Long - Time to go.

[Snowball]

Considering Long has been at the club for five years, I'd expect a list as long as my arm of achievements, but sadly that's not the case. You are still missing the point that having never, ever, watched Forster play for Reading, you have no idea how effective he was for the team, and as such can't appreciate why many of us can see that Long will never be the player that Fozzy was for RFC; you don't suddenly find a good first touch at 23/24 years old, for example, it's something you can either do well or not, and Forster's was exemplary. Your failure to concede on this is a bit embarassing Snowball.

How many years was Gylfi at the club? "Years at a club" is a totally shite measure. It's first-team games that count, first-team starts, minutes on the pitch for the first-team. In Long's first YEAR he had ONE start. And again, as pointed out (and ignored) he has now reached the dizzy total of 62 League starts, a QUARTER the number of Forsters appearances (244 excluding games at Horley) BEFORE HE EVEN ARRIVED AT READING!!

Long's first league start was April 17, 2006, 13 days (and just two more games) before the end of the season,

in fact he has had

2006/07 Premiership (Aged 19 at start f season)
2007/08 Premiership (Aged 20 at start of season)
2008/09 Championship (Aged 21 at start of season)
2009/10 Championship (Aged 22 at start of season)

and he had just 49 league starts, but totaled 22 league goals... compare that to Harte who in one season, last season, had 59 starts.

He was behind Doyle (6.5 Million), Kitson (5.5M), Lita (1M) and Noel Hunt


and 12 games this season

You are comparing Long to a player who played for Reading at his peak, (age 26-31), played mostly at a lower level, had had 244 appearances before arriving at the club (150% of Long's total CAREER appearances) completed more than 600 appearances.

And Forster wasted an inordinate amount of chances, and in six years scored just 59 goals. Sure he was a good player, but he wasn't Doyle and he WAS at his peak

[Snowball]

For me that beats a fancy 50 yard run versus Leyton Orient

Shameful.

You openly admit you know nothing about Forster, and then apparently decide that it's legitimate for you to belittle his contribution to the club. I'd stop with this now, if I were you.

WHY? Y'gunna smack me?

I am absolutely sure Forster was a great bloke and a great player AT HIS LEVEL, and a hero to many, but his level was League 1/promotion from League 1 and then championship in the last three years of his Reading career, and, so it seems, he suited the 1 role in 451.

But Long is pilloried and "not fit to be mentioned in the same room" despite the fact that if he merely maintains his goals per game ratio, when he reaches the same total as Forster he will be 54 goals compared to Forster's 59

Forster got goals for Reading, sure, some brilliant ones, but against inferior defences. Not against Liverpool, Wigan, Villa, Man City, but half of them versus teams like Orient or Brentford. There is one hell of a difference. How many might Long get in a 4-4-2 set up in League 1?

Forster was at his peak, 26-31, Long is just approaching his better years and has 3 years, 3 seasons, 150 or so games before he ENTERS his peak years.

[Snowball]

Agree though that Forster wasn't our best ever striker.



Still, the reason I threw him into the mix was simply to say that IN A LONE STRIKER SITUATION (and in fact probably in every other situation but that's another debate) he is INFINITELY better than Long and the only reason he gets a mention is because if we are playing with this lone striker system then we need someone half decent who can make it work. Forster, love him or hate him, was that man who could make it work a treat. Long, good as he is and I'm not knocking him, is NOT.

Long is a good player, but he is no Forster. Lone striker system is a massive fail. WE NEED A STRIKER to give us an option other than hoping for a win only when the opposition gifts us a penalty and a red card!

2WW, I'm on record at the start of last season as saying I didn't believe Long could EVER play the 1 in 451 and that he'd even be behind Henry in the pecking order.

I think he's way better in a 4-4-2 facing the goal instead of playing 75% of the game with his back to goal.

BUT A LOT OF THE PROBLEM IS HOW THE TEAM HAS BEEN PLAYING THE MAN IN THE 1 ROLE. As soon as Long starts seeing through-balls he looks MILES better. The two penalties versus Palace, the missed chance v Bristol, the pen and goal v Burnley. THAT's what he's good at, using power, strength, pace, guts. He is best playing down the channels or running hard at the defence, or getting on the end of crosses.

But he's spent in excess of 50% of games fielding punts out of defence, flicking them on to non-existent co-strikers. With SERVICE he can get goals. He's not Alan Shearer, but he's a good solid Championship striker and his goals to minutes before this season was the best of any RFC striker of the last 6-7 years.

[Still Hate Futcher!]

Can I just say that you are all absolute mongs for voting James Harper POTS when Nicky Forster carried us to the play-off semis

+ shitting 1. Remember when Jimmy Quinn scored 40 goals to win us the league in 93/94? Reading fans player of the year: the left back

A left back with one of the best left foots, in terms or crossing and distance shooting, of any Royals player ever and one who created a large chunk of those 40+ Quinn goals.

But for one huge balls up in the last game of the season, when the title was already won, Kerr was also rock solid in defence that season (if not in future seasons).

[Snowball]

For me that beats a fancy 50 yard run versus Leyton Orient

Shameful. You openly admit you know nothing about Forster, and then apparently decide that it's legitimate for you to belittle his contribution to the club. I'd stop with this now, if I were you.

I'm sorry if you think I'm belittling him. That was not my intent.

But this thread is belittling Long, who is, IMO a brave, tough,
hard-working servant to the club who gets kicked up in the air
every game playing a role that is not best suited to his talents
and yet "magically" we are eighth, on a shoe-string budget, and
he, yet to have his 63rd-ever league start is still improving.

The point about Leyton Orient is one that the Forster Fan Club seem to overlook.
The majority of his games and goals were at a lower level altogether than the
level Shane has played at. He would have got less goals had all his games been in
the Championship, and two seasons in the Premiership

[cmonurz]

Who is the better England striker Snowball, Sheringham or Defoe?

[Snowball]

Who is the better England striker Snowball, Sheringham or Defoe?

Sherringham isn't an England striker, Defoe isn't as good as me right this minute, and this is the Reading FC discussion board.

I have zero desire to discuss one the crappiest underacheivingest national teams in the world



But we should point out that when Long's ability is being discussed 95% of the list dismiss
his work on behalf of the team as irrelevant, and it's about goals. So which is it? Just goals per
starts, goals per minute played, goal-line clearances (Long's had a few)

You choose. Forsters goal record is marginally (very marginally) better than Long's


Oh, got it, it's his "other contributions". Like assists?

Assists? No, well, 13 assists in three years is not exactly stellar is it? And per game Long matches that.

So NOT goals. NOT assists. NOT goal-line defensive clearances.

Now it's "making space" then?

[Snowball]

Who is the better England striker Snowball, Sheringham or Defoe?

Snowball

[RobRoyal]

So NOT goals. NOT assists. NOT goal-line defensive clearances.

Now it's "making space" then?

Sorry, do you really believe that anything other than the three things above is irrelevant? You simply don't accept that a player who creates chances is adding more to a team than one who doesn't?

[cmonurz]

Who is the better England striker Snowball, Sheringham or Defoe?

Sherringham isn't an England striker, Defoe isn't as good as me right this minute, and this is the Reading FC discussion board.

I have zero desire to discuss one the crappiest underacheivingest national teams in the world

You mean you don't want to address the perfectly relevant point I made because you would either have to

a) claim that Defoe was the better striker, on account of his stats being better than Sheringham's

or b) admit that Sheringham was by far the better performer for England and that there is no statistical backup to this, it's purely about his influence on the team and effectiveness as a strike-partner for Shearer.

[Svlad Cjelli]

So NOT goals. NOT assists. NOT goal-line defensive clearances.

Now it's "making space" then?

Sorry, do you really believe that anything other than the three things above is irrelevant? You simply don't accept that a player who creates chances is adding more to a team than one who doesn't?

No, he thinks that such a complicated, multi-facetted and multi-dimensional game as football is so simple and straightforward that it can be reduced to a series of measureable criteria. Otherwise he'd realise that what he tries to prove with numbers can't be proved, as there are so many other influncing factors which can't be measured.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Can I just say that you are all absolute mongs for voting James Harper POTS when Nicky Forster carried us to the play-off semis

+ shitting 1. Remember when Jimmy Quinn scored 40 goals to win us the league in 93/94? Reading fans player of the year: the left back

If ever you wanted evidence of the cluelessness of our support, this sums it up perfectly. Maybe its not just to Spacker Bowl era.

I still refuse to vote POTS in protest.

[Snowball]

So NOT goals. NOT assists. NOT goal-line defensive clearances.

Now it's "making space" then?

Sorry, do you really believe that anything other than the three things above is irrelevant? You simply don't accept that a player who creates chances is adding more to a team than one who doesn't?

EXCUSE ME? So now it's not chances-that-lead-to-goals, but just "chances"?

So, what are you saying?

"Forster created lots of chances that DIDN'T result in a goal?

"Forster created lots of chances that caused a save and rebound from which someone else scored?"

Isn't that the point of the "assist" stat, to show who was the player who gave the scorer the chance?

If you're talking about something "esoteric", what is it, exactly?

[Snowball]

So NOT goals. NOT assists. NOT goal-line defensive clearances.

Now it's "making space" then?

Sorry, do you really believe that anything other than the three things above is irrelevant? You simply don't accept that a player who creates chances is adding more to a team than one who doesn't?

No, he thinks that such a complicated, multi-facetted and multi-dimensional game as football is so simple and straightforward that it can be reduced to a series of measureable criteria. Otherwise he'd realise that what he tries to prove with numbers can't be proved, as there are so many other influencing factors which can't be measured.

No, what I'm asking is for someone to EXPLAIN, why a player who missed seven out of eight chances, only averaged ten goals a season,
only managed 13 assists in three seasons, did "something else" which made him MILES BETTER (almost a God, it seems) than his stats.


He MIGHT, for example have been a ferocious tackler who won countless balls (nobody has said so)

He MIGHT for example have been incredible at chasing back, supporting full-backs, making goal-line clearances (nobody has said so)

It's just some vague "other thing"...

i've also heard he was selfish, infuriating, NOT a team player, a "liability as the second striker"

[RobRoyal]

So NOT goals. NOT assists. NOT goal-line defensive clearances.

Now it's "making space" then?

Sorry, do you really believe that anything other than the three things above is irrelevant? You simply don't accept that a player who creates chances is adding more to a team than one who doesn't?

EXCUSE ME? So now it's not chances-that-lead-to-goals, but just "chances"?

So, what are you saying?

"Forster created lots of chances that DIDN'T result in a goal?

"Forster created lots of chances that caused a save and rebound from which someone else scored?"

Isn't that the point of the "assist" stat, to show who was the player who gave the scorer the chance?

If you're talking about something "esoteric", what is it, exactly?

Christ.

A player who creates chances for themselves is superior to a player who has the same goals-to-games ratio but depends on other players to create chances for them. The former lightens the responsibility of the rest of the team.

Is that not clear? Is that too "esoteric" for you?

Incidently if Forster, as he often did, received the ball from James Harper 30 yards from goal, ran past the centre-backs and scored, Harper would get the assist. If Gunnarsson nutmegs the full-back and whips in a perfect cross that Long heads home from 6 yards, Gunnarsson gets the assist. Are you satisfied that Harper and Gunnarsson deserve equal credit for the creation of the respective goals? If the point of the assist stat is "to show who was the player who gave the scorer the chance" then it does a poor job. In the above scenario no statistics we have to hand credit Forster with the creation of the goal, and his impact will necessarily appear equal to Long's.

[floyd__streete]

Who is the better England striker Snowball, Sheringham or Defoe?

Snowball

[Snowball]

Who is the better England striker Snowball, Sheringham or Defoe?

Sherringham isn't an England striker, Defoe isn't as good as me right this minute, and this is the Reading FC discussion board.
I have zero desire to discuss one the crappiest underachievingest national teams in the world

You mean you don't want to address the perfectly relevant point I made because you would either have to

a) claim that Defoe was the better striker, on account of his stats being better than Sheringham's

or b) admit that Sheringham was by far the better performer for England and that there is no statistical backup to this, it's purely about his influence on the team and effectiveness as a strike-partner for Shearer.

WHICH BIT OF, "I have zero desire to discuss one the crappiest underachievingest national teams in the world. (ENGLAND)" DID YOU NOT GET?

[floyd__streete]

Incidently if Forster, as he often did, received the ball from James Harper 30 yards from goal, ran past the centre-backs and scored, Harper would get the assist. If Gunnarsson nutmegs the full-back and whips in a perfect cross that Long heads home from 6 yards, Gunnarsson gets the assist. Are you satisfied that Harper and Gunnarsson deserve equal credit for the creation of the respective goals? If the point of the assist stat is "to show who was the player who gave the scorer the chance" then it does a poor job. In the above scenario no statistics we have to hand credit Forster with the creation of the goal, and his impact will necessarily appear equal to Long's.

Quite. And going back to Snowball's curious stat about Forster needing 11 chances to score 1 goal as opposed to Long's 1 goal for every 5 shots, do we also have the data for:

a) How many of those chances Forster created for himself, sometimes receiving the ball on halfway going on a subsequent lungbusting run.
b) (i) How many of those 11 chances forced an excellent save from the keeper
(ii) How many of those 11 wasted chances were subsequently tucked in on the rebound by a Reading player for a goal.

I can't remember many ocassions where Long has fashioned a chance for himself out of nothing. I can't recall many ocassions of late where I can recall Long being denied by a quite superb piece of goalkeeping. I can, however, recall him hitting the crossbar from 1 yard when placed with an open goal against Peterborough last season

[cmonurz]

WHICH BIT OF, "I have zero desire to discuss one the crappiest underachievingest national teams in the world. (ENGLAND)" DID YOU NOT GET?

The bit where it means you would have to either make a(nother) ridiculous statement (Defoe), or backtrack on your entire argument (Sheringham).

As this is a football discussion board, my post is entirely relevant. So, Defoe or Sheringham, which was, or is, the better England forward?

[brendywendy]

ooooooooooooooooooooo



tbf i think youre all well gay