-player. Coppell wouldn't have been thought of, nor Pardew, Tommy Burns, Bullivant of Mark McGhee. Porterfield, certainly not, and not Ian Branfoot either.

It makes sense for the top clubs, where you will be picking from a small set of established elite managers, but we aren't in that boat. It's just become a radio phone-in cliche in response to fans saying a manager should be sacked.

Hound wrote:Most people commented at the time it was ludicrous to start an in/out thread. It’s certainly going to stop any potential managers coming here

I think the odds of potential managers checking out social media forums for how early fans started discussing sacking the previous manager, aren't that high.

AthleticoSpizz
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 21280
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 19:49
Location: A Hicks Hoof from Coley Park

Re: Which was worse

by AthleticoSpizz » 14 Jan 2018 20:27

From Despair To Where? wrote:
AthleticoSpizz wrote:
Mr Optimist wrote:Sorry Spizz because I normally agree with you but the last 12 months of Ian's hoofball was worse than Ian porterfield's two years old mid table meh.

People tolerate hoofball if the results come and there seems to be a plan, the right personnel and there is 100% commitment shown by limited battlers. When that is replaced by clueless hoofball by players massively out of their depth and with no redeeming features, passion, commitment etc, and a manager with disdain for the supporters, that is worse. At least under Porterfield, helped by cameos from better quality loan players at the time, we managed to string a few passes together passing the ball on the floor, and not with it coming down with snow on it.

I think that McGhee would've taken a lot longer to get our 92-94 side playing the way it did if it wasn't for the two year shift in style of play by Porterfield directly beforehand, so for that reason alone I would cut Mr Porterfield's reign some slack.
no worries Mr O, we all see (and recall things) differently sometimes....all interpretations are welcome.

The game and the way we view it has changed since the IP days.....the further I think back, the bleaker it can sometimes seem...justifiably or not. One things for sure, nobody (other than Jaap) is happy watching us at the moment. Thankfully, I’ve not quite reached the Rodgers boredom levels (of reading my match day programme cover to cover mid game) just yet.....getting close tho’ :wink:


1990-91 was the season Porterfield put me off football. The last straw was an insipid 1-0 loss to Bolton. I vowed never to watch another game whilst he was in charge. Little did I know the club couldn't afford to sack him and it took 2 months, a new owner and a drink drive conviction to see the back of him.

That season, particularly after Christmas, was just awful beyond words. We got about 15 points and scored about 10 goals in out last 20 league fixtures and that included McGhee's first game in charge when we beat Hull.
I’m staying out of this :wink:

But ✔️

Hound
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6254
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: Which was worse

by Hound » 14 Jan 2018 20:34

tmesis wrote:
Denver Royal wrote:
tmesis wrote:Maybe Stam is suffering from us being ground down by a succession of dull managers, and we've hit the point where patience has worn so thin for many that it's snapped.


Another thing that worries me is the boo-boys rarely offer up a list of candidates, who are available and would really want to come here, and who they know for sure would play 'exciting' footy.

I don't think that's the big issue that commentators like to make out it is.

How many Reading managers, after all, have been ones that fans would have named as likely candidates before getting the job?

Other than McDermott's 2nd stint at the club, I actually can't think of many. Nobody would have suggested Stam would have come here. Nobody would have thought about Clarke. Adkins, maybe at a push. If anyone named Rodgers, it would purely have been due to being an ex-player. Coppell wouldn't have been thought of, nor Pardew, Tommy Burns, Bullivant of Mark McGhee. Porterfield, certainly not, and not Ian Branfoot either.

It makes sense for the top clubs, where you will be picking from a small set of established elite managers, but we aren't in that boat. It's just become a radio phone-in cliche in response to fans saying a manager should be sacked.

Hound wrote:Most people commented at the time it was ludicrous to start an in/out thread. It’s certainly going to stop any potential managers coming here

I think the odds of potential managers checking out social media forums for how early fans started discussing sacking the previous manager, aren't that high.


Sorry that meant to say ....certainly NOT going to....

There would be a stack of managers who would come here no doubt about it

User avatar
leon
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 17443
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:18
Location: Hips, Lips, Tits, Power

Re: Which was worse

by leon » 14 Jan 2018 22:01

tmesis wrote:
Denver Royal wrote:
tmesis wrote:Maybe Stam is suffering from us being ground down by a succession of dull managers, and we've hit the point where patience has worn so thin for many that it's snapped.


Another thing that worries me is the boo-boys rarely offer up a list of candidates, who are available and would really want to come here, and who they know for sure would play 'exciting' footy.

I don't think that's the big issue that commentators like to make out it is.

How many Reading managers, after all, have been ones that fans would have named as likely candidates before getting the job?

Other than McDermott's 2nd stint at the club, I actually can't think of many. Nobody would have suggested Stam would have come here. Nobody would have thought about Clarke. Adkins, maybe at a push. If anyone named Rodgers, it would purely have been due to being an ex-player. Coppell wouldn't have been thought of, nor Pardew, Tommy Burns, Bullivant of Mark McGhee. Porterfield, certainly not, and not Ian Branfoot either.

It makes sense for the top clubs, where you will be picking from a small set of established elite managers, but we aren't in that boat. It's just become a radio phone-in cliche in response to fans saying a manager should be sacked.

Hound wrote:Most people commented at the time it was ludicrous to start an in/out thread. It’s certainly going to stop any potential managers coming here

I think the odds of potential managers checking out social media forums for how early fans started discussing sacking the previous manager, aren't that high.


Excellent post.

That said we would need options lined up before doing anything, to avoid a month of pissing points away whilst we were drifting, rudderless.

Oh hold on. That’s what we’re doing now.

Denver Royal
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 959
Joined: 02 Jun 2004 10:58
Location: Between Emmer Green duck pond and The White Horse

Re: Which was worse

by Denver Royal » 14 Jan 2018 22:55

Hound wrote: There would be a stack of managers who would come here no doubt about it


Is that why we have hired some dross in our time...because we were spoilt for choice ? :)

Tell me, why did we hired Stam then? Because, here's what we would have known:

Very young, first-time manager, foreign, never managed in this division, or even in this country, was bound to make a ton of rookie mistakes, both on the field and off it, would need to give him time to grow and learn and develop and adjust, and try to develop a network over here, gain an understanding of the manager's association over here, and so on, and so on. And yes, he was clearly going to be playing a different 'style' of footy over here, which would be a risk of fan acceptance, even if we were successful (like last season).

And so, in short, Colin Warnock he isn't/wasn't. (Although, Warnock said the other week he's still learning too, but I digress).

So, if as you say, with a 'stack of managers to choose from', why did we go with Stam and what was the thinking? And what might we, as a club and as fans, learn from it going forward?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: John Madejski's Wallet, Majestic-12 [Bot], Starlight Express and 51 guests

It is currently 16 Aug 2018 16:47