The countdown to Ian Harte scoring 10+ league goals

[Hoop Blah]

Jeeezz....you just don't get it do you.

It doesn't matter so much who he played with and the stats that went with it. Watch the two players with your eyes, see what they're good at, bad at, capable of and not capable of and form an opinion based on how they'd compliment the current side.

I think most fair minded Reading fans will conclude that Armstrong, if back to his previous best, playing at left back will make the side stronger than Harte playing there because his performances in winning Player of the Season (alongside all those players you list above, and more, that made up a good side) stood out as better than all the rest.

[Snowball]

Jeeezz....you just don't get it do you.

It doesn't matter so much who he played with and the stats that went with it. Watch the two players with your eyes, see what they're good at, bad at, capable of and not capable of and form an opinion based on how they'd compliment the current side.

I think most fair minded Reading fans will conclude that Armstrong, if back to his previous best, playing at left back will make the side stronger than Harte playing there because his performances in winning Player of the Season (alongside all those players you list above, and more, that made up a good side) stood out as better than all the rest.

What "I get" is that fans are blinkered.

"BECAUSE" Harte is slow, END. Never mind that he's not yet actually caused a goal against
(unlike Mills, Zurab, Pearce, Griffin, Federici)... never mind that he has scored two goals and not
missed a sitter (unlike McAnuff, Church)

Harte was written off by many because he's old, he's slow, he came from Carlilse. END.

They can't see the facts. IMO (and sometimes he looks painfully slow) Harte has, overall
improved the defence, and overall improved the ball out of defence, and overall improved
our free-kick options, and improved our penalty options.

I do not doubt that Armstrong MAY BE better at left-back, and I do not say the defence won't be better
if we drop Harte for Armstrong. Nor do I say that we might do OK in midfield with Armstrong's support,
or get in better crosses (from Armstrong)

But what I DO say is that the bleating sheep ranting that Harte is crap are moronic blinkered mugs.

[RoyalBlue]

Jeeezz....you just don't get it do you.

It doesn't matter so much who he played with and the stats that went with it. Watch the two players with your eyes, see what they're good at, bad at, capable of and not capable of and form an opinion based on how they'd compliment the current side.

I think most fair minded Reading fans will conclude that Armstrong, if back to his previous best, playing at left back will make the side stronger than Harte playing there because his performances in winning Player of the Season (alongside all those players you list above, and more, that made up a good side) stood out as better than all the rest.

What "I get" is that fans are blinkered.

"BECAUSE" Harte is slow, END. Never mind that he's not yet actually caused a goal against
(unlike Mills, Zurab, Pearce, Griffin, Federici)... never mind that he has scored two goals and not
missed a sitter (unlike McAnuff, Church)

Harte was written off by many because he's old, he's slow, he came from Carlilse. END.

They can't see the facts. IMO (and sometimes he looks painfully slow) Harte has, overall
improved the defence, and overall improved the ball out of defence, and overall improved
our free-kick options, and improved our penalty options.

I do not doubt that Armstrong MAY BE better at left-back, and I do not say the defence won't be better
if we drop Harte for Armstrong. Nor do I say that we might do OK in midfield with Armstrong's support,
or get in better crosses (from Armstrong)

But what I DO say is that the bleating sheep ranting that Harte is crap are moronic blinkered mugs.

And I say it's going to be an effing long countdown till Harte scores 10+ league goals for us. Not only is he slow but his delivery from deadball situations has been absolutely shocking on far too many occasions.

[Hoop Blah]

Jeeezz....you just don't get it do you.

It doesn't matter so much who he played with and the stats that went with it. Watch the two players with your eyes, see what they're good at, bad at, capable of and not capable of and form an opinion based on how they'd compliment the current side.

I think most fair minded Reading fans will conclude that Armstrong, if back to his previous best, playing at left back will make the side stronger than Harte playing there because his performances in winning Player of the Season (alongside all those players you list above, and more, that made up a good side) stood out as better than all the rest.

What "I get" is that fans are blinkered.

"BECAUSE" Harte is slow, END. Never mind that he's not yet actually caused a goal against
(unlike Mills, Zurab, Pearce, Griffin, Federici)... never mind that he has scored two goals and not
missed a sitter (unlike McAnuff, Church)

Harte was written off by many because he's old, he's slow, he came from Carlilse. END.

They can't see the facts. IMO (and sometimes he looks painfully slow) Harte has, overall
improved the defence, and overall improved the ball out of defence, and overall improved
our free-kick options, and improved our penalty options.

I do not doubt that Armstrong MAY BE better at left-back, and I do not say the defence won't be better
if we drop Harte for Armstrong. Nor do I say that we might do OK in midfield with Armstrong's support,
or get in better crosses (from Armstrong)

But what I DO say is that the bleating sheep ranting that Harte is crap are moronic blinkered mugs.

I'd lay the largest proportion of blame for the City goal at Harte's door, and he was most responsible for the 2 or 3 good chances Swansea had just after half time. You can't judge him as being good just because they failed to put those chances away!!!

[Big Foot]

Jeeezz....you just don't get it do you.

It doesn't matter so much who he played with and the stats that went with it. Watch the two players with your eyes, see what they're good at, bad at, capable of and not capable of and form an opinion based on how they'd compliment the current side.

I think most fair minded Reading fans will conclude that Armstrong, if back to his previous best, playing at left back will make the side stronger than Harte playing there because his performances in winning Player of the Season (alongside all those players you list above, and more, that made up a good side) stood out as better than all the rest.

What "I get" is that fans are blinkered.

"BECAUSE" Harte is slow, END. Never mind that he's not yet actually caused a goal against
(unlike Mills, Zurab, Pearce, Griffin, Federici)... never mind that he has scored two goals and not
missed a sitter (unlike McAnuff, Church)

Harte was written off by many because he's old, he's slow, he came from Carlilse. END.

They can't see the facts. IMO (and sometimes he looks painfully slow) Harte has, overall
improved the defence, and overall improved the ball out of defence, and overall improved
our free-kick options, and improved our penalty options.

I do not doubt that Armstrong MAY BE better at left-back, and I do not say the defence won't be better
if we drop Harte for Armstrong. Nor do I say that we might do OK in midfield with Armstrong's support,
or get in better crosses (from Armstrong)

But what I DO say is that the bleating sheep ranting that Harte is crap are moronic blinkered mugs.

And I say it's going to be an effing long countdown till Harte scores 10+ league goals for us. Not only is he slow but his delivery from deadball situations has been absolutely shocking on far too many occasions.

I'll have £10 English pounds with you that Ian Harte does score 10+ league goals this season if you feel that strongly

[RoyalBlue]

What "I get" is that fans are blinkered.

"BECAUSE" Harte is slow, END. Never mind that he's not yet actually caused a goal against
(unlike Mills, Zurab, Pearce, Griffin, Federici)... never mind that he has scored two goals and not
missed a sitter (unlike McAnuff, Church)

Harte was written off by many because he's old, he's slow, he came from Carlilse. END.

They can't see the facts. IMO (and sometimes he looks painfully slow) Harte has, overall
improved the defence, and overall improved the ball out of defence, and overall improved
our free-kick options, and improved our penalty options.

I do not doubt that Armstrong MAY BE better at left-back, and I do not say the defence won't be better
if we drop Harte for Armstrong. Nor do I say that we might do OK in midfield with Armstrong's support,
or get in better crosses (from Armstrong)

But what I DO say is that the bleating sheep ranting that Harte is crap are moronic blinkered mugs.

And I say it's going to be an effing long countdown till Harte scores 10+ league goals for us. Not only is he slow but his delivery from deadball situations has been absolutely shocking on far too many occasions.

I'll have £10 English pounds with you that Ian Harte does score 10+ league goals this season if you feel that strongly

'Caskey rules' to apply though!

i.e. penalties don't count!

[Snowball]

I'd lay the largest proportion of blame for the City goal at Harte's door, and he was most responsible for the 2 or 3 good chances Swansea had just after half time. You can't judge him as being good just because they failed to put those chances away!!!

"Karacan went to sleep"
"Griffin didn't close down the cross"
"Harte misjudged the flight of the ball" (nothing to do with being slow, BTW)


and that resulted in a header back across goal that Mills, central failed to deal with

and he was most responsible for the 2 or 3 good chances Swansea had just after half time.

One chance was a break, and a through ball that Harte had only one chance, cut it out.
The winger was away.

The other chance was ZURAB skinned. Harte was upfield, attacking


Watch it on the Reading FC site.


As for chances given away etc, sure, that's one way. I wrote a few weeks ago that our defensive stats didn't really tally
with some of the times we'd been cut open, had 3 on 1 and 4 on 1 breaks against us etc.

But in the end (all those variables, eh?) I stick to the actual GOALS, and so far you've shown me
ONE goal in EIGHT games that Harte was PARTLY responsible for.

How many times has Mills let us down this season?

The ricochet goal for Scunthorpe? Maybe
The second Scunthorpe goal? Definitely.
The first goal at Boro. He was caught miles upfield and missed a tackle, then Pearce failed.
The third goal at Boro, an almost free header.
Two yellows and a sending off.
The Swansea goal (partly his fault, but also down to Griffin)

[sandman]

I'd lay the largest proportion of blame for the City goal at Harte's door, and he was most responsible for the 2 or 3 good chances Swansea had just after half time. You can't judge him as being good just because they failed to put those chances away!!!

"Karacan went to sleep"
"Griffin didn't close down the cross"
"Harte misjudged the flight of the ball" (nothing to do with being slow, BTW)

and that resulted in a header back across goal that Mills, central failed to deal with

and he was most responsible for the 2 or 3 good chances Swansea had just after half time.

One chance was a break, and a through ball that Harte had only one chance, cut it out.
The winger was away.

The other chance was ZURAB skinned. Harte was upfield, attacking


Watch it on the Reading FC site.


As for chances given away etc, sure, that's one way. I wrote a few weeks ago that our defensive stats didn't really tally
with some of the times we'd been cut open, had 3 on 1 and 4 on 1 breaks against us etc.

But in the end (all those variables, eh?) I stick to the actual GOALS, and so far you've shown me
ONE goal in EIGHT games that Harte was PARTLY responsible for.

How many times has Mills let us down this season?

The ricochet goal for Scunthorpe? Maybe
The second Scunthorpe goal? Definitely.
The first goal at Boro. He was caught miles upfield and missed a tackle, then Pearce failed.
The third goal at Boro, an almost free header.
Two yellows and a sending off.
The Swansea goal (partly his fault, but also down to Griffin)

Perhaps if his feet were quicker he could have corrected his misjudgement.

[Snowball]

"Perhaps", that still makes him "partly responsible" for one conceded goal in 8 games

[Big Foot]

30%

[RoyalBlue]

100% responsible for the third goal conceded today and was left seriously wanting on quite a few other occasions. He also leaves us weak when attacking down the left flank as he seems reluctant to press forward beyond the halfway line other than to take throws or freekicks.

Yes, it was a fantastic freekick but it only cancelled out the goal he had gifted to them. I wonder whether his dead ball prowess (donning asbestos I would suggest that Howard offers as much in this respect, other than when a direct shot on goal is possible) justifies his selection at left back ahead of a now fit Armstrong.

[floyd__streete]

100% responsible for the third goal conceded today and was left seriously wanting on quite a few other occasions. He also leaves us weak when attacking down the left flank as he seems reluctant to press forward beyond the halfway line other than to take throws or freekicks.

Yes, it was a fantastic freekick but it only cancelled out the goal he had gifted to them.

+1.

What I particularly liked about the freekick though was the Donny defender pegging it back when he got an inkling of where the ball was heading.....too late son

[Wimb]

up to 4!

[Snowball]

up to 4!

I presume the bet was 10 for Reading, cos Harte is officially on 6 for the season...

[Wimb]

up to 4!

I presume the bet was 10 for Reading, cos Harte is officially on 6 for the season...

Seems from the OP that goals for Reading was the intent.

[Ian Royal]

Just think, he could be on 7 if he took all our penalties.

[RoyalBlue]

Just think, he could be on 7 if he took all our penalties.

That would put him positive. At the moment his weaknesses, including his pitiful lack of pace (if you're that slow you can't afford to fully commit yourself by diving in early because there is no way at all that you can recover if you don't get the ball) is costing us goals. I reckon he's about equal goals scored v goals given.

[Wycombe Royal]

I reckon he's about equal goals scored v goals given.

There is no way on earth that Snowball is going to be able to resist that bait.

[Snowball]

I reckon he's about equal goals scored v goals given.

Have you checked that carefully?

[Wycombe Royal]