Shane Long

[CB Fry]

He is our Jonno quick of the premiership.

 

Bang average player that we over paid for massively. Risky business criticising him on here though as there is bound to be someone that saw him score a screamer at Ipswich, which he seems to do just often enough to prevent fans noticing how average he is.

 

As with all players you don't rate, the question is will the man at the helm replace with better. He won't be sold, so irrelevant, but I'd be more than welcome to offers. There is talent out there.

Nothing like Forte in any way at all.

 

Forte barely played at all and was out on loan for almist his entire contract at Saints, his contribution was zip.

 

Long was signed to a job and he's pretty much done the job he was signed to do. Last season he played for us more than Morgan did.

[shurlock]

That £12m on Long reminds me of using data roaming abroad -seemingly necessary at the time; but in retrospect, makes me shudder.

 

#moneyball

[CB Fry]

That £12m on Long reminds me of using data roaming abroad -seemingly necessary at the time; but in retrospect, makes me shudder.

 

#moneyball

Shane Long. The breadmaking machine in the kitchen cupboard of football.

[Saint Charlie]

He is the £200 fitness watch on the flabby wrist of a 20st oaf.

[scotty]

That £12m on Long reminds me of using data roaming abroad -seemingly necessary at the time; but in retrospect, makes me shudder.

 

#moneyball

 

At the time we signed him we had just had our squad comprehensively raped. We needed players who were match fit and up to speed in the prem. I clearly remember Big Ron saying that in a televised interview when asked about Shane Long. He was bought to do a job and he's doing it, I really don't get this criticism.

[Bucks Saint]

At the time we signed him we had just had our squad comprehensively raped. We needed players who were match fit and up to speed in the prem. I clearly remember Big Ron saying that in a televised interview when asked about Shane Long. He was bought to do a job and he's doing it, I really don't get this criticism.

 

+1. We dont have many goalscorers and he brings something different to the others. A welcome sight off the bench for me.

[Saint Fan CaM]

If Long is not good enough, then nor is Pelle. Fact is we will not get our £12m back for Long and there's not too many in the same price range that would do as good a job. What we need is a striker who can provide Pelle competition...a Lukaku type player for example.

[Redslo]

It was just idiotic football manager speak anyway. He just needed to say he didn't foresee us selling any first team regular in January and leave it at that. The 100 million £ rider was totally unecessary.

 

No, it was a clever ploy hoping someone would call his bluff.

[St_Tel49]

He's on close to 50k a week. That's an insane amount of money to be paying someone to sit on the bench most weeks

 

Welcome to the premiership!

[Saint Charlie]

He was bought to do a job and he's doing it, I really don't get this criticism.

 

Would we spend £12m on someone and tell them their job is to be a sub and occassionally play out of position when others are injured?

 

With Koeman's multiple comments recently that we won't spend big and don't have the financial power of others it seems even more of a waste.

 

We didn't sign anyone this summer gone who cost as much as Long (perhaps VVD about equal), yet its fine for Long to be a bit part "doing a job" whilst other signings are criticised for being cheap and not good enough. Rather than expensive and not good enough which is seemingly ok.

 

Seems a bit odd.

Edited 11 December, 2015 by Saint Charlie

[WealdSaint]

I think Long is an honest pro who will bust a gut doing whatever is asked of him.

 

If you remember against leicester last season he showed that he can change a game

Edited 11 December, 2015 by WealdSaint

[scotty]

+1. We dont have many goalscorers and he brings something different to the others. A welcome sight off the bench for me.

 

I think Long is an honest pro who will bust a gut doing whatever is asked of him.

 

If you remember against leicester he showed that he can change a game

 

 

That's another good point. Fresh off the bench, he's the type of player that a tiring defence would be terrified of.

[Chez]

I think Long is an honest pro who will bust a gut doing whatever is asked of him.

 

If you remember against leicester last season he showed that he can change a game

 

its funny, because of his running style, which is very smooth and dare I say it, effortless, he never looks as though he is ever busting a gut to me. I am not saying for one minute that is not giving it all, but I look at him and just think there is 10% more in there somewhere.

 

I personally think he was a poor signing. People point to it being a little desperate, but what worries me is that the club had tried to sign him a couple of times and had tracked him for a long time. With that being the case I think the scouts involved may have `fallen in love with him' so to speak, because the evidence I saw of him (a number of time live and many more on the TV) at WBA and Hull pointed to a willing (especially in the air) but relatively toothless striker that was anything but clinical and a difference maker.

[david in sweden]

Wonder if we might be looking behind the scenes to offload Long if that gives us some room to bring in someone the Manager actually rates and who suits the team better?

 

Long probably wants regular football (in his preferred position) ahead of the Euros and he won't get that here. He is also the most dispensable player who is still worth something, although his value will start to drop substantially the older he gets and less he plays so makes sense to cash in now.

 

If we could get something like £6m from either a lower half PL side (Sunderland?) or a Championship promotion hopeful then we could reinvest.

 

Long still a strange signing for me. Hasn't done any worse than at his other clubs but just doesnt seem to suit our style and his lack of a first touch almost renders him useless out wide which is why he is rarely used there now. For the price I think its one that the Club probably regrets as could have found someone better at those figures.

 

Considering the above and also his sizeable wages (which could make him hard to shift) I wouldn't be bothered if we sorted something out that gave us room to try something different. Football is ruthless and sometimes you have to make tough decisions to look to improve. He isn't good enough.

 

I'm going back to this OP Saint Charlie. in order to try and prove a point. Whatever else they may do strikers should score goals - right ?

 

So ... those of you who don't like stats. should avert their eyes, because Shane Long is (for game time) our most prolific goal scorer in the squad.

 

We've played 22 matches in all comps, and here are the stats. supporting that.

Pelle has played out a full 90 mins.in 20 games (never subbed).Playing time 1800mins. and scored 9 goals. = 1 goal per 200 mins./game time.

Mane has started 19 games, and has been subbed 11 times....Playing time 1519 mins. and scored 7 goals = 1 goal per 217 mins.

Tadic has started 16 games and been subbed 13 times...........Playing time 1342 mins. and scored 5 goals = 1 goal per 268 mins.

Long has started 4 games and come on as sub. in 8 games.....Playing time 388 mins. and scored 5 goals = 1 goal per 77 mins.

 

Whatever else anyone may say about him, he is nearly 3 times more likely to score than any other player - when he's on the pitch.

 

SO...go ahead and sell him........ if that makes sense to you.

Edited 11 December, 2015 by david in sweden

[Saint Charlie]

Prolific means "present in large numbers or quantities".

 

That isn't what I would use to describe Long's goal record.

 

In fact, if I were to argue Long is a good player there are plenty of things I would use before his goal record which is, has always been and will be, mediocre.

 

If he actually was, in real life, three times more likely to score than others then he would play as the first name on the teamsheet but he actually has 2 PL goals so ludicrous to make those claims.

Edited 11 December, 2015 by Saint Charlie

[Hodgey]

If ever you wanted proof of lies damn lies and statistics here you go. Long is not as good as those stats comparatively suggest for anyone who watches and knows about football. Here's one for you all - you have 12m to spend, you can have Long or Shaqiri (both sold for same price) - which would you go for ? (Btw I'm not a long hater, in fact love his attitude- just think he is average as per previous post)

[doddisalegend]

If ever you wanted proof of lies damn lies and statistics here you go. Long is not as good as those stats comparatively suggest for anyone who watches and knows about football. Here's one for you all - you have 12m to spend, you can have Long or Shaqiri (both sold for same price) - which would you go for ? (Btw I'm not a long hater, in fact love his attitude- just think he is average as per previous post)

 

Ah you could play that game all day long (no pun intended) Osvaldo or Long, Gaston or Long how about Lovern or VVD

[Hodgey]

But that's the point right ? He's not as good as a lot of people for that money but also better than others. So it comes down to whether we think we have better scouting / negotiation / black box than others. My opinion is we don't - henceforth as to my original post we shouldn't sell him, but accept he is vey average.

[Saint Charlie]

But that's the point right ? He's not as good as a lot of people for that money but also better than others. So it comes down to whether we think we have better scouting / negotiation / black box than others. My opinion is we don't - henceforth as to my original post we shouldn't sell him, but accept he is vey average.

I can't think of many (any) £12m players who he is actually a superior player to!

[westofshannonsaint]

I'm surprised by the amount of posters that want to get shot of Long. I think the £12m price tag is clouding peoples decisions. Like everyone else I bawked at the price we paid, but that's in the past and was the boards decision. In hindsight, we should have bought him in January instead of August. At that IMHO time he would have been a bargain and great back up for Rickie.

 

If he we paid a reasonable amount he could be on the way to becoming a cult hero. He has scored some important goals, has a great work rate and seems to be happy to play out of position and not being the first name on the team sheet. Price is relative anyway, I wonder if Hull fans would give up their £6m profit for a do-over of the 14/15 season with Long in their squad/Gaston not.

 

The OP suggested that Long might be looking for a move to cement his place in the ROI squad, I think the opposite is the case. His place is not in doubt - MoN does not have that many PL players to choose from (or non PL players for that matter) and his limited playing time at Saints means less chance of injury or fatigue before France 2016. From a Saints point of view, if he scores a 'worldy' or two in the Euro's his value may increase, why sell now?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7VagtfvSs8

[Saint Charlie]

Cult hero? Jesus.

[Goatboy]

Cult hero? Jesus.

 

True.

[david in sweden]

Prolific means "present in large numbers or quantities". That isn't what I would use to describe Long's goal record.

 

In fact, if I were to argue Long is a good player there are plenty of things I would use before his goal record which is, has always been and will be, mediocre.

 

If he actually was, in real life, three times more likely to score than others then he would play as the first name on the teamsheet

......but he actually has 2 PL goals so ludicrous to make those claims.

 

 

if you don't like the word "prolific ", we can find another.....but even 2 Prem. goals in those 115 mins of Prem. football..... is still a better return than the others.

 

....and while you quote that - don't forget that; 4 of Mane's 7 goals... 3 of Pelle's 9....and one of Tadic's 5 came in miscellaneous Cup games.

 

If his name is not on the team sheet (to start) then suggest you consult Ronald Koeman about that....and with regard to others who say he's not worth £12million ....

I'd agree with that totally, but he didn't put that price tag on himself, but Saints made " cash-strapped " Hull City (or were they "Tigers " ?) an offer they couldn't refuse.. as no-one knew what Pelle's potential was, and we needed back-up.

 

Even at an inflated £12 million fee, he given more to the club than those two " fantastic " Cortese signings...Ramirez and Osvaldo...and probably at a much lower salary.

£12 million may sound a lot, but if the £65K week salary that Ramirez is reputedly paid is reckoned in ..his entire career time at SFC will have cost us close to £24million.

Edited 11 December, 2015 by david in sweden

[Saint Charlie]

He isn't on the teamsheet because he isn't better than the players that currently play.

 

I know fans like to think all their players are great but none of our competitors would take Long from us.

 

Point of the OP is he is not a £12m player. Koeman doesn't rate him so get whatever you can for him and let the Manager have someone he thinks will actually compete with Pelle.

 

By the sounds of Koeman's comments that if we sign someone it will be a striker then he seemingly acknowledges that Long isn't providing competition for Pelle, and he certainly doesn't provide any for Tadic or Mane.

 

To say he is a cult hero is insulting to the many genuine Saints cult heros through the ages.

 

He is set to cost nearly £20m across the years of his contract which for a club with financial constraints is absurd because his on field contributions are worth nowhere near that, even more so if the Manager doesn't really rate him and never plays him.

Edited 11 December, 2015 by Saint Charlie

[Whitey Grandad]

He isn't on the teamsheet because he isn't better than the players that currently play.

 

I know fans like to think all their players are great but none of our competitors would take Long from us.

 

Point of the OP is he is not a £12m player. Koeman doesn't rate him so get whatever you can for him and let the Manager have someone he thinks will actually compete with Pelle.

 

By the sounds of Koeman's comments that if we sign someone it will be a striker then he seemingly acknowledges that Long isn't providing competition for Pelle, and he certainly doesn't provide any for Tadic or Mane.

 

To say he is a cult hero is insulting to the many genuine Saints cult heros through the ages.

 

He is set to cost nearly £20m across the years of his contract which for a club with financial constraints is absurd because his on field contributions are worth nowhere near that, even more so if the Manager doesn't really rate him and never plays him.

 

I'm glad you're not the manager.

[Saint Charlie]

I'm glad you're not the manager.

Please quote the bits you disagree with!

Edited 11 December, 2015 by Saint Charlie

[Whitey Grandad]

Please quote the bits you disagree with!

 

I'm on an iPad so it's difficult to quote selectively but the last paragraph about the cost is not significant. Any player of Premier League standard is going to cost a similar amount. I agree that these figures are obscene but that is the way nowadays. Long is obviously a fully-paid up member of the first-team squad and gets his full share of involvement. Don't forget that he has had a couple of spells of injury that have restricted his appearances. You could argue (I don't) that J-Rod has been a much bigger waste of resources. In modern football you need a full squad of players and you can only play 11 at the start of the game. These days a top-level club needs virtually two complete teams of players. I wouldn't say that the management don't rate him because he makes frequent appearances be they on the field or on the bench. For the time that he actually spends on the pitch he represents a constant threat and and scores relatively prolifically.

 

I don't know who you think we could possibly replace him with for the amount that we could get for him at this stage in his contract term.

[VectisSaint]

By the sounds of Koeman's comments that if we sign someone it will be a striker then he seemingly acknowledges that Long isn't providing competition for Pelle, and he certainly doesn't provide any for Tadic or Mane.

More likely that JRod has not provided that competition and isn't likely to much this season.

[Whitey Grandad]

More likely that JRod has not provided that competition and isn't likely to much this season.

 

Understandably the club probably expected JRod to be back to full effectiveness well before now.

[Saint Charlie]

Think Koeman has always used Rodriguez as a wide forward and competition for Mane and Tadic rather than as a striker and competition for Pelle.

 

Long ending up costing £20m over 4 seasons is ludicrous for me. If it was another team we would take the ****.

[westofshannonsaint]

Cult hero? Jesus.

 

 

Jesus is one example, I was thinking more like Brett Omorod, played 98, scored 13, but worked hard.

[Whitey Grandad]

Think Koeman has always used Rodriguez as a wide forward and competition for Mane and Tadic rather than as a striker and competition for Pelle.

 

Long ending up costing £20m over 4 seasons is ludicrous for me. If it was another team we would take the ****.

 

I think you're being overawed by the ridiculous salaries being paid in the Premier League these days.

[Saint Charlie]

I think you're being overawed by the ridiculous salaries being paid in the Premier League these days.

Its relative to what they produce though. Tadic and Pelle will cost roughly the same over their deals but are regular starters and contributors that earn points for the Club.

 

You surely pay the biggest amounts for those who contribute the most?

 

Over 4 years there are probably no current regulars who will cost us more than Long does - yet he cannot get a game unless we have players missing.

[shurlock]

I think you're being overawed by the ridiculous salaries being paid in the Premier League these days.

 

Nonsense. Leaving aside Gaston whose salary is shrouded in mystery, Long is supposedly the club's highest earner. Doesnt play or produce anything like it.

Edited 12 December, 2015 by shurlock

[david in sweden]

Its relative to what they produce though.

 

Tadic and Pelle will cost roughly the same over their deals but are regular starters and contributors that earn points for the Club.

 

You surely pay the biggest amounts for those who contribute the most?

 

Over 4 years there are probably no current regulars who will cost us more than Long does - yet he cannot get a game unless we have players missing.

 

1) you were quite pedantic about the word "prolific "...if you re-read my post #117 ..you see that I said Long was most prolific based on game time. See Stats.

 

2) ....you said that we pay the biggest amounts to those who contribute most...that maybe true, but the two catastrophic deal (Gaston and Osvaldo) cost us a fortune.

and although they are " not regulars " ..they bl**dy well ought to have been ....at those fees / salaries.

 

You can't just brush their history under the mat and say they're gone (well almost in Gaston's case) ..and now say that Long is an expensive failure - he isn't.

 

If (Heaven forbid) Pelle should be seriously injured, who else would you replace him with ....Juanmi ? .....because after that you've run out of options.

I think we all recognise that Shane Long doesn't get picked ahead of anyone else - but the idea of selling him off cheaply to make room for another makes no sense at all.

We all want to see JayRod back ASAP...but if his rehab. period takes longer than anticipated..(as it did before) then we may be without him for even longer.

 

Given the limited number of apps. that Long has had in the last season (and a half) ..his output has been excellent in terms of goals /per game time.

[simo]

3 goals in 6 starts aint it ?

[kermitsaint]

We signed Cedric for half a Shlong and all I can see is people pi ssing and moaning about how we've bought cheap.

 

We buy two players for six million to cover Shane Longs contribution then we're looking at, at best, two players playing 15 games a season, or one covering all of Shane's game time and the other not playing at all. Both of those, as far as I can see, would have people on here wailing about buying too many, too cheap, and also moaning about how these cheap signings are blocking the pathway for our brilliant youngsters.

I think people would prefer we bought a player who was actually worth 12 million and earnt his wages.

The fact we paid massively over the odds for Long combined with Koemans inability to use him properly is what bothers some people

 

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

3 goals in 6 starts aint it ?

 

What does that even mean, pal?

[Saint Charlie]

1) you were quite pedantic about the word "prolific "...if you re-read my post #117 ..you see that I said Long was most prolific based on game time. See Stats.

 

2) ....you said that we pay the biggest amounts to those who contribute most...that maybe true, but the two catastrophic deal (Gaston and Osvaldo) cost us a fortune.

and although they are " not regulars " ..they bl**dy well ought to have been ....at those fees / salaries.

 

You can't just brush their history under the mat and say they're gone (well almost in Gaston's case) ..and now say that Long is an expensive failure - he isn't.

 

If (Heaven forbid) Pelle should be seriously injured, who else would you replace him with ....Juanmi ? .....because after that you've run out of options.

I think we all recognise that Shane Long doesn't get picked ahead of anyone else - but the idea of selling him off cheaply to make room for another makes no sense at all.

We all want to see JayRod back ASAP...but if his rehab. period takes longer than anticipated..(as it did before) then we may be without him for even longer.

 

Given the limited number of apps. that Long has had in the last season (and a half) ..his output has been excellent in terms of goals /per game time.

1. "Goals per time" doesn't help much if the time is so limited because the Manager doesn't rate the player as viable competition to our one main striker. Plus when you do it on PL goals/time its not so hot anyway.

 

2. Whats the relevance of quoting Gaston/Osvaldo? They were massive flops. Long isn't on that scale, nowhere near. But he isn't a success either.

 

There can surely be no disputing the fact that when fees and wages are combined, having Long as the most expensive player in the squad (or second behind Ramirez) is in no way value for money.

 

The players that cost you the most are supposed to be your best and most influential. Long is neither and never will be and all the time you keep him he becomes worth less.

Edited 12 December, 2015 by Saint Charlie

[CB Fry]

I think people would prefer we bought a player who was actually worth 12 million and earnt his wages.

The fact we paid massively over the odds for Long combined with Koemans inability to use him properly is what bothers some people

 

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

Well, I was replying to someone saying we should buy cheaper players on lower wages instead. Cheers though.

[david in sweden]

3 goals in 6 starts aint it ?

 

 

LAST SEASON .....Saints played 45 Prem + Cup games.

 

Pelle played in 43 and was sub. once = goal tally 16

 

Shane Long started 16 games and sub. 18 times (although half of those in the last 10 mins.) = goal tally 7

also noted we never lost a game when Long scored.... and in 4 of those he scored winning goal(s)

 

THIS SEASON ..so far...Long has started 4 times ..and been sub.8 times = goal tally 5. ( 2 of those as oncoming sub.)

 

(see more stats. on #117)

[Saint Charlie]

How many PL goals Davie?

 

5 last season, 2 this season I think.

 

Scored in 3 of the 32 PL games he featured in last season and has understandably been used less this year.

 

Is that a good return in your opinion from the 2nd most expensive player in the squad?

Edited 12 December, 2015 by Saint Charlie

[david in sweden]

[quote=Saint Charlie;2281607

 

1. "Goals per time" doesn't help much if the time is so limited because the Manager doesn't rate the player as viable competition to our one main striker. Plus when you do it on PL goals/time its not so hot anyway.

 

 

 

the "time " referred to is game time in minutes. If you only look at the minimal time Long has played in Prem.games. this season....

 

He has started only 3 PL games (subbed once) ....and has been oncoming sub.4 times ... and scored twice. (Totalling 362 minutes game time.)

 

......at 1 goal every 181 minutes, he still scores more often than anyone else in the team, despite his shorter playing time.

 

Yes he was over-valued, but that's not his fault - blame the Board who OK'd the deal......His real value is probably closer to the £6 million that Hull paid for him,

 

and I agree with you ...and others ..there is no obvious player you'd drop in favour of him, but his record shows he DAVGJFU...when called upon, and until we get a better player with more experience..we should never consider letting him go, as you seem to suggest in the OP.........

.

Edited 12 December, 2015 by david in sweden

[shurlock]

LAST SEASON .....Saints played 45 Prem + Cup games.

 

Pelle played in 43 and was sub. once = goal tally 16

 

Shane Long started 16 games and sub. 18 times (although half of those in the last 10 mins.) = goal tally 7

also noted we never lost a game when Long scored.... and in 4 of those he scored winning goal(s)

 

THIS SEASON ..so far...Long has started 4 times ..and been sub.8 times = goal tally 5. ( 2 of those as oncoming sub.)

 

(see more stats. on #117)

 

When Shane Long scores, we're no longer guaranteed to win. FACT.

 

Shane Long plays a mean "no woman, no cry". FACT.

Edited 12 December, 2015 by shurlock

[Whitey Grandad]

Nonsense. Leaving aside Gaston whose salary is shrouded in mystery, Long is supposedly the club's highest earner. Doesnt play or produce anything like it.

 

Supposedly? Does that make it supposed nonsense?

[Whitey Grandad]

No one would mind long as a cheap sub, 5m or so in today's market. But I find it highlights a depressing trend in modern football (at least in this country) to focus on hard work over actual talent or flair. Long will run around a lot, he is like a brett ormerod. this is supposed to be entertainment, when did it all become so safe? ramirez can't get near the team and we spent a fortune on long to run around a bit. Really puts me off. Wonder how many great players from the past would just get ignored these days in favour in workhorses.

 

It's a much faster and physically demanding game these days. Most great players from the past wouldn't last two minutes today.

[VectisSaint]

It's a much faster and physically demanding game these days. Most great players from the past wouldn't last two minutes today.

Most would if they had the same fitness and conditioning regimes as nowadays, and many would be better than today's players because they were more technically gifted as well.

[Saint Charlie]

Long showing today when you need a chance taking that he isn't the man.

 

Not good enough.

[Saint_clark]

Long showing today when you need a chance taking that he isn't the man.

 

Not good enough.

 

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.

Shane Long is no worse when one on one with the keeper than Jay Rodriguez.

[Batman]

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses.

Shane Long is no worse when one on one with the keeper than Jay Rodriguez.

 

id disagree. Jrod got 17 goals in his last full season with us (and was injured for the part)

 

long normally takes 3 seasons to score that amount

jrod buried plenty when he has been through on goal