Long - Time to go.

[Hoop Blah]

can we not just agree that measuring performance with eyes/cold hard numbers both have their advantages and disadvantages, and that a mixture of both is probably good.
eyes have to filter the info through the brain which adds all sorts of other factors such as preference for a certain type of football, in built long standing hatred/love of players, what you were focussing on on that particular day

Of course, a bit of both is the ideal situation but only if you can filter out the interesting and pertinent stats whilst applying then with a little intelligence and understanding of the game.

the cold hard numbers dont tell you the whole story, but at least they are free from the subjectivity of the observer

You have to remember that the stats snowball is spamming us with are largely just an observer recording his own subjective take on a game. We've all seen some of the stats that appear in places like the Post and the assorted websites that take the stats from the Press Association or whoever it is.

[handbags_harris]

the cold hard numbers dont tell you the whole story, but at least they are free from the subjectivity of the observer

Nope, all they give is raw data, the end result. They don't tell us how we got there in the first place which is, essentially, a major flaw with Snowball's arguments. He is basically basing one side of his judgements almost purely on the end result (Forster) and the other side with a mixture of end result and build-up (Long). Which makes it an unfair assessment in the first place really.

[Platypuss]

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

Previously you said he could get 20 in the Prem!

I have always said 10-20-30 Prem-Championship-league 1

Post where I said "20 in the Prem"

No need - it was so that it's etched into my memory.

[Snowball]

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

Previously you said he could get 20 in the Prem!

NO I DIDN'T.

I have quoted the actual statement and bumped the Shane Long thread for you so you can read it and admit you got it wrong.

[Snowball]

Of course, a bit of both is the ideal situation but only if you can filter out the interesting and pertinent stats whilst applying then with a little intelligence and understanding of the game.

TRANSLATION: Stats are OK if they support my prejudices and subjectivity.

the cold hard numbers dont tell you the whole story, but at least they are free from the subjectivity of the observer

You have to remember that the stats snowball is spamming us with are largely just an observer recording his own subjective take on a game. We've all seen some of the stats that appear in places like the Post and the assorted websites that take the stats from the Press Association or whoever it is.

YES, and as a psychologist (my first degree) I'm aware of subjectivity even when "objectively" acquiring data.

But this kind of "objectivity" (imperfect as it is) is a hundred times more accurate than the gut-instinct bollox
rose-coloured, blue-and-white (or I hate Kebe/Long/Howard) glasses-wearing rubbish that is the average fan (me included).

On radio for the Burnley game they discussed a game last season when Rodgers was in charge (away at Barnsley)

The REALITY was Barnsley slaughtered us for the first 20/25/30 minutes but didn't score.
We went on to win and ridger-the-Dodger, in the after-the-match interview talked about
how RFC "controlled the first half-hour". Dellor & Co pointed out that we were being hammered.


A few weeks later Dodger admitted that his PERSPECTIVE and RECOLLECTION was completely wrong
and had been coloured by (a) being a fan and (b) the final result.


Now, if we had good stats for the first half hour

72% Possession 8 shots on target 2 shots off target Barnsley
28% Possession 0 shots on target 1 shots off target Reading



get the picture?

[Snowball]

Post where I said "20 in the Prem"

No need - it was so that it's etched into my memory.

EXCEPT IT WASN'T AND YOU ARE 100% WRONG

[Snowball]

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

Previously you said he could get 20 in the Prem!

21st February 2009

Here it is:

Whatever................

If we get promoted Shane will be gone.

You might be right, and he will then become a top player elsewhere

I go on record as saying if he leaves Reading and avoids a serious injury he will score

10 Premiership goals
or
20 Championship goals
or
30 League One goals


in a season.


It's totally understandable that he doesn't shift Doyle or Hunt from their top-two striker positions
but I think if he had an extended run in a championship side he would be a decent striker

You may now take the p!ss, as is your wont. A few morons will say he has had an extended run, but he hasn't.

I think the best he's had is 3-4 games

OOPS! PLATYPUS IN A WRONG STATEMENT SHOCK.

[Millsy]

Is this the most tiresome and pointless thread ever?

snowball's in it and sticking to his rather tired and hypocritical looking high horse, so I'd vote yes.

You guys don't understand. It's meant to be a Long thread.

*grabs coat, runs out*

[Millsy]

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

Kind words appreciated. Thankfully though this thread is full of excellent points of view but thanks.

[Snowball]

Well, Shane's had games you look back on and say he's done very, very well. That was his last game so we look at that and he was very, very good. That's what we want, we want to get a level of consistency in all our players. If we do that we've got a good chance of winning.

[Millsy]

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 is the crux of the whole debate.

And it is purely for this, Snowball, that I respect you and I'm not attacking you as I'm not too dissimilar. I hate to knock players, especially on a well-read forum that will inevitably get back to them.

I strongly salute you for this attitude even if I don't agree with some of the things you conclude.

As Handbags_Harris has pointed out eloquently, perhaps most attacks aren't mindless, uninformed, nasty or spineless BUT it is undoubtedly true that this board is full of such attacks not just on Long but almost every one of our squad at some point or other. And Long is no different.

What I disagree with, or rather what I wish you'd do differently, in order to give more credence to what I for one consider to be a very noble and fair stance (of not knocking a young player), is not to write some of the stuff you do about Forster and perhaps not to be so intent on making the stats look like Long is fantastic. Because with his record this season that is frankly laughable.

The truth is *probably* something like "yes Long isn't a bad player who does do some good stuff but it's just not quite working for him at the moment, for reasons x, y, z". But when you get people on one side of the fence saying he needs to go because he's a joke and then people like you digging out stats to say that he is better than a striker who many of us regard to be almost legendary for the club the whole discussion falls into chaos because none of those positions is sensible.

The fact of the matter is the lad has not scored a single goal in open play all season and that is horribly embarrassing and just cannot be defended. You can come up with reasons why not, and point to other attributes (which you have very eloquently done), but noone can hide away from the fact that *with the current system* he's a failure. However I'm definitely not going to stick my neck out an say he's rubbish because I wouldn't be surprised if in a two man system he turns out to provide more assists and goals that any of us could dream of and we end up one day bemoaning his big money transfer to another club. It's entirely possible.

In summary, *I* think you raise valid points and provide brilliant stats for a very very worthy cause of sticking up for a youngish player who's playing in the wrong system and I salute you for it. All I'd say is just don't go over the top!

[Snowball]

Nicky Forster has been easily the best striker I have ever seen play for Reading and these absurd comparisons with Shane Long do him no justice at all. You will rarely see a player influence a team to the degree that Forster did in 2002/3. Tremendous player.

I agree that the comparisons are a bit pointless - not least because we are comparing a striker well suited to the lone role to one slightly less so. To be fair to Long, Snowball's right - he is playing in a higher league than Fozzy was for much of his Royals career. I'm sure Long would be far more prolific up against the likes of Brentford and Bristol Rovers.

I certainly think Long is underrated and unfairly selected as a scapegoat. I also think Fozzy was a bit overrated. 'Easily the best'? No way, well behind Doyle, Kits and Quinn and on a par with Curo, Butler, Senior and Bremner (too young to remember Friday).

As someone else has said. I like Long and I liked Forster. That is all.

THERE'S MY POINT, 2WW

Please point out (anyone) where I have ACTUALLY SAID (WRITTEN) that Long is as-good-a-player, the playing-equal-of, the all-round-as-valuable-as Forster.

I haven't. What I've tried to ascertain is precisely why people think a mostly-League-1 player (obviously "exciting", I can see that)
was SOOOOooooooo great ("a million times better than Long will EVER be") when his goals, his assists etc, are NOT that great.

It's my opinion that the memories are a tad rose-coloured-glasses, particularly because he was associated with the climb away from relegation to safety (League 1)
and then getting promotion from League 1... and coming back from a long-lay off in the Wigan play-off game and "saving Reading".

He still got just 59 goals in 6 seasons, 4 of which were in League 1.

Is it fair to compare him to a much younger Long playing to a higher level (two seasons in the Prem versus four season in League 1)?
Is it fair to compare him to a much younger Long who has been asked to drastically alter his natural game for the sake of the team? Did Forster do that successfully?

[Snowball]

This season, Long's worst to date in terms of goals per games he has played 12 and scored 2, plus won a penalty scored by Harte

He scored in his 7th and 12th games. Blank run 6 games. he has also laid on a goal and scored for Ireland and been man of the match for them.

Doyle had plenty of barren runs, even when he was (at the time) the league's top-scorer



In 2008/9 Lita played 10 (4) games and scored in his 14th appearance, 13 consecutive blanks, the meaningless 4th goal away to absolute-crap derby. 15 shots (but Lita was "great")

In 2003/4 Andy Hughes played 42 (1) and scored just THREE goals from 31 shots

In 2004/5 Andy Hughes played 40 (1) and scored ZEROoooooooooooooooooo Goals.Yes he wasn't a striker but he had 28 shots, 8 on target

In 2004/5 Forster's 7 goals came from SIXTY shots

In 2003/4 Forster's 7 goals came from SEVENTY-SEVEN shots (ah, that must be where the 1 in 11 comes from)

[Hoop Blah]

Your turning into more of a joke by every post snowball...give it up man!

What I've tried to ascertain is precisely why people think a mostly-League-1 player (obviously "exciting", I can see that)
was SOOOOooooooo great ("a million times better than Long will EVER be") when his goals, his assists etc, are NOT that great.

You've had plenty of posters give you their view on that, and some of us have even described some of his weaknesses but you've belittled every opinion and spammed us with more of your stats to try and prove something unprovable (is that a word?).

Just for your info, Forster was. Championship player and we got lucky in attracting him down to our level when we splashed out a very decent fee for him, so to keep calling him a 'league 1 player' doesn't really ring true.

How come you never saw Forster play by the way? Your obviously of an age where your old enough.

[Victor Meldrew]

Snowball,
You posted just now that Shane has had to drastically change his natural game.
As I see it whether he plays up front on his own or part of a two his game is the same,i.e
chase lost causes
flick the ball on in the air
try (not very successfully)to lay the ball off at the right pace to a colleague
score goals
His game hasn't changed in the years that he has been at our club.
The manager is his greatest fan so I expect he will keep his place but that doesn't stop people on here wishing that we had a different type of striker to lead the line.
IMHO he is a very lucky man to be making a decent living at a game that doesn't come naturally to him-I said "game" and not "position" because I think he is a very limited footballer.

[Snowball]

Hoop, it's not the idea that a guy, for example, Forster, was, could be now, a better player than Long. It's the EXCESS, the near-vitriol, the extreme dismissal of a good servant to the club.

And, as some have said, this stuff filters back.

This thread is, after all, telling Long to f--- off


I would have no issue with folks saying that Long could "aim to be" a Forster, but in this thread (a thread that says he should GO) He's been talked off as toilet-paper

I find that cruel, offensive and anti-RFC, typical of toss-pot Internet warriors

[Snowball]

Hoop, I was living a long way away and not watching RFC.

Pick the crappiest player to have played 50 games for RFC. I was watching guys who were my heroes, but they were NOT as good as that crap player.

It's the level, see?

[cmonurz]

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.

[Ian Royal]

can we not just agree that measuring performance with eyes/cold hard numbers both have their advantages and disadvantages, and that a mixture of both is probably good.
eyes have to filter the info through the brain which adds all sorts of other factors such as preference for a certain type of football, in built long standing hatred/love of players, what you were focussing on on that particular day

the cold hard numbers dont tell you the whole story, but at least they are free from the subjectivity of the observer

Good sensible point brenders.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the stats are... wait for it... put together by people watching a game. And certainly for press association reports at least it's apparent those people don't always know much about who is playing.

[Ian Royal]

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.