Long - Time to go.

[Snowball]

LONG = CLINICAL

Missed another good chance against Burnley. Of the two games I've seen all of (recorded or live) that's at least three simple chances that should be scored or at least on target and no occasions when Long looked like he might actually score, except from the spot.

Good performance on the whole and an assist, but Brian can't keep justifying picking him on the basis of good hard work and not much else. Not that the other two are exactly battering down the door.

Won a penalty
Scored a penalty
Pulled three bad fouls, the penalty, and the foul that produced the free-kick for McAnuff's goal
Got the defender sent off (thereby increasing the chances of goals three and four)
Laid a free-shot on for Church centre of goal. Not his fault that Church shot straight at the keeper.

Clarke Carlisle (who knows more about football than Ian (Radio) Royal) said Long had a part in three goals and was man of the match.

Man of the match = best man on the pitch that day.

[Wongle]

For £10k per week i will work very hard and not score any goals every Saturday if no one objects......

[Snowball]

For £10k per week i will work very hard and not score any goals every Saturday if no one objects......

No problem.

If you can win 3 penalties every twelve games = 11/12 a season
If you can score 2 penalties every 12 games, 8 penalties a season
If you can get 2 opposition defenders sent off every 12 games = 7-8 a season
If you can get 2 proper assists every 12 games, 8 a season.

I will moan that you haven't scored any goals from open play, but yes, I'll pay you £10K a week if that's what Long is on

[Millsy]

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.

Reading the rest of what you've been writing abotu Forster vs Long I was about to for the first time ever qute sadly take back everything good I'd ever said about you and categorically rate you as either deluded, insane, working for Long's agent or his mum!

Good job I checked back to read your whole take on it though because I absolutely agree Long is actually a very good player who now having had an extended run in the team and the weight of responsibility on his shoulders starting every game as our main man has really shown what he can do. And can't do. I've been VERY impressed with Long's ability to read the game, work VERY HARD down flanks, create situations, his fantastic burst of acceleration and his increidble ability to be a target man winning flick-ons against people twice his size. In that respect, he is awesome and I have to admit it's a huge shame that his lack of openplay goals veils all of this from most people and makes him look horrific. He isn't. However as I say this extended first team run has also shown what he can't do, and sadly that is to score goals.

(I'll take your word that you have always said he's no good in a one striker situation largely because I'm not bothered. Not about what you said at one point or not. Everyone's allowed to be wrong and change their opinions as players change or it becomes more clear what their strengths/weaknesses are. The fact that you're NOW saying it is all that matters.)

Anyway I completely agree he is just not up to being a one man striker. not necessarily because he's rubbish at scoring. Clearly he can score as he has done at some point in his life! But he's just not ball greedy and selfish enough. He woks too hard. Whatever it is, the cold statistics stare us Long-defenders mockingly in the face. The man is not, on current evidence, suited to a one man system.

In a two striker system though, now we knwo what he's capable of, he may well end up one half of an absolutely formidable pairing. We've no striker at the moment who seems to be in form enough and complement him well enough (as Ian Royal has said) to link up with him well enough though, hence needing a new striker to give us an option as a matter of dire urgency. (Interestingly with Forster on the other hand, any money spent on a striker would be a total waste of money as he is such a ballgreedy **** that he'd never form a partnership with anyone. Ever.)

However with regard to the stuff you'e concocting about Long vs Forster, I'm lost for words. No matter how much you like Long (and I do tom a large extent too), no matter how good he is and no matter how it's not his fault that the system is nto playing to his stengths... and no matter how ballgreedy Forster was and he wasn't our best ever striker... one has to be out of one's mind to even begin to entertain the faintest glimmer of an idea that Long, who despite some good work has been ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIC as a lone striker, and who hasn't scored a single goal in open all season, who is outscored by a kid who comes on off the bench and scores within minutes... is in any way one millionth of the player Forster was in a lone-striker situation. Long is not, and probably will never be fit to wipe Forster's crack.

[Millsy]

For £10k per week i will work very hard and not score any goals every Saturday if no one objects......

No problem.

If you can win 3 penalties every twelve games = 11/12 a season
If you can score 2 penalties every 12 games, 8 penalties a season
If you can get 2 opposition defenders sent off every 12 games = 7-8 a season
If you can get 2 proper assists every 12 games, 8 a season.

I will moan that you haven't scored any goals from open play, but yes, I'll pay you £10K a week if that's what Long is on

Winning and scoring penalties count twice...?

Oh dear Snowball

[Wimb]

Reading the rest of what you've been writing abotu Forster vs Long I was about to for the first time ever qute sadly take back everything good I'd ever said about you and categorically rate you as either deluded, insane, working for Long's agent or his mum!

Good job I checked back to read your whole take on it though because I absolutely agree Long is actually a very good player who now having had an extended run in the team and the weight of responsibility on his shoulders starting every game as our main man has really shown what he can do. And can't do. I've been VERY impressed with Long's ability to read the game, work VERY HARD down flanks, create situations, his fantastic burst of acceleration and his increidble ability to be a target man winning flick-ons against people twice his size. In that respect, he is awesome and I have to admit it's a huge shame that his lack of openplay goals veils all of this from most people and makes him look horrific. He isn't. However as I say this extended first team run has also shown what he can't do, and sadly that is to score goals.

(I'll take your word that you have always said he's no good in a one striker situation largely because I'm not bothered. Not about what you said at one point or not. Everyone's allowed to be wrong and change their opinions as players change or it becomes more clear what their strengths/weaknesses are. The fact that you're NOW saying it is all that matters.)

Anyway I completely agree he is just not up to being a one man striker. not necessarily because he's rubbish at scoring. Clearly he can score as he has done at some point in his life! But he's just not ball greedy and selfish enough. He woks too hard. Whatever it is, the cold statistics stare us Long-defenders mockingly in the face. The man is not, on current evidence, suited to a one man system.

In a two striker system though, now we knwo what he's capable of, he may well end up one half of an absolutely formidable pairing. We've no striker at the moment who seems to be in form enough and complement him well enough (as Ian Royal has said) to link up with him well enough though, hence needing a new striker to give us an option as a matter of dire urgency. (Interestingly with Forster on the other hand, any money spent on a striker would be a total waste of money as he is such a ballgreedy **** that he'd never form a partnership with anyone. Ever.)

However with regard to the stuff you'e concocting about Long vs Forster, I'm lost for words. No matter how much you like Long (and I do tom a large extent too), no matter how good he is and no matter how it's not his fault that the system is nto playing to his stengths... and no matter how ballgreedy Forster was and he wasn't our best ever striker... one has to be out of one's mind to even begin to entertain the faintest glimmer of an idea that Long, who despite some good work has been ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIC as a lone striker, and who hasn't scored a single goal in open all season, who is outscored by a kid who comes on off the bench and scores within minutes... is in any way one millionth of the player Forster was in a lone-striker situation. Long is not, and probably will never be fit to wipe Forster's crack.

^^^ Excellent post and have to agree

[Wimb]

Join us next week, where Snowball will compare the music of Kings of Leon to music he has never heard before, and then prove mathematically that Ghengis Khan was shit at chess.

[Snowball]

I am NOT saying Forster was not a great player.

I am NOT saying Long is a top-class Premiership striker.

What I strongly object to is the mindless, uninformed, nasty, spineless attacks on a very young player who has started just 62 league games and is still only 23 and still learning.

This kid has scored five Premiership goals, plus four other goals against Premiership sides in the FA Cup and League Cup. He is 4-5 years off his prime.

Forster was IN HIS PRIME when he played for Reading and four of his six years were at League 1 level, two at Championship level. Long has had two Prem seasons and four in the Championship. That is he has AVERAGED playing a full league above Forster.

Nevertheless he is on track for 54 games in the same number of league starts/appearances compared to Forster's 59

To say Forster is better, more exciting, nicer bloke, legend. Fine, but to dismiss Long as toilet paper is vile, nasty, untrue and in total denial of the facts.

Different ages.
Different Leagues

Similar goal-scoring records


I nailed my flag to the mast a long time ago. I repeat. If Long avoids serious injury and plays a full season he will score ten Premiership goals, or twenty Championship goals, or thirty in League 1

[Hoop Blah]

Only 18 to go then!

To be fair, you'll probably get a get out clause if he doesn't start doing a bit more on a more consitent basis as he'll get dropped having score 4 penalties in half a season and then you'll never get to see him have a full season in the Championship.

Where does all this stuff about Long having a "phenomenal workrate" come from anyway? He's not exactly Carlos Tevez, is he?

As I think I said earlier in the thread, at times he works bloody hard, other times he's just a lazy git who can't be bothered to get back from an offside position or make a decent run.

Generally I think it's fair to say he works hard enough though.

[RobRoyal]

It absolutely does NOT follow that a player who can dribble, burst through, or in any other way create his own chances MUST BE a better player. Dixie Dean (I think) used to say he relied on his wingers and HIS JOB was to score from THEIR crosses. What did he say? "Hard, fast, eight yards out, laces goalwards, please." And did he not score 60+ in a season? If he failed to create ONE of those goals, does that mean he's inferior to the man who can create some of his own?

I appreciate the way you've argued your point in your last post, Snowball. I don't happen to agree with it, but there you go. There's obviously a place for players who do nothing but take chances (Cureton was my favourite Reading player of the era, not Forster, irrational as I admit that to be). My original point, many pages ago, was that this current Reading team could really be improved by a lone forward who was able to fashion chances for themselves in a way Long is unable to do. But above, again, you're suggesting a false dichotomy. Dixie Dean got a lot of goals and didn't create. Forster got more goals than Long and created vastly more chances too. So on what grounds then can you consider them equals? I know you're holding on to the fact that Long will significantly improve as he "reaches his peak" - I feel this is rather a leap of faith, but nevermind. That may come to pass, let's hope so, but my point was that this team would be significantly improved by the addition of a player like Forster (some hope).

To say Forster is better, more exciting, nicer bloke, legend. Fine, but to dismiss Long as toilet paper is vile, nasty, untrue and in total denial of the facts.

I think however you're approach to this board is dogged by generalising about attitudes here. If you stopped to understand where people are coming from you'd know that not all of us are dismissive about the worth of statistics in demonstrating a point - only that we're keenly aware of the limitations of the statistics that are available to football fans, and weary of lazy conclusion-making. Many of us, myself included, do not consider Long to be "toilet paper" and have never said so. To dismiss the bulk of posts over the last few pages as saying "Forster was more exciting and a nicer bloke" or "Long is toilet paper" is just an evasion and I think you know it.

[Hoop Blah]

Just to pick up on the 'but Long's less experienced and not at his prime' part of snowballs arguement, I don't see how that has any bearing on him being good enough to be our first choice lone centre forward.

To be frank, I don't really care how good he's going to be in 3 years time right now, I think the side needs a decent centre forward capable of playing the role we're looking for NOW. If we had a 27 year old Forster then we'd be laughing. We don't, and we're still doing ok, but with Long up there toiling away on his own we're lacking.

That's not writing Long off (although I admit I don't think he's that good anyway) it's stating an opinion that we could be a much more effective and entertaining side if we had a centre forward good at playing up there on their own RIGHT NOW.

[bcubed]

It won't change Snowball's mind, but this is a nice watch (sorry about the music):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ssxKVAUQQI

Don't think Long would have scored many of those

What strikes me about this is just how natural a footballer Foster was in comparison with Long
Long doesn't have the natural instincts and/or skills and/or speed (yes speed) to score these goals. I don't think he will ever be able to achieve this

[floyd__streete]

What strikes me about this is just how natural a footballer Foster was in comparison with Long
Long doesn't have the natural instincts and/or skills and/or speed (yes speed) to score these goals. I don't think he will ever be able to achieve this

Yeah, but don't forget that Forster was at his peak during this time whilst Long is only a relative youngZZZZZZZZZZ......

[handbags_harris]

I would counter that argument with the fact that the team that surrounded Forster for the majority of his Reading career was inferior to the one we have now.

Are you serious? Look at the 2002-3 team... the following season we added Goater, Kitson and Ingamarsson, the next Sonko and Convey

Nicky Shorey
Graeme Murty
Marcus Hahnemann
Nicky Forster
James Harper
Steve Sidwell
Matthew Upson
Glen Little
Ady Williams
Jamie Cureton
Andy Hughes
Tony Rougier
John Salako
Kevin Watson
Ricky Newman
John Mackie
Steve Brown
Martin Butler
Luke Chadwick
Nathan Tyson
Sammy Igoe

Ok, you disagree. But you also cut the sentence off conveniently short I'll requote for you:

I would counter that argument with the fact that the team that surrounded Forster for the majority of his Reading career was inferior to the one we have now, and he lit up that team.

So you disagree with the first bit and you conveniently cut the quote short, does this possibly mean that you are of the opinion that he lit up a team that is better than the one he is in now? That would be ultra-bizarre seeing as you've never seen him play.

Anyway, moving on, yes we added Goater (a God-awful player but a player who scored 1 goal every 2 games for Reading), Kitson and Ingimarsson I'll give you but please mate, you can't argue the later additions and then only place the good ones in. You forget the likes of Paul Brooker, Lloyd Owusu, Dean Morgan, Scott Murray, and Bobby Convey hardly played in 04/05. All players (bar Convey 05/06)who "did a job" but were hardly shining lights. Those highlighted that you listed would walk into the team now, but the rest? And you clearly state that he had six seasons in a Reading shirt, so what about the other teams he played in? I give you:

Phil Whitehead
Scott Howie
Stuart Gray
Andy Gurney
Barry Hunter
Matt Robinson
Jimmy Crawford
Martin Williams
Keith Scott
Keith Jones
Phil Parkinson
Neil Smith
Peter Grant

And that's before you even bother to enter into debate about the rest of my comment which you conveniently ignore.

And what I stronly object to, and I would say I speak for many others on here, is the following:

What I strongly object to is the mindless, uninformed, nasty, spineless attacks on a very young player who has started just 62 league games and is still only 23 and still learning.

Let's break this down:

Mindless: yes this board is full of sh*t sometimes, but there are some very lucid and well thought out arguments within this very thread.
Uninformed: LOLz - and your information on Nicky Forster consists of what exactly?
Nasty: Nope, constructive in the main.
Spineless: Well that's your opinion, but many people's arguments against your thoughts have more backbone than yours.
Very young: 23 in football is not "very young" despite entering the game late on.
62 starts: if he was better he'd have had more.
Still learning: aren't we all?

Seriously, the objection I take to that is strong. Many people have taken a look at the stats and yes they make decent reading, but I will requote another of my comments earlier in the thread: statistics can measure the cost of a player in raw terms, but they will never measure the value of that player to a team. And statistics can only give the end product data, you have no idea how the end product was reached.

[Snowball]

Just looked at Pearce's goal versus Forest.

I remembered it as Long being crowded-out anf falling down.

Take a look at the Reading FC footage. he is on the floor and quite clearly plays the ball back out to Pearce. That's an assist he didn't get,
a bit like the non-assist where he did well fed Kebe who fed Gyfli at reading. TEAM PLAYER

[Big Foot]

Just looked at Pearce's goal versus Forest.

I remembered it as Long being crowded-out anf falling down.

Take a look at the Reading FC footage. he is on the floor and quite clearly plays the ball back out to Pearce. That's an assist he didn't get,
a bit like the non-assist where he did well fed Kebe who fed Gyfli at reading. TEAM PLAYER

LOL

[RobRoyal]

Just looked at Pearce's goal versus Forest.

I remembered it as Long being crowded-out anf falling down.

Take a look at the Reading FC footage. he is on the floor and quite clearly plays the ball back out to Pearce. That's an assist he didn't get,
a bit like the non-assist where he did well fed Kebe who fed Gyfli at reading. TEAM PLAYER

I'm glad you've now come round to my argument that assist stats are a poor indicator of a player's creativity. As while back you seemed to be declaring that anything other than recorded goals and assists was "esoteric."

[Snowball]

LOL yer Mum

Remember when we beat Boro after being utterly out-classed and going behind 2-0?

That was a player on the floor not giving up (Lita, if memory serves me right)

It's not pretty, or "sexy" but it's fight, heart, never-say-die, and it's just as important as a mazy run that ends in a goal, MORE important than seven mazy runs which end in failure.

[Big Foot]

LOL yer Mum

Remember when we beat Boro after being utterly out-classed and going behind 2-0?

That was a player on the floor not giving up (Lita, if memory serves me right)

It's not pretty, or "sexy" but it's fight, heart, never-say-die, and it's just as important as a mazy run that ends in a goal, MORE important than seven mazy runs which end in failure.

I think counting a deflection as an assist is neither sexy nor an example of "never say die"

[Snowball]

Just looked at Pearce's goal versus Forest. I remembered it as Long being crowded-out anf falling down.

Take a look at the Reading FC footage. he is on the floor and quite clearly plays the ball back out to Pearce. That's an assist he didn't get,
a bit like the non-assist where he did well fed Kebe who fed Gyfli at reading. TEAM PLAYER

I'm glad you've now come round to my argument that assist stats are a poor indicator of a player's creativity. As while back you seemed to be declaring that anything other than recorded goals and assists was "esoteric."

not at all. That's just a failure of OBSERVATION. A careful look and the DELIBERATE assist is there to be seen.

As for "esoteric" I raised that because people were saying,

"Well, NO, not his goals-per-game record (ordinary)
and
"OK, no not his deadliness, (he missed 7 out of 8 chances which is poor)
and
"No, not his assists (just 13 in three almost ever-present seasons)


it was just his "contribution to the team"

but that WASN'T goals or assists, or ferocious tackling back, or great defending. The best we got was "he created space for others."

Yet when you check, the TOTAL goals scored for the team was actually quite middling, and the once in League 1, 70 goals, the best, and Forster's best season, just five goals better than last season in the Championship.


I seriously, genuinely think, though I'm sure Forster was a fine player, he is over-rated because of two good seasons and a play-off turn-around


As for the general nastiness of this board, look at the thread title fer Chrissakes. And this is a guy who IMO tries his guts out every week and IS doing a decent job.


As for his age, strikers peak 26-29. He's 23 and realistically the equivalent of someone like Church in football-experience terms.