Do you think we tried our best to win against Charlton?

[Forbury Lion]

Did we rest players?

If so, Might it have been more sensible to rest them against Liverpool?

[Woodcote Royal]

This suggestion is right up there with not expanding the stadium because we might get relegated......................quite why escapes me.

If the big boys make changes it's called squad rotation if we do it, we didn't do "everything" to win

Coppell used his resources brilliantly over the Easter period and deserved more than one point for his excellent management.

He showed once again that we have squad players who are the near equals of those he picks week after week, not to mention Gunnarsson, who I think should have taken Sidwell's place months ago.

I agree that at least one of Kitson or Doyle should have come on for the last 15/20 minutes but, there again, Lita only got 8 minutes on Saturday with Doyle clearly tiring for much of the 2nd half.

Coppell's reluctance to make substitutions until the match is all but over should not be used as evidence that he wasn't trying to win the game.

Pardew turned up in the Upper West on Saturday (with Parky as his minder ) and it wasn't lost on us last night that he had sat and watched a completely different Reading side 2 days earlier

It's not in Coppell's nature to take the foot of the gas and finding fresh legs for every position where he felt he had a viable alternative, worked extremley well in negating Charlton's extra day's recover that Pardew was crowing about before kick off.

Whilst SKY's commenator were not slow to accept that Coppell's changes had not weakened his team, it comes as no surprise that some of our own fans don't agree........................this is Reading, afterall.

[Mr Angry]

Why is it acceptable as "squad rotation" to rest players and play non first team regulars in a league game, but deemed "disrespectful to the greatest competition in the World" if the same is done for an FA Cup tie??

[Royal Lady]

RL (and, by extension, Schards), if you believe you have a strong enough point to make that you have to set up a poll to reinforce that view, you must accept that the result may go against you. RL, you "can't believe" that 70% of responses have gone against your view, but "your humble opinion" is, so far, in a minority. If you don't like the result, don't just dismiss the counter-views as unbelievable. It is what you asked for, it's not what you got - tough.

Excuse me, but I merely expressed an opinion - I don't care if no-one agrees with me, that is what free speech and one's own opinion is all about. I set up the poll as there were some on the other thread who basically agreed and others who didn't. I was interested to see how it would go. I do think some people voted yes but were unhappy with no substitutes, as I was. To that degree, they should have voted "no" as I worded the poll in such a way that it suggested a yes vote meant EVERYTHING possible was done. I don't think there's any need to be condescending and I would like you to point out where I have dismissed "counter-views" as unbelievable.

[cmonurz]

In reality RL it's a little condescending to set up a 'trick' poll where you expect the wording to generate a particular answer. I voted no because, imho, the player's hearts weren't quite in it. We didn't have much hunger or drive.

Nothing to do with the substitutions, that didn't cross my mind.

[Royal Lady]

I hardly think it's a trick poll "Yes - we couldn't have done any more" says it all really doesn't it??

[cmonurz]

I hardly think it's a trick poll "Yes - we couldn't have done any more" says it all really doesn't it??

If I thought that they players had all given it 110% then I would have voted 'yes - we couldn't have done any more', regardless of the substitutions.

[Royal Lady]

In reality RL it's a little condescending to set up a 'trick' poll where you expect the wording to generate a particular answer. I voted no because, imho, the player's hearts weren't quite in it. We didn't have much hunger or drive.

Nothing to do with the substitutions, that didn't cross my mind.

I wonder if anyone will have a go at you for saying that then.

[susieroyal]

Personally I dont want the club to do absolutely everything to win a league game, mainly because we've got other games still to think about. Kitson and/or Doyle could have played but I think Coppell perhaps thought this would be to their and the teams detriment over the next couple of weeks.

[brendywendy]

In reality RL it's a little condescending to set up a 'trick' poll where you expect the wording to generate a particular answer. I voted no because, imho, the player's hearts weren't quite in it. We didn't have much hunger or drive.

Nothing to do with the substitutions, that didn't cross my mind.

I wonder if anyone will have a go at you for saying that then.

loads of hunger and drive on show last night,
in fact amongst the newspapers, and TV pundits, managers are almost unanimous that it was the case that we gave it huge go, considering we have nowt to play for

[Schards#2]

Cannot believe that they are some people on here who don't believe that Coppell and the players were not at Charlton to win the match.

What a load of bollox.

They were trying to win the game to the same extent that they were trying to win at Birmingham.

i.e, nice if we do, not the end of the world if we don't, not going to give it everything.

I'm sure players like Harper would be very chuffed to hear your interpretation of a good result away from home against a team who collected their 4th clean sheet in a row.

We went there to win.
We didn't.

Being at the Birmingham game and the Charlton game, apart from 1 team being Reading FC, I couldn't see any similarities of them not trying to win.
These players are professional footballers and if any fans feel as though they are being ripped off, well I wouldn't bother going.

Did you actually read my comment? I said they were trying to win just not, as a club, giving it 100% of their resources as they would in an important league game.

I'll take your advice and on the evidence of last night and the tail end of last season, won't bother with the remaining away games as I don't see value in watching sides not giving it everything..

Oh, you're now talking about the Manager picking an 'inferior' side, in comparison to the one against Liverpool.
Is that what you mean?

You obviously saw a different Doyle and Kitson than I did on Saturday then.
Doyle is a shadow of the player prior to the injury and Coppell thought that Kitson was shagged out, so he decided to freshen up the attack.

Do you think that (just like Birmingham?) Coppell has decided that it's not a problem just to play these players as they will never be able to get a result, I mean why did he buy these players in the first place if only to use them in games such as these.

Coppell has had the best interest of the Club at heart since day 1 joining here, his integrity is not in question.
Being 9th in the Premiership in our first ever season is more evidence of this, rather than a suspicious rant with no real basis.

If you don't trust him, don't go.

What on earth are you talking about?

You are the only person talking about integrity and trust here.

I'm saying we didn't play our best side and also made no subs when the game was crying out for them, therefore, as a club, we were not trying 100% to win, therefore, I consider it a waste of time and money going to the game.

Coppell has his reasons, some of them perfectly valid, but it's my personal opinion that it's not worth going if were not giving it everything. For the same reason, I don't go to pre season friendlies.

1. You can't trust him 100% if he is not trying 100% to win.

2. If you feel that these game plans that he has, has not got the Club's best interest at heart you cannot trust him.

3. If you feel that he's not giving 100% don't go.

4. You can always come back when you feel that he is trying 100% to win the match can't you.We are only 9th after all.

1. Rubbish, quite obviously he wasn't playing the best team at his disposal in the cup games so we were not trying 100% to win them. I accept the reasons for this, trust is not an issue.

2. I fully accept that he has the club's interests at heart whether I agree with what he does or not, again, thishas nothing to do with trust.

3. I feel he's giving 100% to what he wants to do for the club. On occassion, I don't agree with it but that does not equate with him not giving 100%. If in giving 100% he makes a decision to not give it everything in a particular match (such as cup games and friendlies) I tend not to go and if the Bolton game is likely to follow suit, I won't go. To some fans, resting a few players doesn't matter but to me it does, each to their own.

4. When the club is giving it everything, (probably the start of next season) I will start going away again.

Trying to dress up the fact that I don't like watching when we choose to play a weakened side as some sort of personal sleight on Coppell doesn't really add to the debate does it?

I don't like spending time and money to watch a weakened side and yesterday's was a weakened side - my choice. If you don't think it was, ask yourself if we would have played the side we played if we had 31 points and whether we would have made any subs.

[readingbedding]

Fine, don't go.

Simple.

You've said this about 3 times now.

Your choice.

In regards to your question he would have done the same if on 31 points, it's a ridiculous question anyway.
If players are knackered, they are knackered.
Can you understand why he changed the side around?
Was it to purposely weaken it? Or was it a consequence of the bumps and bruises that we have picked up so far?

[Royal Lady]

If you don't think it was, ask yourself if we would have played the side we played if we had 31 points and whether we would have made any subs.

I've already asked this twice. I'm giving up now. If you have opinions or comments which aren't in complete agreement with certain members of this board, you are scum and should not be allowed to air them.

[brendywendy]

Cannot believe that they are some people on here who don't believe that Coppell and the players were not at Charlton to win the match.

What a load of bollox.

1. Rubbish, quite obviously he wasn't playing the best team at his disposal in the cup games so we were not trying 100% to win them. I accept the reasons for this, trust is not an issue.

2. I fully accept that he has the club's interests at heart whether I agree with what he does or not, again, thishas nothing to do with trust.

3. I feel he's giving 100% to what he wants to do for the club. On occassion, I don't agree with it but that does not equate with him not giving 100%. If in giving 100% he makes a decision to not give it everything in a particular match (such as cup games and friendlies) I tend not to go and if the Bolton game is likely to follow suit, I won't go. To some fans, resting a few players doesn't matter but to me it does, each to their own.

does the same apply to chelsea when they put bridge in for cole?
ballack for lampard, cole for robben?
its a squad game etc etc blah blah blah


4. When the club is giving it everything, (probably the start of next season) I will start going away again.

wish you would go away now

Trying to dress up the fact that I don't like watching when we choose to play a weakened side as some sort of personal sleight on Coppell doesn't really add to the debate does it?

I don't like spending time and money to watch a weakened side and yesterday's was a weakened side - my choice. If you don't think it was, ask yourself if we would have played the side we played if we had 31 points and whether we would have made any subs.

it was 3 internationals put into the team
seol was our record signing
DLC has been, and was good again last night, going forward and in defence
and long is a rep of ireland striker with international goals.

kitson and doyle played saturday, and neither looked like scoring, in fact havent done for weeks-i thought it was a good idea to freshen things up with players who are playing for contracts, since the"1st team" has seemed to go off the boil.

so basically people are moaning becuase what? we didnt play oster and gunnarson-when they arent even 1st teamers anyway!
you guys are wierd sometimes[/quote][/b]

[Royal Lady]

You see Brendy, that is exactly the sort of pathetic comments some board members feel they have to make just to try and score a point or something. With regards to Chelsea, their squad, much like Arsenal's and Man Ut'd's has many more multi million pound rated players outside of the nominal 11 and so they can AFFORD to rotate and it doesn't affect them in quite the same way. I'm not bothering to discuss this any more, and I'll advise Schards to do the same.

[3 veesinarow]

RL, I have no particular bone to pick with you on this or any other subject, but you're starting to get quite huffy now because you and Schards have been labouring this point to death all day, hammering it into everyone that you think RFC are not worthy of your attendance if they're not going to give 100% or do enough for your cause or play "proper" first-teamers and a lot of people are saying "actually, we don't agree with you there". By the same token that you say you are not "allowed" to express a view, you are adopting the talk-to-the-hand approach to those with opposite views AND referring to them - specifically me - as condescending, which is a garbage argument and something to be avoided at all costs. If we all had the same view, what would be the point in anyone posting at all?

[Royal Lady]

Oh - and how many International goals has Long scored as a full international? You can't really count the U19s.

[brendywendy]

You see Brendy, that is exactly the sort of pathetic comments some board members feel they have to make just to try and score a point or something. With regards to Chelsea, their squad, much like Arsenal's and Man Ut'd's has many more multi million pound rated players outside of the nominal 11 and so they can AFFORD to rotate and it doesn't affect them in quite the same way. I'm not bothering to discuss this any more, and I'll advise Schards to do the same.

i felt i had to try and make the point cos i meant what i was saying.

no need for the pathetic comment

+judging from our cup games vs man u et al.and the draw last night, we can also afford to make these decisions occasionally

[readingbedding]

Cannot believe that they are some people on here who don't believe that Coppell and the players were not at Charlton to win the match.

What a load of bollox.

1. Rubbish, quite obviously he wasn't playing the best team at his disposal in the cup games so we were not trying 100% to win them. I accept the reasons for this, trust is not an issue.

2. I fully accept that he has the club's interests at heart whether I agree with what he does or not, again, thishas nothing to do with trust.

3. I feel he's giving 100% to what he wants to do for the club. On occassion, I don't agree with it but that does not equate with him not giving 100%. If in giving 100% he makes a decision to not give it everything in a particular match (such as cup games and friendlies) I tend not to go and if the Bolton game is likely to follow suit, I won't go. To some fans, resting a few players doesn't matter but to me it does, each to their own.

does the same apply to chelsea when they put bridge in for cole?
ballack for lampard, cole for robben?
its a squad game etc etc blah blah blah


4. When the club is giving it everything, (probably the start of next season) I will start going away again.

wish you would go away now

Trying to dress up the fact that I don't like watching when we choose to play a weakened side as some sort of personal sleight on Coppell doesn't really add to the debate does it?

I don't like spending time and money to watch a weakened side and yesterday's was a weakened side - my choice. If you don't think it was, ask yourself if we would have played the side we played if we had 31 points and whether we would have made any subs.

it was 3 internationals put into the team
seol was our record signing
DLC has been, and was good again last night, going forward and in defence
and long is a rep of ireland striker with international goals.

kitson and doyle played saturday, and neither looked like scoring, in fact havent done for weeks-i thought it was a good idea to freshen things up with players who are playing for contracts, since the"1st team" has seemed to go off the boil.

so basically people are moaning becuase what? we didnt play oster and gunnarson-when they arent even 1st teamers anyway!
you guys are wierd sometimes[/quote][/b]

[floyd__streete]

HNA Team section in interesting debate shocker.

FWIW I am somewhere in the middle of Reading Bedding and Schards on this one. Given that we are struggling to score goals I was frankly disappointed to see Long starting, but I suppose we had to try something different perhaps. For me we were the better team and we achieved the bare minimum result I expected from this game - a decent away point.

I don't buy into the argument that somehow Steve Coppell's team selection and tactics are beyond discussion/reproach. RFC isn't some sort of Mugabe-esque autocracy.