πŸ§‘β€βš–οΈ Referee Analysis⚠️ BIAS DETECTED

T ReevesvsReading

Analysis based on 4 matches since 2000

* Note: Detailed card statistics for matches before 2005 may be incomplete.

1
Wins
1
Draws
2
Losses
🚨STRONG BIAS DETECTED

🚨 STRONG BIAS DETECTED

This referee has a significantly negative history with this team. Win rate is severely below average.

Bias Score
-20.0%
Matches Analyzed
4
⚠️

Notable Negative Pattern

With a bias score of -20.0%, this ranks among the more significant negative patterns in our database. Over 4 matches, Reading has won 20 percentage points fewer games than expected. For bettors and fantasy managers, this historical trend suggests extra caution when T Reeves is appointed.

The Bias Meterβ„’

Bias Level-20.0%
Bias AgainstNeutralFavorable

Match History

4 matches under this referee

1 Jan 2026
Burton (H)
League One
WIN
2 - 0
Cards Awarded:
Reading:
β€”
Burton:
β€”
20 Aug 2025
Bolton (A)
League One
DRAW
1 - 1
Cards Awarded:
Reading:
🟨 5
Bolton:
β€”
20 Jan 2024
Wigan (A)
League One
LOSS
0 - 1
Cards Awarded:
Reading:
🟨 1
Wigan:
🟨 2
23 Sept 2023
Blackpool (A)
League One
LOSS
1 - 4
Cards Awarded:
Reading:
🟨 1
Blackpool:
β€”

When T Reeves officiates Reading matches, the statistics reveal a severe negative pattern. Based on 4 matches spanning multiple seasons, our comprehensive analysis shows Reading achieves a 25% win rate under T Reeves, compared to the 45% baseline expected for teams at this level. This negative 20.0 percentage point difference suggests a meaningful pattern worth examining. The data includes detailed card statistics, match outcomes, and historical trends to provide football fans, bettors, and analysts with evidence-based insights into this referee-team dynamic.

Frequently Asked Questions

Detailed Statistics

Win Rate (Under Ref)25.0%
Baseline Win Rate45%
Bias Score-20.0%

Cards for Reading

🟨 Yellows / Game1.75
πŸŸ₯ Reds / Game0.00

Cards for Opponents

🟨 Opp Yellows / Game0.50
πŸŸ₯ Opp Reds / Game0.00

Share This Analysis

Think your mates need to see this? Share the evidence.