You would think that, after 40 plus years of supporting Reading, I would have learned by now that no two performances are ever alike, and the only thing we’re consistent at is being inconsistent.
I started writing this shortly after the euphoria of a fantastic away win at Luton Town, but also had in the back of my mind the need to ‘leave space’ for the midweek game at Mansfield Town, with a small part of me hoping that any analysis would be similar. How wrong was I?
It will come as nothing new to any
football supporter when I say that consistency determines your fate as a team, and with that in mind, we are (IMO) destined for a finish outside the playoffs. I like to think of myself as somewhat of an optimist, yet even I can see that our inability to perform at the same level in two consecutive games will be our undoing come the end of the season.
My biggest frustration with our inconsistency is the fact that it is avoidable. Against Luton we played football how it was designed to be played – on the grass – yet against Mansfield in a swirling 50mph wind, we decided to play hopeless long balls to Long Kelvin, who went from a world-beater against the Hatters to a panel-beater against the Stags.
Regular readers of this column will know that I have been critical of Kelvin Ehibhatiomhan this season (largely due to the frustration of watching a professional with obvious talent stroll around the pitch without contribution). However, against Mansfield I had some sympathy for him.
Despite my criticism, his strengths are not controlling a ball that has been delivered to him via air traffic control or running onto mishit passes that land 30 yards from their intended target. Play the ball to the man’s feet, let him bring others into play, and then he’ll find himself the space to be a nuisance in and around the box.
The man in the dugout
It is games like those against Mansfield that make me seriously question Leam Richardsons credentials as a manager, and he is still sadly someone that I just cannot warm to.
Under Noel Hunt we had some pretty poor performances, yet under Richardson I have already counted three occasions when I have stated that “it’s the worst Reading performance I have seen for years”, and on every occasion I meant it. When we are bad, we are seriously bad.
I have said before that everyone sat in the stands, in the pub or at home on the sofa, are all the best managers in the world, yet sometimes it seems the glaringly obvious is seen by thousands of supporters and not by the one person making the decisions.
It was clear against Mansfield that the conditions were not conducive to long balls being pumped up to a lone striker, yet we continued to do it. It was also obvious that our centre-backs would struggle to play the ball out from the back on such a poor surface, yet we kept giving the ball to them without providing any outlet for a pass.
In such conditions you are then relying on Lewis Wing more than usual to provide an outlet for every ball, and if he is having a bad game (as he did against Mansfield), you lose any ability to create anything from the back to midfield.
Mansfield’s goal came from poor decision-making from Joel Pereira (not the first time his distribution could be questioned recently) and poor control from Wing, yet had someone other than Wing (who was central at the time) provided an outlet for the ball in a wider position, we would have faced less of a risk when the ball was lost.
Reading’s inflexibility
My biggest frustration with the way we play under Richardson (apart from it being largely boring to watch) is the fact that we are still very one-dimensional and do not seem to know any other way to play. It’s just the same repeated tactics with varying personnel.
I have watched several sides in League One this season who are prepared to change tactics when things are obviously not working, yet we continue to carry on regardless, in the hope that the same thing will bring different results.
It is no coincidence that the teams with a variable and more flexible formation who play differently based on the opposition – and to a lesser extent based on the conditions – are those currently enjoying success in the division. Lincoln City employ a 3-4-2-1 or 3-4-3 formation, in which they often focus on a high-pressing game that can create a four-striker approach when attacking, and are often praised for their versatility in terms of formation, often switching it during a game to get a result.
Similarly, both Cardiff City and Bolton Wanderers have employed no fewer than four different formations this season, all of which have been initiated by their opponents at the time, with only one formation change being forced due to injuries. It is that adaptability which brings the required results and consistency, furthermore giving you options both before and during a game.
To achieve this of course, you need to have players who are versatile in different positions. While we have players that can be very good in a specified position, we have very few that are versatile enough to adapt to several positions in different systems. That being the case, you must question the recruitment of said players in the first place – unless you are set on playing one-dimensional football, rather than the high-intensity football we were promised!
This Saturday we entertain Plymouth Argyle at the SCL, backed by 3,000 supporters making the trip from Devon.
Plymouth themselves have won five of their last six games after a very poor start to the season, so I’m expecting this to be a tough match. While I always find it very difficult not to be optimistic about us getting a result, I really cannot see us winning this one and therefore expect us to share the points.
Reading 2-2 Plymouth
(Wing, Savage; Pepple, Boateng)
14,110
Until next week.
Much love and c’mon URZZZ!
Dixey
