Shane Long

[Ian Royal]

You seriously need to get over your statistics. Doyle has already acheived more than Long ever will. Regardless of whatever statistics you want to dredge up to manipulate and support your view, LONG will NEVER be good enough to start regularly for a decent Reading side (mid tier 2 or higher).

No chance.

Oh

Strikers are on the pitch to score goals. How many does Shane Long have this season having started every game?

Early days in the season and he has been far from effective with very little competition. Happy to conceed he has already surpassed my expectations of him though... but I still think he's nothing more than a good league 1 / just about passable championship striker.

Scoring more than 10 goals in a season, or just some goals from open oxf*rd play, might go some way to making me revise my opinion. Which I'm happy to do if the evidence changes.

[Snowball]

Ian Royal, Football Pundit, said:

"LONG will NEVER be good enough to start regularly for a decent Reading side (mid tier 2 or higher)."




Wears the Number 9 shirt, started 22 (9) games last season, has started 12/13 this season, only game missed was injured..

You are, Ian, you were, Ian, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, TOTALLY WRONG.

[Wimb]

Ian Royal, Football Pundit, said:

"LONG will NEVER be good enough to start regularly for a decent Reading side (mid tier 2 or higher)."




Wears the Number 9 shirt, started 22 (9) games last season, has started 12/13 this season, only game missed was injured..

You are, Ian, you were, Ian, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, TOTALLY WRONG.

Or not Snowball... Paul Brayson started several games for Reading in the 2nd tier, did that make him good enough? or was it the fact that he was the best that was available to Tommy Burns? Football is littered with people who have accumulated tens if not hundreds of starts when they weren't really 'good enough'

Shane is doing enough to satisfy our current manager and that's fair play, Brian is a far better judge of talent then posters of an internet message board, it still doesn't prove that he's good enough, only that he's starting - two very different arguments.

[Ian Royal]

And of course, for half of last season we definitely weren't a mid-tier two side, we were relegation strugglers. Long's impressive purple patch obviously contributed to our recovery significantly... but it would be nice to be proved wrong and see him replicate scoring form half as good over 20 games as in that 6 which completely transforms his scoring record from starts.

As I said, he's come on much more than I could have imagined. He's still not exactly doing it though is he. Once again finished a season fairly strong and started the next disappointingly. Not good enough as a starter for us.

[Snowball]

"Will never be good enough to be a regular starter"

to a normal person means, "Will never be a regular starter."

You know that, I know that, Ian Royal knows that.

[Millsy]

There's no love love lost between Ian and me, but to be fair... I wouldn't say he was wrong.

Yes Long may be starting but fact is he isn't good enough to start as evidenced by his lack of goals and the massive discussion surrounding what we should do - new striker, different striker, change system, get midfielder. If he wa good enough, he'd be scoring and this debate wouldn't exist.

There's a difference between being good enough to start and actually starting.

Therefore thus far Ian's comment is SPOT ON as far as I'm concerned.

[Ian Royal]

There's no love love lost between Ian and me, but to be fair... I wouldn't say he was wrong.

Yes Long may be starting but fact is he isn't good enough to start as evidenced by his lack of goals and the massive discussion surrounding what we should do - new striker, different striker, change system, get midfielder. If he wa good enough, he'd be scoring and this debate wouldn't exist.

There's a difference between being good enough to start and actually starting.

Therefore thus far Ian's comment is SPOT ON as far as I'm concerned.

I've got nothing against you dude, you talk some shit sometimes, but don't we all.

[Millsy]

There's no love love lost between Ian and me, but to be fair... I wouldn't say he was wrong.

Yes Long may be starting but fact is he isn't good enough to start as evidenced by his lack of goals and the massive discussion surrounding what we should do - new striker, different striker, change system, get midfielder. If he wa good enough, he'd be scoring and this debate wouldn't exist.

There's a difference between being good enough to start and actually starting.

Therefore thus far Ian's comment is SPOT ON as far as I'm concerned.

I've got nothing against you dude, you talk some shit sometimes, but don't we all.

Hehe "no love lost" was a bit strong. I meant I've no particular reason to stick up for you. Always enjoy your contributions, shit or not

[Ian Royal]

Mwah!

[Millsy]

Gayer!

[Snowball]

Fine. Then we will simply have to ask people every time they make such statements, EXACTLY what they mean.


My statement on his abilities was specific and measurable.

Ian's was obviously presented in a way that allowed him to squirm out of any result.

Had Long failed to be selected, Ian wins.

Had Long been selected, Ian says "He's selected but he still isn't good enough."

That is plainly ridiculous.



Here are MY criteria. If the manager consistently selects a player for a Championship side he believes that player to be the best player for the job, and that means "good enough" in my book.

He is good-enough-to-be-selected. END.

For EVERY league game this season that he has been fit Long has been selected, showing quite clearly that he is/was preferred to Hunt, Church, Rasiak, Mooney, Bignall, Henry and Taylor.

Henry, as one example, having moved to Millwall has appeared 8 (1) times in the league, had 15 shots and scored zero goals.

Church's goal-scoring record this season is far better than Shane Long's 2 goals in open play from 4 (8)

Of course when SHANE scored very late goals as a substitute, I was told that was because it was "much easier" to come on late and score. Har-Har.

So despite 2 goals in "woop-de-dooh" open-play (and only 4 starts) the manager CLEARLY prefers Shane over Simon.

Even the most stupid of you must work it out that Long is doing what the manager wants and is clearly the best man for the job.


Maybe Carew or Scotland or Rooney are better. But OUR NUMBER NINE is Shane Long and we should support him.

A barren patch is not that rare. Supporters can help players overcome it.

[Ian Royal]

Had Long been selected and done his job by scoring regularly I would have been proved wrong. 2 goals and 2 assists isn't bad, fair play he's definitely a better player than a year or two ago, but it still isn't great.

The problem is Long's barren patch is virtually all of his starts. Take away his purple patch last season (and in fairness four games where he doesn't score as well, in fact lets be really generous and remove all the starts under Rodgers too - three) and his scoring record is 3 goals in 24 league starts, two of which are penalties.

8 in 35 (league only) isn't awful, but it's not really good enough for a team's primary striker.


And saying he is picked ahead of Henry - who isn't a striker and left, Rasiak - who left after a couple of games, Hunt who is just getting match fitness after a year out, a few youth players and Church who probably has even fewer of the attributes needed to play up front on his own is just plain desperate.

[Millsy]

Mate, Snowball, I DO actually like you as you know... but come off it dude!

What's the point in bringing up old quotes? Things change, circumstances change and Ian would be more than delighted to be proven wrong I'm sure and is also quite likely to put his hands up and admit it if so. None of us is a clairvoyant!

If you're so sure he'll one day be UNDISPUTEDLY good then why not save your quote-digging till then? If you're so sure (which you may well have every right to be - I certainly don't have the balls to comment either way!) then just hang on a bit longer till the inevitable time that he becomes an undisputed good starter.

To choose now to quote-dig and gloat when he happens to be starting but is the arguably the most ineffective player in the squad (not fit for purpose), who is causing several 50+ page threads about whether or not he even deserves to be in the squad/team with a fair bunch of fans tired of seeing him start is a little pointless.

Ian's comment still stands, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't dislike Long at all.

Wait till there can be no argument about him being good enough to start and then bring up old quotes! As I say most player-knockers would be over the moon to see a player come good and hold their hands up and admit it.

[Snowball]

Remember this run? The year we went out in the play-offs (two games where we also failed to score.)


We were playing Doyle and Noel Hunt, SHunt on one wing, Kebe on the other, Lita coming on as sub

0-2 A Swansea City
1-0 H Wolves (Wolves OG)
0-0 A QPR
0-0 H Preston
0-2 H Bristol City
0-1 H Nottm Forest

SIX CONSECUTIVE GAMES where NO Reading player scored (6 = Shane's worst run this season)

That is Doyle failed in the same way, at the same time as Noel Hunt failed, while SHunt and Kebe and Lita were also failing

A relegation side? No, after that dismal run we had dropped to THIRD.


We then had a brief respite of three games:

2-1 A Sheffield Wed (Long came on in the 77th, scored the winner and cleared off his own line)
2-2 A Plymouth
2-2 H Charlton (Long scored both our goals)

The Long scoring is just me having fun, NOT my real point.

we then couldn't score much for another run

0-1 H Ipswich Town
1-0 A Doncaster
0-0 D Palace
0-1 A Coventry City
0-1 H Sheffield Utd

A six game run and a 5 game run, 11 games, where our full-time players failed to score. We scored ONE whole goal, (Kitson in on loan with a speculative curler)


MY POINT is that it's over a season, over a career you make judgments. Long's goal-getting stands up against the rest very well, even when this season is included.

And he HAS scored twice this year, and could have taken that third penalty (Harte). Big deal that (currently) he hasn't got any from open play.
That's as much down to what he's being asked to do and the system we play, and the service from midfield. For Ireland he made a goal for Keane
and scored one himself... so in competitive matches he has 3 in 13 (1). Not great but better than 1 in 11 FROM THE WHOLE READING TEAM!

[Wimb]

There's no love love lost between Ian and me, but to be fair... I wouldn't say he was wrong.

Yes Long may be starting but fact is he isn't good enough to start as evidenced by his lack of goals and the massive discussion surrounding what we should do - new striker, different striker, change system, get midfielder. If he wa good enough, he'd be scoring and this debate wouldn't exist.

There's a difference between being good enough to start and actually starting.

Therefore thus far Ian's comment is SPOT ON as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly my point

[Snowball]

Agreed Schards, Henry is a much better footballer than Long imho. Good touch on the ball, equal pace to Long, despite being much taller, a decent cross, a fantastic shot.

And if Wiki is correct, he now has 9 goals in 27 career appearances, which is infinitely better than Long's record, despite playing as a winger, and despite some of those appearances being from the bench.

and none this season for Millwall (unless he scored Saturday)

[Snowball]

I've maligned Doyle. I've presumed he played most of his 90 minutes

If you put the exact minutes played in you get

2927 Minutes 18 goals = 163 minutes per goal DOYLE

0717 Minutes 04 goals = 179 minutes per goal LONG

1851 Minutes 10 goals = 185 minutes per goal HUNT

0575 Minutes 01 goals = 575 minutes per goal LITA



Doyle-Hunt starts P25 W16 D4 L5 51-19 = 52 Points = 2.08 per game. Equivalent of 95.68 point season

Doyle-Long starts P03 W01 D1 L1 05-05 = 04 points = 1.33 per game. Equivalent of 61.18 point season

Doyle-Lita starts P06 W01 D3 L2 04-06 = 06 points = 1.00 per game. Quivalent of 46 point season

[SLAMMED]

Snowballs obsession with Long is beginning to be a bit worrying.

Plain and simply, he just isn't that good.

Simon Church and Noel Hunt are both better strikers. I just don't understand how you can't see that.

Watching how they play and think on the pitch shows a lot more about a player than a few stats thrown together.

On average humans have less than 2 legs. That's a completely correct stat, but also worthless, much like your stats.

[Snowball]

Snowballs obsession with Long is beginning to be a bit worrying.

Plain and simply, he just isn't that good.
Simon Church and Noel Hunt are both better strikers. I just don't understand how you can't see that.
Stats won't show you anything, whereas watching how they play and the style of play the use does.

Psst, tell that blind clown, McDermott. Or better still take his job, you clearly know more about football than he does.

[brendywendy]

Snowballs obsession with Long is beginning to be a bit worrying.

Plain and simply, he just isn't that good.

Simon Church and Noel Hunt are both better strikers. I just don't understand how you can't see that.

Watching how they play and think on the pitch shows a lot more about a player than a few stats thrown together.

On average humans have less than 2 legs. That's a completely correct stat, but also worthless, much like your stats.

his stats are about as reliable as any one person giving his opinion on the matter- seeing as no one can get past their own preconceptions and predjudices on here