Sean Longstaff

[Heron]

5 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

FWIW I’m fairly sure this conversation is not actually being had. There’s a reason one of our big signings was a Longstaff replacement. 

Howe will be having conversation about this all the time you'd think - surely? It's his job to pick a team that wins, not a one that has the best players in.

 

Undoubtedly, he will expect we're better with Tonali (in time). I think we all do.

 

 

Edited October 24 by Heron

[SUPERTOON]

1 minute ago, Heron said:

Howe will be having conversation about this all the time you'd think - surely. It's his job to pick a team that wins, not a one that has the best players in.

But haven’t we won more this season with Tonali on the pitch? I’m pretty sure 2 of our 3 wins came having subbed Tonali on for Longstaff and us then going on to win the game (Spurs and Wolves).

[AyeDubbleYoo]

11 minutes ago, Heron said:

Howe will be having conversation about this all the time you'd think - surely? It's his job to pick a team that wins, not a one that has the best players in.

 

Undoubtedly, he will expect we're better with Tonali (in time). I think we all do.

 

 

 

Yeah but it would be crazy to change the midfield so soon, especially to take out a guy who’s just started playing for us basically. 

 

I’d be very disappointed if he decides we will win more with Longstaff in instead of Tonali. That would be concerning. 

[Heron]

Longstaff Starts - Not subbed

Southampton (W)

Wimbledon (W)

 

Longstaff Starts - Subbed

Bournemouth (D) (Losing 1 -0, Willock replaces)

Tottenham (W) (Drawing 1-1, Tonali replaces)

Wolves (W) (Losing 1-0, Tonali replaces)

 

Tonali Starts - Subbed

Nottingham Forest (D) (1-1, Longstaff replaces, Newcastle win the game on pens - Longstaff scores his)

Man City (D) (1-1, Longstaff replaces)

Everton (D) (0-0, Longstaff replaces)

 

Longstaff doesn't feature

Fulham (L)

 

Longstaff Subbed In

Brighton (L) (0-1, Longstaff replaces Gordon)

 

 

[Heron]

6 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Yeah but it would be crazy to change the midfield so soon, especially to take out a guy who’s just started playing for us basically. 

 

I’d be very disappointed if he decides we will win more with Longstaff in instead of Tonali. That would be concerning. 

If we do win more with Lonfstaff in - what is concerning about it? We're here to win games by fielding the best team. Not by playing the best players.

 

That being said - I agree. You would expect Tonali would feature in our "best team".

[AyeDubbleYoo]

2 minutes ago, Heron said:

If we do win more with Lonfstaff in - what is concerning about it? We're here to win games by fielding the best team. Not by playing the best players.

 

That being said - I agree. You would expect Tonali would feature in our "best team".

Because Longstaff isn’t the reason we win more. It’s a coincidence basically. 

 

 

Edited October 24 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Heron]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Because Longstaff isn’t the reason we win more. It’s a coincidence basically. 

 

 

 

Howay man.  That's basically fingers in ears going "lalalala".

 

Absolutely zero attempt for folk to be objective in Sean Longstaff's case at times. Similar happens with Dan Burn. I really don't get it...

[SUPERTOON]

I mean we won more with Burn at LB, I wouldn’t want to see him back there either.

[JonBez comesock]

It’s a team game 

 

longstaff / burn in the team isn’t the factor 

for example 

 

Isak / Gordon scoring / not scoring  v Brighton has no connection at all to longstaff starting or not 

[80]

20 minutes ago, Heron said:

Longstaff Starts - Not subbed

Southampton (W)

Wimbledon (W)

 

Longstaff Starts - Subbed

Bournemouth (D) (Losing 1 -0, Willock replaces)

Tottenham (W) (Drawing 1-1, Tonali replaces)

Wolves (W) (Losing 1-0, Tonali replaces)

 

Tonali Starts - Subbed

Nottingham Forest (D) (1-1, Longstaff replaces, Newcastle win the game on pens - Longstaff scores his)

Man City (D) (1-1, Longstaff replaces)

Everton (D) (0-0, Longstaff replaces)

 

Longstaff doesn't feature

Fulham (L)

 

Longstaff Subbed In

Brighton (L) (0-1, Longstaff replaces Gordon)

 

 

You have to admit this starts to paint a less favourable picture of his contributions, right? 

 

I realise that's more to it than this (and the other stats mentioned), but these results imply 5 points 'gained' while Longstaff is playing and 7 points for Tonali (both get 1 point for Everton).

 

A 40% uplift without Longstaff! Wow!

 

 

Edited October 24 by 80

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Heron said:

Why would anyone dislike Sean Longstaff as a Newcastle supporter? A Geordie playing his heart our for his home town side. He may not be as good as Tonali but he is as inoffensive as can be. Peculiar crack.

 

 

 

It's not about disliking Longstaff, it's about wanting Newcastle to become a team that qualifies regularly for the CL. If we can do that with Longstaff great. Personally I don't think he's a CL player, and I know he played a part in getting us into it for one season. Tonali is a CL player, and if we put either of them up for sale it would be reflected in which teams came in for them.

[Heron]

20 minutes ago, 80 said:

You have to admit this starts to paint a less favourable picture of his contributions, right? 

 

I realise that's more to it than this (and the other stats mentioned), but these results imply 5 points 'gained' while Longstaff is playing and 7 points for Tonali (both get 1 point for Everton).

 

A 40% uplift without Longstaff! Wow!

 

 

 

Yeah, that's fair.

 

However, it being raised (albeit via Twitter) is also fair. It's not as clear until someone does more digging (as I have done).

 

I'm not saying Longstaff is better, I said (on the basis of the data I had at the time) we win more with him in the side - which is more important. Now that data has been (in)validated then it's obviosuly different.

 

What doesn't change, is that folk have absolutely zero objectivity in their analysis of Longstaff at times. Bizarre.

[Heron]

19 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

It's not about disliking Longstaff, it's about wanting Newcastle to become a team that qualifies regularly for the CL. If we can do that with Longstaff great. Personally I don't think he's a CL player, and I know he played a part in getting us into it for one season. Tonali is a CL player, and if we put either of them up for sale it would be reflected in which teams came in for them.

Other comments suggested it was.

 

As for the rest - I agree.

[Heron]

35 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

I mean we won more with Burn at LB, I wouldn’t want to see him back there either.

But you do want Newcastle to win games - right?

[80]

26 minutes ago, Heron said:

Yeah, that's fair.

 

However, it being raised (albeit via Twitter) is also fair. It's not as clear until someone does more digging (as I have done).

 

I'm not saying Longstaff is better, I said (on the basis of the data I had at the time) we win more with him in the side - which is more important. Now that data has been (in)validated then it's obviosuly different.

 

What doesn't change, is that folk have absolutely zero objectivity in their analysis of Longstaff at times. Bizarre.

Yeah that's fair enough. I just think the original twitter post was someone playing games with stats to stir trouble.

 

A couple of years ago I was a supporter of Longstaff being in the team on the grounds of him offering intangibles like defensive positioning and us getting results with him. I was really pleased with what I hoped he could offer to the squad long term. But he looks to have regressed massively to me (quite possibly due to injuries, I'm not saying it's a moral failing of his, although I think it's also to do with him not coping with pressure).

 

I agree with the point you make about looking to get wins rather than shoehorning names into the team (Team England style), but I just don't think it applies on this occasion. We've looked a much more competitive team in the last 3 or so games - albeit not perfect - it's just a shame we don't have results to show for it. The bits we've lacked - attacking quality - are pretty much the opposite of what he offers even on his best days, though.

 

 

Edited October 24 by 80

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 hour ago, Heron said:

Howay man.  That's basically fingers in ears going "lalalala".

 

Absolutely zero attempt for folk to be objective in Sean Longstaff's case at times. Similar happens with Dan Burn. I really don't get it...

No it’s not, I’m just saying I don’t see anything that Longstaff could be doing that Tonali isn’t that is going to lead to more wins. 
 

It’s correlation but IMO it’s not causation. 

[McCormick]

Longstaff is better off the ball and, throughout the course of a season, would likely outscore Tonali.

 

Tonali just feels like the better player; certainly his physicality, vision and technique are levels above what Sean brings to the table.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I think Tonali had really good stats on ball recoveries that I can’t be bothered to look up. 

[Erikse]

We need players who can give us that little bit extra. Longstaff can do a job, but it's very rare that he does something extraordinary. We have enough of the Longstaff types in the team. Offensively we've been missing players with that little bit extra sometimes (when Isak is not fit and in form), and it's what makes the top teams win games where the opponent tries to defend most of the game. For example, I don't think Longstaff would be well suited for the gamestate of the last 2 games. We would have been even easier to defend against with him in there.

 

 

Edited October 24 by Erikse

[TRon]

5 minutes ago, McCormick said:

Longstaff is better off the ball and, throughout the course of a season, would likely outscore Tonali.

 

Tonali just feels like the better player; certainly his physicality, vision and technique are levels above what Sean brings to the table.

 

Yep. Longstaff has some genuine qualities, but mostly off the ball. He will run tirelessly, cover his teammates who might switch off, and he will make runs into the box to get on the end of moves.

 

The downside is he is less adventurous, has less vision, and will make safer passes due to lack of killer instinct.

[janpawel]

2 hours ago, Heron said:

If we do win more with Lonfstaff in - what is concerning about it? We're here to win games by fielding the best team. Not by playing the best players.

 

That being said - I agree. You would expect Tonali would feature in our "best team".

The fact we paid £50-60m for someone who isn't as effective as Longstaff in the team 

 

Not saying he is or isn't BTW, just saying that would be a catastrophic error in terms of FFP

[Nine]

It’s to early for this conversation either way, Tonali has been in a team that is generally playing poorly all round. 
 

And to make the point, the ball he played for Isak vs Brighton. Not sure I’ve ever seen Longstaff show that.

 

 

Edited October 24 by Nine

[timeEd32]

1 hour ago, Nine said:

It’s to early for this conversation either way, Tonali has been in a team that is generally playing poorly all round. 
 

And to make the point, the ball he played for Isak vs Brighton. Not sure I’ve ever seen Longstaff show that.

 

 

 

 

The goal against Forest in the cup also involves Tonali in a way that Longstaff just can't offer. As soon as we turn over the ball, Tonali starts moving into space at speed, one touch to Miggy, who first times it to Isak and we're away. Watching that back I am almost certain that Longstaff would have received the ball and played it out wide to a wide open Trippier. It would have been fine, safer even, but almost certainly not a goal.

 

No doubt Tonali needs to show a bit more to be worth what we paid and the year off, but his first time passes are something we sorely need to create chances. His tracking back and defending in transition drives me nuts though. 

[Heron]

2 hours ago, Nine said:

It’s to early for this conversation either way, Tonali has been in a team that is generally playing poorly all round. 
 

And to make the point, the ball he played for Isak vs Brighton. Not sure I’ve ever seen Longstaff show that.

 

 

 

Again though "Tonali has been in a team that is generally playing poorly all round".

 

He hasn't been. He's played in the more recent games when the team have collectively played better, despite not picking up wins.

 

Longstaff was playing in the side when we weren't collectively playing well, adding credence to both sides of the debate (of course)...

 

[Nine]

7 minutes ago, Heron said:

Again though "Tonali has been in a team that is generally playing poorly all round".

 

He hasn't been. He's played in the more recent games when the team have collectively played better, despite not picking up wins.

 

Longstaff was playing in the side when we weren't collectively playing well, adding credence to both sides of the debate (of course)...

 

Longstaff was also a mainstay in the 4th season and was a massive part of the team last year, playing through injury while everyone else was already injured. Longstaff fit in very well with press. 
 

All of that is now irrelevant though, as system and  style have changed. And we have been poor, you can’t really argue that. But putting that down to Tonali starting over Longstaff is just silly as there is way more going on than that. The sample size of Tonali and the variables with the rest of the team/system changes make this debate a non starter. 

 

 

Edited October 24 by Nine