Long - time for a change?

[Ian Royal]

As I think someone pointed out on the back from the game thread, Long makes the wrong runs to get the flukes. The example was about him running to the front of the six yard box instead of the near/far post for a tap in.

All too often he makes that kind of mistake.

True. I think now we're suffering from Steve Coppell's refusal to loan him out in PL season 2 so he could gain experience lower down the leagues - because he came to the game relatively late and spent the majority of him time before last season sitting on the bench, he's actually played relatively little football for someone of his age.

I think we've been suffering from that problem for a couple of seasons now.

I just can't see Long changing the player he is and starting to score regularly even if he gets a couple in quick succession. Afterall, he did get three goals in 5 games earlier in the season (2 penalties admittedly) and still didn't kick on from there at all.

He's got enough quality to go on little runs of scoring. But he simply isn't good enough mentally and technically to score regularly across a whole season. He may come good, but I can't see it happening with us. He's going to need to drop a league and restart his career that way.

he's been on borrowed time here for years. He finishes seasons relatively well, but goes back to shit at the start of the next one. He didn't really seem to do anything to justify his starting place in pre-season compared to Church.

IMO McDermott's played the gamble, got it wrong and not only hurt Long & Reading, but Church as well.

[Snowball]

He gets some chances, which he has a bad habit of missing by the way, but he doesn't get as many as he could/should, and subsequently doesn't score as manay goals, especially tap ins and flukes, as someone who attacks the right areas or just 'accidently' happens to be in the right place at the right time.

He DOESN'T "have a bad habit" except for this run this season. His seasonal stats match Doyle and the others quite well.
he's always been FRACTIONALLY behind on chances per game, but he converted a higher percentage than Doyle.

I seem to remember you posting that he was normally a good finisher.

Most strikers in this league need four or more shots/headers to get a goal.

But if he had five chances in one game that's a lot of chances. Doyle didn't average two shots a game

[Hoop Blah]

If you'd actually watch him instead of just looking at his stats you might've noticed that since day one he's consitently missed chances he should take on a regular basis. Punctuating those misses he'd score some good goals where he'd not have to think about what he was doing (that excellent finish against Derby or one of the ones he's scored against Norwich) but generally he's missed good opportunities throughout his career.

All forwards miss chances of course, but he's not clinical enough (your stats CAN'T show the time he misses opportunities when not getting a shot off) and never has been.

[Millsy]

The thread was locked for a reason: there is no discussion to be had.

[Plymouth_Royal]

He's shite. Can someone now close this thread please.

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

I didn't see the game v Coventry, but aren't you all saying he missed four chances?

And then you're also saying he doesn't get in the right place to get chances?

No, no I'm not.

Another game, another two points spaffed away due to Long's inability to hit the target. His workrate up to the 18 yard line is unquestionable and often is performing a thankless task, however he is first a foremost a striker and a striker's ultimate role is to score goals.

My issue with Long is the fact he keeps wasting chances that he should be at worst hitting the target with and porbably scoring most of.

[facaldaqui]

Nobody has answered the question I posed about whether there has ever been a striker who was a dud in his early career but became prolific later. If you ask me, it doesn't happen. I was just looking at Kevin Lisbie's stats. His strike rate went up with Colchester, but with Championship clubs he's remained consistently goalshy, young to old. This seems to me the pattern for players like that.

[Ian Royal]

I didn't see the game v Coventry, but aren't you all saying he missed four chances?

And then you're also saying he doesn't get in the right place to get chances?

No, no I'm not.

Another game, another two points spaffed away due to Long's inability to hit the target. His workrate up to the 18 yard line is unquestionable and often is performing a thankless task, however he is first a foremost a striker and a striker's ultimate role is to score goals.

My issue with Long is the fact he keeps wasting chances that he should be at worst hitting the target with and porbably scoring most of.

I think some others have made that point, which is an entirely reasonable one. Snowball just seems to have trouble differentiating between posters.

It is not mutually exclusive to have a player miss four chances and generally not get into as many good positions as perhaps he should.

[Snowball]

Nobody has answered the question I posed about whether there has ever been a striker who was a dud in his early career but became prolific later. .

Thierry Henry?

[Snowball]

Thierry Henry?


1994–1999 Monaco 105 (20) Twenty goals in 5 seasons
1999 Juventus 16 (3)
1999–2007 Arsenal 254 (174)
2007–2010 Barcelona 80 (35)

Brought in as a replacement for fellow French forward Nicolas Anelka, Henry was immediately moulded into a striker by Wenger, a move that would pay rich dividends in years to come.

However, doubts were raised about his ability to adapt to the quick and physical English game when he failed to score in his first eight games.[3]

After several difficult months in England, Henry even conceded that he had to "be re-taught everything about the art of striking."[3]

These doubts were dispelled when he ended his first season at Arsenal with an impressive goal tally of 26.

[Snowball]

Nobody has answered the question I posed about whether there has ever been a striker who was a dud in his early career but became prolific later. If you ask me, it doesn't happen. I was just looking at Kevin Lisbie's stats. His strike rate went up with Colchester, but with Championship clubs he's remained consistently goalshy, young to old. This seems to me the pattern for players like that.

Long, prior to this season had a very decent goals to minutes ratio, about the same as Kevin Doyle.

When he got himself sent off last season he was lambasted on this list
because "he was the only good striker we had" and he had let down
the club....

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Thierry Henry?


1994–1999 Monaco 105 (20) Twenty goals in 5 seasons
1999 Juventus 16 (3)
1999–2007 Arsenal 254 (174)
2007–2010 Barcelona 80 (35)

Brought in as a replacement for fellow French forward Nicolas Anelka, Henry was immediately moulded into a striker by Wenger, a move that would pay rich dividends in years to come.

However, doubts were raised about his ability to adapt to the quick and physical English game when he failed to score in his first eight games.[3]

After several difficult months in England, Henry even conceded that he had to "be re-taught everything about the art of striking."[3]

These doubts were dispelled when he ended his first season at Arsenal with an impressive goal tally of 26.

Perhaps Long should go to Arsenal and learn how to remould his game, then again McD or Arsene

[Snowball]

Nobody has answered the question I posed about whether there has ever been a striker who was a dud in his early career but became prolific later. If you ask me, it doesn't happen.
.

Alan Shearer managed 23 goals in his first 118 League appearances for Southampton.

He had two years in the youth team, then...

He started with a bang, a hat-trick in his home debut, but in his second season failed to score at all in 10 appearances

In his third season he scored just 3 goals in 26 League appearances 5 in 35 including cups

In his fourth season he scored just 4 goals in 36 league appearances. His cup goals upped his tally


1987–88 005 03 League : 00-00 FA Cup 00-00 League Cup - 005 Appearances 03 Goals
1988–89 010 00 League : 00-00 FA Cup 00-00 League Cup - 010 Appearances 00 Goals
1989–90 026 03 League : 03-00 FA Cup 06-02 League Cup - 035 Appearances 05 Goals
1990–91 036 04 League : 04-02 FA Cup 06-06 League Cup - 048 Appearances 14 Goals
1991–92 041 13 League : 07-02 FA Cup 06-03 League Cup - 060 Appearances 21 Goals
1987-92 118 23 League : 14-04 FA Cup 18-11 League Cup - 158 Appearances 43 Goals

For Comparison, Shane Long is now 2005-10 164 Appearances 33 Goals

[Snowball]

Nobody has answered the question I posed about whether there has ever been a striker who was a dud in his early career but became prolific later. If you ask me, it doesn't happen.
.

23 league goals in his first 118 League appearances 1 Goal every 5.13 Appearances Alan Shearer
27 league goals in his first 144 League appearances 1 Goal every 5.33 Appearances Shane Long

[Wycombe Royal]

Alan Shearer was playing in the Premiership, not the Championship and that poor goalscoring record earned him a £3.6m move to Blackburn. Can you see Shane Long attracting a fee anything like that?

[pea]

My concern earlier in the season was that shane wasn't getting in the right positions and often only had one decent chance a game. He too easily drifted onto the wing and without a gylfi player drifting into the box it just killed our attacks. Now at least he's where he's supposed to be, I think the goals will come, probably just as Brians on the verge of bringing a new striker in in January!

[Snowball]

Alan Shearer was playing in the Premiership, not the Championship and that poor goalscoring record earned him a £3.6m move to Blackburn.

Can you see Shane Long attracting a fee anything like that?

Yes, but if you look at his figures, it was his FIFTH season that he started to show a good goal-scoring ratio.

Anyway, the point is he took five seasons to really start to hit form (and he had had two seasons in Soton's Youth Team before that) so really it's his seventh season. The question was about players not being prolific early on and going on to become top strikers. Shearer was one of the best-ever centre-forwards for England. The fact that his first five years are not massively different to Long's stat-wise, I find very interesting.

Also of note when you read about him is that he used to prefer setting up goals for others with his strength and running and "holding up" and had to be trained to be more of a selfish striker.



PS almost a fifth of Long's goals were in the Premiership and 10/33 have been against Premiership opposition.

[Snowball]

My concern earlier in the season was that Shane wasn't getting in the right positions and often only had one decent chance a game. He too easily drifted onto the wing and without a gylfi player drifting into the box it just killed our attacks. Now at least he's where he's supposed to be, I think the goals will come, probably just as Brian's on the verge of bringing a new striker in in January!

I've been saying for ages that he (or Hunt) has to be encouraged to stay central.

Last night before the Man U v Arsenal game they showed what a difference Chamack (sp?) has made to Arsenal. They showed loads of clips from last season where there Arsenal had the ball wide but nobody in the box to cross to, or at best one player there, but nobody to latch on to knock-downs.

If you keep the two strikers central and use the wingers, it works.

Then, when they double-mark both wingers the midfield can go forward into space or ping a long ball for a PAIR of strikers to chase.

[Wycombe Royal]

Alan Shearer was playing in the Premiership, not the Championship and that poor goalscoring record earned him a £3.6m move to Blackburn.

Can you see Shane Long attracting a fee anything like that?

Yes, but if you look at his figures, it was his FIFTH season that he started to show a good goal-scoring ratio.

Anyway, the point is he took five seasons to really start to hit form (and he had had two seasons in Soton's Youth Team before that) so really it's his seventh season. The question was about players not being prolific early on and going on to become top strikers. Shearer was one of the best-ever centre-forwards for England. The fact that his first five years are not massively different to Long's stat-wise, I find very interesting.

Also of note when you read about him is that he used to prefer setting up goals for others with his strength and running and "holding up" and had to be trained to be more of a selfish striker.



PS almost a fifth of Long's goals were in the Premiership and 10/33 have been against Premiership opposition.

Yes it was Shearers fifth season and it earned him a £3.6m move to Blackburn. Shane is now in his sixth season, still hasn't hit 10 goals in a season and hasn't earned himself a multi million pound move. Shane is still showing no signs of improving his goal scoring record this season, his sixth. In Shearers sixth season he scored 16 goals in 21 Premiership games.

[Hoop Blah]

Henry was a winger before Wenger converted him into a centre forward so I really don't think you could say he went from a dud forward to a goalscorer.

Shearer was a youngster playing in a relatively poor Southampton team in the top flight and did pretty well. It's an interesting comparison to Long though, but the difference for me is that Shearer would've scored a hatful of goals at youth level whereas Long, and the same goes for Church, hasn't been that prolific at any point in his career (he and Lita had a couple of good spells for our Reserves when they were playing mickey mouse sides).

Long isn't a prolific forward. There isn't a lot wrong with that if he's played in the right side that covers for his frailties. We're not that side at the moment and we need, as has been shown by the last half a dozen games, a forward to take a few of his chances now and again!