Long - Time to go.

[Big Foot]

I thought that was one of Long's poorer performances to be honest. There was a little more creativity (thanks to better movement from Church) but his work rate wasn't as high as usual.

He did his usual winning of headers and closing down defenders at 80% pace, and linked up well with Church a few times, but this mythological work ethic just wasn't there for me. Far too many times he was walking around not making enough effort to get back onside or to close down.

As for the miss. It was pretty poor, and unlike Federici with Chopra's chance their keeper didn't make it as difficult for him, mainly because the run of the ball didn't take it as close to the box.

Agreed with all of the above, although I'll go slightly more leniently and say he had a good first half.

I lost count of the amount of times Shane walked back aimlessly from an offside position whilst their defenders freely knocked the ball about, putting more pressure on our full backs - particularly when Koumas came on.

I'm no Shane hater but his performances coupled with the new deal he's got (ahead of players who I feel have worked for it more such as Tabb) and his constant sound bites in the press about the fans and his performances means my patience is running thin with him.

[rabidbee]

His chasing of lost causes is good, but he's then slow to get back onside and, when you only have the one upfront, if you win the 50/50 his running has just forced, there's nowhere for it to go. I agree he looks much more effective with a strike partner - he's good at winning headers, and he has the pace to chase down balls over the top, but he's not the kind of guy to hold the ball and back into a defender until the rest of the team catch up. I suspect he was tired in the second half, and he also looks less effective when there#'s twenty yards between him and the midfield because we're defending so deep.

Oh, and talking of missed chances, I thought Church should have buried the ball in the first half.

[brendywendy]

I thought that was one of Long's poorer performances to be honest. There was a little more creativity (thanks to better movement from Church) but his work rate wasn't as high as usual.

He did his usual winning of headers and closing down defenders at 80% pace, and linked up well with Church a few times, but this mythological work ethic just wasn't there for me. Far too many times he was walking around not making enough effort to get back onside or to close down.

As for the miss. It was pretty poor, and unlike Federici with Chopra's chance their keeper didn't make it as difficult for him, mainly because the run of the ball didn't take it as close to the box.

lol at saying his good stuff was just down to church.
who missed a good chance himself, and didnt look like he worked half as hard as long to me.

just proves to me that people see what they want.

[Big Foot]

His chasing of lost causes is good, but he's then slow to get back onside and, when you only have the one upfront, if you win the 50/50 his running has just forced, there's nowhere for it to go. I agree he looks much more effective with a strike partner - he's good at winning headers, and he has the pace to chase down balls over the top, but he's not the kind of guy to hold the ball and back into a defender until the rest of the team catch up. I suspect he was tired in the second half, and he also looks less effective when there#'s twenty yards between him and the midfield because we're defending so deep.

Oh, and talking of missed chances, I thought Church should have buried the ball in the first half.

And we're defending so deep because Shane can't hold the ball up there, largely because he's still in an offside position whilst they knock it about in their back third to build another attack. It's a vicious cycle.

[Hoop Blah]

Don't be a tool brendy, you're starting to sound more like snowball with that kind of defensive reaction.

I'm not saying his good work was only down to Church, I'm saying that he benfitted from him being there as the flicks and knocks downs he's pretty good at had someone making good runs to make the most of them.

Church missing a chance doesn't have any impact on the quality of Long's performance either. Two wrongs don't make a right and, for what it's worth, I think you have to expect Church to miss chances because he does it all the time. Church didn't do the same kind of work as Long and that's totally expected because he was playing a different role.

Could Church have played better? Yes, I probably could. Does that excuse Long his laziness and lack of quality at times? No.

[rabidbee]

No, I wouldn't agree with that. He can hardly be chasing down back passes to the keeper that are the result of good pressing by us during a period when we're being pressed back deep into our half by them.

Cardiff stepped it up a gear in the second half and we couldn't really get near the ball. Players naturally just start dropping closer and closer to the 18-yard line when that happens, but unless Long was going to drop to well inside our half, that left a massive gap between him and the midfield.

Plus, when there's only one guy up front, even when he's quick, it makes it very hard for him to get near the hoofs out of defence, so it's no wonder that the ball comes straight back at us.

[Wycombe Royal]

Does that excuse Long his laziness and lack of quality at times? No.

Long was not "lazy" last night. That much was obvious to anyone there who is not blind.

As for his quality, yes it is lacking at times, but wasn't it Long who put that chance on a plate for Church? It was a superb ball that was just begging to be put in the back of the net.

[Snowball]

Does that excuse Long his laziness and lack of quality at times? No.

Long was not "lazy" last night. That much was obvious to anyone there who is not blind.

As for his quality, yes it is lacking at times, but wasn't it Long who put that chance on a plate for Church? It was a superb ball that was just begging to be put in the back of the net.

Well said, Wycombe. That was a great run and cross, shame Churchy didn't bury it.

As for Long's back heel to Church, it looked to have surprised Church
but maybe a top-top striker wouldn't have been surprised.

(From where I was sat I couldn't really tell if Long could have taken the shot)

[brendywendy]

Don't be a tool brendy, you're starting to sound more like snowball with that kind of defensive reaction.

I'm not saying his good work was only down to Church, I'm saying that he benfitted from him being there as the flicks and knocks downs he's pretty good at had someone making good runs to make the most of them.

Church missing a chance doesn't have any impact on the quality of Long's performance either. Two wrongs don't make a right and, for what it's worth, I think you have to expect Church to miss chances because he does it all the time. Church didn't do the same kind of work as Long and that's totally expected because he was playing a different role.

Could Church have played better? Yes, I probably could. Does that excuse Long his laziness and lack of quality at times? No.

out of the two replies i know which seems more defensive to me.
and its my opinion, just like yours.


i just thought he played well again last night, with just the one glaring miss,

just cannot agree with the laziness stuff. yes sometimes he busts a gut chasing a lost cause, and then struggles to get back onside, but i think thats just him being knackered.

yes lacking in quality, but just dont see the rest myself.
you see it different. well done.

ill resist calling you a tool though you big gay.

[Snowball]

It wasn't identical, Long's was a lot to easier on all honesty, as he didn't have to stretch like Chopra, it was more central and he had more time to line it up but I felt he too should have scored it. He's not quite been in the sort of form this season as he has been previously for Cardiff. Still think if either him or Bothroyd had the chances Reading had last night they'd have put them away.

Put elsewhere, Reading are one decent natural finisher away from being a top 6 team in my opinion. That person to partner Long, not replace.

Before his miss last night his figures are outstanding

Played 09 = 11 Shots on Target = 05 Shots Off Target 4 Goals

Doesn't get much better than that in this league

[brendywendy]

Does that excuse Long his laziness and lack of quality at times? No.

Long was not "lazy" last night. That much was obvious to anyone there who is not blind.

As for his quality, yes it is lacking at times, but wasn't it Long who put that chance on a plate for Church? It was a superb ball that was just begging to be put in the back of the net.

Well said, Wycombe. That was a great run and cross, shame Churchy didn't bury it.

As for Long's back heel to Church, it looked to have surprised Church
but maybe a top-top striker wouldn't have been surprised.

(From where I was sat I couldn't really tell if Long could have taken the shot)[/quote]


with his back to goal and two defenders on him, probably not...

[Snowball]

I'm not calling for him to be sold, however you've got to question the professionalism of a striker who "won't put the effort in because he's disheartened with the team clinging to a 1-0 lead"

But I DIDN'T SAY that.

I gave a number of POSSIBILITIES, one or more of which MIGHT HAVE applied.

You can add to that, the fact that he had run himself into the ground, perhaps,
that he could still feel his battering at QPR, perhaps, that his wrist injury was
feeling more and more painful (perhaps), or that perhaps he had had a kick
or a minor pull.

I am not saying ANY of these things apply, but why are Nobbers so quick
to criticise players? I know for one thing that Shane also twice headed
clear form his own area

[Snowball]

just proves to me that people see what they want.

Perzackly!

[andrew1957]

The Long haters are blinded by their hatred it seems. He was excellent last night BUT we can all see that he is not a natural goal scorer. As someone else said we should not replace him but we either need a goalscorer to partner him or we need Church or Hunt to step up as the clinical finisher.

As for blaming Long for not rushing to get onside that really is unfair. The guy covers as much ground as I have ever seen a player cover in a game. He often goes all the way back to defend corners etc and covers just about every blade of grass. Sometimes he needs to jog back to get some energy back. If he did not need to do this he would be a physical phenomenon.

[leon]

Unfortunately both Long and Church for all their good points (of which they do have) just don't score nearly enough.

The chances wasted last night, plus the movement to get in the right position in the box to get on the end of chances shows we need a goal scorer.

I still think Hunt could be that player - if it hadn't been a great save he'd have had 2 last night - not bad as he was player wide left.

[andrew1957]

Unfortunately both Long and Church for all their good points (of which they do have) just don't score nearly enough.

The chances wasted last night, plus the movement to get in the right position in the box to get on the end of chances shows we need a goal scorer.

I still think Hunt could be that player - if it hadn't been a great save he'd have had 2 last night - not bad as he was player wide left.

I agree about Hunt. He is just beginning to look like the Hunt of 2008/9 to me so I think we should give him a chance until the end of the year - but if he also draws too many blanks we really do need a new striker in January.

[BR2]

Unfortunately both Long and Church for all their good points (of which they do have) just don't score nearly enough.

The chances wasted last night, plus the movement to get in the right position in the box to get on the end of chances shows we need a goal scorer.

I still think Hunt could be that player - if it hadn't been a great save he'd have had 2 last night - not bad as he was player wide left.

Agreed Leon,Church generally manages to find the keeper and Shane generally misses the target.
As we were saying around us how many goals would Cureton or Quinn score in this side?
They wouldn't be far off Bothroyd and Chopra and we would be much nearer the top spot.
Come on Brian there really has to be a proper strong central striker out there within our budget.

[Snowball]

I think we are going to put 5-6 past someone soon (cue blind-school jokes)

We're not really getting the rub of the green shooting-wise (altho' I thought
our goal was a half miss-hit) and we are going to get a 90 where they all go in.

[brendywendy]

The Long haters are blinded by their hatred it seems. He was excellent last night BUT we can all see that he is not a natural goal scorer. As someone else said we should not replace him but we either need a goalscorer to partner him or we need Church or Hunt to step up as the clinical finisher.

As for blaming Long for not rushing to get onside that really is unfair. The guy covers as much ground as I have ever seen a player cover in a game. He often goes all the way back to defend corners etc and covers just about every blade of grass. Sometimes he needs to jog back to get some energy back. If he did not need to do this he would be a physical phenomenon.

alot of it is silly criticism.
if he chases back to the keeper, who hoofs it up pitch, and a reading player gets on the end of it to head it back, hell be offside whatever happens, unless of course the header is clever and doesnt try to head it onto long who is obviously offside

[Snowball]

Agreed Leon,Church generally manages to find the keeper and Shane generally misses the target.
As we were saying around us how many goals would Cureton or Quinn score in this side?
They wouldn't be far off Bothroyd and Chopra and we would be much nearer the top spot.
Come on Brian there really has to be a proper strong central striker out there within our budget.

EDIT, missed four Church misses (hit woodwork)

11 09 Church
30 33 Church
41 42 49% of Church shots hit target (hit woodwork counts as a miss)

13 12 Long
24 20 Long

37 32 53% of Long's shots hit target