kevinhectoring

14 hours ago, ap04 said:

Two students sit a set on exams on a subject, rule is the one with the most A+'s (goals) passes with all other efforts (chances) chucked away - equal both fail.

Student A gets A+ B C D (and passes), student B gets A A B C (and fails). Was A clearly the better student, or lucky to have passed?

We had an economics teacher at school who - every year it seemed - predicted which essay questions would come up in the exams.  I felt I was unlucky not to be in his class but lucky to have a friend who was. Maybe that cancels out. 

I was definitely unlucky in my land law finals at uni. I was sitting right behind STUDENT C who was so nervous they threw up violently 5 minutes in. So there I was trying to decide calmly which questions to do - and there was sand, disinfectant, mops, ‘that smell’ and this awful simpering whimpering which just went on and on. My most vivid memory (from the entire principles of land law class) was of the long spiders-web-like sticky noxious strands which emanated from the mouth and stubbornly affixed themselves like some magic wonder glue to Student C’s  hands, pencils, clothes, shoulder bag …  It was like a strange tropical plant from a sci-fi movie

It was an enormous exam hall and the students at the back were oblivious once the initial outpouring subsided. I felt I was unlucky to be in the next row. On reflection, though, STUDENT D (sitting immediately in front of the unfortunate STUDENT C) inevitably suffered from the splatter and was damp for the entire 3 hour examination period, so I was lucky to be behind not in front. But overall, unlucky I’d say
 

(It’s not strictly relevant to your question but I’ve always wanted to know what was said on the inevitable post-exam phone call when STUDENT C’s Mum asks, how did it go dear?  I’m sure it was better than you were expecting …?)

34 minutes ago, ram59 said:

The ref had a decent game today in such an important game.

He should have given Ward a yellow card early on for a clear pull and inexplicably pulled us back a couple of times when we had a clear advantage, although not in a dangerous position, but nothing that seemed to have any effect on the result.

Plenty of refs would have given NML a red 

1 hour ago, Chester40 said:

I prefer Thompson to Hourihane. 

I prefer doughnuts to Mozart, downhill mountain biking to cash ISAs, Red Nose Day to my mother’s old mini, and I prefer my dog to having a haircut 

1 hour ago, Comrade 86 said:

Did wonder what was up with those subs tbh, so glad to hear they were for valid reasons.

Get them all in ice-baths now Warney!

Yes Barks and Ward were sorely missed when they went off. But very sensible to protect them (even in such a big game). 
 

If we’d started w Smith not Hourihane, the Gayle sub would have been like-for-like. 
 

What Warne in fact did (bringing on Smith, moving Adams forward) was a good move imo.  We were beginning to be overrun in mf and the changes gave us more strength in the middle as well as insight into Adams’ flexibility 
 

Maybe the  lesson is that we should start Hourihane only against weaker opposition - or, if we start him we should have Adams and Smith on the pitch as well. If luck’s not with us we’re in danger of being 2 down at HT otherwise. 
 

so when Bradley’s fit, is he on the bench or is Fozzie? Given his performance today, I’d stick w Fozzie. 
 

Step forward CBT 

Fozzy,  Smith, Adams, Nelson, NML, Cashin all immense. Not pretty but a massive result 

Massive goal. Tense 15 to come 

Tommo a little off the pace. Our subs haven’t worked so well. 

We’ve lost some control this half 

Maybe elder to lwb,  sibley to no 10 and Adams to sit deeper ? CH will need a rest very soon. Should be another big chance for cbt today 

Anyone see Gayle getting injured ? 

Excellent free kick fr Ward giving Nelson a gilt edged header   Over the bar 

Wildsmith at his sparkling best. 

well it’s clear we should have started smith not Hourihane 

9 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I hadn't seen that slowed down version before, clearly hits his hand first, but you could argue he is actually worried about being cleaned out by the on rushing goalkeeper.

If that was the case (although, obviously debatable) then I would assume it is a pen. An accidental handball before being fouled is a pen right? The handball rule is a farce though too.

In practice, an accidental handball by a forward in the area is much more likely to be penalised than one by a defender. Whatever the theory may be.    I don’t think the fact Gayle was ‘worried’ about being cleaned out would be a factor in referees’ minds 

46 minutes ago, Idiakez said:

Has to be Fozzy LCB and Cash CB, surely?

Hope he puts Fozzie in the middle. Want Cashin and Sibley covering their right wing. With Adams sitting deep in MF that’s less ground for Fozzie to cover

38 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Surely we go again with the same team.

Very hard to say. Smith for Hourihane? Fozzie for Bradley ? Got a nasty feeling that if we start the same we might be a goal down at half time. 

7 hours ago, Ambitious said:

I do suspect that we will see Forsyth come in for Sibley and the 3-4-3 will resemble a 4-4-2 for the most part, though. 

Please no. imo that would be a grave error for so many reasons   We’re playing well in the current system, it suits the squad and we’re benefitting from players feeling comfortable in a system that’s working.  A straight swap, Forsyth for Bradley, would be better if he’s determined to use Foz. But even that would be a mistake at this stage. 

51 minutes ago, Stockport Ram said:

I’m completely with you on this. Whether the consistency of 3/5 at the back would have been insisted on by Warne, or has somewhat been forced on him with the Nyambe/Foz absence remains to be seen. I personally think that he’d have played a three as much as possible because he’s decided Bradley has to play, and at the end of the day you live and die as a manager by your calls, so, so far, so good. 

Collins’ injury was a real stroke of fortune though. It necessitated a central striker addition who is (and has played) at a higher level consistently than Collins, and who could just make the difference between success and inevitable glorious play off failure. 

This is in no way an attempt to discredit Collins, who has given every ounce of effort and ability to the cause this season, with considerable success. 

All managers need an element of Lady Luck, and those three injuries might yet prove pivotal.

Agree with what you say about the JC injury. But not Fozzie.    imo Warne should months ago have had Foz in the CB role alongside Cashin and Nelson. It’s far and away the strongest defensive base to play from, and - with Fozzie’s distribution - and Wilson, Ward and/or Sibley (even Elder) playing wide, still allows plenty of attacking threat. Frustratingly, Foz’s injury might have been avoided if we’d used that system by design instead of necessity  

As for Nyambe, with Nelson, Cashin and say Foz at the back Ward should be picked ahead of N whether or not N is fit. Ward hasn’t played enough this season. 
 

Question now is whether he brings Foz into the back 3 in place of Bradley. Foz is the better player all round but despite that I hope Warne will not make that change at this late stage. Don’t think he will …

6 hours ago, Crewton said:

In the video of the incident at full speed, you can see Hourihane briefly grimace at the point that Still picture was taken, suggesting that there may have been brief but painful boot-on-boot contact. Only Hourihane really knows but, despite what Reading fans may think, he's not a serial 'diver' by any stretch of the imagination.

Rams TV (I assume they have a few people looking at replays) thought there was no contact and thought the booking was probably for the reaction not the foul itself

1 hour ago, DRBee said:

Did you criticise Jason Knight when he was falling about all over the pitch to get us a free kick

Err Jason Knight used to arrange for himself to be fouled, then fell over. Hourihane only did one of those things.  

6 hours ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

Is their keeper right in the head. Hes appealing for VAR, we don’t even have goal line technology TW@ 😂😂😂😂

His only hope is that the lino will advise the ref he’s got it wrong, so was that who he was shouting at ? But if the lino was the other side of the pitch he wouldn’t be able to see the hand ball 

Deserved to win but a shame we resorted to dark arts,  particularly because we played flowing attractive football much of the time 

With Sibley and Ward suddenly so important Fozzie’s return is interesting. Given where we are in the season, I think Warne should keep things stable, stay with 3 at the back and use Fozzie as a CB sub, despite that he’s one of our strongest (his class was immediately evident). Also don’t think Collo should start again, even if fully fit.  We have plenty with Gayle, cBT, Barks and NML and even Waggy. Thank goodness we’re now starting Barks. 
 

I think NMl should come off earlier. Slightly unnerved by the number of subs  first change but thought it worked fine. It’s important Hourihane - if he starts - maintains intensity for say 65 minutes then is replaced by eg Smith or Tommo, depending on the situation. If he stays on at half c*** our midfield turns into holey underpants and we concede.   I actually thought we played the game out pretty well - Reading retained something of a threat - but don’t really like the change of system. 
 

This squad is looking good now - excited about the run in 

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

Surprised people are talking so much about the decisions. They all seem justifiable. 

Worth another look I reckon 

Such an intelligent footballer, Barks 

Rest Hourihane and NML now 

Hourihane simulation earns a Reading red card.  Oh dear