Long - Time to go.

[Wimb]

Do I read like a bloke who wants to avoid the debate?

Yes, you are consistently refusing to answer my relevant question about Defoe and Sheringham. It is relevant as it explores the use of stats alone to determine a player's effectiveness in comparison to another, which as you have admitted to never having seen Forster play, is exactly what you are doing, and all you can do.

So if you aren't avoiding debate, and your use of statistics is relevant to the debate, then tell me whether you think Sheringham or Defoe is the more effective England striker.

Repeatedly fails to take criticism or modify his posting style at request or make any sort of concession or compromise in an argument. Mistakenly labels all those with views which aren't similar as mindless negative attacks on players, when in fact those are usually from a minority of easily recognised (and ignored) posters.

Statistically it would be relevant to assemble the words, nail the hit head on the to analyse the above ^^

[Snowball]

Do I read like a bloke who wants to avoid the debate?

Yes, you are consistently refusing to answer my relevant question about Defoe and Sheringham. It is relevant as it explores the use of stats alone to determine a player's effectiveness in comparison to another, which as you have admitted to never having seen Forster play, is exactly what you are doing, and all you can do.

So if you aren't avoiding debate, and your use of statistics is relevant to the debate, then tell me whether you think Sheringham or Defoe is the more effective England striker.

Do you think Captain Cook or Sir Walter Raleigh was the greatest seaman?

[cmonurz]

Other than the approximate years that they achieved what they did, I know next to nothing about either Cook or Raleigh, so wouldn't possibly make a judgement of one over the other. I guess I'd need some stats, perhaps attempted to actual colonisations, % of the globe mapped, relative speed of their vessels compared to manpower available, that sort of thing. You know, some real data that completely ignores their actual long-term impact on seafaring.

Now back to football, are you going to continue to avoid the debate, or apply your point about statistics to my example of Defoe and Sheringham and the England football team?

[Snowball]

Other than the approximate years that they achieved what they did, I know next to nothing about either Cook or Raleigh, so wouldn't possibly make a judgement of one over the other. I guess I'd need some stats, perhaps attempted to actual colonisations, % of the globe mapped, relative speed of their vessels compared to manpower available, that sort of thing. You know, some real data that completely ignores their actual long-term impact on seafaring.

Now back to football, are you going to continue to avoid the debate, or apply your point about statistics to my example of Defoe and Sheringham and the England football team?

Raleigh didn't do any colonising. But in terms of importance to their country, what do you think?

There's plenty of narrative discussion of both men, contemporary reports and historical gathering of data, too.

The Armada is probably on You-Tube

[Snowball]

Or we could discuss Reading players?

[cmonurz]

You're embarassing yourself. The debate has included a number of pages on the use of statistics. Your refusal to address my point because it happens to be a perfectly relevant, but non-Reading FC, example, is just one of many aspects of a very weak argument on your behalf.

[Snowball]

You're embarassing yourself. The debate has included a number of pages on the use of statistics. Your refusal to address my point because it happens to be a perfectly relevant, but non-Reading FC, example, is just one of many aspects of a very weak argument on your behalf.

NO. Wandering off to start discussing the England team as far back as 17 years ago, (Sherringham's first senior game)
and then mostly opinion and how many live England games have we watched? is damn pointless.


And-I-really-don't-give-a-sh!t-about-discussing-the-England-team.

I have no desire to discuss an England player who played on and off for 17 years
and get into another stupid, can't-prove-anything anyway row.

What I know is that when Shane's goals-per-minutes were shown to be excellent
the Shane-Haters cited the fact that he "only" scored goals and did little else.


That wasn't true, but now, when the manager says he is an unsung hero and is
important to the team (ie DOES do much else besides scoring) now it's his goal-tally
that is the issue.

If he gets eight goals this season and every one is a penalty, and if playing like he is
means we have a GD of +25 and are around 6th, I will be totally satisfied. I think he
is a fine Championship striker, still improving and will prove me right in time.

(I still think he doesn't "suit" 4-5-1, and will still think that if he gets 12-13 goals this season playing 4-5-1.
I think he's a natural 4-4-2 man who should be running at defenders.)

Please feel free to mention Sherringham and any other England player as often as
you wish from now on, wave yer willy and shout nah-nah-nah too. It's pixels, luv.

I will treat the issue as I have already done.

[Wimb]

You're embarassing yourself. The debate has included a number of pages on the use of statistics. Your refusal to address my point because it happens to be a perfectly relevant, but non-Reading FC, example, is just one of many aspects of a very weak argument on your behalf.

NO. Wandering off to start discussing the England team as far back as 17 years ago, (Sherringham's first senior game)
and then mostly opinion and how many live England games have we watched? is damn pointless.


And-I-really-don't-give-a-sh!t-about-discussing-the-England-team.

I have no desire to discuss an England player who played on and off for 17 years
and get into another stupid, can't-prove-anything anyway row.

What I know is that when Shane's goals-per-minutes were shown to be excellent
the Shane-Haters cited the fact that he "only" scored goals and did little else.


That wasn't true, but now, when the manager says he is an unsung hero and is
important to the team (ie DOES do much else besides scoring) now it's his goal-tally
that is the issue.

If he gets eight goals this season and every one is a penalty, and if playing like he is
means we have a GD of +25 and are around 6th, I will be totally satisfied. I think he
is a fine Championship striker, still improving and will prove me right in time.

(I still think he doesn't "suit" 4-5-1, and will still think that if he gets 12-13 goals this season playing 4-5-1.
I think he's a natural 4-4-2 man who should be running at defenders.)

Please feel free to mention Sherringham and any other England player as often as
you wish from now on, wave yer willy and shout nah-nah-nah too. It's pixels, luv.

I will treat the issue as I have already done.

shocker Snowball, you once again dodge a well reasoned argument with abuse and name calling and backtrack your points to suit your own agenda.

URZ was asking a reasonable question about comparing a current England player (a footballer) who you would have seen (Defoe) with another England striker who you hadn't seen play but had a similar number of games etc. It would be interesting to hear your analysis because on paper (as urz points out) it's the same as Forster v Long.

If you follow YOUR OWN methodology and apply the same stats, you could give us an interpretation of who you believe to be the better striker. Sherringham v Defoe has the utmost relevance because it would show to this board whether the stats you use can or can't be applied to a similar scenario.

But no, of course when you think your position re: Long may be threatened you resort to the same jibberish and stats, moving the goalposts and avoiding the issues.

[T.R.O.L.I.]

FAO Snowball: How many chances did Long miss today?

[Millsy]

FAO Snowball: How many chances did Long miss today?

[Ian Royal]

FAO Snowball: How many chances did Long miss today?

I counted at least 4 from the commentary. Am I close or way under?

[RoyalBlue]

I wish people would lay off Long but I guess his critics are largely the football blind.

He worked really hard again today on his own up front and frequently brought other players into the game in good goalscoring positions. No one else currently on our books could play the sole striker role (the manager's choice of playing style)as well. Yes, he missed a couple of chances but it was largely his work that created them and at least he got into a position to miss them. Soon he will start converting some too.

Also Tabb (a player I really rate) was guilty of missing by far the easiest chance. Given the relative positions of he and Sullivan, the opportunity (set up by Long) should have led to a goal or a penalty and red card. There is no way at all that Sullivan should have been given the chance to grab the ball cleanly as he did.

[Millsy]

He was an embarrassment today with the chances he missed.

I want to know what Brian thinks.

I rate Brian but I don't understand why he plays FIVE in midfield, which should be more than enough to control things, get into the flanks, win possession etc yet he asks Long to do a lot of chasing and midfield work (which he does do very well might I add). I am confused because when Long does all this running about it's little wonder that he's not in the rigt place at the right time to score, and when he IS, he's probably too tired to make the chances count. I'm just confused.

[Royalee]

3 goals scored as soon as Shlong is subbed, 'nuff said.

[Millsy]

I wish people would lay off Long but I guess his critics are largely the football blind.

He worked really hard again today on his own up front and frequently brought other players into the game in good goalscoring positions. No one else currently on our books could play the sole striker role (the manager's choice of playing style)as well. Yes, he missed a couple of chances but it was largely his work that created them and at least he got into a position to miss them. Soon he will start converting some too.

He missed more than a couple.

He was as much of an embarrassment today as he has been all season.

BUT he works hard and does well.

HOWEVER the number one priority of any player is to be FIT FOR PURPOSE.

Which means if you're a defender YOU DEFEND. If you're extra good, like for example Mills/Harte you can score too but your number oe priority is to DEFEND. A keeper KEEPS THE GOAL. A midfielder wins possession and mounts attacks. Extra good midfielders will also score. A STRIKER'S PURPOSE IS TO SCORE GOALS. NOTHING else matters, which is why Forster and Cureton were legends. Yes they did bugger all else but we didn't care because they put the ball in the back of the net. We of course appreciated Kitson doing all the work too (liek Long does) BUT AT LEAST HE SCORED TOO, otherwise we'd have been on his back too. His critics are not football blind because they can see how much work he does. His critics have their priorities in the right place and are therefore arguably more football aware than his mindless defenders.

I've given up waiting for the "soon" you speak of.

[Millsy]

3 goals scored as soon as Shlong is subbed, 'nuff said.

2ww in "well said Royalee" shocker!

[Snowball]

[quote="Wimb"



URZ was asking a reasonable question about comparing a current England player (a footballer) who you would have seen (Defoe) with another England striker who you hadn't seen play but had a similar number of games etc. It would be interesting to hear your analysis because on paper (as urz points out) it's the same as Forster v Long.

I have no desire to discuss an England player who played on and off for 17 years
and get into another stupid, can't-prove-anything anyway row.

If you follow YOUR OWN methodology and apply the same stats, you could give us an interpretation of who you believe to be the better striker. Sherringham v Defoe has the utmost relevance because it would show to this board whether the stats you use can or can't be applied to a similar scenario.


I have no desire to discuss an England player who played on and off for 17 years
and get into another stupid, can't-prove-anything anyway row.

[/quote]

What I meant to say, but probably wasn't clear enough was

I have no desire to discuss an England player who played on and off for 17 years
and get into another stupid, can't-prove-anything anyway row.

[Svlad Cjelli]

No change to existing situation - great support striker, great workrate, great at winning the ball, but ineffective as a lone striker.

[PEARCEY]

Long is not an embarrassment. He plays his part. You mention Cureton is a legend. If he is then it certainly wasn't at Championship level with us. He struggled to make an impact at that level.

[RoyalBlue]

I wish people would lay off Long but I guess his critics are largely the football blind.

He worked really hard again today on his own up front and frequently brought other players into the game in good goalscoring positions. No one else currently on our books could play the sole striker role (the manager's choice of playing style)as well. Yes, he missed a couple of chances but it was largely his work that created them and at least he got into a position to miss them. Soon he will start converting some too.

He missed more than a couple.

He was as much of an embarrassment today as he has been all season.

BUT he works hard and does well.

HOWEVER the number one priority of any player is to be FIT FOR PURPOSE.

.

He is FIT FOR THE PURPOSE that McDermott has set!

Put Church up there on his own (we won virtually nothing in the air up front once Long was taken off)from the start of a game and watch how shockingly poorly he would perform in comparision!

Still matters not what the Long critics and boo boys think because McDermott made it clear after the game that he is very happy with the role Long is playing and sees no need for anyone to have to defend him.