Untrue truisms

[Clyde1998]

As requested on the 'Richardson out' thread:

We can do “untrue truisms” on another thread, brought to you by “Nyambe and Roberts don’t cross the halfway line” and “just not sure what type of goals they’re trying to score”.

[Clyde1998]

I think my current thought is 'Reading are a massive club in League One'.

This obviously comes down to the definition of what a 'big club' is (fanbase; revenue; history; facilities; potential; etc.), but are we seriously much bigger than a lot of sides in this division?

We're historically a third tier side, which had a period of top two division football; our crowds put us around the play-off places (if it was a league table); our facilities are going to be among the best in the division (especially the training/youth setup); revenue hasn't been amazing.

I certainly think Cardiff; Bolton; and maybe Plymouth are bigger than us. Sides like Bradford; Huddersfield; Barnsley; Luton; Blackpool; Rotherham; Peterborough; and Stockport have aspects in which they're competitive with (or clearly bigger than) us.

We're towards the top end of the division, but we're not a side which should be blowing teams out of the water or have a god given right to be in the play-off picture given the relative competition we've got.

Also, our relative standing declines each season we're in League One. If next season we have both Sheffield Wednesday (almost certain) and Leicester/West Brom/Portsmouth/Blackburn(?) come down, we're probably smaller than any of them.

We're a larger club in this league, but nothing special imo.

[Linden Jones' Tash]

This is not to dismiss the claims of any other clubs currently at L1 level, but....

The financial footprint of Reading FC which requires a net spend of ~£10M per season just to stay afloat means we are too big for L1. ..

QED, we're too big for League 1...

[Snowflake Royal]

This is not to dismiss the claims of any other clubs currently at L1 level, but....

The financial footprint of Reading FC which requires a net spend of ~£10M per season just to stay afloat means we are too big for L1. ..

QED, we're too big for League 1...

Or does it just mean we're spending incredibly badly on things a L1 side doesn't need.

[From Despair To Where?]

Yeah, a significant part of that is the Cat 1 academy which is an extravagance in League 1

[Millsy]

1-2-3-4-5-*-2-£-!-4-! is necessary nowdays because 4-4-2 is so outdated.... in league one.

[Clyde1998]

This is not to dismiss the claims of any other clubs currently at L1 level, but....

The financial footprint of Reading FC which requires a net spend of ~£10M per season just to stay afloat means we are too big for L1. ..

QED, we're too big for League 1...

Or does it just mean we're spending incredibly badly on things a L1 side doesn't need.

I think it's partially this and partially almost all League One clubs making losses.

An example: we have about fifty professional players at the club. That's going to cause a huge outlay on wages.

[Hound]

This is not to dismiss the claims of any other clubs currently at L1 level, but....

The financial footprint of Reading FC which requires a net spend of ~£10M per season just to stay afloat means we are too big for L1. ..

QED, we're too big for League 1...

Or does it just mean we're spending incredibly badly on things a L1 side doesn't need.

I think it's partially this and partially almost all League One clubs making losses.

An example: we have about fifty professional players at the club. That's going to cause a huge outlay on wages.

The number of professionals we have is nuts. So many wasted wages - esp if we just end up mid table

[stealthpapes]

I certainly think Cardiff; Bolton; and maybe Plymouth are bigger than us.

You lost me at Plymouth.

Sides like Bradford; Huddersfield; Barnsley; Luton; Blackpool; Rotherham; Peterborough; and Stockport have aspects in which they're competitive with (or clearly bigger than) us.

Hmmmm. Some of these, not so much.

Firmly agree with the notion that the longer we stay down, the less we are perceived.

The only counter I have is that our away attendances have remained one of the largest in the division.

[Clyde1998]

I certainly think Cardiff; Bolton; and maybe Plymouth are bigger than us.

You lost me at Plymouth.

Sides like Bradford; Huddersfield; Barnsley; Luton; Blackpool; Rotherham; Peterborough; and Stockport have aspects in which they're competitive with (or clearly bigger than) us.

Hmmmm. Some of these, not so much.

Firmly agree with the notion that the longer we stay down, the less we are perceived.

The only counter I have is that our away attendances have remained one of the largest in the division.

With Plymouth, their revenues are relatively high and they have a big support. The latter point is evidenced by how well they travel, especially with the distances involved. It's obviously a YMMV thing when it comes to specific clubs though.

Our away attendances are decent for the division, true, and would no doubt be better with a similar amount of local games as (say) Bolton or Huddersfield have and larger away allocations for our local games.

[Extended-Phenotype]

1-2-3-4-5-*-2-£-!-4-! is necessary nowdays because 4-4-2 is so outdated.... in league one.

It’s not that formations pass their sell by date in isolation, it’s in response to the default formation change of all other teams. If the current convention is for five in midfield, four in midfield can struggle. Deeper second strikers don’t always cut the mustard in terms of ball winning and creativity.

Around the time we were bouncing around the premiere league we used to play “double 6”; 4-4-2 with two holding mids and two strikers, tending to just play round the middle of the pitch with touchline-hugging pacy wingers, while keeping things extremely tight, disciplined and defensive in front of the back four. If you don’t have the players for that, 4-4-2 in a league of 4-5-1s and 3-5-2s is going to struggle.

Usually the safest way to set yourself up against the opposition is to mirror them. That’s generally why formations fall in and out of favour league-wide.

[Sutekh]

I certainly think Cardiff; Bolton; and maybe Plymouth are bigger than us.

You lost me at Plymouth.

Sides like Bradford; Huddersfield; Barnsley; Luton; Blackpool; Rotherham; Peterborough; and Stockport have aspects in which they're competitive with (or clearly bigger than) us.

Hmmmm. Some of these, not so much.

Firmly agree with the notion that the longer we stay down, the less we are perceived.

The only counter I have is that our away attendances have remained one of the largest in the division.

With Plymouth, their revenues are relatively high and they have a big support. The latter point is evidenced by how well they travel, especially with the distances involved. It's obviously a YMMV thing when it comes to specific clubs though.

Our away attendances are decent for the division, true, and would no doubt be better with a similar amount of local games as (say) Bolton or Huddersfield have and larger away allocations for our local games.

Plymouth are big, their following is drawn from across Cornwall (until Truro hit the FL) as much as Devon as it’s the only football down that way that doesn’t feature odd shaped balls. They should comfortably fill the away end when they come up to Reading later this season as it’ll be seen as one of the more local games for them! Absolute credit to the effort and support they do maintain even when they struggle, though it seems rare to be in the same division when they do have a struggle. They’re owned by a US businessman who, was Bristol born, and a Plymouth supporter before he got involved with them.

Not bad really for a side that have a best ever league finish of 4th in the second tier (Division 2) in 1952/53.

The link below shows Aggregate League Records from 1888-89 to 2024-25

https://www.englishfootballleaguetables ... egate.html

Reading are 47th overall on attendance averages, Plymouth 42nd.

[Hound]

1-2-3-4-5-*-2-£-!-4-! is necessary nowdays because 4-4-2 is so outdated.... in league one.

It’s not that formations pass their sell by date in isolation, it’s in response to the default formation change of all other teams. If the current convention is for five in midfield, four in midfield can struggle. Deeper second strikers don’t always cut the mustard in terms of ball winning and creativity.

Around the time we were bouncing around the premiere league we used to play “double 6”; 4-4-2 with two holding mids and two strikers, tending to just play round the middle of the pitch with touchline-hugging pacy wingers, while keeping things extremely tight, disciplined and defensive in front of the back four. If you don’t have the players for that, 4-4-2 in a league of 4-5-1s and 3-5-2s is going to struggle.

Usually the safest way to set yourself up against the opposition is to mirror them. That’s generally why formations fall in and out of favour league-wide.

Yes. You can’t just say L1 is a bit shite so 4-4-2 is fine no matter who your players are. It’s still a formation that can work but something like a 4-2-3-1 has more versatility and is the extra line of players should make it easier to progress the ball

In saying that I could see a 4-4-2 working for us, maybe with a 2-4-4 or 2-3-5 attacking shape. Esp if Ward is CB

[traff]

Paddy Lane is a footballer.

[Extended-Phenotype]

1-2-3-4-5-*-2-£-!-4-! is necessary nowdays because 4-4-2 is so outdated.... in league one.

It’s not that formations pass their sell by date in isolation, it’s in response to the default formation change of all other teams. If the current convention is for five in midfield, four in midfield can struggle. Deeper second strikers don’t always cut the mustard in terms of ball winning and creativity.

Around the time we were bouncing around the premiere league we used to play “double 6”; 4-4-2 with two holding mids and two strikers, tending to just play round the middle of the pitch with touchline-hugging pacy wingers, while keeping things extremely tight, disciplined and defensive in front of the back four. If you don’t have the players for that, 4-4-2 in a league of 4-5-1s and 3-5-2s is going to struggle.

Usually the safest way to set yourself up against the opposition is to mirror them. That’s generally why formations fall in and out of favour league-wide.

Yes. You can’t just say L1 is a bit shite so 4-4-2 is fine no matter who your players are. It’s still a formation that can work but something like a 4-2-3-1 has more versatility and is the extra line of players should make it easier to progress the ball

In saying that I could see a 4-4-2 working for us, maybe with a 2-4-4 or 2-3-5 attacking shape. Esp if Ward is CB

I vastly prefer the overlapping wingers/fullbacks (2-4-4) to squeezing the wingers inside (2-3-5). But our biggest problem is that we don't have the wingers AND fullbacks to make a 4-4-2 work well.

[Esteban]

It’s not that formations pass their sell by date in isolation, it’s in response to the default formation change of all other teams. If the current convention is for five in midfield, four in midfield can struggle. Deeper second strikers don’t always cut the mustard in terms of ball winning and creativity.

Around the time we were bouncing around the premiere league we used to play “double 6”; 4-4-2 with two holding mids and two strikers, tending to just play round the middle of the pitch with touchline-hugging pacy wingers, while keeping things extremely tight, disciplined and defensive in front of the back four. If you don’t have the players for that, 4-4-2 in a league of 4-5-1s and 3-5-2s is going to struggle.

Usually the safest way to set yourself up against the opposition is to mirror them. That’s generally why formations fall in and out of favour league-wide.

Yes. You can’t just say L1 is a bit shite so 4-4-2 is fine no matter who your players are. It’s still a formation that can work but something like a 4-2-3-1 has more versatility and is the extra line of players should make it easier to progress the ball

In saying that I could see a 4-4-2 working for us, maybe with a 2-4-4 or 2-3-5 attacking shape. Esp if Ward is CB

I vastly prefer the overlapping wingers/fullbacks (2-4-4) to squeezing the wingers inside (2-3-5). But our biggest problem is that we don't have the wingers AND fullbacks to make a 4-4-2 work well.

Agreed and that's no doubt part of the reason we tried to sign Lisbie in January. We don't have the money to build a good squad in 1 or 2 windows, it'll take a couple more at least. Hopefully we thin out our current squad a bit in the summer and bring in more quality in those areas.

FWIW, I think Kelvin would be a better option on the wing that Lane, currently.

[AthleticoSpizz]

Paddy Lane is a footballer.

we appreciate that our fans love a good scapegoat, but we have actually won the last two games that he started

[stealthpapes]

So, Plymouth.



Like, if you started watching football in the 60s, we'd have been in tier 3 the whole time and them in tier 2. Maybe if that was it and you'd not moved on, maybe. Anything remotely modern - and we're calling Adam Ant and Duran Duran modern here - and its a big, fat nope.

[Hound]

Paddy Lane is a footballer.

we appreciate that our fans love a good scapegoat, but we have actually won the last two games that he started

He’s clearly not a bad player. His history shows that. He has had a couple of very good L1 seasons in the last 4 years. He had 19 goals/assists in 35 starts 2 seasons ago. That’s almost Wing level.

Similar to Ritchie and Doyle, they just don’t suit the way we play, occasionally they’ve enough quality to create an assist or something.

I’d say this is also true of DK and Randell who have been better but still fighting against a style of play that isn’t really getting the best out of them

I’d say overall they’ve all been disappointing (maybe excuse Randell) this year to some extent