Long - Time to go.

[Royalee]

I believe Long could score 30 goals a season in the Blue Square South, on Football Manager, so there.

[brendywendy]

Piss off Long and take Madejski, McDermott and Church's shit finishing with you.

[sandman]

And finally, I can't believe that Shane fcuking Long has played 162 times for Reading; 35 (and counting) more than Cureton.

Cureton had Nicky Forster as competition for his place whereas Long has Simon "Flaming" Church.

[Wimb]

And finally, I can't believe that Shane fcuking Long has played 162 times for Reading; 35 (and counting) more than Cureton.

Cureton had Nicky Forster as competition for his place whereas Long has Simon "Flaming" Church.

Not to mention Henderson, Butler and even the Rouge

[Millsy]

I'm not going to bother with an articulate explanation (partly because I've never been able to!), but will just cut to the bleeding obvious conclusion.

WE.

NEED.

A.

****ING.

STRIKER.

[Snowball]

WE.

NEED.

A.

(READ)ING.

STRIKER

[facaldaqui]

I've never thought Long or Church are adequate as starters for Reading. I've occasionally said so here since the beginning of last season (Church was already obviously goal-shy before he got into our first team)--and before that in Long's case. I don't say it very often, because these are good, honest Reading players, and I don't want to pick on them. But I do not believe they will ever be prolific. Every so often they do have brief bursts of scoring, and then the board starts to think they are at last on course. But in my opinion they are incapable of sustaining it.

There's a school of thought that says they will one day come good. That school is starting to give up the ghost with Long, but I'm still bemused that some people think that Church will be OK once he develops. Trouble is, poaching goals is innate, and he doesn't have it. Some other people seem to believe we should persevere with him because he's one of our own--that may not be clear-sighted.

At the moment, Long and Church can't go because they and Hunt are all we have. But I think we should plan to replace them with people who have a knack for goal: such players do float around the loan market or are available relatively cheaply to buy. I suppose I wouldn't mind Long and Church staying as third and fourth strikers, but I don't see them as more than that.

The situation is muddied by the fact that Long is, in his way, not playing too badly.He's trying hard, hustling about the pitch, and winning the occasional free kick. It was his battling that led to Gylfi's goal against Leicester. But a true striker should really poach us goals on his own initiative, and he doesn't. The spotlight is on Long because he's starting; but at the moment Church is the least useful of the pair, I think.

[Vision]

I actually think Hunt is a main striker but he made his first start for over a year on Saturday so will certainly need more time to get fully back in the swing of things.

It matters little though because the way we set out a lone striker will have fewer goalscoring opportunities than the attacking midfielder or the wider players. Its not so much of a problem if you've a Gylfi who will regularly contribute along with Kebe but as things stand there's an awful lot of pressure on Kebe's boney shoulders.

I feel a bit for Long because he's contributing a lot to the cause and I think his all round game has and is still improving Despite that though he knows he'll be judged on his goals. He's always blown hot and cold in the scoring stakes (he seems pretty prolific in the 2nd half of seasons) at least now he's contributing to the teamin other areas which he wasnt before.

I think Hunt if he's fully recovered is a 15-20 goal a season striker but its gonna be difficult if we persist with 4-2-3-1. If we're gonna go with 4-4-2 then partnerships become important. We need to give a partnership time to flourish and gel which is something that hasnt happened yet.

Obviously agree with most though that this squad is still a striker light.

[RoyalBlue]

I'm not going to bother with an articulate explanation (partly because I've never been able to!), but will just cut to the bleeding obvious conclusion.

WE.

NEED.

A.

****ING.

STRIKER.

Here's a few French ones - will any of them do?

[Millsy]

I'm not going to bother with an articulate explanation (partly because I've never been able to!), but will just cut to the bleeding obvious conclusion.

WE.

NEED.

A.

****ING.

STRIKER.

Here's a few French ones - will any of them do?

Don't get me started on the pathetic French.

[West Stand Man]

.. and there was me thinking this was all about it being a long time to go to Christmas.

[Jeffers217]

He's useless- plain and simple.

What is a worrying sign is that he is now one of Reading's best performing players and the fans would prefer to see him start in front of others. That shows how far this club has fallen

[Avon Royal]

He's useless- plain and simple.

What is a worrying sign is that he is now one of Reading's best performing players and the fans would prefer to see him start in front of others. That shows how far this club has fallen

Spoken like a true idiot.

Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me that certain Reading "fans" are unable to see what Long offers. Yes his goal scoring rate could be better, but to say he is "useless" is way off the mark.

[Snowball]

He's useless- plain and simple.

What is a worrying sign is that he is now one of Reading's best performing players and the fans would prefer to see him start in front of others. That shows how far this club has fallen

Won a Penalty. Scored a Penalty.

One brilliant assist, tap-in laid on for Antonio

Tackled back like a demon.

Ran Burnley ragged so the subs could score in the last ten minutes.


Agree. Useless.

[Hoop Blah]

Sounds like Long had his good game today. That still included getting caught offside when he shouldn't and not taking a couple of chances from the bits I heard on the radio.

Still no goal from open play (not too bothered if he's laying on good chances for others though).

A plus for him today though so good for him, how long do we have to wait for the next good game? It's about 5 games on current form isn't it?

[cmonurz]

To get all Snowball on your asses for a sec...

Long: 79 (83) apps, 30 goals. 1 goal every 5.4 appearances, and 1 goal every 2.6 starts.
Church: 33 (23) apps, 13 goals, 1 goal every 4.3 appearances, and 1 goal every 2.5 starts.
Hunt: 36 (23) apps, 15 goals, 1 goal every 3.9 appearances, and 1 goal every 2.4 starts.

Which just goes to show how painfully mediocre our 'strikeforce' (LOL) is. Or, using Snowball's logic, if Long is a 30 goal a season striker, and our other two are apparently more prolific, then we've got some forwards even Barca should covet.
Perhaps the most striking thing about those stats is how well Church stands up against the other two. Or perhaps how poorly Hunt does, I genuinely thought he had a better record than that.
And finally, I can't believe that Shane fcuking Long has played 162 times for Reading; 35 (and counting) more than Cureton.

urz, 1 in 2 is considered top-top-class striking, and that is STARTS not "appearances"

Shane, as one example has "appeared" about 20 times where he's played less than 10 minutes

Have to take issue with this on two points:

- Your assertion that 1 goal in every 2 starts is considered 'top-top-class'. Please can you give me your source for this, or some examples? I ask as 1 in 2 starts didn't seem that 'great' to me, so I looked up a few examples, english leagues only as I've used soccerbase.

Michael Owen - 161 goals in 277 starts, 1 in 1.72 starts (and 4 in 6 for United, has he been 'great' for United?!)
Ruud Van Nistelrooy - 95 goals in 135 starts, 1 in 1.42 starts
Thierry Henry - 174 goals in 235 starts, 1 in 1.35 starts
Jimmy-Floyd Hasselbaink - 149 goals in 250 starts, 1 in 1.68 starts
Alan Shearer - 283 goals in 532 starts, 1 in 1.88 starts (although includes only 23 goals in 105 games for Southampton at the start of his career)

And so on. If you're going to make a point based on stats, at least do a bit of research first. Those are top-top-class strikers and their records are significantly better than the likes of Long and Church. Don't just assume people will swallow your stats at face value, they've been shown to be bullsh*t before.

- Your general problem with me using appearances, as well as starts, which was to compare the performances of Long, Hunt and Church, and so the data is relevant. Sure, Long has some short appearances in there, but so to Hunt and Church. None of them are classy enough strikers not to have a big chunk of sub appearances.

And this leaves aside the ridiculousness of pretty much saying 'total appearances don't count' - if you want to ignore sub appearances, then you also need to ignore goals scored during those appearances.

[West Stand Man]

He's useless- plain and simple.

What is a worrying sign is that he is now one of Reading's best performing players and the fans would prefer to see him start in front of others. That shows how far this club has fallen

I give you 0-4 at Burnley. Your call.

[Hoop Blah]

He's useless- plain and simple.

What is a worrying sign is that he is now one of Reading's best performing players and the fans would prefer to see him start in front of others. That shows how far this club has fallen

I give you 0-4 at Burnley. Your call.

Every dog has it's day, but I'm not sure how winning one game, irregardless of how good a result it is, confirms one player as being useless or not.

[Snowball]

Urz, you picked some of the greatest strikers of the last 20 years!!!!!

There's a much simpler way to consider how rare one goal in two games is.

How many Premiership strikers last season scored 19+ goals last season?

How many Championship strikers scored 23+ league goals last season?

[Hoop Blah]

To be fair Snowball, you did also say "top-top-class" so I think that was a reasonable set to pick from.

I think comonurz's point at the end of his post about excluded goals scored as a sub if you're only talking about goals per start as your measurement is the most valid point.