Long - Time to go.

[Tinrib]

Is just working hard and flicking on a few headers* enough then?

* He's good in the air in a similar way to Forster used to be, he'll often nick infront of the defender at the last minute and make the most of his very good spring.

Sigh. Despite Long's very decent performance against Burnley I spent much of the game thinking how good we would be if we had Forster, in his prime, up front instead.

Chuck in Andy Hughes in the hole and we'd be certs to go up....

As I've been saying LONG IS NO FORSTER.

When you think of a single striker system you think of the likes of the ball greedy Forster who would hang around the box and then with blistering pace and with only one thing on his mind would race towards the goal, ball or not, and score.

Playing Long up front on his own will AT BEST give us "oh well he worked hard" "he got into the wings well and provided an assist or two" "he won the penalty so you can kind of say it's like scoring" "he didnt score in open play but he worked so hard it makes up for it" etcetcetcetcetc.....

When I think of Fozzie I think ' offside'..

[cmonurz]

I'd have fogiven Fozzie an own goal every game, the amount he brought to the team. And to be honest everything he did for the side, not least his sublime hat-trick against Ipswich, pales into insignificance compared to that 15 minutes or so where he tore Wigan a new arsehole. For that alone, a Reading legend, and to mention Shane Long in the same vain as him is an insult to what Forster brought to the club. Imho.

[brendywendy]

agreed

[Kitson12]

You're right, there is a long time to go in the season...

[Snowball]

It might be my imagination but isn't Shane often substituted when we score our late goals?

And when last year and earlier I pointed out Shane's brilliant goals per minute on the field
the answer came back that Doyle-Hunt or whoever had done all the hard work
tiring out the opposition making it easy for Long to score in the last 10-15 minutes!

[Snowball]

Is just working hard and flicking on a few headers* enough then?

* He's good in the air in a similar way to Forster used to be, he'll often nick infront of the defender at the last minute and make the most of his very good spring.

Sigh. Despite Long's very decent performance against Burnley I spent much of the game thinking how good we would be if we had Forster, in his prime, up front instead.

Chuck in Andy Hughes in the hole and we'd be certs to go up....

Doyle would be nice too, and maybe Hahnemann in goal, Sidwell in the middle... what's the point?

[Snowball]

Why pick names like Forster?

When he arrived at Reading he was already a seasoned pro with 244 appearances,
90 more (two-season's worth) than Shane Long has to date.

[RobRoyal]

Is just working hard and flicking on a few headers* enough then?

* He's good in the air in a similar way to Forster used to be, he'll often nick infront of the defender at the last minute and make the most of his very good spring.

Sigh. Despite Long's very decent performance against Burnley I spent much of the game thinking how good we would be if we had Forster, in his prime, up front instead.

Chuck in Andy Hughes in the hole and we'd be certs to go up....

Doyle would be nice too, and maybe Hahnemann in goal, Sidwell in the middle... what's the point?

The point is Forster was a rare breed - a small, pace striker who was able to lead the line on their own and rack up quite a few goals. That Long fails to play the role as well as our best-ever lone frontman is hardly a big criticism, so try to keep your hair on.

As to your second post, why do you feel it is invalid to compare one Reading player with another when the two played equivalent roles in similar systems, in teams of roughly equal quality? A player like Forster would transform this team - more so, I would say, than Hahnemann, Doyle or Sidwell.

By the way. there is an edit function on this website. That will save you from spamming the board with your posts.

Just to show off my ability to use the edit function: do you honestly believe that in 90 appearances Long will be amongst the better players in the division, as Forster was? Why do you feel the need to respond like that to any criticism of a player's qualities?

[Wongle]

Long has been poor since we signed him from Cork. He had exceptional pace and a roughness at first, which Coppell public suggested he needed to keep, rather than try and become a model professional.

Regardless of the system, or formation, a striker with a hit rate of more that 1 in 6 is very poor even by league 2 standards, add to that he has only managed 12 shots in all the games he has played in this season, it is unbelievable.

Although i have not counted, i am sure he has lost possession more times than he has scored, with Mills more than likely having had more than double the chances.

To suggest he is being used as a scapegoat, or the system doesn't suit is insanity, he is a striker, therefore he does, Jimmy doesn't seem to be struggling for delivery, perhaps Long simply has the positional sense of a small child?

[Victor Meldrew]

It might be my imagination but isn't Shane often substituted when we score our late goals?

And when last year and earlier I pointed out Shane's brilliant goals per minute on the field
the answer came back that Doyle-Hunt or whoever had done all the hard work
tiring out the opposition making it easy for Long to score in the last 10-15 minutes!

Not on about last year-I just get the feeling that he hasn't been on the pitch when we get our late goals.
IIRC v Barnsley and Ipswich he had gone off but I could well be wrong.

[Snowball]

Memory is a funny thing, as I've said more than once.

I looked up Forster's league stats for Reading and placed them alongside Shane Long's

Calling a sub appearance one-sixth of a game average

157 (29) 162 Games 59 Goals Strike Rate 2.75
062 (79) 075 Games 25 Goals Strike Rate 3.00

Forster was almost 26 when he joined Reading, in his prime as a striker. Shane is 23

These are facts. A strike rate of 1 goal every 3 games is not bad at all, and look how close it is to Forster

but that's not all...

[Snowball]

Gylfi got a lot of goals last year because he took penalties, free-kickers
and an incredible number of shots

This is a table of "deadliness" goals to chances for 2002/3 up to this year.

Shane's lack of goals THIS YEAR pushes his score down (makes him look worse)

The bold bits are shots-goals ie "conversion rate"

This season Shane's conversion rate is considerably lower at 10.5 and that includes his penalties, so...

026 017 1 044 12 3.67 Goater (Best Conversion Rate)
128 087 8 223 56 3.98 Kitson
055 044 5 104 23 4.52 Long (excluding this year) <<<<<<<
136 122 6 264 55 4.80 Doyle
026 017 1 044 09 4.89 Rasiak
001 004 0 005 01 5.00 Antonio
067 053 5 125 25 5.00 LONG <<<<<<<<<<
040 024 5 069 13 5.31 Noel Hunt
033 030 4 067 12 5.58 Church
060 054 7 118 18 6.56 Gylfi
066 054 2 122 18 6.78 Kebe
071 063 7 141 20 7.05 Leroy Lita
135 104 9 248 30 8.27 Forster
027 053 1 081 09 9.00 Hughes
113 138 3 254 27 9.41 Sidwell
007 008 0 015 01 15.00 Robson-Kanu

Prior to this season Long's conversion rate was better than Doyle's

Including this season, Long converts chances almost as well as Doyle and Rasiak,
better than Noel Hunt, better than Church, a lot better than Gylfi, better than Lita, Hughes,
AND better than FORSTER's record for 2002/3, 2003/4, 2004/5 (all I can find)

[Snowball]

I didn't watch Forster, and I'm sure he's a legend, but he got 59 goals in six seasons,

(OK 58 in 5 if you take out the injured one)

His goals per game is nowhere near the best.

His conversion rate goals to chances was actually poor in 2002-3-4/5

And how much of his Reading goal-scoring was at a lower level?


Yes, I know it's sacrilege, but was he THAT good or is it just a few very important goals affect fans' judgment?

[Snowball]

It might be my imagination but isn't Shane often substituted when we score our late goals?

And when last year and earlier I pointed out Shane's brilliant goals per minute on the field
the answer came back that Doyle-Hunt or whoever had done all the hard work
tiring out the opposition making it easy for Long to score in the last 10-15 minutes!

Not on about last year-I just get the feeling that he hasn't been on the pitch when we get our late goals.
IIRC v Barnsley and Ipswich he had gone off but I could well be wrong.

Shane has been on the pitch for 13 of our goals, off for 4. He didn't play at Portsmouth

90 1 ON 0 OFF Scunthorpe
78 1 ON 0 OFF Forest
90 2 ON 0 OFF Leicester
89 2 ON 1 OFF Palace 90
90 0 ON 0 OFF Millwall
89 1 ON 0 OFF Boro
85 1 ON 2 OFF Barnsley 90+, 90+
80 0 ON 1 OFF Ipswich 88
90 1 ON 0 OFF Preston
76 0 ON 0 OFF Swansea
75 0 ON 0 OFF Bristol
90 4 ON 0 OFF Burnley

13 4

[Victor Meldrew]

So I was right that he was off the pitch when those late goals were scored.

[Snowball]

So I was right that he was off the pitch when those late goals were scored.

Depends what you mean by "those"

[Snowball]

90 1 ON 0 OFF Scunthorpe NO LATE GOALS
78 1 ON 0 OFF Forest NO LATE GOALS
90 2 ON 0 OFF Leicester 86 LONG ON PITCH
89 2 ON 1 OFF Palace 90 SURPRISE LAST-MINUTE GOAL WHEN ALREADY CRUISING HOME 2-0
90 0 ON 0 OFF Millwall NO GOALS
89 1 ON 0 OFF Boro NO LATE GOALS
85 1 ON 2 OFF Barnsley 90+, 90+ (LONG ON PITCH FOR CRUCIAL FIRST GOAL)
80 0 ON 1 OFF Ipswich 88
90 1 ON 0 OFF Preston NO LATE GOALS
76 0 ON 0 OFF Swansea NO LATE GOALS
75 0 ON 0 OFF Bristol NO LATE GOALS
90 4 ON 0 OFF Burnley 85, 90 LONG ON PITCH, ASSIST FOR 85TH MINUTE GOAL

13 GOALS WITH LONG ON PITCH, 3 GOALS IN LAST 5 MINUTES
04 GOALS AFTER LONG SUBBED, ALL IN LAST 5 MINUTES

So even ignoring effects such as wearing down defenders or getting players booked or sent off
The only result actually CHANGED after Long was subbed was the Ipswich game. One out of 13

[Hoop Blah]

I didn't watch Forster, and I'm sure he's a legend, but he got 59 goals in six seasons,

...Yes, I know it's sacrilege, but was he THAT good or is it just a few very important goals affect fans' judgment?

How many times...you CAN'T JUDGE FOOTBALL ON STATS!

This is a perfect example of why. Some found Forster frustrating because he could be greedy* or get caught offside too often but he was exceptionally good and as intelligent and dangerous centre forward as we've had. His scoring rate wasn't exceptional, and he struggled to form partnerships with some but he was still a far superior player to Long.

* I actually don't believe he was greedy, he just failed to pick out a man quite often after skinning the defender and getting to the byline yet again. He worked so hard for the team I don't think greed was really the problem.

[facaldaqui]

I didn't watch Forster, and I'm sure he's a legend, but he got 59 goals in six seasons,

(OK 58 in 5 if you take out the injured one)

His goals per game is nowhere near the best.

His conversion rate goals to chances was actually poor in 2002-3-4/5

And how much of his Reading goal-scoring was at a lower level?


Yes, I know it's sacrilege, but was he THAT good or is it just a few very important goals affect fans' judgment?

I too was beginning to wonder at all this adulation of Forster. I did watch him, and I haven't forgotten how greedy he was, despite his individual flair. He often drove me mad.

[Snowball]

Some found Forster frustrating because he could be greedy* or get caught offside too often but he was exceptionally good and as intelligent and dangerous centre forward as we've had. His scoring rate wasn't exceptional, and he struggled to form partnerships with some but he was still a far superior player to Long.

* I actually don't believe he was greedy, he just failed to pick out a man quite often after skinning the defender and getting to the byline yet again. He worked so hard for the team I don't think greed was really the problem.

So a striker who was selfish, only scored 59 goals in six years,
was caught offside too often, often failed to find his man,
scored half his Reading goals at a level below the Championship
and had (for a striker) an APPALLING conversion rate chances to goals,
worse than Lita, far, far worse than misses-a-lot Church

is far FAR superior to Long, who did actually manage to score in the Premiership (6 goals) when 20/21,
that same Long, who if he continues at his "lousy" current rate will have scored 54 goals compared to
Forster's 59 in the same number of games. All Long's at Championship or Premiership level, who has
a FAR better conversion rate chances to goals.


It IS a stats thing. Long is being judged right now because he's only got two goals in 12 (which
equates to 8 in the season).... I'd say Forster's true worth is over-stated because of his EFFECT
when the club turned from relegation form to top ten, and his game against Wigan in the play-offs.