Chris_R

The noise around our goal is stupid, Arteta basically thinking that since there were three checks, surely one of them must be given? But it doesn't work like that. It wasn't offside. Gordon was behind Joelinton. That's the end of that one. The ball cannot be conclusively said to be out. That's the end of that one too. That just leaves the push, that's all Arteta or anyone else has personally I think that was a foul, but it was soft and VC AR have decided there wasn't enough to overrule the on field decision. But the other two checks simply could not be used to disallow the goal. So there was only one check that can really even be open to debate. Just because they check three things doesn't mean they have to give one to each side, this isn't like distributing sweets to your kids FFS.

Why risk any players ever? We should just forfeit every game to keep everyone fit.

Dummet DC, Joelinton SC, Trippier LB, Schar DM and Ameobi LW please.

Really? I mean he was exciting to watch, but I'm sure that I remember he was a lazy person and that's why Keegan peddled him. He thought Cole had peaked, that he didn't train properly, that he was a bit disinterested in improving. And whilst obviously Cole had a stellar career still, his peak in terms of goals/game was indeed with us and he never got better than that. He went to a better team but performed worse, so maybe Keegan was right? In other words, what he's like on camera is probably just a reflection of him as a person - Very laid back. Exactly like he allegedly was as a player. I doubt he has an axe to grind with us.

My only worry was whether he was fully recovered from his ACL injury, but that run for the assist seems to comfortably put that to bed.

So there was a 21% chance of a draw being this bad or worse? Hardly proof of a fix.

Sorry, beat you by seconds here. Waaaaay too busy with work for WW this week, just joined for the numbers. Quite happy to be out now tbh!

If that's a booking, how the fuck is Hannibal still on?

Wrong!

Was it my imagination or was he limping slightly after that run at the end there?

Reading is not Newcastle. The aspirations of the two fanbases are a long way apart, and success for one would be failure for the other. What he did with us can't really be used as a yardstick for whether he'll similarly fail at a far smaller club. I say this as I think when he took over us he really did have the best of intentions. He wanted to be a success. He then realised he didn't have the means (or at least the will to commit such a high percentage of his means) to making it happen, so switched to just bleeding us dry. Reading is a different proposition and if he goes in with far smaller commitments needed to improve them, he could easily get them to a higher level than they're at now, a level which I think is basically a low ebb for them in recent history. We were a club at (or close to) our peak when he bought us, with big bills that he couldn't (or again, didn't want to) afford. Reading are massively underperforming and anything would feel like success to their fans right now.

Neither side of an argument can have any evidence about any future outcome of any topic without building a time machine. Everything is, by necessity, speculation.

That's not really what I was saying though. I wasn't talking about him turning Reading into what we were, more turning them into an upper Championship club who might have a pop at promotion occasionally, maybe even successfully. They'd go down again, for all the reasons you stated, but he could get them into a position to occasionally challenge promotion in the Championship, I'm sure of that. And for Reading fans, right now that's a dream scenario. Not every club's barometer of success or failure is the same. Suggesting Ashley would make Reading worse than they currently are is hubris and wishful thinking on our part, when he could sort out many of their problems with what is to him effectively pocket money. We were nothing but a cash cow for him. Reading could never be that in their current state, so he won't be buying them as such.

I've said before and stand by that Ashley won't make every team worse. He could take a team heading down from L1 and get them to the Championship easily just by throwing a bit of spare change at them, and he'd probably be willing to do that because he wants what's best for Mike Ashley and that would clearly tie in with keeping them up which could be done for what amounts to pocket change for him. The problem is he cannot improve a club the size of ours or indeed any established PL side, so he again does what's best for Mike Ashley and just drains all the money into his account whilst using us as an advertising hoarding. That won't work with Reading because in L1 there's nobody to advertise to. I despise him as much as anyone for what he did to us, but I think this notion that he'll automatically be terrible for whoever he owns is possibly a bit misconstrued/hopeful. He can basically at will turn any team he takes over into a lower PL / upper Championship side, you've just got to factor in that team's starting point to decide if that's a good thing or not. For some it'll be a dream and they'd rightly let him rename the stadium and plaster his tat all over the place if he provided that for them. If he ever took over a side like Everton or Villa I'd not stop lauging for a week mind.

I've thought about this a lot, and I actually think it's the opposite. He's been so desperate for an edge, he's been willing to gamble on his own team, presumably using inside information like knowing when players are fit etc despite knowing the consequences of this are massively greater than being found to have stuck £10 on the 3:30 at Goodwood. That's not the actions of a casual gambler, that's the actions of an addict or a desperate man. IMO, at least.

Yeah if someone was looking to treble my salary and give me a multi-million pound signing on fee, that's exactly what I'd have done. I'm sure you would have too.

I've had a similar argument on Twitter where someone said something to me along the lines of "How can you say you hate intolerance if you don't like racists or homophobes? HA!". Some things it's right to not tolerate.

"And considering gambling is banned in Saudi, along with being homosexual and women being allowed to drive" Not defending the Saudi state here, but Women have been able to drive there for a few years. So this isn't even accurate. Really is basic journalism to at least get the facts right that are widely known and available. I'd be embarrassed if I turned in such shoddy work to my employer.

Possession is meaningless on its own, it's what you do with it that counts. We had 27% Vs PSG. First half they did far more with the ball and most of our possession was in meaningless areas.

Ok I've not seen that as a general consensus. If it's individuals, maybe quote them because a generic post like yours seemed like it was aimed at the forum as a whole. Personally I think they've been excellent, but I wouldn't describe us as crap. Just outplayed so far by a team that's been better than us.

We've had a couple of chances but they've played us off the park at our own ground. We've been second best in every department. If you disagree and think we've been better anywhere, fair enough. But I think the stats will support that we haven't. BBC have us with 4 shots, 2 on target. They've had 10 with 5 on target. They've had more corners too. They've thoroughly outplayed us. There's no shame in saying that either, they're an excellent team, but we've been second best everywhere.

What the fuck is this? Nobody's complaining. We're just analysing the first half and trying to work out where w can be better.

They've schooled us first half. Hopefully we adapt second half because otherwise we get nothing from this. They've been so tight to everyone who has received the ball, given us no space to turn or time to play. Have faith in Eddie to sort it at half time though and see how we do playing downhill in the next 45 but that was a tough first half.

It shouldn't be. All religion is nonsense to me, and we should be comfortable saying that if we feel that way. However attacking specific religions is a bit different. As is mentioning specific nationalities as a whole group, ie Saudis as one people in a negative way. That shouldn't stop people criticising the actions of specific Saudi people though. That should be ok. You're attacking the individual, not the nationality. For me it's just about not discriminating unfairly.