reading football, rest, weakness and more luck

28Feb07

Reading Football Club manager Steve Coppell was being criticised for fielding a weakened team against Manchester United in the Fifth Round FA Cup replay Tuesday, devaluing the competition in pursuit of League ambitions and a place in European competition (a good source of extra cash).

It would seem to be symptomatic of the British disease of short-termism that he should face these brickbats. Anyone watching the first 20 minutes of the game would have agreed the team was below par, as Reading quickly conceded three goals. In the end, the result was 3-2 to the League leader, which also was not at full strength. But the quality of the home team was certainly vindicated, even if its early match strategy was not.

But competition is not just about one game. Confidence and success are threaded together. Overburden too few players with responsibility for carrying all the hopes of fans, particularly as a team becomes more successful, and that success may be short-lived. Rest and recovery are central to sustained success.

The low point-scoring value of a single goal makes football a particularly chancey game. So it may well pay to take a risk with a weaker team sometimes anyway. This is why football is more exciting according to statisticians. It produces more reversals of fortune.

But fans are a bit like investors. And club chairmen very definitely are. Losing is painful. This works against the hapless manager who needs time to build a long-term strategy, and may explain why key players are fielded too often, only to compound team weakness when they become re-injured.

Coppell seems to be a very tactical manager in any event. The Reading team compensates for its relative weakness against “super clubs” by aggressive practising of set-piece plays. In that respect, he creates a lot of his own luck. Hats off to him. He also has a degree in economics . As comedian Harry Hill would say: “what are the chances of that happenin’?”