Long - Time to go.

[Victor Meldrew]

An interesting perspective

This is from NORWICH.

They don't seem to think Longy s'bad...





90+5
Gill is so close to heading into the back of his own net after brilliant work from Long!

88

McAnuff gets down the right hand side, crosses, it takes a deflection and goes over Ruddy! Long is there but he can't get his effort on target, and it's blocked anyway... it falls to Karacan...! Over!

86

Shane Long gets down the right and tries to drive a cross towards Simon Church but can only pick out Ruddy who takes the ball well.

77

McAnuff cuts inside from the left and fires in an effort which Ruddy spills and Ward clears behind for a corner with Long close to pouncing.

61

That penalty, was quite soft. Lappin didn't look to have made any contact with Shane Long there. Paul Lambert will be furious with the performance of this young referee tonight.

Shane Long to take the penalty... And he scores! 3-3! Ruddy went the right way, but had no chance! Reading back on equal terms!

45+2

Reading playing the ball about nicely now against the 10 men of Norwich. Long and Karacan getting the ball into the area, but both times it's cleared desperately.

40

Wonderful effort from Long! He looks to run at the Norwich defence, and arrows a strike from 25-yards which swerves in the air and Ruddy just manages to tip over the cross bar.

20

McAnuff gets a chance to run at Lappin, he commits two defenders before slipping a ball through to Church who whips a cross. which Long does really well to get a head to, but has no chance of directing his effort goalwards.

8

Lovely move, and really should have been finished off by Shane Long! Karacan chips through a lovely ball for the striker, and with just the keeper to beat, Long volleys straight at Ruddy.

Not sure why you posted that stuff from a Norwich fan-the way I read it is that (against 10 men) Long generally f****d up.
BTW as a fellow more senior poster could I ask you to stop the verbal abuse of some of the other posters with your use of moron and similar offensive remarks.

[Snowball]

Calling a moron a moron isn't offensive, it's merely accuracy.

[Snowball]

Not sure why you posted that stuff from a Norwich fan-the way I read it is that (against 10 men) Long generally f****d up.
.

I must have been at a different game. I thought Holt was sent
off in the 45th minute. What about the quotes on 8, 20, 40 minutes?

[Wycombe Royal]

Calling a moron a moron isn't offensive, it's merely accuracy.

Personally I'd rather be a moron than be you. And I really really honestly mean that.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Calling a moron a moron isn't offensive, it's merely accuracy.

It massively reduces any credibility you have,

[Wycombe Royal]

Calling a moron a moron isn't offensive, it's merely accuracy.

It massively reduces any credibility you have,

To reduce it you have to have some. He lost it all a long tome ago.......

[Snowball]

Calling a moron a moron isn't offensive, it's merely accuracy.

Personally I'd rather be a moron than be you. And I really really honestly mean that.

WELL YOU GOT BOTH YOUR WISHES...

[Wimb]

Agree AP, the fact Long's been improving throughout the last 12 months is nothing but good news for the player and the club, his game isn't all about goalscoring but he's going to need to improve on it if he's going to be part of a team that's capable of getting in and remaining in the Premier League.

Which brings me back to you Snowball......

This thread has 60 pages now and I'm still rather confused about your overall point of view towards Shane Long. That might sound ridiculous but as far as I'm concerned I don't know exactly what 'point' or 'opinion' you are trying to put over.

In my eyes the VAST majority of Reading fans would admit....

That Shane Long has shown in patches throughout his Reading career (2005 onward) that he's capable of scoring goals, to have done so at International level and across the top 2 divisions in England proves that point.

Similarly this thread is full of people admitting that they'd either written off Shane Long, or doubted he had the ability to lead a line or a Reading strikeforce in this division. Not everyone is lauding him up but that's fair as well.

People have also ACROSS THIS BOARD been saying how impressed they've been with Shane's work rate and his overall contribution to play. The fact he wins and scores penalties is another great trait of a striker and one that shouldn't be disregarded.

The above three points lead me to believe that if you think you're fighting a war against people who are labelling the entire of Shane Long's game 'shit' or saying 'he's useless' then you've already 'won'.

So what else exactly are you trying to prove?

So no retort?

Oh and lulz at you slagging off Ian for a mistake when you blundered on the Kitson stat not 4 pages back...

[Hampshire Royal]

Quote: "Now say he only had one season each at those two non-league sides, that's TWO HUNDRED competitive games. Of course it might be significantly more." End quote

Snowball, you made that statement on 16 November (God - it seems so long ago). You then went on to say that including the non-league games he had possibly more that 200 appearances. You asked me to come to you when Long had 200+ games. Well, using the same level of precision that you are re Kitson, I can categrically say that Long has made more than 200 competitive appearances, when you add in the games he played for St Michael's.

Was there ever a point to this incredibly tedious thread? If so what was it and how does it add to the sum of knowledge of Reading Football Club?

[Snowball]

The point about Kitson is to deal with the myth that it's as if he hadn't played football through his childhood and teens.

The fairy story almost tries to infer that he was a shelf-stacker who discovered he could kick a ball.

When the reality is much MUCH different.

He had been a serious, regular footballer and was playing non-league.
The story goes that he wasn't cutting it and decided to become a shelf-stacker (as you do)

As the direct info isn't in the public domain, I've only presumed a season at each non-league club.

For all I know he might have played full-seasons at Under 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,14,15, 16, 17, 18 and then played as an 18 year old and upwards in a man's side.
For all I know, his stint as a shelf-stacker taking a break from football might have been a week.

Nobody has ever suggested before this thread that he was a non-footballer, a bloke who didn't play football all through his childhood and teens


LONG, however, virtually everybody who discusses the player says the opposite.

The state that "the reason he isn't good enough" is because he DIDN'T play regular serious socceras a child or a teenager.

NOW WHICH STORY DO YOU WANT TO USE?




PS What level were St Michael's? When did he play there? How many games. What age?

[Snowball]

Was there ever a point to this incredibly tedious thread? If so what was it and how does it add to the sum of knowledge of Reading Football Club?

I didn't start a nasty thread suggesting a good, serious, hard-working servant to the club should be got rid of.

I'm defending a player I consider to be one of our best, one of the first on the team sheet

Anytime the rest of you want to shut up is fine by me.

[Snowball]

Found an article that suggests Kitson had stopped playing football for THREE YEARS before being picked again up by Cambridge United.

Nice story if it's true, but how exactly did that happen?

Was he kicking a cabbage around the store and spotted by an astute coach?

Or was he playing park football?

Anyone know?



Incidentally, the OS says Long started playing senior football at Cork.

[Barry the bird boggler]

1. Long is a good player and an asset to the team
2. He should not be played as the sole striker, personally I think he should play in the proverbial "hole" behind one or two other strikers

[Wimb]

1. Long is a good player and an asset to the team
2. He should not be played as the sole striker, personally I think he should play in the proverbial "hole" behind one or two other strikers

1. Yes
2. Perhaps but as the fancast guys were suggesting he could actually be a good asset in the wide role where Hunt has been playing.

[Snowball]

1. Long is a good player and an asset to the team
2. He should not be played as the sole striker, personally I think he should play in the proverbial "hole" behind one or two other strikers

Not really thought about it but always presumed the hole role needed the extra close control of a midfielder.

If we could, I'd play Long-Hunt in 442, a very good combo, or HUNT in the hole. or switch Long to RW where 10 goals a season would be a good return

[mzungu_royal]

To the very 'kind' person who wrote this thread in the beginning and all the Long bashers, get off your high horses and see that ShLong is a good player. He has attributes that are good and he is becoming an ice cool customer in the penalty department. If he doesn't score goals from open play, it's because he chips in with penalties and lung busting runs to open up defences with his pace.

[Royal With Cheese]

To the very 'kind' person who wrote this thread in the beginning and all the Long bashers, get off your high horses and see that ShLong is a good player. He has attributes that are good and he is becoming an ice cool customer in the penalty department. If he doesn't score goals from open play, it's because he chips in with penalties and lung busting runs to open up defences with his pace.

Didn't Longy go through a period where he missed a few penalties?

[Wycombe Royal]

I didn't start a nasty thread suggesting a good, serious, hard-working servant to the club should be got rid of.

I'm defending a player I consider to be one of our best, one of the first on the team sheet.

But this is where your deluded, blinkered mind gets the better of you. Nearly all the people who are having a go at you do not have the opinion that Shane Long should be got rid of or even dropped in most cases.

We have an issue with YOU, not Shane Long. We are tearing your statisitcal analysis to shreds, which isn't hard, because it is so flawed in it's logic. Your sole reliance on it to prove a point is a joke and even when you are proven wrong you can't admit it and just move the goalposts.

THis topic is no longer about Shane Long. It is about you defending yourself and you have pretty much lost. If it was a boxing match it would have been stopped by TKO by now.

[Snowball]

I didn't start a nasty thread suggesting a good, serious, hard-working servant to the club should be got rid of.

I'm defending a player I consider to be one of our best, one of the first on the team sheet.

But this is where your deluded, blinkered mind gets the better of you. Nearly all the people who are having a go at you do not have the opinion that Shane Long should be got rid of or even dropped in most cases.

We have an issue with YOU, not Shane Long. We are tearing your statisitcal analysis to shreds, which isn't hard, because it is so flawed in it's logic. Your sole reliance on it to prove a point is a joke and even when you are proven wrong you can't admit it and just move the goalposts.

THis topic is no longer about Shane Long. It is about you defending yourself and you have pretty much lost. If it was a boxing match it would have been stopped by TKO by now.

YOU say. I think I'm doing very well, actually, especially considering you all work
in desperate shifts looking for the slightest fuzziness in anything I post.

Oh and what's the tile of the thread, again? I forget.

[Wycombe Royal]

I didn't start a nasty thread suggesting a good, serious, hard-working servant to the club should be got rid of.

I'm defending a player I consider to be one of our best, one of the first on the team sheet.

But this is where your deluded, blinkered mind gets the better of you. Nearly all the people who are having a go at you do not have the opinion that Shane Long should be got rid of or even dropped in most cases.

We have an issue with YOU, not Shane Long. We are tearing your statisitcal analysis to shreds, which isn't hard, because it is so flawed in it's logic. Your sole reliance on it to prove a point is a joke and even when you are proven wrong you can't admit it and just move the goalposts.

THis topic is no longer about Shane Long. It is about you defending yourself and you have pretty much lost. If it was a boxing match it would have been stopped by TKO by now.

YOU say. I think I'm doing very well, actually, especially considering you all work
in desperate shifts looking for the slightest fuzziness in anything I post.

Oh and what's the tile of the thread, again? I forget.

Look at who the topic was started by? It isn't anyone one of the people who have been ripping your statistical analysis to shreds. The discussion shifted from the original topic a long time ago.

And by the way how many people appear to be on your side in this discussion (that is the discussion about your stats)?

And you think you are doing well then you really need help. You laid down a challenge to me yesterday which I met with a surplus (you asked for 5 and I gave 8 or 9). And still you couldn't admit that you were beaten. You asked for 5 CURRENT Championship strikers, not other criteria. I met that and then you added the criteria (a criteria which would make the challenge impossible, but then that is the only way you can win).

As for us being desperate, how do you work that out? You are the one posting stat after stat (quite often 3 or 4 posts in row). It takes SECONDS to find flaws in your statistics. It isn't hard at all. My daughters (she is 6) first spelling test was more difficult.

You have to remember who you are arguing with here. We aren't uneductated, spotty teenagers. We are professional people, with full time jobs who have degrees and professional qualifications. You really need to show a little respect and maybe, just maybe, you might get some back.