Long - time for a change?

[Snowball]

With average luck and no serious injuries, Shane should get his 50th goal this season.

4 Jan 2011

[Snowball]

Fair play to snowy for sticking to his guns and supporting Shane, though IMO it was counter productive and actually pushed mor people into actively disliking him than supporting him. And if you support every player who plays regularly - as snowball seems to, then just by the law of averages you're going to be "proved" right the majority of times eventually.

Long's current excellent form now, doesn't invalidate the criticisms of him in the past.

I don't think Snowball has entered a popularity contest but is it a coincidence / pure chance that he has championed the 2 most derided players of the last 2 years in Kebe and Long and they have both come good in dramatic fashion?

The guy knows his football alright.

To balance things up a bit, he has also been an extremely strong supporter of Harte. I won't complain if the 'Snowball effect' sees him come good in dramatic fashion too.

3 out of 3, then...

[MmmMonsterMunch]

I take it modesty is your middle name then?!

Jesus Christ.

[Snowball]

I take it modesty is your middle name then?!

Jesus Christ.

No, but you did get my middle names right, second try. Well done.

[Bandini]

I agree the BMc is similar, but I think part of it is that he knows that if he drops Long now he's more or less finishing him for good - he's such a confidence player that I'm not sure he'd recover psychologically. The only other way for Long to go is for him to score goals, which is why he's being given so mancy chanes to do that.

I think everyone feels that if he scores a couple then he'll carry on scoring more, but the situation right now is that the more he's not scoring, and the more he misses chances, the harder it gets for him to ever score and the lower his confidence slumps . Drop him and will he recover from it? I'm not sure it'd motivate him (motivation's not the problem!) but the message that even the manager doesn't have confidence in him is a blow to the confidence that might be crippling.

^ The only poster (of those whose posts I can recall) who's been spot on in this thread.

[Snowball]

I agree the BMc is similar, but I think part of it is that he knows that if he drops Long now he's more or less finishing him for good - he's such a confidence player that I'm not sure he'd recover psychologically. The only other way for Long to go is for him to score goals, which is why he's being given so mancy chanes to do that.

I think everyone feels that if he scores a couple then he'll carry on scoring more, but the situation right now is that the more he's not scoring, and the more he misses chances, the harder it gets for him to ever score and the lower his confidence slumps . Drop him and will he recover from it? I'm not sure it'd motivate him (motivation's not the problem!) but the message that even the manager doesn't have confidence in him is a blow to the confidence that might be crippling.

^ The only poster (of those whose posts I can recall) who's been spot on in this thread.

Much as I generally like Svlad's comments, your statement is truly silly.

Svlad had an OPINION about POSSIBLE confidence/non-confidence with absolutely NO actual evidence
(in fact the manager continued to say the opposite, and so did the player)


and yet that is the most accurate post in the thread?

You cannot have a CLUE if Svlad was right or wrong. It's just a guess.

But statements like

Long-Hunt will get goals as a partnership HAS BEEN PROVEN

Long will get into double figures this season, HAS BEEN PROVEN

Long will score his 50th RFC goal this season HAS BEEN PROVEN



Svlad MIGHT have been right. But we have no way of knowing other than
Shane coming out and saying, "I was really worried about my form" (he said the direct opposite)
and "If the manager had dropped me, I'd've gone to pieces." (He never said that either)

Long will get 20 Championship goals this season HAS BEEN PROVEN

[Wycombe Royal]

Give it a rest Snowball, you are really showing up a negative side of your character here.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Svlad had an OPINION about POSSIBLE confidence/non-confidence with absolutely NO actual evidence
(in fact the manager continued to say the opposite, and so did the player) etc etc etc

A couple of points on Snowball's rant.....

Firstly, you need to understand a couple of things about internet forums. People who do not agree with you are not necessarily arguing against you - they may be making other points of saying similar things in different ways. Also that alternate opinions are allowed and just because you don't see or realise something yourself doesn't make it the sort of heresy that you need to unleash the full weight of your spreadsheets against.

FTR, it was blatantly obvious to me that the problem was confidence - Long was so desperate to score that he was taking that extra millisecond "to make sure" and so missing chances. It was written all over his face and clear to me from everything the manager said and did. Just plain reading of body language and attitude, which anyone can do and you pick up from years of watching football. Lack of confidence makes a player try "too hard", which is always counter-productive. Confidence means relaxed, instinctive play which works and breeds more confidence. (BTW Churchy now is in the same place SL was 6 months ago, IMHO - same signs).

And that was consistent with everything BMc had said about him at Fans' Forums previously and with everything he said throughout the period. Do you really expect him to say in post match-interviews anything other than exactly what he did say - which is lots and lots of stuff designed to boost the lad's confidence.

And if it's not confidence, to what to do attribute the difference in SL's form between first part of the season and the last couple of months. (and the whole team's come to that?)

[Bandini]

Blimey, Svlad. It looks like you read Snowball's post. I got to "truly silly" before tuning out. It's pretty obvious that your opinion was a better one than the two main alternatives from the back end of last year of (a) he's shit full stop or (b) he's gr8 and is in fact scoring lots of goals.

[Svlad Cjelli]

TBH, I was gripped - I couldn't believe that anyone could possibly be trying to argue against the premise that a good player woefully short of confidence is less effective that the same player for whom things have gone well and continue to go better.

But then again, I'd imagine because you can't put a value for "confidence" in a cell on a spreadsheet then it doesn't have any any actual relevance to the game of football.

[rhroyal]

http://www.readingfc.co.uk/page/NewsDet ... 36,00.html?

Shane Long now has a ballad written in his honour!

[Snowball]

Svlad had an OPINION about POSSIBLE confidence/non-confidence with absolutely NO actual evidence
(in fact the manager continued to say the opposite, and so did the player) etc etc etc

A couple of points on Snowball's rant.....

Wasn't a "rant" just a simple statement of fact.

I never fail to be amused at the narrow thinking, and often sheer stupidity of posters.

Look, imagine that a very good judge of football, a top scout, a great manager, watches a player fifty times and "decides" he's good/bad, weak on his left, has good/poor decision making skills, is gutsy, is strong, is good in the air, whatever.

HOW DO YOU THINK HE MAKES THE JUDGMENT?

He makes it by unconsciously collating all the things a player does.

If you say "Church is poor in the air", you might SAY you don't use stats, but in fact you DO. You note that you have never seen him score with his head, despite (say) 40 chances in a season. You note that when he goes up for a long ball to flick on he loses out 39/40 times. What you are DOING is statistical analysis, it's just you don't write it down or put it in a spreadsheet.

Any analysis like Actim and Pro-Zone is incomplete, we know that, but it's LESS SUBJECTIVE and that's important.

Firstly, you need to understand a couple of things about internet forums. People who do not agree with you are not necessarily arguing against you - they may be making other points of saying similar things in different ways.

Never said anything different.

I wasn't arguing with you, or your post, just the inanity of Bandini
who has decided you are a genius psychologist, simply "cos you know."

Also that alternate opinions are allowed and just because you don't see or realise something yourself doesn't make it the sort of heresy that you need to unleash the full weight of your spreadsheets against.

Where was the spreadsheet here? Bandini argued that your guesswork was the most accurate post
in the thread. It wasn't. End. Your statement is totally unproven. I personally do not believe it was the case
and you give no evidence that it WAS the case. No statement from a player or coach or manager or fellow
player just your incredible ability to analyse body-language at up to 100 yards distance.

FTR, it was blatantly obvious to me that the problem was confidence - Long was so desperate to score that he was taking that extra millisecond "to make sure" and so missing chances.

Just repeating your statement doesn't make it more true.

It was blatantly obvious to me that it WASN'T a confidence issue, just the vagaries of football (all strikers get blank periods). Hence I was able, at the time of the drought to firmly state Long would do well goals-wise this season. And I was totally right.

It was written all over his face and clear to me from everything the manager said and did.

That's simply rubbish. Exactly how and when was it written all over Long's face that he was lacking confidence? I can produce the opposite evidence where he SAID he wasn't lacking confidence. You just "see" something (you say) and yet don't actually have a shred of real evidence.

[/quote]

Just plain reading of body language and attitude, which anyone can do and you pick up from years of watching football.

You say. I played until I was 38. My degree is in psychology. I've watched football at all levels for almost 60 years.

I did NOT see Shane lacking confidence. I THINK I see Church lacking confidence, right now.

But, unlike you, I don't say I KNOW he lacks confidence. It could be a hundred other things.

On Church, his last three/four/five cameos he's been running harder, faster, putting himself about more. Maybe he's had a minor niggle, maybe he's had the residue of a virus, maybe he's the kind of player (like Long) who needs regular starts to get more match-savvy.

I may THINK it's a confidence thing, but I don't KNOW.

Lack of confidence makes a player try "too hard", which is always counter-productive. Confidence means relaxed, instinctive play which works and breeds more confidence. (BTW Churchy now is in the same place SL was 6 months ago, IMHO - same signs).

I agree, but simple randomness can also cause a player to go on a dry run, as can the lack of better chances, fewer chances, a tiny bit of bad luck, a bobble, a keeper in form, a slight niggle carried by the player, rustiness...

Or a new system.

We started with a side built round Gylfi, and a suspect back four. We played 451 and I have argued for YEARS that Shame is wasted in a 451, it doesn't suit his playing style.

Then we lost Gylfi, and that must have generally depressed the squad. Third, we then tried all sorts of combinations trying to REPLACE Gylfi, instead of switching back to 442. Hunt wasn't back to full fitness. When he DID get back to full fitness and started partnering Shane in a 442, sometimes dropping to 451, they got LOADS of goals, so much that the manager and the OS made a big thing of it.

And we didn't have a single DOMINANT midfielder to ALLOW us to play 442. Elwood came in (was trashed, of course)
and has been the key difference. His stats say it all. Elwood has allowed us to play 442, allowed Long to play in the
way that suits him best, and the result has been a very dramatic upsurge in his (Long's) goals.

And that was consistent with everything BMc had said about him at Fans' Forums previously and with everything he said throughout the period.
Do you really expect him to say in post match-interviews anything other than exactly what he did say - which is lots and lots of stuff designed to boost the lad's confidence.

You are surmising, also known as guessing. You don't know this to be a fact.

And if it's not confidence, to what to do attribute the difference in SL's form between first part of the season and the last couple of months. (and the whole team's come to that?)

(a) Elwood sorting out the midfield allowing us to go 442

(b) The Hunt-Long Partnership which has been prolific

(c) Players taking time to find a new spirit after losing Gylfi (Church, for example, lost his best mate)

(d) The manager finally realising that he didn't need to REPLACE Gylfi, but design the best method
for the players he had. He knew he needed a dominant midfielder to play 442 successfully.


My EVIDENCE?

On (d) (a) THE manager actually said this publicly

On (b) The stats are overwhelming

[Svlad Cjelli]

OMG! I can't be arsed to respond, I've got a football match to go to ......

There's no discussing anything sensibly with someone who not only clearly has a pathological need to be right but has a pathological need to be the *only one* who can possibly be right.

[Wycombe Royal]

Snowball, what are you trying to achieve on this forum? Because whatever it is I can only recommend that you give up now.

[Snowball]

TBH, I was gripped - I couldn't believe that anyone could possibly be trying to argue against the premise that a good player woefully short of confidence is less effective that the same player for whom things have gone well and continue to go better.

But then again, I'd imagine because you can't put a value for "confidence" in a cell on a spreadsheet then it doesn't have any any actual relevance to the game of football.

Fundamental error. The above is fine IF you can show it WAS a confidence thing. I'm arguing it wasn't.


Why not one or more of the following?


1. Shane played 451 in the Gyfli side (4 games) and we relied on Gylfi.

2. Our left back, Williams, under-performed.

3. In a short space of time we lost Gyfli and Rasiak and the general mood of the fans was "down" which can transfer to the players.

4. We persisted with 451 trying to replace Gylfi. (a) That meant the chances were poorer and less frequent. (b) We did not have a settled way of playing that could "bed in".

5. After Gylfi went, it's more than likely that the players were disappointed, which reasonably could have affected the performance of ALL the team.

6. After Gylfi left we brought in new personnel and these took time to settle. In particular, we did not have a fast overlapping left-back, which "cost us."

7. It became clear that we were toothless playing 451 because Long is less effective in a 451 and we simply didn't have a "great" midfielder to replace Gylfi. BUT two from Tabb/Karacan/Howard were not strong enough for us to play 442.

8. Hunt was less than fully fit. Church had inexplicably lost form. We didn't have a clear front two.



We solved the front-two dilemma with Hunt getting back to form and fitness.

Not only were they both scoring for fun, but they were getting loads of assists.

We solved the 442 dilemma by signing Elwood on loan

We improved competition for places by bringing in Manset and Williams.

[RoyalJames101]

Snowball, what are you trying to achieve on this forum? Because whatever it is I can only recommend that you give up now.

This ^

[Platypuss]

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats....

[Z175]

Snowball, what are you trying to achieve on this forum? Because whatever it is I can only recommend that you give up now.

This ^

Snowball is a more senior member of our community who has plenty of time to discuss and analyse the royals on HNA? Hopefully he will not be satisfied until Shane Long is worshipped as a deity and statistical analysis replaces 90 minutes of ball chasing as a means for deciding who gets three points!

[Hoop Blah]

Agreed Dirk, it's just not worth banging your head against the wall. The ignore button is quite useful at times.

Back to Long though, I think we had the discussion on here that I thought McDermott had backed himself and Long into a corner and that he'd gambled a lot on Long pulling through it.

I thought at the time, and still do, that McDermott let it get too far down that road and probably should've had an alternative to Long in place and used them so that the pressure on Long didn't get quite so strong. Long coming through at the other end is great for the lad, and the club, but if we could've just secured a few more points and a bit more momentum over that period we'd have been up there challenging at the time.

[Maguire]

:shock: OMG! I can't be arsed to respond, I've got a football match to go to ......

There's no discussing anything sensibly with someone who not only clearly has a pathological need to be right but has a pathological need to be the *only one* who can possibly be right.

You've made your (eminently sensible) points and you're clearly ahead so i'd definitely duck out of this one now.