Brownhill and Smith

[hoxton casual]

How did they do as individuals and as a pair? A lot of us have been calling for Brownhill to go central. Is it his place to lose?

[Fordy62]

Though Smith had a really good game. I confess that I find it far too difficult to keep my eye on too many players especially when some of them look so similar from distance (i.e Pato and Brownhill). 

[FlintWonderwall]

Both had solid games, think the Centre midfield pairing will rotate between these two and pack depending on opposition and fitness. Good options as it stands

[hoxton casual]

Do you think Pack is when we want to attack and Smitj when we want to stay tight and mobile?

[BCFC Grim]

Probably Smith's best game for us this season. Like to see Brownhill get forward a bit more, but circumstances may have dictated that wasn't really possible yesterday.

[cidercity1987]

According to the Reading forum, their players dominated the midfield with ease.

Is that true?

[HoldenBall]

6 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

According to the Reading forum, their players dominated the midfield with ease.

Is that true?

If you count pointless 5 yard passes from Van dem Berg to Mannone for 70% of the time, sure. They completely dominated us. 

They got between our lines a couple of times, but it was hardly dominiation.

[Negan]

Well Reading still made plenty of chances and had they taken them they would have won 4-1. Luckily they we're poor in front of goal. Still think Brownhill and Pack are a better/stronger option. 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Sergio Georgini said:

If you count pointless 5 yard passes from Van dem Berg to Mannone for 70% of the time, sure. They completely dominated us. 

They got between our lines a couple of times, but it was hardly dominiation.

Yep, Reading are a team that delight in passing the ball without feeling the need to go forward.

[Red_Nine]

Would love to see pack and brownhill at home and smith and brownhill away 

[Ian M]

There were a few occasions where we had players free on the wings but passes to them were poor and intercepted. When Pack was brought on I immediately felt more confident about our passing and almost immediately Pack spread the ball nicely to Bryan where we had often failed previously. But I totally get why against Reading, who like to keep the ball, fairly meaninglessly at times in midfield, Johnson went for two terriers instead.

[BCFC Grim]

7 minutes ago, Negan said:

Well Reading still made plenty of chances and had they taken them they would have won 4-1. Luckily they we're poor in front of goal. Still think Brownhill and Pack are a better/stronger option. 

I thought we limited then to long range efforts. They missed a couple of great chances but I'd say Patterson's effort was the best chance of the match bar the goal.

[JoeAman08]

3 hours ago, BCFC Grim said:

I thought we limited then to long range efforts. They missed a couple of great chances but I'd say Patterson's effort was the best chance of the match bar the goal.

Spot on. They had 60% possession so were bound to have more shots. Most of them were long range shots. Good saves by FF in that he caught them but saves I'd expect him to make. They probably had 2-3 chances in the box and missed the target though we probably had 2-3 in the box and one that got us the 3 points. They didn't really trouble us when we were set defensively. Second half I think we were the better side by a fair margin. Just so much more productive in our passing than Reading. Mannone had far more touches than I'd like to see if I were a Reading fan.