by Hugo Boss » 21 Oct 2010 06:49
by Royal With Cheese » 21 Oct 2010 07:12
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 21 Oct 2010 07:39
by loyalroyal4life » 21 Oct 2010 09:46
by Terminal Boardom » 21 Oct 2010 09:50
by under the tin » 21 Oct 2010 10:15
by Elmer Park » 21 Oct 2010 10:19
by floyd__streete » 21 Oct 2010 10:29
by Alan Partridge » 21 Oct 2010 10:31
by Hoop Blah » 21 Oct 2010 10:35
by Scarface » 21 Oct 2010 10:56
by Terminal Boardom » 21 Oct 2010 11:08
floyd__streete Long has started just about every game this season and has managed to score one measly bloody penalty. You'd think even the most incompetent striker would have managed to divert the ball into the net at least once from open play this season off his arse or something. Long's performance at Bristol was typical; hard work, zero quality on the ball and an abject failure to get any shots away. Not good enough, he has been given chance after chance after chance at Reading and apart from rare bursts of goals which are proving the exception and not the rule he rarely shows himself worthy of a regular starting place. He doesn't have the intelligence to get into goalscoring positions, and frankly if he didn't 'work hard' (literally the bare minimum I'd expect from any professional footballer) he wouldn't have anything to his game whatsoever.
by Wimb » 21 Oct 2010 11:15
by andrew1957 » 21 Oct 2010 11:19
by Bandini » 21 Oct 2010 11:25
andrew1957 I think that Long is an easy scapegoat personally.
One of the reasons we did so well at the end of last season was that Shane created chances for others - particularly Gylfi to score. He is not a natural goalscorer but he is a good target man. The problem now is that when he wins a flick on or creates space he has no one to pass to most of the time. This makes him look lost and isolated. The alternative is to play 4-4-2 but risk surrendering midfield as I have pointed out before. BUT if we play 4-4-2 Long needs to play off a big striker so we could play Rasiak for that role - oh no we can't we sold him as well.
That is the problem - we have sold our best midfielder and our only true target man and replaced them with no-one.
To blame Long is unfair and I doubt that Hunt, Church or Bignall would have scored many more as lone striker this season - as they would have the same problems.
by sandman » 21 Oct 2010 11:33
Wimb Seems to me a similar situation to 2000 (as another titled thread points out) back then we had the likes of Jimmy Mac, Skittles and Brayson and it was only the signing of Butler and Cureton that turned us from a midtable side into one that was capable of moving forward. The same happened when Kitson signed, then Lita/Doyle etc etc.
It's not all Long's fault, he's proved in the past he's capable of finishing a chance and creating things but right now he's not getting the service or the luck and that coupled with lack of form has meant his goals have dried up. This doesn't mean he gets a free pass for his lack of goals but it means it's worth being patient with him. Perhaps he does need a break though, he's played constant football inbetween slight knocks and he's getting clattered most weeks by Championship defenders which can't be fun. Perhaps after Burnley give him a week or 2 off and see if he comes back recharged alongside Hunt or Church.
by andrew1957 » 21 Oct 2010 11:33
Bandiniandrew1957 I think that Long is an easy scapegoat personally.
One of the reasons we did so well at the end of last season was that Shane created chances for others - particularly Gylfi to score. He is not a natural goalscorer but he is a good target man. The problem now is that when he wins a flick on or creates space he has no one to pass to most of the time. This makes him look lost and isolated. The alternative is to play 4-4-2 but risk surrendering midfield as I have pointed out before. BUT if we play 4-4-2 Long needs to play off a big striker so we could play Rasiak for that role - oh no we can't we sold him as well.
That is the problem - we have sold our best midfielder and our only true target man and replaced them with no-one.
To blame Long is unfair and I doubt that Hunt, Church or Bignall would have scored many more as lone striker this season - as they would have the same problems.
He's a good target man who needs to play off a big striker?
by Bandini » 21 Oct 2010 11:35
by Hugo Boss » 21 Oct 2010 12:17
loyalroyal4life Admittedly he didnt score BUT he was certainly one of the better players on Tuesday. Least he created a chance. Until we get another striker in (which wont happen until at lease Jan) who would you play instead?
Church has missed 2 sitters in 2 games, doesn't exactly bode well does it?
by andrew1957 » 21 Oct 2010 12:25
Hugo Bossloyalroyal4life Admittedly he didnt score BUT he was certainly one of the better players on Tuesday. Least he created a chance. Until we get another striker in (which wont happen until at lease Jan) who would you play instead?
Church has missed 2 sitters in 2 games, doesn't exactly bode well does it?
To answer point 1, Church and Hunt >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Long.
To answer point 2, no it doesn't, however if he was given a run in the starting line up, it would make him sharper and would give him a chance to settle in to the strikers role. If he was given this chance, I have no doubt he will score goals. At least he looks keen and is always looking to snatch a goal, something which sadly can't be said of Long. Long has had his chance and has proven he is NOT a goalscorer.
Users browsing this forum: Snowflake Royal and 274 guests