Lincoln City at QPR: Fine Margins, Familiar Problems and Growing Concerns

I thought we started the second half reasonably well, and Adam Reach deserves some credit. He had an early effort blocked after Draper couldn’t connect with an overhead kick, and throughout the afternoon I thought he showed plenty of pace, application and willingness to get involved. He was certainly one of our better performers.

Rangers gradually regained control, but I expected that. They’re a better team than us, with players who generally cost more money, earn higher wages and possess greater technical quality. They were at home, in front of an excellent crowd, and they’re supposed to be better than Lincoln City. That’s not defeatist; it’s simply understanding our position. Middlesbrough were better than us when we played them, but we came away proud of our performance. As Chris pointed out afterwards, there’s a difference between losing a game while giving a good account of yourselves and losing one without showing what you’re capable of.

For a substantial period between our equaliser and their winner, I thought we did give a good account of ourselves. We weren’t perfect, but we competed, threatened and generally looked like the side that had people believing we could establish ourselves in mid-table. That includes neutral observers, not just those of us wearing rose-tinted glasses.

Of course, QPR had chances. George Wickens made saves, we blocked efforts, and Kone somehow missed an absolute sitter from around six yards. Had Draper missed that opportunity, we’d have been spitting feathers, and I certainly wouldn’t suggest that Rangers were fortunate to win. However, we had opportunities too. Reach got onto a huge clearance from Wickens, benefited from the bounce and cut inside before shooting over. He also had an effort blocked, while Draper forced a save after a decent move involving Tom Bayliss, although the better option might have been sliding in Street.

There were moments when our final ball wasn’t good enough, and I thought Daniel Oyegoke had a particularly difficult afternoon. His deliveries were disappointing, and there were occasions when we’d worked possession into promising areas only to waste the opportunity. We also missed the long-throw threat that’s been so valuable to us. Nevertheless, I felt we were doing enough to remain competitive. Rangers were better, but we were creating openings, making life difficult and showing the aggression we’d lacked early on. Had Reach scored, or had Hackett converted his first-half opportunity, perhaps we’re discussing an entirely different afternoon.

Then the substitutions began, and for me, that’s where the biggest difference between the teams became apparent, and another of my concerns. Mikkel Ladefoged looked like somebody returning from injury at times, which is entirely understandable, and replacing him with Rob Street wasn’t an unreasonable decision. However, I didn’t think Street got into the game particularly well. He worked hard, chased things down and showed his usual application, but there’s a point where you have to acknowledge that some players might find the step up more difficult than others, without dismissing everything they’ve achieved previously.

Compare that with Rangers introducing Chair. Every time he received possession, I felt something might happen, whether he cut inside, went outside or found a pass. He was capable of changing the game through individual brilliance, and he ultimately helped do precisely that. They could also introduce Dembélé, another technically gifted player who could offer something different. We don’t have those options, and that’s not necessarily the managers’ fault. It’s simply the reality of the squads available to them.

I thought Bayliss did reasonably well when he came on, particularly with his involvement in the move that created Draper’s chance. Tom Hamer’s introduction also made sense, although I know some supporters will have viewed it negatively. We were getting pushed back, struggling to escape Rangers’ pressure and finding ourselves outnumbered in certain areas. Bringing Hamer on offered greater defensive security while also giving us a potential attacking weapon through the long throw. Our set pieces, particularly those long, chaos-causing throws, were completely absent, and that’s a big miss.

The changes didn’t produce the outcome, but that doesn’t automatically make them a bad decision. You can only make changes using the players available, and I don’t believe simply replacing Konak with Ivan Varfolomeev, for instance, would necessarily have transformed the game. That’s largely a like-for-like change within the same structure.

The winner rather demonstrated that difference. Sub Chair was superb in the build-up, teasing our defence on the edge of the area before Glen Kamara finished smartly. Watching back, Jefferies comes away from his man to block the goal, and Chair slides the pass in to the gap he leaves. If he doesn’t come, can Chair shoot? Maybe, maybe not, but I won’t be blaming anyone.

Unfortunately, our later attacking changes didn’t provide the attacking spark we needed. Tanto Olaofe was largely anonymous, while Chiedozie Ogbene came on too late to have much influence. To be fair to them, they had very little time, but I haven’t seen much from them recently to suggest we can unlock Championship defences from the bench.

That brings me to that other significant concern, which is the loan market. We borrow players because we can’t necessarily afford to buy footballers of the quality we’re hoping to recruit, and those loan players should offer something beyond what we already possess.

At the moment, I haven’t seen anything from Olaofe that suggests he’s significantly better than the players who helped us win League One. Ogbene speaks extremely well, comes across as a great character and clearly wants to contribute, but I’m struggling to see the attacking quality we hoped he’d provide. Then there are Ethan Wheatley and Mason Melia, neither of whom has been available enough to make the impact we’d anticipated. I’m not necessarily blaming recruitment, because injuries and circumstances have undoubtedly contributed, but those four players were supposed to give us additional attacking options.

Instead, we’re often making substitutions that replace one set of qualities with something similar, without necessarily increasing our attacking threat. Meanwhile, QPR can introduce Chair and Dembélé, and suddenly the difference between the squads becomes painfully apparent. That’s not a criticism of Chris and Tom. They can only work with what they’ve got, and while they got the initial setup wrong, I thought they responded well. Their in-game adjustments brought us back into the contest, and I understood the logic behind their substitutions.

The concern is whether we have enough quality available to maintain our approach for an entire game. Chris and Tom regularly say that when we’re at our best, we can match anybody in the division, and I believe them. However, we also need the depth to sustain that level when players tire, opponents adjust, or injuries force changes. We couldn’t buy a whole new team when we came up, but the sticking players, the loan players, have not risen to the occasion, Konak aside.

A point at QPR would have been a terrific result, and I think you could make a reasonable argument that we’d done enough to deserve one. Rangers were the better side and deserved their victory on the balance of play, but that doesn’t mean we were completely outclassed throughout. The trouble is that we were dreadful for the opening 20 minutes and couldn’t regain control when Rangers began dominating again. We’re no longer consistently defending our penalty area well enough, and we’re not creating the volume of attacking opportunities that we need.

Four points from 24 is a concern, however you dress it up. It’s not a crisis, and I don’t believe we’re suddenly incapable of competing at this level, but it would be foolish to pretend everything is fine simply because we were brilliant last season. I still have enormous faith in Chris and Tom (of course you do, shout the moaners), and I think they’ve earned that through everything they’ve achieved. They also know the standards required better than anybody, and I suspect they’ll be more frustrated than most by the way we’ve played recently.

I’m not panicking, I’m not writing us off, and I’m certainly not suggesting Chris and Tom have suddenly forgotten how to coach football. But after one win in eight, I can’t pretend all of those unfounded worries are still only worries. Some have become genuine concerns, and the challenge now is to make sure we’re talking about them as problems we’ve solved, rather than problems that continue to define our season.