Reading ready for the Championship but QPR are the Premiership team

It was fitting that Reading and QPR played out a pretty dire 0-0 draw that confirmed both teams’ relegation from the Premiership. Reading never really looked capable of surviving, and the sacking of Brian McDermott in March was senseless. QPR had a squad assembled by a ten-year-old playing Football Manager, and the malaise that set in under Mark Hughes continued under Harry Redknapp.

For both clubs, missing out on the increased broadcast deal that kicks in next season (bottom will get as much in 2014 as City did for winning the league in 2012) is a blow to their short and medium term futures, but Reading and QPR have their own issues to overcome. Somewhat strangely, Reading look better prepared for the Championship but Queens Park Rangers are nearer the level required to be a Premiership club.

Firstly, let’s look at Reading. The squad has championship written all over it, with only Pavel Pogrebnyak having a CV that looks anything like top flight. Even then, the big Russian showed how unpredictable he could be when on loan at Fulham – he scored five goals in his first three appearances, but 1 in the next 9 – and the fact he chose the Championship champions over an established Premier League side hinted that professional ambition was less a driving force than the pay package he would receive.

The only other player who has been linked with a stay in the Premiership next season is goalkeeper Alex McCarthy, primarily off the back of his stellar display in shutting out Liverpool a couple of weeks ago. No one else has made an impression, even January player of the month Adam Le Fondre, whose goal scoring exploits started and finished over the New Year period.

The side is largely the same one that went on a storming run in the first half of 2012 to march to the Championship title. Added to this have been Gareth McLeary, Danny Guthrie, Steven Kelly and Adrian Mariappa, good second tier players or ones Premier League teams no longer wanted. With Nigel Adkins at the helm, it would be no surprise to see the Royals competing for promotion next season, and the club is run in a way that means they will have made the most of their season in the top flight, but should they get promoted again the starting XI and first team squad needs major investment to compete in the Premiership.

QPR, on the other hand, are laden full of so called ‘quality players’, but their performances on the pitch have beggared belief. There are Champions League winners in Julio Cesar, Jose Bosingwa, Park Ji-Sung; internationals like Rob Green, Loic Remy, Adel Taarabt, Stephane M’Bia, Esteban Granero, Shaun Wright-Phillips, Jermaine Jenas, Bobby Zamora; and Premier League players like Chris Samba, Junior Holiett, Adam Johnson, Nedum Onuoha and many, many others. For both Mark Hughes and Harry Redknapp to fail to find a team amongst that lot speaks badly of both the managers and the players.

QPR are a small club compared to the rest of the league, but they have a massive wage bill and have splashed out lavishly under Tony Fernandes. Loftus Road only holds around 18,000 but the club does have the allure of being in London, and plans are afoot to have a much larger stadium. However, in the short term they have to deal with that wage bill that is already excessive compared to their revenue in the Premier League, never mind the Championship.

Does Fernandes fund the club for another year and hope to bounce back up first time round? Do they try to cut the fat from the squad, or restart completely? Will Redknapp stick around? The club has far more resources on its playing squad than Reading, so if the Hoops decide to sell they can, hypothetically, generate more revenue but with so many players on such big contracts buyers might be hard to find, and Rangers may end up paying a large proportion of the players’ wages even after they have moved on, a bit like Leeds had to.

It is clear the squad is unbalanced and needs a spring clean – that would be the situation even if QPR stayed up – and if Redknapp sticks around he will show his ruthless side and get rid of the players he does not fancy (all of them?). As the ex-Spurs boss said, if the players think they are too good for the championship or think they will sail to promotion then why did they get relegated in the first place?

However, Redknapp is a proven Premier League manager, QPR do have a history of playing in the top league, and if they can get back into the Premiership, even after a lot of buying and selling, you would fancy them to stay up rather than Reading. The base level of the playing squad is, theoretically, much higher than Reading’s, the owner looks more willing to invest and pay high wages, and there is the lure of London (although I appreciate Reading is not far from London, it is still a factor).

Apart from the big shortfall financially, the other problem is whether whoever is left at QPR come August is ready for the unique challenge of the Championship. As this season has shown, anyone can beat anyone. The Championship is probably the most competitive league on the planet and if a team can get on a run they can suddenly surge right up the table, as Reading can testify. Will QPR’s foreign contingent be ready for the physical battles, the intense atmosphere at away grounds, the sheer number of matches? Only time will tell.

Plenty of sides have fallen out of the Premier League and struggled in the Championship despite appearing to have a higher quality team (Wolves and to a lesser extent Blackburn are prime examples this season) but with a summer window to shop Redknapp would be fancied to right the wrongs of the last twelve to eighteen months and get a team that can get out of the Championship and be ready to stay in the Premiership. Reading are a stable side and know what the second tier is all about, but as this season showed they are a long way from being a Premier League team.

Goal Line Technology not the only ugly beast to raise its head

Football can be magnificent sometimes. Mere minutes after QPR had entered the dressing room at half time fuming with the injustice of a lineman wrongly deciding that Clint Hill's header had not cross the line, they then get the rub of the green over an offside decision that sees Djibril Cisse equalise against Bolton. In the blink of an eye the discussion moves from Goal Line Technology (GLT) to general refereeing incompetence, but if anything this only goes to show the complexities over GLT.

Fifa has taken its time to come round to the idea of GLT and it was only after the recent International FA board meeting (IFAB) that Fifa gave the green light for two systems, Hawk-Eye (well known to Cricket and Tennis fans) and GoalRef, to undergo further testing with a view to testing them in the 2013-14 season. The English Premier League has indicated they are more than ready to embrace GLT but in analysing the two systems it is easy to see why officials favour the GoalRef option.

Fifa has two main criteria when it comes to GLT. It should be quick - the delay between the ball crossing the line and the ref being notified should be around 1-2 seconds - and it should be 100% accurate. Accuracy is naturally important - there can be no margin for error as allowed under the Hawk-Eye cricket system. The last thing we want is managers pedantically arguing over a 3mm error margin, and a 100% system will stop all argument (one hopes).

The decision relay time is massively important. In today's game at the Reebok, Gary Neville commented that it only took him and his fellow commentator ten to fifteen seconds to see that the ball had crossed the line - less time than it took the pedantic linesmen to insure that the rules of football were followed and corner kicks were taking from the right place. This brings up a key issue of GLT and indeed any kind of technology that assists referee decision making - open play.

Referees and linesmen can take their time insisting the ball is spotted in the right place, that players are the full ten yards behind the ball, or confer with their fellow officials over whether a penalty or free kick was rightly awarded, because the play is dead. In a fast game like football, where the play can switch from one end to the other in a matter of seconds, referees are not afforded the luxury of time and have to make decisions instantly. If the ball, in their opinion, does not go across the line, the defending team can be up the other end and score a goal before people like Gary Neville have had a chance to decide whether the initial effort was a goal.

Also, consider this: what if the attacking team had their shot, it wasn't given, but they were still on the attack in the penalty box? Should the ref stop play, kill all momentum and end the attacking team's chance only to find that the ball did not cross the line? When does the action stop? What happens when it does? The game is too fluid in open play to stop and check decisions.

The Hawk-Eye system uses camera's mounted around the ground and an optical recognition system (i.e. a glorified spot the ball competition) to compute if the ball goes over the line. Two issues arise with a camera system, the first being that there can be so many obstacles in the penalty box that there is a danger that the cameras would not be able to detect a goal when one went in. What if a keeper smothers the ball and with his body obscuring the ball he pulls it back from over the line? Goal Line decisions are relatively rare in football and this scenario is obviously even rarer still, but if it is a possibility it only needs to happen once on the big stage for all confidence in the system to disappear.

The other issue with using cameras, one which makes it unfavoured by officials and thankfully is absent in the Hawk-Eye case, is human interpretation.

Officials fear that the use of cameras for GLT will be the first step on the road to fourth officials hunched over TV screens and managers watching video replays and throwing in protests and challenges. You only need to listen to the interviews after one weekend of football to hear two managers or sets of players disagree vehemently over a seemingly obvious decision, and it does not matter whether the human error is made on the pitch, next to the dugouts or in a TV truck, it will not eliminate even half the wrong decisions and only extend the number of people managers can vent their anger at.

A recent presentation to journalists by the Professional Game Match Officals Board revealed that linesmen get 99% of offside decisions right. On Sky's Sunday Supplement host Brian Woolnough commented how tough their job was after he and his fellow scribes were given a test of three offside decisions and Brian got all three wrong! Stopping to examine camera footage would slow down the game immensely, and if offsides and penalty calls are afforded trial by television, where would it end? We would have micro-management of games to an absurd scale.

So on to the GoalRef system, which uses a magnetic field and an electronic device inside the ballto detect when a goal has been scored. What effect the device could have on the physics of the ball is something that will be tested, as well as what impact the striking on the ball will have on the device. If GoalRef passes these tests then it would be my prefered choice - it doesn't rely on any human error, would not open the door to potential troubling advances by technology, and should give a result that no one could argue with (but no doubt some technophobes will blame whatever system comesinto play, anything to remove the burden from their shoulders).

If it were not for Clint Hill's 'goal' or Cisse's offside equaliser what would Neville, Wilkins and company have talked about? What would Mark Hughes say in his post match press conference? Incidents like these are what football is all about. A bit of good luck here, a bit of bad luck there, it all evens itself out and the big teams get all the big decisions. Football is fluid and it is live and it is exciting, and technology should only be embraced if it is instant and not up to conjecture. Let's not turn football into a mechanic, robotic sport, a game resorted to set pieces all day long. There is already a sport like that anyway - American Football.

Scrapheap for McCarthy

Deposed Wolves manager will find it hard to get back into management

Dear, dear Mick....just when I encouraged you to be more attacking and play two strikers upfront, you go all silly and chuck on three for the Black Country derby. What were you thinking?

The Yorkshireman crumbled under the pressure. After Kevin Doyle scored the winner against QPR last week McCarthy mistakenly thought that he had finally found the winning formula. Attack. Attack attack attack. The three striker system that overcame the West London club and secured a vital three points would be the system to overcame a well drilled West Brom side that was more successful on the road than back at their Hawthorns ground. As a theory, it contained some glaring holes.

Firstly, QPR were down to ten men. Wolves had actually started with their typical 4-5-1 formation and only injury and necessity saw that change. Wolves grabbed a goal straight after the restart, and even at 2-1 it could be said they did not have the game all their own way.

Against West Brom McCarthy's men were exposed from the first whistle. They only went in at half time level thanks to good goalkeeping from Wayne Hennessey and the killer instinct from Steven Fletcher, two players who are unlikely to leave the Premiership anytime soon even if Wolves do.

Once Jonas Olsson made it 3-1 Wolves were always liable to get hit on the counter, but McCarthy can have no complaints for his sacking. As stated in my piece six days ago McCarthy had spent money and accumulated a good squad that was understandably expected to perform better.

But where now for the former Republic of Ireland Manager? At 53 he could be said to be entering the prime of his managerial career but if he wants to get back on to the managerial rollercoaster he will have to step down a level. Steady building does not excite the mind like beating the odds against relegation, or the euphoria of taking a team (or teams) up to the Premiership. Wolves did not go up in a blaze of glory, they did not dazzle in the Premiership, and McCarthy's dour demeanour leaves a lasting impression for all the wrong reasons.

It's harsh to criticise a man who carried himself with a lot of dignity. Responsibility was accepted, bad luck was balanced with good, plaudits handed out to opponents when appropriate, and when the fans got on his back McCarthy allowed them their rights. There is much to admire but not much to find attractive about the ex-Sunderland boss.

That disastrous 2005-06 campaign sticks in the memory, when the Black Cats secured only 16 points in 28 games under McCarthy, as does the falling out with Roy Keane in the World Cup. McCarthy lacks the youthfulness, vigour, and perceived tactical knowledge that appears to be in vogue at the moment. It's easy to forget that he turned round a middling Wolves side that was failing to live up to expectations under Glenn Hoddle. However, that type of job, a job McCarthy would be best suited to, is likely to be offered to a younger man untainted by past failings and one has to wonder whether McCarthy wants another grinding job.

Management is a young man's game these days and a seasoned vet like McCarthy may find it hard to get his foot back in the door. After 20 years as a manager and 25 as a player, including 57 caps for the Republic of Ireland, McCarthy should enjoy some down time and hope his absence makes a chairman's heart grow fonder. Unfortunately for Mick, I don't think he will ever be remembered fondly enough.

Sod the Opposition, Respect the Game

Handshake furore makes grown men look like kids.

Nice to see we have our priorities in order. When racism creeps back into our game, the England manager resigns on a point of principal, the FA acts on a point of principal, and Harry Redknapp shows the ineptitude of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (in one way or another), we all get our knickers in a twist over a handshake or two.

Some say the pre-match ritual of shaking hands with your opponent is redundant. It's meaningless, we wouldn't miss it if it were gone, but these same people agree handshakes should be exchanged after the game. The thought occurs that a handshake, before or after the game, is materially the same. Why can't you respect an opponent before the game as well as after? Only when you've tried to metaphorically (and sometimes literally) kick the shit out of someone can you respect them. Nonsense.

If the handshake is meaningless why do people feel the need to go out of their way to avoid it? Why did the FA feel the need to cancel the pre-match handshake between QPR and Chelsea? Why did some QPR players, Wayne Bridge, Luis Suarez or Rio Ferdinand not shake hands? If it's something that has absolutely no impact on life in any guise, why be a dick about it? Next we won't have players sharing the same tunnel, the same stadium, the same car maker, watch designer, or the same wag.

Personally I think the handshake is important. The pre-match handshake signifies the start of the contest, a sign that while the other team is an opponent they are also a footballer. That as much as player X represents one team, player Y represents the other, and hopefully the game will be played in the right manner and the opponent, whoever they may be, will be treated fairly and with respect (as a footballer, not necessarily as the person they are away from the game).

Just because you shake someone's hand does not mean you condone their actions. Football is not about John Terry or Luis Suarez or Patrice Evra or Bradley Woods-Garness (Sutton Utd player before you ask), the game is much, much bigger. If I was lined up against someone who I personally disliked, I would not avoid shaking their hand, because that says more about me than it does about them. I applaud Patrice Evra for trying to shake Suarez's hand on Saturday because it showed that no matter what someone else did, Evra was not going to let that change who he is. If I had a problem with John Terry I would not want to show he had got to me; in fact I would grip his hand tighter, let him know he was in a fight (then I'd yank his hand towards me, pulling him off balance and making him look a fool).

Professional footballers have a responsibility, a responsibility to the game and the next generation of players who are playing in the schools and the parks across the country. Rather than be dragged down by the lowest denominator on the pitch why don't we try to raise the bar and meet the highest of standards?