1st reason why McDermott should go - No Guthrie

[cmonurz]

Good to see sandman continues to see only black and white. Very few, if any, are suggesting that a team be built around Guthrie, only that he be involved and that as a team we have the ability to change formation and strategy in order to close a game out.

Cypry - 'conclusively failed'? Seriously? He's made 4 starts.

[Cypry]

Cypry - 'conclusively failed'? Seriously? He's made 4 starts.

So you're telling me that when a player has made only four starts, criticised the manager, then been benched/dropped, before picking up a suspiciously convenient injury, and is rumoured to be possibly out of here on loan shortly, that the signing can be considered anything but a failure?

[Hoop Blah]

It's obviously a poor start, but there's plenty of time for him to come good even under McDermott.

I don't think McDermott has enough talent at his disposal to totally freeze him out long term. If he does, and results don't improve it might be him that's out the door before the player.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I think the point is that it could be argued the failure isn't entirely on Guthrie's shoulders.

Was he bad enough to be dropped?
- No, I don't think so. He was more dropped because we needed to revert back to form - the 'new' formation wasn't working and it was neccesary for him to make way for our old setup. Therefore, I don't think it would be fair to say he was dropped because he specifically was playing badly.

Was he given enough time?
- Dunno. He didn't seem to fit a 4-4-2, but hardly exhausted his chance to adapt and improve.

Is the club being over-strict with him?
- Possibly. I'd hardly call his tweet an 'outburst' and it does seem daft to eliminate him from the bench, especially when what Reading need is a midfielder to complete a 4-5-1 formation when needing to hold posession and the lead.


Few are saying Guthrie could turn the season around, but it has to be said his availability could have and would help us take up the 4-5-1 which may have rescued points in the past and could also in the future.

You have to ask yourself whether Brian is taking the right stance on the issue - I personally wish he'd work quicker at resolving any issues and look to move on from it for the good of the club rather than holding a grudge and reducing our options in an already threadbare area.

[melonhead]

Good to see sandman continues to see only black and white. Very few, if any, are suggesting that a team be built around Guthrie, only that he be involved and that as a team we have the ability to change formation and strategy in order to close a game out.

Cypry - 'conclusively failed'? Seriously? He's made 4 starts.

and lost em all.
if we are going to change the style totally, based on having only one holding midfielder, and another ball playing one, then imo guthrie isnt good enough to justifying doing so,
in the way that siggurdsson was good enough to.


whether you call it building a side around him, or accomodating him into the side we have, it makes little difference


i hope he sorts himself out, i hope he plays, i hope he becomes a gr8 success.we certainly need the option even if its from the bench
i just dont think he did any thing in those games to justify sulking and demanding a 1st team spot every week

Is the club being over-strict with him?
- Possibly. I'd hardly call his tweet an 'outburst' and it does seem daft to eliminate him from the bench, especially when what Reading need is a midfielder to complete a 4-5-1 formation when needing to hold posession and the lead.

in no way do i think hes been dropped due to that outburst alone
said at the time i didnt think there was anything wrong with it, aside from the slightly intimated criticism of the manager

[Ian Royal]

Good to see sandman continues to see only black and white. Very few, if any, are suggesting that a team be built around Guthrie, only that he be involved and that as a team we have the ability to change formation and strategy in order to close a game out.

Cypry - 'conclusively failed'? Seriously? He's made 4 starts.

and lost em all.
if we are going to change the style totally, based on having only one holding midfielder, and another ball playing one, then imo guthrie isnt good enough to justifying doing so,
in the way that siggurdsson was good enough to.


whether you call it building a side around him, or accomodating him into the side we have, it makes little difference


i hope he sorts himself out, i hope he plays, i hope he becomes a gr8 success.we certainly need the option even if its from the bench
i just dont think he did any thing in those games to justify sulking and demanding a 1st team spot every week

Is the club being over-strict with him?
- Possibly. I'd hardly call his tweet an 'outburst' and it does seem daft to eliminate him from the bench, especially when what Reading need is a midfielder to complete a 4-5-1 formation when needing to hold posession and the lead.

in no way do i think hes been dropped due to that outburst alone
said at the time i didnt think there was anything wrong with it, aside from the slightly intimated criticism of the manager

We didn't lose them all. We drew with Stoke after looking decent until Federici dived over the ball and we lost all momentum. We then nearly beat Chelsea where he was many people's MOTM. Then we got dicked by Spurs and narrowly lost to WBA.

Regardless of whether you think he should be starting or not, and I agree he leaves us weaker in midfield defensively, but then if we have more of the ball that's less of a problem. And at the very least he should be around as an option off the bench to pad out midfield and slow the game down, or offer a threat through the middle.

I don't really understand where this conclusion that he's been shit has come from. He hasn't been particularly effective, but he certainly hasn't been as bad as many make out. Although equally he is also far from the answer to all our problems. But having him available to play would be kinda handy.

Oh and he also started against Posh in the cup, which we won.

[melonhead]

dont think hes shit.
just been inneffective since chelsea

he has had other games in which to impress, and hasnt imo.

i too want him playing, or at least on the bench to change things
but he is injured
no idea why people would make that up, since it had already been said officially he had been dropped.


(lol at the posh cup game, we were awful, and only just won it)

[Ian Royal]

dont think hes shit.
just been inneffective since chelsea

he has had other games in which to impress, and hasnt imo.

i too want him playing, or at least on the bench to change things
but he is injured
no idea why people would make that up, since it had already been said officially he had been dropped.


(lol at the posh cup game, we were awful, and only just won it)

Aye. A Win's a win's a win

[melonhead]

totes agreed, just dont think it can be used to justify guthries inclusion
(lthoug it and stoke do blow my lost all of em comment out the water)

[cmonurz]

dont think hes shit.
just been inneffective since chelsea

254 minutes in the league since the Chelsea game. Weren't you announcing silly season was upon us when people wanted Feds dropped after 3 matches?

[melonhead]

no.
now you mention it, it defo was though.


like i said - i want him back, i want him happy, and playing
i just dont think hes done anything to justify demanding he should play above any of the other options who have pulled out good perfromances, and won points.
when hes fit again he'll hopefully get a chance when injury/form means one of the others drops out,or when formation/opposition demands his inclusion, and when that moment comes, i hope he grabs it with both hands, and propels us to midtable safety
just putting him back in, (while hes still acting like a girl) and hoping it will just eventually just click doesnt seem that sensible to me, tbf tbh.

you feel different, the world is full of different opinions. this is good

[cmonurz]

no.

3 games. lol.

at least 1 more, if not two/three/four before its an issue requiring droppage.



imo of course, you bunch of anal polyps

Good use of anal polyps though.

[melonhead]

no.

3 games. lol.

at least 1 more, if not two/three/four before its an issue requiring droppage.



imo of course, you bunch of anal polyps

Good use of anal polyps though.

where does it say silly season?
and tbf i only gave him 4 games myself

and
tbf
federici- loads of clean sheets and occasions where he won/kept us in games last season and before
guthrie - done oxf*rd all and proven nothing, for us

slight difference

[Ian Royal]

totes agreed, just dont think it can be used to justify guthries inclusion
(lthoug it and stoke do blow my lost all of em comment out the water)

Wasn't using it as such, just pointing out you were wrong when you said we'd lost all the games he's played in. Because you seemed to be using that as a reason why we shouldn't be playing him.

[Snowball]

With Guthrie playing our average possession has been 48% (including 50% versus a side at the bottom of the Championship)

Without him playing the possession stats are 46% average and that includes playing v Swansea, Arsenal and all Prem sides

[Hoop Blah]

With Guthrie playing our average possession has been 48% (including 50% versus a side at the bottom of the Championship)

Without him playing the possession stats are 46% average and that includes playing v Swansea, Arsenal and all Prem sides

Point being?

Most people have stated that the reason Guthrie didn't have the best of starts was because despite having him in the side and looking to pass the ball a big more we were still a direct side. He was himself told to be more direct so not sure the possession stats add anything to the discussion.

[Snowball]

People have been arguing that Guthrie will make us hold the ball a lot more

Basically wrong.

IF we win the ball, and THEN hold it

So what's missing in this?

One less ball-winner (so obviously, when the opposition has the ball it takes us longer to get it back)

Second, ONE "ball-holder" (and I don't think Guthrie has shown ball-holding abilities, anyway) makes very
little difference, since he is going to pass to one of ten players who DOESN'T retain possession.


So, overall, I think, playing Guthrie, we'd get LESS possession.

True, in the small sample he edges it possession-stats-wise (but not results-wise) but the Guthrie games
included long-ball Stoke and a side at the bottom of the Championship and WBA who are hardly renowned
for their silky skills. The NON-Guthrie games included the two sides currently known for holding the ball, Swansea and Arsenal

[Snowball]

I am certainly not saying Guthrie isn't a good player

But we need a midfield that can play but ALSO win the ball

[Wimb]

Good points about the failure of the recruitment policy Wimb, but I'm not sure the blame can sit with Hammond etc for not forcing players on him.

The last thing we really want is the manager being undermined and the board over stepping the mark.

Oh no I agree that Brian has to have the final say but there should be senior figures at the club who were around in 2006-08 that should be suggesting that we have a bit more depth. I'd like to think Brian went for others but didn't have the funds rather than thinking he had it all sorted with the squad we went in with. If it's the former than he deserves little stick but if it's the later then he deserves a bit more criticism for failing to ensure we had depth at a very key position.

[cmonurz]

I am certainly not saying Guthrie isn't a good player

But we need a midfield that can play but ALSO win the ball

So surely Guthrie + a ball winner (or two if we go 451) makes more sense for now than two 'tacklers'?