Antti's six talking points on Tuesday night's draw with Reading include QPR's struggles in defence and with a new formation, Reading's persistent fouling and the referee's allowance of it, and Jordan Hugill's effectiveness.
A game heavily marred by the actions of one man, who seemingly just wanted to be noticed. Not the ref, I'm not animal. Bloke behind me. Constant 'coaching' throughout the whole game, his head ready to explode at every misplaced pass from minute 1 to 90. CHANNELS! HIT THE CHANNELS! Gave me an earache.
Had an interesting debate on the way out. Why exactly are we conceding two goals per game? Is it that we are poor at defending? Is it that we are too gung-ho? Are we poor positionally? Or are we actually pretty ok at all the above, but have two or three mind-blowing moments of defensive weakness per game that basically gift goals? I honestly don't know. Asking for a friend. And for me.
First goal we were caught cold, we were high up the pitch and Puscas timed his run beautifully after a great ball from the outstanding Ejaria. It was a really good goal. I've seen some criticism that we were defending too high there, but BFG was on the halfway line and we were in possession - I'm not sure that was particularly wrong, although I'm no expert on defence, trust me. However, as with Hull on Saturday, I did feel Kelly, who had made one superb save earlier for what should have been a goal, was a long way out. Had he been further back, Puscas couldn't have shot and Leistner would have likely headed him off as he cut in. Still, harsh to be too critical there. Second goal, I'm with Warbs on. It wasn't so much the unmarked players as the three players who failed to close down Swift getting the cross in. And that is certainly a real problem on our part at the moment - we do not stop crosses very often, particularly from down our left hand side.
But are we a poor defensive side? Or one that lacks concentration? I just don't know. Hard to be too critical because we are in the play-off spots and it's exciting to watch, but we can't keep shipping two a game, surely?
It was an odd line-up when I saw it. I expected Hugill to come in at the expense of Wells, but didn't expect a change of formation. Whether that was to surprise Reading, or perhaps to give ourselves more protection down the flanks, or because he felt two strikers would really hurt them, I'm not sure. But it didn't work - although when you give the ball away as frequently as we did in that first half, you'll find most formations won't work. Still, it was an odd one, and it must've been a boost to Reading following Saturday's performance to see Eze placed out wide, where surely he would have less influence. And so it proved. They were able to box him in out there and pretty much the only time he got away in the first half was when he nutmegged a defender to set up Wells's sweet finish. It didn't really work anywhere. We lost the midfield battle, no one got hold of Ejaria or Swift, we were out-paced by their forwards and generally, it has to be said, were second best throughout. The move to 3-5-2 did help for sure, but it's always difficult to drag yourselves back when you've started so slowly.
Warbs's subs have been overwhelmingly good this season. Last night, they didn't have much effect - at least not a positive effect. Kane for Rangel was the right call, even if it was possibly enforced by injury, but while the change in shape helped to some degree, Kane himself had a bit of a shocker, giving the ball away too many times under little or no pressure, and worse still giving it away in key areas by opting for a pass back towards goal - usually to a Reading forward. The shape change did at least help us get a better grip on Ejaria, as Scowen looked to be detailed to sit on him, but did little to halt Swift, who sat deep and was almost always available to receive the ball and very, very rarely wasted it as he showed an impressive range of passing.
Contrary to some opinion on here, I didn't mind Amos for Wells as I thought it might help us tighten space in midfield, where we were struggling somewhat, but sadly Amos couldn't get to grips with the pace of the game. I don't think there's much doubt he's a very decent player, but at the moment, possibly thanks to a stop-start season for him, he's looking a little lost. It's not for want of trying - last night he berated himself several times for errors, but that in itself shows he's frustrated at his own form. The problem is, we haven't really got the luxury of him playing himself into form, so somehow, if he is to make the impact we expected this season, the sort of impact Ejaria was making, he needs to find a way of finding form quickly when his opportunities do come.
Then finally Pugh, who I really like, was again unable to really change things very much. He charged round looking for the ball, but never really got on it - only once, when he nearly went through did he threaten to make a real positive contribution. I think the ideas behind all subs were sound, but as a team we weren't quite there last night.
King Pep himself instructs his slick City team to foul, foul and foul again. Stop attacks, take turns, don't be afraid to make niggly fouls. It's not something we do (according to the BBC, our first actual foul we committed was, astonishingly, in the 54th minute, before the dam broke somewhat with Hugill being the main culprit). Reading, however, were all about the fouling and that was a big secret to how they managed to contain Eze and the rest of our team fairly well. They were helped by a referee trying to be lenient. But if you are as lenient as he was, teams continue to take more and more rope. The idea he was being bullied a bit was not helped by the fact that three or four Reading players were in his face for many decisions - acts he did little or nothing to dissuade.
The stats do not make great reading for the ref. Reading's persistent fouling was pointed out on TV, I'm told, and yet it took him until the 56th minute to finally show a yellow. This was Reading's 13th foul of the match, and it took Rinhomota four fouls to finally pick up that one yellow. Overall, they committed 23 fouls and just two bookings were issued. One for Rinhomota and one for Miazga for bodily throwing Hugill to the ground - an offence which could have easily counted as violent conduct and a red card. Miazga, incidentally, was not booked for any of his four spoiling tackles, and his elbow in Rangel's face was ignored. Lucky boy. McCleary managed three fouls in just 23 minutes after coming on, but despite all three arguably being bookable, got away scot free. Puscas managed four without a yellow. And perhaps worst of all was Yiadom, who five times committed fouls, twice with clear and deliberate handballs, and yet was never booked. And that leaves aside his other clear and deliberate handball that should have led to a penalty and a yellow card, but was ignored.
Fair play to Reading - their tactic to disrupt worked very well, even if it couldn't stop two moments of very good football for two good goals. But they were aided by a weak referee who compounded his lenience with the booking of Eze - his first foul of the night, and while I agree it was a yellow, the fact he was continually fouled deliberately and cynically, just as his attempted trip was, but the perpetrators were never once carded, only shows the poverty of the refereeing display we had to endure.
Quick word on Hugill, who I thought grew more and more into the game. I love his attitude, I love he's a bit nasty and doesn't mind getting in where it hurts, and I love that he doesn't hide. In most games he's missed decent chances (again here he spooned a presentable chance over the bar), but he keeps going and also, generally, gets his reward, as he did last night with a very fine, if deflected, goal. I thought he did particularly well on the air, and he shielded the ball well too. A really dangerous player who has already surpassed his total goals for last season with his goal last night. Hardly surprising - chances don't come often in a Pulis team, but they are rarely rare in a Warburton side.
That was the groundsman was it? More of this, please. Was like some kind of fever dream to watch at half time. The cat v the groundsman dancing to the music of a noted paedophile.
Pictures — Action Images