Long - time for a change?

810 posts
User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Ian Royal » 12 Dec 2010 02:33

Long needs to be rested to come back fresh & hungry after Xmas. He is a player sigularly incapable of playing well and scoring goals in the first half of the season. His strength and running lead us to play hoof ball.

Get Church in the side with his far superior movement, and knack for nicking a flukie goal even when he isn't able to shoot straight.

And Howard back in the side for some passing quality in the middle. Four of the six times we've scored more than one goal have come whilst he has been involved this season. About 18 of our 28 goals have come whilst he was on the pitch, from about half the games.

under the tin
Member
Posts: 989
Joined: 15 Jan 2010 09:21

Re: Long - time for a change?

by under the tin » 12 Dec 2010 08:49

Ian Royal Long needs to be rested to come back fresh & hungry after Xmas. He is a player sigularly incapable of playing well and scoring goals in the first half of the season. His strength and running lead us to play hoof ball.

Get Church in the side with his far superior movement, and knack for nicking a flukie goal even when he isn't able to shoot straight.

And Howard back in the side for some passing quality in the middle. Four of the six times we've scored more than one goal have come whilst he has been involved this season. About 18 of our 28 goals have come whilst he was on the pitch, from about half the games.


The hoofball thing is a consequence of a midfield devoid of any creativity, and inneffectual wide players.
We didn't have any other options.
I reckon that Brian needs a re-think about playing with 2 luxury wingers every week.

User avatar
Row Z Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10365
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 20:01
Location: LOLandmarks come and go. There'll only ever be one "Clickety Clique"

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Row Z Royal » 12 Dec 2010 09:11

T.R.O.L.I. Hell, I'd almost rather have Robbo up front at the moment - as clinical as Long but at least he's got the "Savage haircut" to add the comedy angle!


Harsh. :lol:

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Ian Royal » 12 Dec 2010 13:30

under the tin
Ian Royal Long needs to be rested to come back fresh & hungry after Xmas. He is a player sigularly incapable of playing well and scoring goals in the first half of the season. His strength and running lead us to play hoof ball.

Get Church in the side with his far superior movement, and knack for nicking a flukie goal even when he isn't able to shoot straight.

And Howard back in the side for some passing quality in the middle. Four of the six times we've scored more than one goal have come whilst he has been involved this season. About 18 of our 28 goals have come whilst he was on the pitch, from about half the games.


The hoofball thing is a consequence of a midfield devoid of any creativity, and inneffectual wide players.
We didn't have any other options.
I reckon that Brian needs a re-think about playing with 2 luxury wingers every week.


The wide players are inneffectual (even though both Kebe & McAnuff put in a match winning cross against Coventry) because teams know that is where all out threat is. It's the last couple of Coppell seasons all over again. Nothing in the middle, everything down the wing.

Howard is the only central midfielder we have who has any passing creativity and vision, and he mostly keeps it on the deck. McAnuff, Kebe, Khiz & Church are about the only other players who want to play passing football at the club. With Kebe & McAnuff isolated from anyone else to play short passes what hope have we got?

We have a team we could play that would keep it on the deck and have creativity all over the pitch with a passing spine. But McDermott genuinely seems to prefer crap percentage hoof ball and triers over quality.

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Ian Royal » 12 Dec 2010 13:36

Who wants to have a bet on how many more games Long can go without scoring more than one goal in open play before being dropped?

McDermott seems to see him as untouchable, but I'll have an optimistic six.


User avatar
cmonurz
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12384
Joined: 21 Apr 2004 22:50
Location: Nob nob nob nob nob nob

Re: Long - time for a change?

by cmonurz » 12 Dec 2010 20:17

That's 2 from open play in his last 29 or 30 games now. 1 goal from 39 shots on goal this season.

I didn't get to the game, but 2 of the 3 'highlights' BBC showed of the game were Long glancing a header wide from 6 yards, and Long side-footing an effort wide from 6 yards when it was easier to score.

Simply, I'd rather someone else was there to try to put these chances away. Bring Church in for Long, we need to see if Churchy offers more of a goal threat, because it's getting embarassing for Shane.


That said, by all accounts Long remains a significant contributor up to the penalty area - if we didn't have The Kebe, I'd advocate using Long on the right-wing, where his pace can do some damage.

User avatar
leon
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 32224
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:18
Location: Hips, Lips, Tits, Power

Re: Long - time for a change?

by leon » 12 Dec 2010 21:54

cmonurz That's 2 from open play in his last 29 or 30 games now. 1 goal from 39 shots on goal this season.

I didn't get to the game, but 2 of the 3 'highlights' BBC showed of the game were Long glancing a header wide from 6 yards, and Long side-footing an effort wide from 6 yards when it was easier to score.

Simply, I'd rather someone else was there to try to put these chances away. Bring Church in for Long, we need to see if Churchy offers more of a goal threat, because it's getting embarassing for Shane.


I think you've pretty much summed it up. Church is the more natural footballer - although his hit rate is pretty poor as well, he does at least get into goal scoring positions and score. Yesterday there were a number of occaisons when we crossed the ball from wide and there was no one in the box.

Negative_Jeff
Member
Posts: 575
Joined: 25 May 2008 20:27

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Negative_Jeff » 12 Dec 2010 22:06

leon
cmonurz That's 2 from open play in his last 29 or 30 games now. 1 goal from 39 shots on goal this season.

I didn't get to the game, but 2 of the 3 'highlights' BBC showed of the game were Long glancing a header wide from 6 yards, and Long side-footing an effort wide from 6 yards when it was easier to score.

Simply, I'd rather someone else was there to try to put these chances away. Bring Church in for Long, we need to see if Churchy offers more of a goal threat, because it's getting embarassing for Shane.


I think you've pretty much summed it up. Church is the more natural footballer - although his hit rate is pretty poor as well, he does at least get into goal scoring positions and score. Yesterday there were a number of occaisons when we crossed the ball from wide and there was no one in the box.


Why would a well coached team repeatedly cross the ball to nobody in the box?

User avatar
Platypuss
Hob Nob Moderator
Posts: 8203
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 21:46
Location: No one cares about your creative hub, so get your fukcin' hedge cut

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Platypuss » 13 Dec 2010 09:14

Just seen the BBC highlights of the game.

:| just :|


Tony Le Mesmer
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3404
Joined: 17 Jun 2005 20:37
Location: Dundee in my bare feet

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Tony Le Mesmer » 13 Dec 2010 10:00

Platypuss Just seen the BBC highlights of the game.

:| just :|


Did they show the 20 min clip of Church wondering around like a lost child?

User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13937
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Hoop Blah » 13 Dec 2010 10:28

Out of interest, how many of our 28 league goals have come from open play?

Obviously having a centre forward that can't finnish doesn't help matters, but as a team we seem too devoid of ideas, which in my book has always been because we just don't have enough quality in the team.

I said a long time ago that any team looking at Church and Long for it's goals is going to struggle to score consistently but others seemed to step up to the plate earlier in the season. My gut feel is that we relied on set pieces a lot for those goals though (Mills scoring a couple of important ones for example).

Over a season you largely get what you deserve though and quality tells....

User avatar
Wimb
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4399
Joined: 21 Nov 2005 09:43
Location: www.thetilehurstend.com

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Wimb » 13 Dec 2010 10:50

But even teams with established strikers can go through periods without scoring. Look at the last 6 months of 2008/2009 when despite having Doyle, Kitson, Lita, Long (and to a lesser extent NHunt) we still failed to regularly find the net.

I do agree though that Long might benefit from a week on the bench and that it can't possibly hurt to give Church a run out for a week alongside Hunt to see what he can do.

Mr Angry
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6224
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 16:05
Location: South Oxfordshire

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Mr Angry » 13 Dec 2010 11:13

I would say to him "Longy - you need a rest Son" then start with NHunt and Church in a 442.

Long didn't start scoring till after Xmas last season; give him the rest of the month off and bring him back in Jan.


User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13937
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Hoop Blah » 13 Dec 2010 11:42

Wimb But even teams with established strikers can go through periods without scoring. Look at the last 6 months of 2008/2009 when despite having Doyle, Kitson, Lita, Long (and to a lesser extent NHunt) we still failed to regularly find the net.

I do agree though that Long might benefit from a week on the bench and that it can't possibly hurt to give Church a run out for a week alongside Hunt to see what he can do.


Oh I agree, and said similar in another post this morning.

It's a team thing and the whole squad is to blame as there's just a lack of quality and creativity in this team. We're very similar to that Coppell side as the side is just too functional (that team missed Little and had very few other creative outlets in the same way as the current team miss Kebe if he's not on form or injured).

There's no escaping the fact that Long has missed crucial chances during this run though. That's the key difference, I don't think we every really looked like scoring for that last 3-6 month period of Coppells time.

User avatar
brendywendy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12060
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 15:29
Location: coming straight outa crowthorne

Re: Long - time for a change?

by brendywendy » 13 Dec 2010 11:42

on sats performances Long>>>.nhunt>>>>>church.


but maybe thats a bit simplistic!


drop em all i say

User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13937
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Hoop Blah » 13 Dec 2010 11:53

brendywendy on sats performances Long>>>.nhunt>>>>>church.


but maybe thats a bit simplistic!


drop em all i say


To be honest, that's part of the problem, they're all as average as each other and there is no competition for places in this squad because McDermott doesn't seem to want to drop anybody.

Apart from the middle of the park and perhaps centre half the team picks itself, or at least McDermotts selections pick themselves and we all know pretty much what the side will be (not always a bad thing, but when things aren't going well or performances some shuffling of the pack is required).

A few years ago Coppell didn't throw in a young Simon Cox when we needed something new to possibly spark things off. Perhaps Cox wasn't as good a player as the other options upfront or on the right wing, but sometimes you don't need to be. A short term change can just act as a catalyst to get things going.

Do we have that in todays squad? Is it Antonio?

User avatar
brendywendy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12060
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 15:29
Location: coming straight outa crowthorne

Re: Long - time for a change?

by brendywendy » 13 Dec 2010 12:02

Hoop Blah
brendywendy on sats performances Long>>>.nhunt>>>>>church.


but maybe thats a bit simplistic!


drop em all i say


To be honest, that's part of the problem, they're all as average as each other and there is no competition for places in this squad because McDermott doesn't seem to want to drop anybody.

Apart from the middle of the park and perhaps centre half the team picks itself, or at least McDermotts selections pick themselves and we all know pretty much what the side will be (not always a bad thing, but when things aren't going well or performances some shuffling of the pack is required).

A few years ago Coppell didn't throw in a young Simon Cox when we needed something new to possibly spark things off. Perhaps Cox wasn't as good a player as the other options upfront or on the right wing, but sometimes you don't need to be. A short term change can just act as a catalyst to get things going.

Do we have that in todays squad? Is it Antonio?



some of that makes alot of sense- but there was no competition for places in coppells 106 team really.
disagree totally about coxy. he was not a prem player then, and is only just becoming a below average one.saying hes what we needed is mental.but it may have worked i guess.

User avatar
Hoop Blah
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13937
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 09:00
Location: I told you so.....

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Hoop Blah » 13 Dec 2010 12:20

The point with Cox is that you just don't have to be 'good enough' sometimes to make a difference.

There's lots of players who just have a moment to their career or a time when, despite not being good enough can provide a spark for some reason. That's all water well under the bridge though.

The 106 team kind of picked itself, but it still had good competition in a few areas (Doyle, Kitson, Lita plus Long who played a role off the bench or Little and Convey with Hunt and Oster as compeition - not that Little was ever under pressure). That's fine when things are going well, but when things go wrong or need freshening up then competition is needed. That might be why Coppell was good when things were going well but struggled wherever he was to turn round a bad run of form. McDermott might be similar to Coppell in that sense.

User avatar
brendywendy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12060
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 15:29
Location: coming straight outa crowthorne

Re: Long - time for a change?

by brendywendy » 13 Dec 2010 12:40

no competition at all. apart from maybe up front- is the only difference

litte and convey every time if fit. sidwell and harps every time if fit. sionko and ivar every time if fit. murty and shorey every time if fit.


and i just cant buy this at all.
The point with Cox is that you just don't have to be 'good enough' sometimes to make a difference.


but i get where you are coming from

Snowball
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 20782
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 18:35

Re: Long - time for a change?

by Snowball » 13 Dec 2010 13:48

Mr Angry I would say to him "Longy - you need a rest Son" then start with NHunt and Church in a 442.

Long didn't start scoring till after Xmas last season; give him the rest of the month off and bring him back in Jan.




Long barely PLAYED before Xmas last season. He started scoring as soon as he got an extended run

810 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 163 guests

It is currently 12 Jul 2025 04:16