Jump to content

Offering Long a new 2 year contract - Mistake?


Recommended Posts

Yeah, without a doubt. Long is a player who needs games to get up to speed, and even up to speed he doesn't score very many goals.

If he's just going on as a sub here and there he's going to be as effective as Jermaine Wright coming out of retirement. So, on the basis of how we are using him, then yes - a total mistake and a real waste of 2 years wages. We should have let him go and invested in a young replacement, there are many players in L1/L2 who would do better than Long.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

At no point in Long's career have I thought he was an acceptable Premier League player.

During that last half year of Koeman's reign, alongside Mane, he was excellent.  He's been a decent team player at times as a support for a much better player, but agree I think his time is done.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fringe player that doesn’t appear to be the sort to make waves when left out, who gives his all, is still quickish, strong, gets about and can  play up top or wide. Are people really expecting our squad players to be much better. You can’t just fill the bench with promising nippers, and for all we know he could be a decent role model in training and around the club. He hasn’t really done a lot because he has only had a dozen or so minutes here and there. He’s not taking the piss. So, no, not a mistake. . 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely a mistake, we should have offered one year and if he didnt agree then let him go.

However, it was all decided at a time when Adams looked to be a mistake and Long was a starting player.

He is probably on good money so will be hard to shift in the summer, aside from a heavily subsidised loan.

Doesnt help that he is poor from the bench, he probably needs a run of starts to find some form and he won't get that.

Edited by Dusic
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea, I have always liked him. He looks like not playing is impeding his fitness and speed  which was always his greatest asset. When he does come on it's normally when the game is at a stage when we have already ceased to be an attacking threat, its not like he's getting service and wasting chances, he spends what little time he gets he spends chasing lost causes. 

PS, yes, one year with an option to extend would have been better.

 

Edited by Toussaint
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I think you all might want to read and consider this article:

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1240911/Southampton-news-Danny-Ings-Shane-Long-new-contract-Premier-League

Danny Ings stated he liked to have Shane partner him as he created the space for Danny. And at a time when we are looking for Danny to extend his contract, then his words went a long way.

Yes, as it has turned out, Che has come good, become the regular choice and Long has only been required to give us 10 minutes from the bench. And our style has changed. We are now more possession based with Danny and Che coming back to midfield to keep possession, whereas the way to use Long is ball over the top for him to run on to. We just don't do that recently. There's no 'outball' football. We caress it 10 yards top trying to move up the pitch while retaining possession.

Was it a mistake to extend Shane's contract? In hindsight, yes. But only in hindsight. He is the modern day Brett Ormerod to James Beattie. Time will tell whether Shane looks to move down to Championship to become a regular first teamer, or accepts the fact he is no longer first choice and happiness off the pitch means he accepts the situation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the saint in winchester said:

Hmm, I think you all might want to read and consider this article:

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1240911/Southampton-news-Danny-Ings-Shane-Long-new-contract-Premier-League

Danny Ings stated he liked to have Shane partner him as he created the space for Danny. And at a time when we are looking for Danny to extend his contract, then his words went a long way.

Yes, as it has turned out, Che has come good, become the regular choice and Long has only been required to give us 10 minutes from the bench. And our style has changed. We are now more possession based with Danny and Che coming back to midfield to keep possession, whereas the way to use Long is ball over the top for him to run on to. We just don't do that recently. There's no 'outball' football. We caress it 10 yards top trying to move up the pitch while retaining possession.

Was it a mistake to extend Shane's contract? In hindsight, yes. But only in hindsight. He is the modern day Brett Ormerod to James Beattie. Time will tell whether Shane looks to move down to Championship to become a regular first teamer, or accepts the fact he is no longer first choice and happiness off the pitch means he accepts the situation.

This is exactly right. It was a tough call but at that time it was reasonable given that we'd have had to spend money to find a replacement

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has been said in the past he is one of those who is good around the dressing room and supports the younger player. Whilst not a starter (and should only be on the fringes) that can be a massive bonus to team spirit and also be the difference to a few more points over a season.

I remember when SKD was at the end of his career and not playing he still had a contract extension for his dressing room contribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Was it a mistake?" - what a load of rubbish. Of course it was not a mistake, the guy is a decent, very experienced pro who helps the younger players whilst also offering experienced back up in a couple of positions.

The same people who are saying "it's a mistake" would no doubt be the first to moan at a player not being loyal and moving on to get a better contract at a bigger club.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patrick Bateman said:

"Was it a mistake?" - what a load of rubbish. Of course it was not a mistake, the guy is a decent, very experienced pro who helps the younger players whilst also offering experienced back up in a couple of positions.

The same people who are saying "it's a mistake" would no doubt be the first to moan at a player not being loyal and moving on to get a better contract at a bigger club.

What is Long supposed to be teaching our young players, that Ings and all our coaches can’t? And what evidence do you have for any of that. I think it was a mistake and have never once moaned about loyalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Archers Road Stand said:

I'm pretty sure I heard the commentator say he hasn't scored off the bench for 50odd games when he came on on Sunday. 

I’m sure that’s true but in most cases he is brought on late in the game so expecting him to suddenly score when the others haven’t all game is over optimistic. We don’t know what instructions he has been given either.

I think he has a useful role to play but emergency goal score is probably not one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

"Was it a mistake?" - what a load of rubbish. Of course it was not a mistake, the guy is a decent, very experienced pro who helps the younger players whilst also offering experienced back up in a couple of positions.

The same people who are saying "it's a mistake" would no doubt be the first to moan at a player not being loyal and moving on to get a better contract at a bigger club.

He's a nice lad, good around the dressing room and a popular guy - no doubts about that.

But are those reasons alone enough to offer him a 2 year deal on probably 50k a week? We could have re-employed him as a player liaison officer.

He is not a very good player, but in terms of a goal scorer (what he's part of the squad to do) he is diabolical and always has been. One good season in the Champ for Reading, but other than that he's missed more sitters than scored actual goals. No problems with loyalty, but what are we keeping him around for? It's certainly not footballing ability or what he can offer us at the top end.

Edited by S-Clarke
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the U23 game the other evening is proof as to why Tella/N'lundulu didn't come on?

I didn't watch the Brighton U23 game of course so correct me if I am wrong, but if they couldn't manage to score against that defence then would they really stand a chance against Utd on Sunday?

Ralph of course sees Shane day in day out. 

As a club, and given how tight our finances are, could we have done better than Shane Long in the transfer market i.e. find a loan player on £50k a week who is better than him?

I personally would have liked the club to have taken a gamble; to release him and look for someone else in the loan market; but I know there was a bit of sentiment in the contract as he was settled down south and really wanted to stay here. For me, whether it was a mistake or not to give him a new contract purely depends on how much he is on per week. At £20k I would have been fine, at £50k a week I am not so sure, and particularly for 2 years because he isn't giving us the output.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fringe player that doesn’t appear to be the sort to make waves when left out, who gives his all, is still quickish, strong, gets about and can  play up top or wide. Are people really expecting our squad players to be much better. You can’t just fill the bench with promising nippers, and for all we know he could be a decent role model in training and around the club. He hasn’t really done a lot because he has only had a dozen or so minutes here and there. He’s not taking the piss. So, no, not a mistake. . 

This 100%

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Fringe player that doesn’t appear to be the sort to make waves when left out, who gives his all, is still quickish, strong, gets about and can  play up top or wide. Are people really expecting our squad players to be much better. You can’t just fill the bench with promising nippers, and for all we know he could be a decent role model in training and around the club. He hasn’t really done a lot because he has only had a dozen or so minutes here and there. He’s not taking the piss. So, no, not a mistake. . 

Yep, agree with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Master Bates said:

Did he not take a pay cut? Accepted he won't be playing that much, his family are happy here and that he's retiring afterwards?

As I understand it, Yep. He’s also had a couple of opportunities to leave, but is settled down here. 
 

Id rather have a Long in the squad and around the training ground, with a professional hardworking attitude and wanting to play for club rather than someone like Obafemi or Valery who’s attitude is disgusting for someone who hasn’t achieved (and won’t ever) in the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

They'd need promotion to get anywhere near his current wages, unless massively subsidised by Saints.

Know his current wage package and what he’s willing to accept, do you Matthew?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SKD said:

Know his current wage package and what he’s willing to accept, do you Matthew?

It isn't an unusual position to think a squad player for Saints will be far above that of Reading's budget. This is a Championship Reading without parachute payments and a wage bill of £41m which is tiny compared to Saints but massive and unsustainable considering their income.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 year no, 2 year probably yes. 

Also depends on the wages he is on, as it will be harder to shift him if he is on like £40-50k a week. 

Never been a convincing goalscorer, more a Heskey type who can unsettle opposition defences, win headers etc. and to give him some benefit of the doubt difficult to expect much of him in 10 minute cameos. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's crap, has always been crap and is an incredibly frustrating player to watch, as his boot seems to be where chances go to die.

As for being bigged up by his teammates, it's hardly likely that Ings would do an interview stating that he'd like to play with a better partner who could create chances for him with, y'know, accurate passes and such, rather than just by allegedly scaring defenders so much that they forget that Ings is on the pitch.

As someone said above, at £50k per week for two years, I'd much rather the club had taken a punt on an unknown quantity from another league, rather than lumping it on the known quantity of no goals whatsoever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some short memories here. Might not be an amazing player but at the time of the contract and times last year when Adams wasn't firing he was forming a pretty good partnership with Ings which allowed Ings to prosper. Adams took his chance when he got it again and we haven't looked back but the reason the contract happened was because he earn't it through his contributions.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Some short memories here. Might not be an amazing player but at the time of the contract and times last year when Adams wasn't firing he was forming a pretty good partnership with Ings which allowed Ings to prosper. Adams took his chance when he got it again and we haven't looked back but the reason the contract happened was because he earn't it through his contributions.

As above, this is BS. Ings prospered because he's a technically good footballer with extremely good finishing. Long was just another body on the field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})