Shane Long

[Ian Royal]

Message to the mindless.


The current conversation is about CONSECUTIVE RUNS IN THE TEAM.

If Long was given a run of

League game
League game
Cup game
League game
League game
Cup game
League game
League game


Don't you think the consecutive nature of the games would be important?

In fact it's only happened once as far as I can see, and it's added for completeness.

However I would be DELIGHTED to drop that one cup game because then it would show that Long had had even less consecutive-game runs and as already shown, when he did get a 5-game run, he scored in two of the first four games and we won all four!!

Message to snowball. You are not so important you can dictate the evolution of the discussion and make sure it only happens on your terms. What's the point on being on a discussion board if you just dismiss and ignore counter points?

Please also stop implying that Shane Long was the cause of your claimed best ever period of performance in the Premier League. He contributed, nothing more.

Please also explain how that is the best period of performance in the Premier League ever, when Spurs to Bolton saw the same number of Premier LEAGUE games, 3pts / game (same as your sample which attributes points to a CUP game) and does not feature Long in anyway as far as I can see.

Oh look, you've found something you think reinforces your opinion and then used it to claim you are right and it can't possibly be disputed. And I get more abuse. Should I have used the word agitated to describe you instead of disturbed. Perhaps it fits better. Certainly not an insult.

[Fezza]

Utter bollocks see above. N Hunt matches him yes but Long is way off the pace.
Not if he scores more goals he's not because that is what he's paid to do.


Sorry I'm not certain of your point? Long scores a goal every 245 minutes, Doyle every 170 minutes, surely you can see from these very accurate (and utterly pointless) statistics that Long does not match Doyle.

??? Who are you comparing Long to? NHunt or Doyle?

I was comparing, in the initial post all our strikers to Doyle (i.e. the best we have). In the subsequent post I was reiterating this...

[West Stand Man]

Anyway, bringing this back to the real world; Long's excellent goal is on the OS now, in the Championship preview. Not much to say really except 'what an excellent strike'.

[1871royals]

Doyle and Lita were both roughly the same age Long is now when they joined the club. But yet they both managed to command regular starting places.

Long is an effective sub but there must be a reason why management haven't deemed him good enough to start regularly in 4 yrs.

[Snowball]

How (please explain) is that "a total disappointment"?

Because he hasn't played as well when he's started games as he has when he's come off the bench and he usually looks a bit out of his depth. He has disappointed because he often looks like a player with significant potential but has never, in my opinion, fulfilled that during games he's started. Do you realise that it's possible to play badly and still score? Do you realise that Woodcote didn't say he'd not scored he said he'd disappointed. Do you see that there can be a difference.

Look the guy comes in, we win four on the trot and he scores in two. The manager keeps picking him for those five games.

But all we have to say he's "disappointing" is an unsubstantiated opinion, without any criteria, without
any explanation except repetition of, "Yes he was , he was, he was, disappointing."

[Snowball]

It's effortless to show the listers up. Look at what they were saying BEFORE the Wednesday game about Doobs, then look at what one tackle and a goal does. If he lets in a blooper at Plymouth it'll all change again.

That's football fans for you - fickle (and long may it remain so). However, you can't expect people not to complain if he does let in a blooper, can you?

Complaining or praising is fine, but all players make mistakes.

On this list people can move from dross to Gods in a game (and vice-versa). It's dumb.

[Snowball]

Here is his longest run, 5 consecutive games, in the Premiership, 5 starts, 352 minutes ("3.5 full games") 2 goals and FOUR WINS out of five amassing 12 points at 2.4 points per game.

20/1/07 W 3-1 SCORED Sheff Utd 73 Seol
30/1/07 W 3-2 SCORED Wigan 80 Kitson
3/2/07 W 2-0 XXXXXX Man City 75 Kitson
10/2/07 W 2-0 XXXXXX Villa 2-0 62 Kitson
24/2/07 L 1-2 (Poor Game) Boro 1-2 62 Kitson

Actually, 352 minutes is 3.911... games. As you're so hot on accuracy I wouldn't want you to be caught out by someone pointing that out to you. Although no doubt if someone did you'd point out how 'stupid' and 'moronic' they were not to realise that by putting "3.5 games" in quotes you were obviously indicating it as an approximation.

On what planet would that be (for a 19 year-old BTW) be considered "VERY POOR"? (Your words)

Apparently on Planet Coppell, as he was the manager who dropped him after those five games.

I see, so after the FIFTH game, Coppell dropped him (and he had a bad one in that game, there's no doubt.

Why did he pick him for the first game?

Why did he not drop him for the second game after he scored and we won in the first?


Why did he not drop him for the third game after he scored and we won in the second?


Why did he not drop him for the fourth game after we won in the third?


Why did he not drop him for the fifth game after we won in the fourth?


Or do you think, Reading FC can win four Premiership games on the trot while carrying a passenger?

It's damn obvious he fitted in to the team and played at least "OK". You don't get many gifts in the Prem

[Royal Rother]

Doyle and Lita were both roughly the same age Long is now when they joined the club. But yet they both managed to command regular starting places.

Long is an effective sub but there must be a reason why management haven't deemed him good enough to start regularly in 4 yrs.

You wouldn't have to have read a lot more of the thread to realise that Snowball completely endorses Coppell's assessment on that.

The stats produced indicate that Long is probably our best finisher (certainly, without a black shadow of a doubt, far better than Lita) but observational skills that are also at Snowball's disposal (and well utilised) indicate to him that Long is not deserving of a starting position ahead of either Doyle or NHunt.

Despite him mentioning it dozens of times that's not what people want to read in Snowball's posts though so regularly gets ignored.

[Snowball]

Doyle and Lita were both roughly the same age Long is now when they joined the club. But yet they both managed to command regular starting places.

Long is an effective sub but there must be a reason why management haven't deemed him good enough to start regularly in 4 yrs.

Lita had made 99 appearances for Bristol City before he arrived at Reading

2004-05 51 29
2003-04 31 05
2002-03 17 04

99 appearances 38 goals (League 1)


Doyle had played 85 times in Ireland.

That's more than Long has made in his career to date. I think he's made 87 appearances total incl cups etc. Oh and ONE game for Cork

[Ian Royal]

How (please explain) is that "a total disappointment"?

Because he hasn't played as well when he's started games as he has when he's come off the bench and he usually looks a bit out of his depth. He has disappointed because he often looks like a player with significant potential but has never, in my opinion, fulfilled that during games he's started. Do you realise that it's possible to play badly and still score? Do you realise that Woodcote didn't say he'd not scored he said he'd disappointed. Do you see that there can be a difference.

Look the guy comes in, we win four on the trot and he scores in two. The manager keeps picking him for those five games.

But all we have to say he's "disappointing" is an unsubstantiated opinion, without any criteria, without
any explanation except repetition of, "Yes he was , he was, he was, disappointing."

And then drops him, there must be a reason. You can't attribute those 4 wins directly to Long starting, way too many other factors!

We had a similar run where he failed to come on for a single minute (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong). So it's not like we didn't do exactly the same without him as well.

I like the fact that you omit that during the run you are using to deomostrate that Long is good is a run where Lita started all the same games and scored 3 goals. Extend the run back a game and Lita goes up to 4. Back a further two games and include cups and he goes up to 9!

Kinda undermines your arguement IMO.

by the way, Kitson was the player Long was dropped for. Whilst it seemed a sensible decision at the time and Kitson is quite obviously a better and more successful player than Long, maybe we could have finished higher and could have developed rather than stagnated if he had stayed in the team.

He would then arguably have been more use last season when we were crying out for another striker to force his way into the team regularly and score goals.

[Ian Royal]

Here is his longest run, 5 consecutive games, in the Premiership, 5 starts, 352 minutes ("3.5 full games") 2 goals and FOUR WINS out of five amassing 12 points at 2.4 points per game.

20/1/07 W 3-1 SCORED Sheff Utd 73 Seol
30/1/07 W 3-2 SCORED Wigan 80 Kitson
3/2/07 W 2-0 XXXXXX Man City 75 Kitson
10/2/07 W 2-0 XXXXXX Villa 2-0 62 Kitson
24/2/07 L 1-2 (Poor Game) Boro 1-2 62 Kitson

Actually, 352 minutes is 3.911... games. As you're so hot on accuracy I wouldn't want you to be caught out by someone pointing that out to you. Although no doubt if someone did you'd point out how 'stupid' and 'moronic' they were not to realise that by putting "3.5 games" in quotes you were obviously indicating it as an approximation.

On what planet would that be (for a 19 year-old BTW) be considered "VERY POOR"? (Your words)

Apparently on Planet Coppell, as he was the manager who dropped him after those five games.

I see, so after the FIFTH game, Coppell dropped him (and he had a bad one in that game, there's no doubt.

Why did he pick him for the first game? Doyle and Kitson were unavailable

Why did he not drop him for the second game after he scored and we won in the first? Not Coppell's style to change a winning team, Doyle and Kitson unavailable/ready?

Why did he not drop him for the third game after he scored and we won in the second? see above


Why did he not drop him for the fourth game after we won in the third? see above


Why did he not drop him for the fifth game after we won in the fourth? see above


Or do you think, Reading FC can win four Premiership games on the trot while carrying a passenger?

It's damn obvious he fitted in to the team and played at least "OK". You don't get many gifts in the Prem

[Royal Rother]

This afternoon...

Long maybe a fairly good impact sub, but that is all he is and all he has been for about 2 seasons. Shane Long maybe a major RFC tragedy, but he is not a player to move the club on and his record does not justify a starting place. Much like Lita's. However Lita has proved he has quality enough to score plenty of goals in previous seasons and has put in some promising performances this season. Even if he has scored only 1 goal (for us). I would prefer him starting to Long.

But a couple of months ago...

Lita may be flourishing in Norwich's system, a system that almost has to be at least partially built around him, as just about their only striker capable of scoring. But he's shown he's not the player for us.

Long is not as good as Lita, but is more useful because he is willing to wait for his chances and try and take them when he gets them. His pace and work ethic brings more to the team than Lita can bring if he isn't scoring.

I'd much rather have neither and instead a good third choice striker who wants to be here. But given the history I'd take Long over Lita for this season.

What has changed your opinion - it can't be anything Lita has done.

[readingbedding]

I guess it's a compliment, kind of... but I have one question, is Shane Long going to be happy with just being Coppell's best 'impact sub'?

I wouldn't, I think he'd make a good striker for a Championship side, week in-week out.

[Ian Royal]

This afternoon...

Long maybe a fairly good impact sub, but that is all he is and all he has been for about 2 seasons. Shane Long maybe a major RFC tragedy, but he is not a player to move the club on and his record does not justify a starting place. Much like Lita's. However Lita has proved he has quality enough to score plenty of goals in previous seasons and has put in some promising performances this season. Even if he has scored only 1 goal (for us). I would prefer him starting to Long.

But a couple of months ago...

Lita may be flourishing in Norwich's system, a system that almost has to be at least partially built around him, as just about their only striker capable of scoring. But he's shown he's not the player for us.

Long is not as good as Lita, but is more useful because he is willing to wait for his chances and try and take them when he gets them. His pace and work ethic brings more to the team than Lita can bring if he isn't scoring.

I'd much rather have neither and instead a good third choice striker who wants to be here. But given the history I'd take Long over Lita for this season.

What has changed your opinion - it can't be anything Lita has done.

Coppell felt it worth bringing Lita back and he showed some promise in the games I've seen him in, plus scored. We stopped scoring. I think Lita has more chance of scoring a decent number of goals in a Reading team that is creating decent chances. His attitude seems much improved.

I'd still rather both moved on, but Lita is more worth a starting place and Long is more worth a bench place.

[Ian Royal]

Oh and I'm less convinced about the quality of Long's attitude than I was. I think he's probably as prone to sulking and strops as Lita is, though he's much less of a bad boy off the pitch.

[Royal Rother]

We both know you're making it up as you go along, but not a bad effort!!

[Ian Royal]

We both know you're making it up as you go along, but not a bad effort!!

You made me think hard, but not making it up.

One moment against Watford opened my eyes fully to the petulant side of his game. I've described it before and I was seriously not impressed. There's little other than poor performance on the actual pitch I have against Lita and technically there isn't much you can accuse him of being rubbish at.

Most of that emnity is from Lita'ss off the pitch antics. And the fact he hasn't been that great other than a couple of brief periods (still more than Long though). The return with promising showings and the right noises has made me give him another chance. He has to do a lot better for me to not want rid at the end of the season though. Something he's not likely to manage with NHunt about.

[Fezza]

Frankly Lita's goals for an abject Norwich side have convinced me that he is still a very good striker at this level.

However, there is obviously something about the way that Reading play under SC that stops us from seeing Lita's best attributes (perhaps wingplay and crossing to a 4ft tall striker).

There have been times this season when many people on this board have wanted to see a change of tactics, the wingers we currently have don't seem to be up to the task of going passed players and crossing with accuracy. The recent introduction of Marek does insinuate that SC may now be prepared to play more balls through the middle of the park, it is however a shame that he didn't decide to try Marek and Lita in the team together at the start of January when it would have been more beneficial.

[Snowball]

Frankly Lita's goals for an abject Norwich side have convinced me that he is still a very good striker at this level. However, there is obviously something about the way that Reading play under SC that stops us from seeing Lita's best attributes (perhaps wingplay and crossing to a 4ft tall striker). There have been times this season when many people on this board have wanted to see a change of tactics, the wingers we currently have don't seem to be up to the task of going passed players and crossing with accuracy. The recent introduction of Marek does insinuate that SC may now be prepared to play more balls through the middle of the park, it is however a shame that he didn't decide to try Marek and Lita in the team together at the start of January when it would have been more beneficial.

I wouldn't dispute that Lita can get goals. He got them at Norwich although his conversion rate shots to goals was very poor, half that of Doyle/Hunt/Long

They seem to feed him a lot more shot chances.

What I've said is HE DOESN'T WORK FOR US.

But I also think he's bad for dressing-room morale.

[Snowball]

Doyle and Lita were both roughly the same age Long is now when they joined the club. But yet they both managed to command regular starting places.

Long is an effective sub but there must be a reason why management haven't deemed him good enough to start regularly in 4 yrs.

You wouldn't have to have read a lot more of the thread to realise that Snowball completely endorses Coppell's assessment on that.

The stats produced indicate that Long is probably our best finisher (certainly, without a black shadow of a doubt, far better than Lita) but observational skills that are also at Snowball's disposal (and well utilised) indicate to him that Long is not deserving of a starting position ahead of either Doyle or NHunt.

Despite him mentioning it dozens of times that's not what people want to read in Snowball's posts though so regularly gets ignored.

Thank-you!

But it's worse than that. Not only is it ignored, they also put into my mouth things I simply have never said.

This thread started out with me saying he was harshly-treated and wrongly maligned.

I have never, not once, said he should be picked over Hunt-Doyle, but reading this thread you would think I had said it 50 times