Long - Time to go.

[cmonurz]

But you never saw Forster play. And you aren't considering what a player brings to the team that isn't analysed statistically. You're consistently not 'getting' those bits.

[Snowball]

Here's a stat for you. 2002/03, Forster scored 16 goals in 35+5 Championship games. Mainly playing as the loan striker in a 4-5-1, a system similar to which Long has been part of on a regular basis so far this season. If Long gets close to that kind of strike rate this season I'll eat my hat.

And here's a stat back

in the next two seasons he played 55 (5) and got just 14 goals, not even 1 in 4 starts

2002-03 35 (05) = 36 league games = 16 goals = 1 in 2.3 Forster, fully experienced pro at his peak
2009-10 22 (14) = 27 league games = 10 goals = 1 in 2.7 CHURCH "I miss a lot but I'm only 20 years old"


Yet Church is slagged off

Forster had two good seasons, but also two seasons where he scored 7 goals despite playing 28 (02) and 27 (03)

And the thing was he had MANY more chances than Long or Church.

Whereas Long and Church convert between 1 in 4.5 and 1 in 5.5 Forster was converting 1/7, 1/8, and 1/11.
yes, that's right, 11 shots required to get a single goal, more than twice Long's 1 in 5.


I say again, sure, great bloke, good player, "Legend" etc but the way this list talks you'd think he turned water into wine.

And half his Reading games were in League 1

[cmonurz]

But you never saw Forster play. And you aren't considering what a player brings to the team that isn't analysed statistically. You're consistently not 'getting' those bits.

[floyd__streete]

And the thing was he had MANY more chances than Long or Church.

Whereas Long and Church convert between 1 in 4.5 and 1 in 5.5 Forster was converting 1/7, 1/8, and 1/11.
yes, that's right, 11 shots required to get a single goal, more than twice Long's 1 in 5.

Where do you get these curious stats from . Simple fact is that Long simply doesn't get enough shots away in games, he doesn't get into goalscoring positions often enough to work the 'keeper. Still, it's ok because he's 'young' and he 'works hard'. Until Long has a season scoring consistently at Championship level (y'know, like Forster did in 02/03) his record can really only most politely be described as 'patchy'.

[Snowball]

But you never saw Forster play. And you aren't considering what a player brings to the team that isn't analysed statistically. You're consistently not 'getting' those bits.

But I DO get those bits.


His assist rate was ordinary. FACT. More than a few have said he'd beat a man and then send the pass to no-one.

His scoring rate was good but he had BAGS of chances and his conversion rate was very poor at an overall 1 in 8 (long is 1 in 5, Church and Hunt similar)

More than a few have said "frustrating" and/or "selfish"

If he gave "something else to the team", what was it?

Was it goals?
Was it assists?
Was it loads of tackling back and goal-line clearances?

What?


Or maybe, for a guy who averaged 10 goals a year (which is OK, but then he had a lot of chances)
there's something else going on, like he was associated with a great turn-around from relegation
candidates to safety, like he won that play-off penalty and scored from the save?


56 goals from 223 chances = 1 goal every 3.98 chances Kitson (2 seasons in the Premiership)
30 goals from 248 chances = 1 goal every 8.27 chances Forster (these 3 seasons in Championship)


That's Kitson better than twice as deadly

135 Appearances 54 Goals = 1 goal in 2.50 appearances Kitson, Championship and Premiership
186 Appearances 59 Goals = 1 goal in 3.15 appearances Forster Championship and League 1

[cmonurz]

Stop printing stats. They aren't relevant*. You can't 'count' what Forster brought to the team any more than you can 'count' the aspects of Long's game that frustrates people. You didn't he him play, how can you pass any judgement on him whatsoever.

*Although if you're going to state it 'FACT' that his assist rate was ordinary, you should back it up. It's quite extraordinary you think you can claim that having never seen him play.

Do you at least concede my point on Sheringham and Defoe?

And yes, where do you get all these stats from? I like numbers as much as you do, although more around cricket - which website tells me how many shots at goal Forster had in 2003?

I've already explained what Forster brought to the side in previous posts, as have many others. You didn't see him play, you are not in a position to effectively judge his relative importance to the team to that of Shane Long, on stats alone.

[Snowball]

Where do you get these curious stats from ?

The Reading Official Site

Shooting.
On target
off target
Hit woodwork
Goals
Starts
Sub Appearances

Simple fact is that Long simply doesn't get enough shots away in games, he doesn't get into goalscoring positions often enough to work the 'keeper. Still, it's ok because he's 'young' and he 'works hard'. Until Long has a season scoring consistently at Championship level (y'know, like Forster did in 02/03) his record can really only most politely be described as 'patchy'.

Well (a) He IS young. Still only 23

Forster was approaching his prime when he joined Reading, (25 years and 11 months at the start of the season)
had three years then in League 1 and the "big season" he was 29. That's a lifetime of difference in experience
and nous for the majority of players.

Church, still a kid is not far off matching Forster's goals per game. Here's Hunt's one almost-full season

27 (10) = 29 Games 11 goals = 2.63 games for a goal Noel Hunt (playing 60-65 minutes per game)
35 (02) = 35 games 16 goals = 2.15 games for a goal The Incredible Forster

[Snowball]

Stop printing stats. They aren't relevant*. You can't 'count' what Forster brought to the team any more than you can 'count' the aspects of Long's game that frustrates people. You didn't he him play, how can you pass any judgement on him whatsoever.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the question.

WHAT apart from goals and assists did he give to the team?

*Although if you're going to state it 'FACT' that his assist rate was ordinary, you should back it up.

I DID. He had 13 assists in 3 seasons, playing 90 (05) games. That is NOT a big deal.

Gylfi had 9 assists last season in 43 games. Long was matching him (Forster) in assist per game.

Jimmy Kebe had SIXTEEN assists in TWO seasons, quite a bit better than 13 in 3, wouldn't you say?

Stephen Hunt had 18 assists in ONE season of 41 games.

Does THAT answer your question?

And yes, where do you get all these stats from? I like numbers as much as you do, although more around cricket -
which website tells me how many shots at goal Forster had in 2003?

The READING OFFICIAL SITE

it lists starts, sub-appearances, appearances, shots, goals, and assists, separated into league and cup.

I've already explained what Forster brought to the side in previous posts, as have many others.
You didn't see him play, you are not in a position to effectively judge his relative importance
to the team to that of Shane Long, on stats alone.

Please explain.


I mean what is there if you take out goals, assists?

Tackling back?
Clearing off the line?


WHAT?

I only remember vague generalisations like "he gave a lot to the team"

And yet some say he was selfish (he wasted a helluva lot of chances) and "frustrating".

[floyd__streete]

Where do you get these curious stats from ?

The Reading Official Site

Shooting.
On target
off target
Hit woodwork
Goals
Starts
Sub Appearances

And these stats go back as far as Forster's period 99-05 then, do they? Fair enough.

Just a thought. 186 Appearances 59 Goals for Forster, your stat. Yet he needs 11 chances to score (your stat), so 11 x 59 shots on goal = 649 shots on goal in 186 matches. Long has 31 goals from 163 (80+83) matches. He scores one goal for every 5 shots, so you tell us. 5 x 31 goals = 155 shots on goal in 163 matches. That is less than one shot on goal per appearance made! No wonder he so rarely scores

This is all rather ludicrous statting of course, because football is played on a pitch rather than on a bloody spreadsheet. In fact it's almost as ludicrous as someone researching how, statistically, Reading should expect to beat Bristol City at home because of the latter's poor record against top half sides. That result in case you missed it, Reading 0-2 Bristol City

[sandman]

Fozzy was a brilliant player who if it wasn't for a bad injury at Brum probably wouldn't of played for us at all. He could run from his own half beat half the oppo and put the ball in the net. Even if he didn't score he would work the goalkeeper and if pressure needed relieving the team could give it to Fozzy and he would do that. Those clips aren't flash in the pan moments he could do that every week and whenever he had the ball the whole stadium would be out of their seats in anticipation.

You can go on and on about stats all you want but they can't even begin to tell you how great Nicky Forster was in a Reading shirt. For a period at this club he was the best player in the league and the people telling you this know it for a fact because we were there.

[cmonurz]

Snowball, I've already explained what Fozzy brought to the side, as have countless others. Long is not in the same league as Forster, end of debate.

WIth regards assists, as you say above the stats only cover three of Forster's seasons with the club. In 2002-03 he topped RFC's assist charts, in 03-04 he was second, and in 04-05 he spent close to half the season injured.

Not that that matters, what he brought to the side was exceptional.

Ready yet to address my point about the uselessness of stats alone as a tool for analysis? Not least when you never actually saw one of the subjects play football? Perhaps you'd like to argue now that Defoe is a better England forward than Sheringham ever was.

[Wycombe Royal]

I DID. He had 13 assists in 3 seasons, playing 90 (05) games. That is NOT a big deal.

Gylfi had 9 assists last season in 43 games. Long was matching him (Forster) in assist per game.

Jimmy Kebe had SIXTEEN assists in TWO seasons, quite a bit better than 13 in 3, wouldn't you say?

Stephen Hunt had 18 assists in ONE season of 41 games.

Does THAT answer your question?

There is absolutely no point in comparing the assist rates of a winger or midfielder with a "lone" striker. Take Stephen Hunt - he took all the corners and set pieces. Kebe puts a lot of balls into the box from outwide. Gylfi was playing as an advanced midfielder playing thorugh balls and taking set pieces.

IRRELEVANT STATS.

The fact is Forster was a menace. He caused opposition teams defensive problems. If the defence pushed up they ran the risk of him getting in behind them. If they sat back he could get the ball deeper and run at them. He wasn't just about goals and assists. It was about creating space for others, quick counter attacks, winning corners, winning free kicks around the box, winning penalties - your stats can't quantify that sort of contribution.

[Vision]

There's some really odd double standards here from some.

A lot of the same people saying (correctly) that stats alone can't tell the full story of Forster's contribution also seem to have the opinion that because Long hasnt scored from open play any other contribution he makes is to be dismissed.

Most people that have seen both players with their own eyes on a regular basis will say that Forster was a far better player but to dismiss Long's contribution based solely on his goal tally for the season so far is using the same blinkered obsession with a stat that Snowball is accused of.

Long isnt a patch on Forster but like Forster his value to the team cannot be judged on goals scored alone.

[Wycombe Royal]

Long isnt a patch on Forster but like Forster his value to the team cannot be judged on goals scored alone.

Agreed. Long's workrate is fantastic and I bet a lot of defenders really hate playing against him and he showed on Saturday what he can do if a ball is played in behind the defence. It was very "Fozzy-esque".

[Maguire]

I'm not reading all this, obviously, but please don't make me hate Shane Long any more by bringing Nicky Forster into the argument. What a ledge.

[Hoop Blah]

Long isnt a patch on Forster but like Forster his value to the team cannot be judged on goals scored alone.

Agreed. Long's workrate is fantastic and I bet a lot of defenders really hate playing against him and he showed on Saturday what he can do if a ball is played in behind the defence. It was very "Fozzy-esque".

Agree with both of you there.

Personally I think Longs scoring record is cause for concern but the greater worry is the lack of goal threat he's creating. Yes he's won us a few penalties and had a cracking game against Burnley, laying on a couple of goals, but generally this season he's not forced many saves from the keeper or given them too much cause for concern. That's partly down to his team mates maybe not creating that much, but I put the majority of it down to Long not creating much for himself or getting into the right positions to make the most of the good opportunites we do create.

Long's work rate is very good, but his quality on the ball usually means that hard work is wasted.

Forster on the other hand would not only put in the same levels of work at Long but he was different class when he got on the ball. He'd get in goalscoring positions and create havoc in the oppositions box. More importantly though he could terrorise a defence single handed and could create his own chances from nothing. That meant that the team could basically concentrate on being solid with the knowledge that if they got Forster the ball enough he'd probably come up with something.

If we had Forster in place of Long in the same side we've had all season I think we'd be right on the coat tails of Cardiff and QPR. That's the difference between the two.

[Vision]

Of course Forster's greatest acheivment was making Andy Hughes look like a player.

Now if Long could do the same with Brian Howard....

[RobRoyal]

More than a few have said "frustrating" and/or "selfish"

If he gave "something else to the team", what was it?

Was it goals?
Was it assists?
Was it loads of tackling back and goal-line clearances?

What?

I'll help you out Snowball.

He made that system work. We started the year playing 4-4-2 with passable results, but once Pardew hit upon 4-5-1 we were a real force in the division (and until Forster himself got injured we were heading for the playoff final). His ability to hold the ball up, run in the channels, beat his man and (crucially here, because of the comparison with Long) create chances for himself, turned an average team into a good one. As I said at the beginning it's holding Long to an impossible standard - and I never meant to draw the comparison in order to criticise Long - but here, in our recent past, was an occasion where the attributes of one player made the 4-5-1 system work. Our lack of that sort of forward, or of an attacking midfielder like Gylfi who made the system effective last season, is a key problem.

As I said on another thread I didn't particularly warm to Forster, possibly because our side became rather dependent on him and there was something about him that I found hard to love. So cut the "it never rained in your childhood" bullsh*t. Memory isn't perfect, but it's a darn sight better than not having any direct evidence and attempting to cover the complex gamut of reasons why football systems work or don't work by recourse to a few stats. They're nowhere near covering the huge gap that you've admitted in your knowledge here.

I mean what is there if you take out goals, assists?

This is breathtaking. Amongst the many things that professional analysts measure for football teams would be distance run and pass completion. Essentially you seem to be daring one of us to bring you statistical proof of this or other kind that Forster gave a lot to the side, in the full knowledge that we do not have the access to these kind of statistics (and, in fact, no-one does). Then you jump to the unearned conclusion that because a statistical case cannot be made (and because memory can be fallible) that the few paltry stats you do have trump what is plain to everyone who has ever seen both Forster and Long play - the former was a better player, and the latter has shown nothing in his career to suggest he will improve to that level. I hope you can see the idiocy of this position without me banging you over the head with it any further.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Agree completely with that.

Nicky Forster had the perfect qualities to play as lone striker, and I'm on record as saying he's the best lone striker I've ever seen, for any team.

But it's a double-edged sword, because he was not much to write home about as one of a pair of strikers - his single-mindedness/failure to pass counted against him there. That's not a criticism, just a reflection that he was much more suited to one role than another.

It's the same with Long - I think he'd be absolutely superb playing as the second (support) striker in a pair of strikers (he could be the Horrix to someone else's Senior). I just don't think that he's particularly well suited to the loan striker he's being asked to play now.

Again, not a criticism, just a reflection that there are lots of different types of "strikers" with lots of different skills, and attempting to compare or judge them all on a single criteria is a mistake.

[Elm Park Old Boy]

I like Shane Long.

I liked Nicky Forster too.

That's all.