Long - Time to go.

[RoyalBlue]

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

2ww in "well said Royalee" shocker!

Look at when roles were reversed in previous seasons and Long was brought off the bench after someone else hade worked their butt off for 70+ minutes. Then it was 2 or 3 goals scored when Long was brought on!!

[Svlad Cjelli]

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.

And the purpose is to wear down the defenders for the first hour, and to soften them up for the substitutions later on.

[floyd__streete]

NHunt and Church starting together next week then, eh Snowball?

[Snowball]

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.

YES. The header-on for Tabb was absolutely superb. If a striker (LONG in this case) does that, a goal on a plate, basically, where's the beef?

had it gone in (and Tabb, failed basically) it would have been 2-0 and we'd have been looking at another 4-0 we were so totally on top at the time.

In the first 20-25 Long was almost perfect in his role. As well as the Tabb put through he worked hard, won ball, won the ball in midfield,
broke the offside trap a few times, once shot into the side netting (he should have done better IMO) and headed over, but hardly
"a terrible miss". He had one lovely chip cross (but all my notes say is "brill chip cross" (can't remember to whom). he did great work
on 38 minutes only to be fouled. Harte took the free kick.

I'll keep saying it. He would look better in a 4-4-2, but the manager, Dellor and Mick Gooding STRONGLY defended Shane's contribution,
perhaps because they aren't muppets.

[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.

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.

Well put, Wimb.

[Svlad Cjelli]

....... Dellor and Mick Gooding STRONGLY defended Shane's contribution, perhaps because they aren't muppets.

I'm sorry. Once you start saying that Dellor isn't a muppet then everything you post loses any credibility.

[PEARCEY]

....... Dellor and Mick Gooding STRONGLY defended Shane's contribution, perhaps because they aren't muppets.

I'm sorry. Once you start saying that Dellor isn't a muppet then everything you post loses any credibility.

Agreed. Dellor should be commentating on a particulraly slow 4 day cricket match and not a 90 minute game of Championship football.

[Snowball]

NHunt and Church starting together next week then, eh Snowball?

NO. Want money on it?

Noel Hunt SHOULD START. He's a class act. Church has done well as an impact sub, but ONLY in terms of goals.

That is, he was junk at Burnley until his goal, ran around aimlessly today until his goal.

he's now won us four points with two very late goals (Ipswich and today) but that's what he's (currently) good at,
coming on against tired defences. You know (har-har) when "Doyle" has softened up the defence and players are tired.


That's what the sheep said when Long was super-sub. The manager is basically saying it's so for Long/Church.


Church is OK and has a good scoring record, will probably become a very, very good player in time. Hunt, though, is, for me, class and should start.

I'd either play 4-4-2 with Long-Hunt (they have a decent record as a pair) or play Hunt in the hole where today Tabb looked heavy and tired.

[Snowball]

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.

Agree. The manager got us a 4-0 win followed by a 4-3 win, and barring injuries,
I'm happy to bet he will start with Long against QPR.

Church? I've yet to see him have a good GAME, despite his good goals-record.

[Snowball]

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

2ww in "well said Royalee" shocker!

Look at when roles were reversed in previous seasons and Long was brought off the bench after someone else hade worked their butt off for 70+ minutes. Then it was 2 or 3 goals scored when Long was brought on!!

yup


eg we were 0-0 and Long came on in the 82nd minute, won a penalty, scored it, then scored a blinding header.

And he got little credit, because it was all Doyle (0-0)'s doing

[Snowball]

....... Dellor and Mick Gooding STRONGLY defended Shane's contribution, perhaps because they aren't muppets.

I'm sorry. Once you start saying that Dellor isn't a muppet then everything you post loses any credibility.

Same go for Mick Gooding?
Same go for McDermott?


They both said he's playing really well and doing a great job.

[floyd__streete]

Church? I've yet to see him have a good GAME, despite his good goals-record.

Churlish and pathetic response from someone who lost the argument long ago (pun unintended).

[Svlad Cjelli]

....... Dellor and Mick Gooding STRONGLY defended Shane's contribution, perhaps because they aren't muppets.

I'm sorry. Once you start saying that Dellor isn't a muppet then everything you post loses any credibility.

Same go for Mick Gooding?
Same go for McDermott?


They both said he's playing really well and doing a great job.

OMG Snowball - just how oxf*rd one-dimensional are you, that you see anything even tangentially not in agreement with you as an all-out attack on your beloved Shane?

Read again what I posted, (read it S-L-O-W-L-Y if it makes it easier), and then think again about your response.

[Millsy]

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.

True, but totally irrelevant point.

This isn't about Cureton vs Long.

It's about making the point that a stiker's role is to score and that is what made Curo a legend. All else is secondary.

(FWIW though I'd be very surprised if Long would be anywhere near as good as Curo was even in League 1 but that's of course only speculation and as I say, completely irrelevant.)

[Royalee]

I'm sick of this 'tiring players out' excuse used for Long. I could work hard and 'tire players out' if I trained 5 days a week, wouldn't make me a good striker (although even I'd probably manage one goal from open play in 13 games).

[PEARCEY]

^ Why did you mention Curo then 2WW? We are in the Championship right now. Thats where Long plys his trade. At this level Curo failed miserably so to say he's a legend tends to miss the point that if you are going to compare him with Long at least do so at the same level they both played for us at.

[Snowball]

Church? I've yet to see him have a good GAME, despite his good goals-record.

Churlish and pathetic response from someone who lost the argument long ago (pun unintended).

I'm totally serious. He doesn't seem to play well for 90 minutes and often runs around a bit aimlessly.

He's also missed some sitters. Fair play, as a sub this season he has done very well and won us 4 points, good lad
but I don't think he can carry a team for 90 minutes. He doesn't have that kind of maturity, and probably not the strength.

[Snowball]

I'm sick of this 'tiring players out' excuse used for Long. I could work hard and 'tire players out' if I trained 5 days a week, wouldn't make me a good striker (although even I'd probably manage one goal from open play in 13 games).

But that's precisely how the Long-Haters explained LONG's goals as a sub

[Royalee]

I'm sick of this 'tiring players out' excuse used for Long. I could work hard and 'tire players out' if I trained 5 days a week, wouldn't make me a good striker (although even I'd probably manage one goal from open play in 13 games).

But that's precisely how the Long-Haters explained LONG's goals as a sub

Compare Long's goals to games ratio to Noel Hunt's, end of discussion.

[Royal Rother]

BM knows more about football than the rest of you and he rates him. THAT should be the end of discussion.