Unpacking today’s match essentially boils down to one question: to what extent is this version of Reading Football Club the same as what we saw at the tail end of last season?
Going by the loud (and very familiar) chants of “Leam Richardson, your football is s**t” from some at full-time and the distinctly unimpressed views of a fair few people on social media after the game, there are plenty of Loyal Royals squarely in the ‘little to no change’ camp.
I get where they’re coming from (although the booing
was over the top). This 0-0 draw was yet another disappointing result when we had high hopes of a first win of the season – against a team widely tipped for relegation – and there absolutely were some hallmarks on the pitch of what we saw too often in 2025/26. Ending a goalless stalemate with repeated long balls to Jack Marriott makes all of us shudder.
On the other hand, I’m in the ‘this side is definitely trying to do things differently stylistically, but it’s at the start of its journey and is therefore far from perfect, but that doesn’t mean we should tar it with the same brush as the one we used for 2025/26’ camp. Granted, the name for that camp is a tad long-winded and could do with being condensed. It’s early days after all. I’ll work on it.
I am most certainly not arguing that this was a great Reading performance or that it was some kind of crime against football that we somehow didn’t win. I do however think this was a decent – albeit uneven and inconsistent – display, and one which would have been worthy of a win if we’d got it.
Reading (4-2-3-1): Pereira; Godwin-Malife, O’Connor, Ward, Roberts; Wing, Rinomhota; Lisbie, Stokes, Kyerewaa; Marriott
Subs: Stevens, Ahmed, Savage, Earthy, Lane, Williams, Brown
A big plus for me over the summer were improvements going forwards: Reading having a clearer plan of attack (focusing on the wings), as well as looking more positive and purposeful in getting the ball forwards. There were signs of that today – more so in the first half but also in the second.
Full-back Udoka Godwin-Malife was a real asset throughout the game, getting forward well in both halves. His highlight was getting in down the right at one point in the second half and setting up a pair of quality chances in quick succession that should have been put away (Josh Stokes’ effort saved, Kyreece Lisbie’s blocked). Another especially dangerous low cross later on was begging to be tucked away, only for no one to be on the end of it.
Reading need to keep working away on the attacking side of their game, of course.
For a starter, not enough chances were created for Jack Marriott, with all of his three shots coming before the hour mark. The second, a powerful effort from the right in the 13th minute that was pushed away well for a corner on the other side, was his standout. He did however have a shot blocked from close range early on, as well as getting in behind for another chance in the second half (saved).
Some players simply weren’t involved enough, namely number 10 Josh Stokes and left-winger Daniel Kyerewaa. It feels to me like we’re still working out how to get the former heavily involved in play and influential in the final third, while the latter is naturally inconsistent, although having Haydon Roberts settled at left-back behind him will hopefully help.
Plus, the Royals reverted to last season’s bad habits too much in the final half an hour or so, and the timing of the first two Reading substitutions were probably no coincidence on that front. Charlie Savage and George Earthy replaced Andy Rinomhota and Stokes respectively – meaning a worse balance in the double pivot (Reading losing muscle in the middle of the park) and relying on someone in the number 10 role who only joined a few days ago.
I wouldn’t fault either of those changes too much individually – the Rinomhota/Savage one has raised some eyebrows, but Richardson made a fair point after the game that Rinomhota was on a yellow card. As for the other, it made sense to try something different with a direct swap.
Still, we can’t be getting into positions where the midfield loses fluency late on after a couple of changes. That needs to be addressed on the training ground and with match practice, and hopefully will be.
Richardson was however far too passive in making alterations on the left flank, which failed to click into gear all game. He eventually swapped full-back Roberts and winger Kyerewaa off for Paddy Lane and Randell Williams in the 87th minute, but he should have intervened sooner (I’d have brought Kyerewaa off for Lane about half an hour earlier).
Those are all areas of improvement though – for manager and players – rather than fundamental issues. To me, Reading are trying to play football and only reverted to hopeless long balls up to Marriott when running out of ideas late on – very different to lacking ideas from minute one for too much of 2025/26.
Plus, I’m pleased we avoided a banana skin by staying steady at the back (Joel Pereira had one save to make), getting a clean sheet and ensuring we went home with a point. That’ll probably seem like a low bar to many, but given how keeping clean sheets has been an issue for this team (no shut-outs in the previous eight competitive fixtures), it’s a welcome improvement regardless.
All in all then, an imperfect, early-season performance from a team with a lot of improvement to come, which hopefully will. If Reading are still at this level in a few months’ time, that’ll be a problem, but for now I’m not worried. We’ll get there.
