clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Reading 5-2 Huddersfield: The Alternative View

New, comments

It's a replay, it's a Tuesday and Vydra hasn't been at his best. You know what that means... yep, rampant Royals.

Ben Hoskins/Getty Images

After a turgid capitulation over at MK Dons, the Royals returned to the Mad Stad and cup action in the form of a replay against Huddersfield. Many Terriers fans were incensed at the refereeing standard in the first game, with comments made about a penalty that wasn’t given (iffy) and a penalty that was given (never in a million years). The replay proved to be an "interesting" affair with once again a refereeing decision being pivotal in the result.

With 26 minutes gone and the Terriers leading 0-2 the official in the middle decided that Hoggs' pull-back on Vydra was deserving of a red. The Reading fans were incensed by the challenge and were crying for blood, with the Huddersfield fans demanding that there were two covering players coming in. The decision went with Reading, a red card followed and the game changed.

Would we have beaten an effective Huddersfield side with 11 men? That’s a question that is largely academic, as rules are rules and after seeing one get away on Saturday against the MK Dons, the Royals fans would have been rightly incensed if this also hadn’t been given.

However, as you can imagine the reports, tweets and reaction centered firmly around the sending off and the comments range from annoyance at the player to frustration with the officials. In reality, they should have been about a hat-trick from Vydra.

So, how did the social and media scene react?

Social

Only one place to start, the red card. Thoughts on the player...

And on the referee...

Ooooooooh touchy

This apparently was what Huddersfield should have done.

Don’t give up your day job

Oh go on then

Media

I'm going to start this week with the Daily Mail. When they do cover Reading in detail, the write-ups are really worth reading and this is no exception. They give a lovely report, and I do like the phrase "an uneasy control" which probably sums the game up quite nicely.

Staying with the national press and the Daily Star could almost be having a pop at Tim Dellor, saying that Vydra had "silenced his snipers". They again have a good report on us, highlighting McDermott’s comment about Vydra playing with a smile on his face.

The Express are the only one of the nationals not to give us many column inches - instead it's a quick couple of paragraphs from them.

Looking at the online media outlets and Sky Sports' take on it calls Huddersfield "rampant" before the red card, which is probably fair, but they do say that after that we had numerous chances.

As It’s the Emirates FA Cup (to give it’s full name) the coverage is predominantly on BBC and the highlights are worth watching as Vydra’s goals are actually very well taken.

Being a bit more regional, and starting with the press up north and the Yorkshire Evening Post is a little bit of a let down as it’s just a quick report and that’s it. The Huddersfield Examiner reckon the result was cruel saying it was a dramatic game and that the Royals beat Huddersfield for the second year running.

Closer to home with Get Reading and Charles as usual has a full bag of reports and reviews and he states that the result never looked in doubt once we got ahead, and has Vydra as the main difference between the two sides. His video report is always worth a viewing.

So Vydra hitting three, the Royals hitting five and fair to say an impressive second half display gives the Royals a good feeling going into Saturday’s league game. Hopefully we can see a couple of new signings at least on the bench and how about another Vydra hat trick? I will be back with the thoughts and views from the social and media scenes on that game.

Urzzzz