How good is Brian McDermott's transfer acumen?

The Reading sixteen involved away at Brighton on Tuesday night consisted of four Steve Coppell signings, two from Brendan Rodgers regime, three products of the youth system and seven Brian McDermott signings.

Due to McDermott’s long association with the club at various levels, he would be well acquainted with all of those players but with less than half being his own signings*, just how good has McDermott been in the transfer market in his time as manager of the club?

With a background in player scouting, McDermott should have a well trained eye when it comes to recognising the requisite skills he requires in a player to fill a problem position or to improve the starting XI but does the hard evidence support this theory?

Below are a list of all of the players McDermott has signed as manager or during his time as caretaker of Reading, grouped into three categories (success, failure, somewhere in between) and a sentence or two explaining why I feel they fall into that category.

Successes

Andy Griffin- signed January 2010 initially on loan but permanent deal made permanent that summer- added much needed experience to a shaky defence and provided a consistent, dependable presence

Zurab Khizanishvili- signed January 2010 initially on loan to end of the season which was made a year-long loan that summer- see above and also built a superb partnership built with Matt Mills last season that our post-January form was built on

Ian Harte- signed Summer 2010- probably initially seen as a one year solution to the left back hole vacated by Ryan Bertrand’s departure but has been just as important this season defensively and in terms of goals and assists

Mikele Leigertwood- signed on loan January 2011 until the end of the season, made permanent in Summer 2011- the turning point of our 2010/11 season and has been just as huge a presence in the centre of midfield this season

Kaspars Gorkss- signed August 2011- brought out the best in Alex Pearce to create arguably the best central defensive pairing in the division and chips in with some handy goals too

Adam le Fondre- signed August 2011- qualified success has he has yet to cement a permanent place in the starting XI but can think of three games this season off of the top of my head he has won us all three points (Watford and Milwall away, Leeds at home)

Jason Roberts- signed January 2012- in a similar fashion to Gorkss, has allowed someone else to shine (Noel Hunt in this case) and has been just as important for his experience and bringing a focal point to our attack, as well as being a focal point for a media coverage come to that

Matthew Connolly- signed January 2012- qualified success again due to his injury problems but brought in as cover for the last four months of the season and has been solid when called upon

Hayden Mullins- signed March 2012- same as above, brought in to add squad depth to see our thin squad through to the end of the year and has been capable at right back and centre midfield

Failures

Gunnar Thorvaldsson- signed January 2010 to end of the season- qualified failure as he was only on a short-term deal to provide cover and was never expected to make it long term at the club

Marcus Williams- signed Summer 2010- genuine mistake by McDermott but one that was quickly realised hence signing of Harte and offloading of Williams after one season

Matthieu Manset- signed January 2011- see above, potential seen but failure to get required fitness levels saw the striker replaced and quickly shown the door

Bongani Khumalo- signed on loan July 2011- see above again, genuine mistake that was alleviated by Gorkss signing and his hasty departure from the club

Somewhere in between/too early to tell

Ethan Gage- signed January 2011- young and on the cheap with time on his side

Erik Opashl- signed January 2011- see above

Cameron Edwards- signed May 2011- see above

Ryan Edwards- signed May 2011- see above

Joseph Mills- signed August 2011- potential is there and has a good tutor in Harte but injury problems hampered progress thus far

Cedric Basseya- signed September 2011- cheap punt that looks like being a failure but for next to no cost

Karl Sheppard- signed January 2012- young and promising striker for the future

Tomasz Cywka- signed January 2012- cheap cover signing that could still prove useful

Benik Afobe- signed March 2012- a short-term loan deal to diversify our attacking options a bit in the run in that hasn’t paid off 100% as of yet

Using crude numbers, that’s nine successes, four failures and nine somewhere in betweens which works out very favourably when the majority of the latter players are young professionals who were probably not expected to have an impact at this stage of their Reading FC careers.

There appear to be three very important points to take from this (admittedly subjective) analysis.

Firstly, McDermott’s ability to identify early on when he has made a mistake when signing a player and making moves to rectify it very quickly, as can be seen in the Williams, Manset and Khumalo signings where they were shipped off after less than a season with us and replaced with players who have paid off (Mills, to a certain extent, Roberts and Gorkss).

Secondly, McDermott’s nose for a potential short term problem developing, solving it and that problem then becoming a long term strength. As can be seen with the signings of Griffin, Harte and, in particular, Leigertwood, McDermott appears to take cheap punts on experienced players who still have something to prove to fill a gap but these players seem to become key components not only in the starting XI but around the club as a whole. It is very conceivable that given time, Gorkss and Roberts will perform a similar role as could Mullins and Connolly if they are given permanent deals. Whether the same will happen to the vast majority of players in the ‘in between’ list who were signed with a view to the future remains a key question regarding McDermott’s otherwise impeccable transfer market record.

Thirdly, the very small amount of money spent on the 22 players listed. With exact transfer fees hard to come by it is difficult to estimate how much the total cost of these signings has been but it is safe to say it is not a great deal, particularly compared to the outgoings seen at Reading the last few years.

McDermott clearly has the skill to pick out, on the cheap or loan, a player that not only has the footballing skills to improve the team but also the personal skills to contribute to the team spirit in evidence at the club during his tenure. Team spirit is the illusion glimpsed in the aftermath of victory, Steve Archibald famously observed and victory has been a common theme of McDermott’s reign. But the “greater than the sum of our parts” approach, to this season’s team particularly, is a key reason why we are where we are and the fact that McDermott appears to be able to identify factors in a prospective signing that would aid this spirit is crucial to his whole managerial ethos.

As mentioned earlier, it remains to be seen whether the young players McDermott has signed will prove to be as successful as their more senior pro counterparts but the fact that this doubt is the only real, conceivable blot on McDermott’s transfer record so far is testament to the skill of the man after only two and a half seasons in charge.

*this is something of a red herring due to the number of injuries we had going into the game

Does Fleetwood's impending records undermine ours?

There are a few other more important Reading FC-related things going on right now what with the promotion push, going top of the Championship for the first time in six years on Friday, away games at Brighton and Southampton this week, the continued fallout from the Leeds battle and the ongoing takeover of the club.

However, something a little lighter to alter the mood somewhat concerning our one remaining record in English football*; the most points accrued in a single season in any English professional league with the 106 points gained in the incredible 2005/06 season.

One of the common threads on internet messageboards since that season has been “106 watch” where the possible challengers to this record are ticked off one by one has the current season unfolds, leaving our record untouched once again.

This year, all of the contenders in the Football League have faded away and Premier League teams can never compete as they play eight games less in their season.

However, there remains an interesting challenger in the form of Fleetwood Town in the Blue Square Premier division who have racked up 101 points so far this season with four games remaining.

Despite games against second-placed Wrexham (second-placed but 11 points behind albeit with a game in hand) and play-off chasing Luton to come, Fleetwood should still manage to get at least two wins to go past our 106 point benchmark.

Fleetwood’s record this year is quite amazing, particularly away from home where they have picked up 56 points from a possible 66 so far and averaged nearly two and a half goals a game. Amazingly, they still haven’t guaranteed promotion as of yet due to the equally relentless form of chasing Wrexham who could also break the 100 point barrier and not even get promoted.

The wording of Reading’s record is “the most points in a single season in any English professional league” which eliminates the challenge of Fleetwood as, despite going full-time for the2010/11 season, play in a division in which all of the participants are not professional and largely semi-pro.

Furthermore, in recent seasons, there have been huge points totals accrued in the lower leagues as clubs like AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester distort the playing field at the levels they operated, despite their good intentions as institutions. I also seem to recall seeing on the Sky Sports News sidebar a few seasons ago a team with a huge points to game ratio but cannot remember for the life of me what league it was or who the team were.

Clearly, the records of these teams and Fleetwood should they break the 106 barrier does not invalidate the Reading record due to the wording but does it put an asterix next to it due to the increasingly professionalization of the Blue Square Premier division and the fact that no club (not even Crawley last season with 105 points) broke our record since the division went to 24 teams in 2006/07.

It shouldn’t do but as it is the first time a team from a league recognisable to most football fans has broken the 106 barrier since the 2005/06 season and the record has been in the conscious of Reading fans, it might feel a little bit undermined.

*Edwin van der Sar broke Steve Death’s record for the longest time without conceding a league goal a few years ago. Death retains the Football League record in this field but that does not mean he holds the record in English football

Robo-ref is no team morale builder

Another match weekend, another case of referees getting more than their fair share of the blame in key games up and down the divisions in England.

Firstly, we go to Stamford Bridge and the case of certainly one and possibly both of Chelsea’s goals in their victory over Wigan being wrongly awarded after both looked offside (according to the press, radio and TV of course), prompting usually mild-mannered Wigan boss Roberto Martinez to label the decisions “disgusting”.

Secondly, to the Madejski Stadium yesterday afternoon where a bad-tempered game with tackles from Leeds United players flying in almost worked as gameplan enough to stop Reading but could have easily resulted in three Leeds players seeing red (the card, the mist they had already seen). Disclaimer, this blogger is a Reading fan so may be somewhat biased though the evidence of the match clearly speaks for itself. In the post-match interviews, Leeds manager Neil Warnock said that it was hard for a referee to officiate in a difficult atmosphere where Reading players constantly surrounded him.

Clearly, these are two very different cases which can each be bracketed into the four main areas of contention when it comes to modern day refereeing; insufficient quality (Chelsea-Wigan), perceived big-club bias (Chelsea-Wigan), player influence on referees (Reading-Leeds) and blaming the officials whether justly or not (both games).

Many, many words and airtime minutes will be dedicated to whether or not the decisions were right, the standards of refereeing in contemporary football and players crowding referees but I feel as if the last point is somewhat overlooked in media analysis despite it probably being heard in 2/3s of managerial quotes.

As mentioned earlier, these are two very different cases involving two very different contexts with one being a pair of offside calls and another being about red cards but the contrasts can help outline a salient point that both cases demonstrate.

Casting aside important points such as the difference in team quality between Chelsea and Wigan which affects the chances of success for either side in the match, every managerial quote that blames the officials for their own team’s failure to succeed (and success is not just winning but a draw or even a close defeat depending on the opposition) is a manager’s attempt at deflecting pressure off of their players.

“My players were not good enough/are not good enough/ did not get their jobs right on the day, therefore we lost” is rarely used when it comes to a manager’s analysis of his team’s performance for reasons such as morale and team-building. Ergo, an exterior factor is identified and fingered with the blame and the key exterior factor is the officials as they have no right of reply either in the media or on the pitch itself.

Martinez and Warnock may well have been just in blaming the officials (for my money, the former is justified in doing so thanks to television evidence, the latter is not using the same evidence showing how reckless and dangerous some of tackles by Leeds players were) but the fact is that neither of their teams were good enough to achieve their goals on the day. The difference in quality between teams, perceived bias and so on are factors but the bottom line is, their teams were not good enough.

So here’s a thought; should technology be introduced in football to ensure that decisions on issues such as offsides, red cards, the ball crossing the line and so on are correct as often as possible, what exterior factor do losing managers blame to deflect attention from their team’s failings if the official's decision would be as near as makes no difference correct 100%?

Be careful what you wish for, perhaps?

The Hunger Games- 12A- 8 out of 10

To begin a frank admission; I have not read the Hunger Games trilogy of books. Now, go straight to the bottom of this post and put the various reasons why my opinion is no longer valid in the comments section.

Done? Good, now let us begin.

The Hunger Games (the opening book and the film, not the trilogy. This could get confusing) introduces us to the world of Panem; the North American landmass in the future following what would appear to be a hugely destructive civil war. The protagonist, Katniss Everdeen, comes from one of twelve backwater districts, reliant on primary industry to get by, which lost the civil war and, as a result, are subjugated by the Capitol as punishment for their treason.

One of their punishments is for each district to offer up a boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18 every year for a televised death match (The Hunger Games) with only one winner, broadcast in the Capitol and each of the districts. The winner’s district gets a reward of food, hence the name of the game.

Much like (I imagine of course) the book, the film is dripping with themes and gosh is it overt in showcasing these themes; in your face is an understatement.

A satirical swipe at reality television is an over-arching idea present as the Hunger Games is basically the X-Factor meets Love Island meets Survivor (albeit a far more violent version) in a Truman Show reality. The building-up of the back stories of the participants in the Hunger Games is exactly the same as all of the aforementioned reality shows. The residents of the Capitol (exquisitely dressed, snobbish and aristocratic) watch to see the humiliation and the inhabitants of the districts (grubby workers) cannot help themselves but watch, which sounds familiar.

Another theme, more underlying than the reality TV satire is of a class struggle with an exploited, looked down upon underclass forced to work for the Capitol, an idea exacerbated by the momentum gathered throughout the film of a rebellion and unity among the districts stirred by the actions of Katniss in the Games.

In a nutshell, The Hunger Games can be seen as Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror’s take on reality television added to the dystopian class struggle of 1984; not as powerful and epoch-defining as the latter but certainly with a similar message for the 21^st century.

Anyway, back to the film and the opening scene of the film almost set me up to dislike it from the very beginning. A three minute long sequence of the protagonist running through a forest and field shot with a handheld camera for the shaky-cam effect; a style I find difficult to focus with. However, once you get used to it, it is the best style for the film to go with the rough and tumble of the action sequences later on. Kudos director Gary Ross.

Speaking of, as impressively shot as the action sequences were, the 12A certificate left them feeling a little empty. Whilst blood is overused in modern day cinema, where the film is very explicit in outlining the vicious and merciless world that the Hunger Games produces (hell, half the players died in the first four minutes), no blood being spilled kind of makes it seem not as real. It could have been more gritty and real with a 15 certificate but that alienates the early teenagers who make up a segment of the book’s target audience. But what you can and can’t get away with in different film classifications is another story for another day.

One area where a reading of the trilogy could have come in handy is judging whether the lack of character development in the film is a similar problem in the book. Weighing in at 142 minutes, The Hunger Games is lengthy but an extra twenty minutes wouldn’t have done any harm to build more character identification with the audience. As horrible as it was when Rue was killed, as we had only really known her 15 minutes (in which she saved the protagonist twice it should be noted) it didn’t feel like a huge loss. The slow burning opening hour of the film could have been cut to alleviate this problem but, to be fair, I’m no screenplay writer. I write in my room, not at Starbucks.

The area where The Hunger Games really outstrips its rivals in the young adult book adaptations (Harry Potter and Twilight)is the performances from young actors, particularly 21-year old Jennifer Lawrence s Katniss who play the strong female lead to perfection; tough but feminine in equal measure.

Overall, an enjoyable enough film and solid enough to prompt this writer to both look forward to the next instalment of the trilogy (or four films if rumours are prove to be true) by which time I shall indeed have read all of the novels, thus making my opinion worthy of blogging about. Naturally.

The Voice vs BGT

Say what you like about the state of the British tabloid newspaper and what ‘it’ regards as ‘news’ currently but it doesn’t pick a front page story if it isn’t going to engross a potential reader into picking up the paper and then parting with some change to read said story.

And lo, it came to past yesterday that a dispute between a middle-aged man, a septuagenarian man, a woman that says “beautiful” a lot and two TV shows and TV channels was splashed across the front page of the Daily Mirror as the “battle of primetime, Saturday talent shows” started to warm up.

This is the TV equivalent of Blur vs Oasis back in 1995 with Amanda Holden launching a “death slur” at Sir Tom Jones (“death slur” certainly being an out of proportion description), Jones biting back about the essential purity of his show and Cowell sitting back ala Sir Alex Ferguson, pulling the strings and making his puppety rivals, and indeed his own puppety people, do exactly what he wants them to do; generate some 'buzz'.

But here’s the thing, ITV and Cowell are obviously rattled by the BBC’s challenger for two reasons. Firstly, Cowell sat out Britain’s Got Talent last year in what was widely perceived to be a failure of a series but whose launch still got more peak viewers than last night's party starter. You don’t return from the USA to bolster a show that was still pulling in the viewers if there isn’t an exterior challenge to your superiority.

Secondly, Britain’s Got Talent historically began towards the end of April, reaching a overblown conclusion as May drew to a close. This time around, it began on exactly the same day as The Voice was launched, presumably in  a bid to nullify the effect of the latter reaching its final stages when the former begins in earnest. It’s all about viewer numbers of course.

But, well, actually, it isn’t now, what with on-demand services and Sky+. The figures may show that Britain’s Got Talent had a higher peak audience and that The Voice had more viewers in the 20-minute slot in which both shows were being broadcast but all of that is neither here nor there as, in the world of Sky+ and on-demand, people can and will watch both shows. 

There is no real winner here. Britain’s Got Talent will inevitably get a higher peak viewing figure as it’s in the optimum slot where people are not eating dinner, the kids are still awake, people on a night out are still at home and so on.

The Voice probably got that 20-minute slot of dominance as viewers wanted to watch the end of it whilst Sky+-ing through the adverts of Britain’s Got Talent to catch up. One wonders whether advertisers will continue to pay extortionate fees to advertise on Britain’s Got Talent if so many viewers of both shows (4 million or so with some basic maths and assumptions using these figures) can Sky+ through the adverts to catch up with the broadcast (hence the peak five-minute slot being around 9pm) or go on-demand, but that’s another story.

The really interesting part to come out of last night is just how different two things that are essentially the same can be.

The Voice has made a big song and dance out of its format of the ‘coaches’ (like judges but not) not being able to see the contestant and so judging them solely on their voice (an admittedly ingeniously simple idea in marketing and pitching terms). This concept of it as a ‘nice’ alternative to Britain’s Got Talent´ is continued as very few acts are sent home and even the ones that are packed off are lavishly complimented on their talent and given a handshake from will.I.am for their troubles. Perhaps the only nasty thing about it is the logo which occasionally gets spun around over the visuals, inferring a solid “up yours” directed at Cowell in the most ostentatious attempt at subtlety ever and the balls-out lying about there being no sob-stories. There was. Lots.

On the other end of the scale, Britain’s Got Talent powers on over the seas of ordinary people’s dreams, captained by the Dark Lord Cowell, crushing the hopes of people all around the country with said people giving up their time voluntarily for the privilege. Even the good ones are ridiculed for their looks before they display their depths of talent (note Jonathan the operatic singer last night), showing how Black Mirror wasn’t a dystopian parody but actually a documentary about contemporary life (to paraphrase a Daily Mail line about 1984). But hey, come on, we don’t always like ourselves for it but we come back every week as it crushing a soul underneath a size-9 does make some good TV. Michael McIntyre was just too nice and we can’t be having that so back came Cowell and in came David Walliams who does a good line in bastardry beneath the cheeky exterior.

In many ways the two shows complement each other perfectly and in whichever order one watches them (Sky+ again) can probably provide you with an insight into what kind of person you are. If you watch The Voice first, you need the dream destroying aspect of Britain’s Got Talent to get over all of the faux-niceties of the former. Meanwhile, observing them vice versa provides you with a nice fluffy detox.  It’s all up to you.

Thoughts ahead of Blackpool

A gloriously sunny day with temperatures touching 20C and a game of football to look lustily forward tomorrow can only mean one of two things; it’s August or it’s nearly April.

If it were August, we would be full of anticipation and dreaming that starry-eyed dream of glory and promotion before, nine times out of ten, those dreams are broken before the clocks go back let alone when they go forward again.

Nine times out of ten that is, if you support someone other than Reading. For someone my age, coming into this stage of the season with something to play for is to be expected rather than to be shocked at (not that I’d take anything for granted as a Reading fan). Over a decade has now passed since we haven’t had something to play for going into the last eight games of the season.

So yes, it is nearly 20C, it has been sunny all day long and we can look forward lustily to the game against Blackpool tomorrow, still with those glory-based dreams in our mind, unbroken by the bitter winter of football now passed.

But now, now its crunch time. The winter months build character in a squad of players but now is the time when that character and those lessons learned are tested to the extreme and many are found wanting.

Without wanting to put too much of a point on it, it is now crunch time big for Reading. At the very base level, there are eight games left to secure promotion. Insert squeaky bum time reference here, naturally. Eight games where the pressure is at its intense.

Factor in that of those eight remaining games, seven are against the current top twelve in the Championship and three of the away matches are at St Mary’s, Upton Park and St. Andrews. More pressure. It’s not exactly the easiest run in but you’ve got to prove you’re better than the rest and there is the opportunity; come through those with your dream still intact and you’ve earned your glory.

On top of that, Reading will be going into the game against Blackpool in a situation they haven’t faced in 11 games;  coming off the back of a defeat in their last match (against Peterborough) in addition to being the hunted rather than the hunting in the race for the two automatic promotion spts.

Blackpool will be a similar proposition to the Posh; open, expansive attacking football. One look at the stats shows this with the Tangerines knocking in more goals than anyone else on their travels but also conceding the third highest away from home. However, it wasn’t the openness that did for us on Tuesday night but some uncharacteristic bad defending.

A similar proposition to Peterborough perhaps but there is the notable added advantage of being at home. We’ve lost just once in the league at the Madejski since the middle of November (and that in dubious circumstances vs Hull).

Looking at historical precedent, 70 points is very close to being the benchmark for a play-off place but the noises coming out of the club have been anything but settling. The players sound up for the run-in and determined to see it through and the bringing in Benik Afobe to bolster the attacking ranks sends out a message to those around us that Reading are up for the fight in the sunshine, just as they were in the rain and snow.

The Anti-Social Network @9pm, Monday, BBC3- 8 out of 10

And so once again I return to a favourite reviewing ground of mine; the BBC3 documentary at 9pm on a Monday evening. Great to be back.

So, let’s run The Anti-Social Network stacks up against my BBC3 documentary checklist (patent pending). Celebrity presenter? Check. Fellow celebrity guests? Yup. Real life people like you or I interviewed? That’s there too. Content aimed at a young adult audience? Oh yeah.

Formula stuck to but that isn’t much of a problem. These days BBC3’s documentary making style has come on leaps and bounds since the bottom-of-the-barrel-scraping that was Hotter than my daughter. Hardcore issues are tackled and brought to a wider audience.

The celebrity in question hosting this show is Richard Bacon who, I’m not saying it to kiss arse, is a talented broadcaster from the hard broadcasting of Five Live in the afternoon to the slightly less hard broadcasting of...ummmm... “Richard Bacon’s Beer and Pizza club” on ITV4.

Everyone in the entire country now knows what trolling is as its no longer a phenomenon stuck to the Internet. It’s all over the national newspapers, including the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph which means old people now know what it is now and have something else to fear.

As the show explains a concept we all already know, there are two types of trolling. The first is random, usually anonymous abuse toward both celebrities and regular people over the Internet. This consists of largely mindless drivel but also real threats, all delivered from safely behind a monitor.

Most of us who post creative items on the Internet (whether as a writer or artist or whatever) have been there; this blog has a couple and another blog I write for takes on loads of awful, terrible, lame attempts at trolling. Easier enough to deal with but rather unpleasant to deal with.

However, other trolling of this type is seriously vindictive and includes abuse aimed at Bacon, his wife and his son. Elsewhere, it led to a 15 year-old boy hanging himself due to online abuse.

The other type is just as harrowing and involves tribute pages to young people who have tragically died being hijacked and causing distress to family and friends.

The documentary itself is, in a similar way to Britain’s Gay Footballers, the issues covered are largely common knowledge but greater exposure to the issue is always welcome, particularly when it’s done well.

And done well it is, aside from the frequent intermittent footage of iPad and Mac use (Apple had better of paid for this product placement) and Bacon on his phone to show off some modern technology to appeal to we yoof. Largely, the public infomercial element of the show isn’t too overbearing as to make it unbearable.

There are some fascinating insights into the murky world of trolling where there is something of an arms race between trollers and the law going on. As the former take over innocent people’s accounts, creating fake accounts, covering their tracks and so on, the police struggle to catch up with them. They’re success is obvious as only two trollers have ever been arrested under the 2003 Communications Act.

There is also the awesome sounding passion of troll hunting, such as a man by the (fake) name of “Michael Fitzpatrick” who tracks down trolls but fears for his safety as a result. The almost military planning that goes into trolling tribute pages for children Fitzpatrick outlined was particularly disturbing.

Bacon accuses suspected trollers but when they are confronted they do pretty much what they expect you to do; deny, deny, deny. Obviously it’s easier to be assertive and in your face when sat at a keyboard and not in person. Either they deny or their strange justification from trolling that largely a sympathetic comment from a random person on a tribute page isn’t right so needs readdressing. Twisted logic thy name is the Internet.

Making a statement

Ten days ago, I wrote a meandering, dreadful piece of writing about the perceptions of the 1-0 scoreline in football. Really, do not read it at all unless you do literally have all the time in the world to burn.

The main point of the piece was to talk about how 1-0 wins in football are talked up by managers, pundits and commentators (no one-size fits all use of the word “media” here, friends) as “the sign of a successful team”.

This cliché is, inevitably, bollocks. The only time a series of wins by the odd goal looks good is come the end of the season, when hindsight becomes 20:20 and one can look back at that run of wins and say “yeah, that was where the confidence was built and promotion/title was really won”. At the time of those wins, confidence is never there, in the stands at least, to think a win is inevitable.

Much more confidence in your team comes from when you give another club a real dicking. It demonstrates a marked superiority, particularly when you add a clean sheet to the offering too. You can see both on the pitch and on paper that you are a lot better than a fellow team.

And so we come to Reading.

As we’ve quietly gone about our business since the turn of the year, picking up 31 points from 39 available (or 43 points from 51 since December 10^th), we haven’t  really destroyed anyone. Largely single goal or two goal wins have been the order of the day, built on solid defensive performances.

Whilst looking impressive, multiple games in which one unlucky break or piece of magic and the story could be completely different have, for myself at least, doubted how good we might actually be.

Nothing quite breeds confidence like some good solid numbers combined with an impressive performance. Winning well whilst playing badly is good and winning at the very least is also good but a superb performance married with a huge margin of victory is the business.

But, the game against Barnsley was so much more than some confirmation that we can destroy a team when we want to. There were a myriad of other factors to consider.

With our winning run coming to an end in midweek at Doncaster, it was interesting to see how we would bounce back from the smallest of setbacks. My own theory was that the pressure might have been released a bit as the overbearing nature of wanting to keep that run going would be lifted; an extended unbeaten run is a far more common occurrence than a long winning one. That would appear to have been the case.

Secondly, as is so often said, being the hunted is quite a different kettle of fish to being the hunter and Saturday marked the first time this season we were in that position with Reading going into the game second ahead of West Ham. Against a team in a decent run of form, we responded to this new challenge by hitting four goals, taking our goal difference above that of third-placed West Ham and briefly going top of the league.

On the other hand, our East London rivals have felt the pressure and slumped to three draws in a row. It would appear our squad has taken on the experience of last-years late-season pressure and how to cope with it. Pushing on for the whole 90 minutes to grab an extra goal to secure that improved goal difference also shows this experience coming to the fore.

There is still a long way to go this season and I’d still make us third-favourites for promotion thanks to our tricky run-in and the quality of our rivals but quietly going about our business is what we do and there still seems to be some reluctance to take our promotion push based on a “better-than-the-sum-of-our-parts” team approach. Long may it continue that way.

1-0s and time-shifting perspectives

The final score in football is always the most important piece of information to come out of a game. The way in which the score is achieved is quite irrelevant. As long as you get the right result, that is all you need. Even West Ham fans with Sam Allardyce, perhaps the most contrasting manager to an assumed historical ethos around right now, appreciate that.

But the problem with scorelines are that they can be deceptive and misleading. A 1-0 win can come as a result of utter domination from one team and putting away just the one chance or utter domination from that same team and the opposition doing a “smash and grab”. That’s the thing with numbers; they only tell you so much.

In theory and on paper, a 1-0 win is the perfect scoreline for the victorious team. It would appear to indicate minimal effort expended to get the advantage and the prevention of your opponents from achieving their primary aim of scoring.

However, the now clichéd “football is played on grass not paper” argument is the correct one here as anyone who has ever sat through a 1-0 win will attest. That slender advantage is under constant threat; every time the ball gets even remotely close to your team’s penalty box your heart beats increases and your bowels get that feeling usually reserved for that split second between saying a chat-up line and finding out whether it landed or not.

This might just be my in-built pessimism, developed over 15 years of supporting Reading, kicking in but even with a resolutely and proven solid defence, a 1-0 win never looks secure until the final whistle. A team that’s conceded just the one goal in the last seven games or so should be able to hold on to the slenderest of leads as they’ve done it before.

Indeed, we have on the majority of the games in our recent winning run which looks great, once the results have been secured. Sat watching it, one can’t help but feel that the odds of probability mean the equaliser has got to come soon, even with the best teams.

It’s commonly assumed that 1-0 wins that are ground out in the middle of the season are what indicates a successful team on the march to promotion or a title. But they sure as hell don’t feel that way when these wins are being accumulated, even on a regular basis as Reading are doing right now.

Maybe just the Reading pessimism again, seeing as only in THAT season have I ever approached Reading games with a lot of confidence in a positive outcome, but I can’t shake the feeling we will get found out soon. I said the same thing last season mind and Reading are an awful lot more well rounded side than this time last year.

1-0 wins may well be the benchmark of a good team but you just don’t know if the team is really that good, at Championship level anyway, until the season is drawing to a close. Come the end of April, we may well be saying that this period right now is where we won promotion but, right now, each single goal lead still brings the same fear.

Some thoughts on KONY2012

Waking up this morning, in a cosy warm bed with the opportunity to sleep a little more, have a shower, eat some breakfast or watch some TV all available to me, I went on Facebook and Twitter, my usual way of starting the day. How modern of me.

Quite often, there is always a dominant theme going on that people are talking about. I fully expected it to be the Arsenal game last night on a nationwide trend or, more locally, the Reading game last evening (as that’s a shared interest of myself and friends) and the ongoing Student Union elections at my old university, as I remain both interested and in touch with people involved there.

However, this morning, it was none of these things that were the dominant topic on my social media networks of choice. The overwhelming focal point of interest was an embedded YouTube video entitled “KONY 2012” and accompanying messages saying how moving and powerful it was.

For the first six hours of my day, I did not watch it. The reason? My entrenched cynicism.

I could recognise it was a campaign of some sort, most probably for a good cause with universal appeal. However, my cynicism prevented me from watching it as it looked to me, initially, that it was something of a basic approach to looking deep and caring. The kind of thing people could share on their Facebook to show how in touch with issues they are. An easy, almost lazy, way of showing how right on you are and that you want to make a difference, but only if that difference isn’t too difficult to achieve and you can do it by clicking “share” on YouTube or buying yourself a bracelet. A very worthy cause taken on and popularised, very briefly I assumed, that would not go anywhere.

After a while though, I saw that this video was not going away and my interest was very much growing, in retrospect, considering the aims of the project, a very apt way of me eventually watching it.

And yes, just yes.

This is the kind of thing the Internet has the power to do, connect people across the globe on a campaign. The “Cover the Night” events are not everyone’s cup of tea but that is merely one form of the attack plan of Invisible Children, in my opinion.*

For those of us in the UK, we haven’t gone through the massive ‘getting-in-touch-with-the-politicians’ campaign that the American branch of Invisible Children did that resulted in the military advisors being dispatched to Uganda. If you see the “Cover the Night” campaign as condoning vandalism (or similar arguments) you don’t have to do that to support that event.

Get in touch with politicians or just talk about the issue with people at work or online. That’s the point, not even to spread the word of the campaign itself, but to make Kony’s name known.

Is it something of a trend? Possibly yes but that should not make one iota of difference. If turning a campaign for a good cause into something that’s trendy among people rids the world of a Joseph Kony, that end justifies this particular means a billion times over. Posering that people are jumping on a bandwagon to look cool or look worldly is neither here nor there; getting the world talking and more people caring about the subject is all that matters.

Will all of the people who have currently pledged to go on the “Cover The Night” events across the country actually turn up? The fact is that in the modern age, attention spans are short and we all have leapt from one idea to another without following the former through. But, hopefully a fair number will turn out but even a handful is a handful more than would have turned up they had not seen the video in the first place.

Will it result in Joseph Kony appearing before the International Criminal Court? I have my doubts on this due to way the world seems to work. As the video says, the pressure applied by US military advisors helped the first time around so there is hope there.

Ultimately, the best thing for Kony is not being talked about, the worst is being talked about. Make that happen.

*For the record, I myself am unsure about whether to attend a “Cover the Night” event. Deep down, I would like to think so but I am equally as sure that I am as big a product of the Twitter generation (i.e. move on from things swiftly) that I may well lose interest, a depressing self-recognition that I might be able to alter.

EDIT; And thus we have the problem with the Internet and viral marketing. Much has come to light since this blog was posted about the activities of Invisible Children and their operation. This has changed my view of the situation somewhat though I still believe there is scope for large-scale campaigns using the Internet to orchestrate them.
I most certainly got caught up in the emotional pull of it all, which was of course the aim of the situation. This is clearly a huge issue and one that the international community has been attempting to combat over the years. It is also a complex one that a single aim group would struggle to solve.
Lastly, it is a shame however that, when people show an interest in a campaign such as this (despite it's faults) they are shot down for showing passion for something by others.
Remember kids, showing an interest in something isn't cool. Apathy and lethargy are what you should aim for.