Long - Time to go.

[FiNeRaIn]

Any shred of credibility you had has now disasappeared. You call my stats 'selective' when all I have done is take Long's last 25 league appearances. That's it. What is particularly selective about that apart from the fact that it happens to be a pathetically barren spell of 'striking'?

1 goal from open play in his last 1,986 minutes of league football for Reading. That's an undeniable statistic that is no more selective than to say 'since the last time Long actually scored a few goals for us, exactly how poor has his record been?' There's no 'distortion of reality', just an examination of how terrible this goal drought has actually been.

And you have a decision to make - you refused to answer my point on Defoe/Sheringham as it did not relate to Reading FC - now you present us with some more stats that include Long's appearances for Ireland. I had deliberately avoided this so as not to break your own 'rule'. Are we talking about international football, or games played for Reading? Make a choice.


Ftr, to go back to my stat, of those last 25 league appearances, 24 have been starts. So that's 24 starts, 1 as sub, and 1 goal from open play.

Don't even bother with him, just don't.

[Snowball]

to go back to my stat, of those last 25 league appearances, 24 have been starts. So that's 24 starts, 1 as sub, and 1 goals from open play
to go back to my stat, of those last 30 xxxxx appearances, 29 have been starts. So that's 29 starts, 1 as sub, and 7 goals from open play, plus 3 penalties, 5 penalties won, plus 4 assists.
to go back to my stat, of those last 32 xxxxx appearances, 30 have been starts. So that's 30 starts, 2 as sub, and 8 goals from open play, plus 3 penalties, 5 penalties won, plus 5 assists.




Looks a LOT different doesn't it?

[Svlad Cjelli]

to go back to my stat, of those last 25 league appearances, 24 have been starts. So that's 24 starts, 1 as sub, and 1 goals from open play
to go back to my stat, of those last 30 xxxxx appearances, 29 have been starts. So that's 29 starts, 1 as sub, and 7 goals from open play, plus 3 penalties, 5 penalties won, plus 4 assists.
to go back to my stat, of those last 32 xxxxx appearances, 30 have been starts. So that's 30 starts, 2 as sub, and 8 goals from open play, plus 3 penalties, 5 penalties won, plus 5 assists.




Looks a LOT different doesn't it?

Even the most fervant hobnobbers are losing interest at this relentless churning out of meaningless numbers intended to prove something that they're not able to prove - football isn't like that.

Why don't you just go off to a casino with Tom Cruise?

[Snowball]

Shane is a good player, currently playing well and being picked by McDermott

to go back to my stat, of those last 30 xxxxx appearances, 29 have been starts. So that's 29 starts, 1 as sub, and 7 goals from open play, plus 3 penalties, 5 penalties won, plus 4 assists.
to go back to my stat, of those last 32 xxxxx appearances, 30 have been starts. So that's 30 starts, 2 as sub, and 8 goals from open play, plus 3 penalties, 5 penalties won, plus 5 assists. (Includes Ireland)

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Any shred of credibility you had has now disasappeared. You call my stats 'selective' when all I have done is take Long's last 25 league appearances. That's it. What is particularly selective about that apart from the fact that it happens to be a pathetically barren spell of 'striking'?

Because it ignores the games he played IMMEDIATELY BEFORE your 25.
When he got 6 goals in 5 games

So your decision to start your stats to include his little scoring burst, and ignore the games he played previously without scoring last season wasn't selective?

[Snowball]

Any shred of credibility you had has now disasappeared. You call my stats 'selective' when all I have done is take Long's last 25 league appearances. That's it. What is particularly selective about that apart from the fact that it happens to be a pathetically barren spell of 'striking'?

Because it ignores the games he played IMMEDIATELY BEFORE your 25.
When he got 6 goals in 5 games

So your decision to start your stats to include his little scoring burst, and ignore the games he played previously without scoring last season wasn't selective?

Not really. I saw Gwathoppa's post, did my checks and noticed that Long's goals IMMEDIATELY before the 25 were ALL good games for Long, and I felt they should be included.

I consciously didn't keep going backwards because that would take me to the Liverpool game where Long won the penalty on 90 minutes and then scored a goal in open play to win it.

I was AVOIDING that, but felt "opening up 25 to 30" kinda revealed Gwathoppa's deliberate sleight of hand.

We all know Long's whole-season goals record last year 24 (12) = 26 games and 9 goals = 1 goal every 2.88 games, 7 were open play, 1 a penalty, and one open-play from a flicked on free-kick.

1 in 2.88 2009-10 Long
1 in 2.65 2005-09 Doyle


Surely you don't dispute THOSE stats?

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Shane Long is a decent player.

End of thread.

[cmonurz]

Any shred of credibility you had has now disasappeared. You call my stats 'selective' when all I have done is take Long's last 25 league appearances. That's it. What is particularly selective about that apart from the fact that it happens to be a pathetically barren spell of 'striking'?

Because it ignores the games he played IMMEDIATELY BEFORE your 25.
When he got 6 goals in 5 games

So your decision to start your stats to include his little scoring burst, and ignore the games he played previously without scoring last season wasn't selective?

You 'felt' they should be included? Your claim to be some sort of expert statistician takes another hit - the size of a sample shouldn't be subjective.

How are bad or good runs commented on in football? 'United are unbeaten in 22 games in all competitions' is an example. The stat highlights the extent of the current trend. When people are writing about United's unbeaten run, you don't look at the stat and say 'well they lost the three games before that, so we should include them, what a devious sleight of hand'.

It's not a sleight of hand, it's asking how long has Long's quite pathetic 'goalscoring' record been following this trend. The answer is 25 league appearances. That's it. No including games for a different team, no worrying about whether he started or not (I only added that later), no talking about assists or penalties or quoting parts of match reports; just 'Long's last 25 league games'.

For a former stats teacher, you have an alarming inability to identify a relevant sample. You're just fitting the sample to your argument, which is what led to your remarkably week response to Rev that you just 'felt' that another six games should be pegged on top. As has been pointed out to you, if you are going to add those on, why not add the 17 games prior, where Long added only 1 further goal?

And this illustrates how your arguments break down - performance can't be analysed from an average this or that.

Using 'your' sample, Long has 7 goals from 30 games, or 1 goal every 4.29 games? Not awful, right? But it's bullshit. Because take out your decision to peg on those 6 games, and we are left with 3 goals since (including 2 penalties), and only 1 further goal dating back to the start of last season if you take the data back that far.

Perhaps you could now have the decency to admit there is little good faith in the stats you are putting together, you just collate them and use them in a way that supports your point of view.

[Maguire]

For a former stats teacher

Get to fuck

[Wimb]

Can you stop with the Gwathoppa crap, wherever it came from its derogative and highlights the fact that you're getting desperate and losing the argument

I dont think URZ or anyone else is saying Long is god awful, has never had a good run, or that he doesn't have THE POTENTIAL to be a good player. But quite frankly the way you bring up the stats to show 'he's similar to Doyle' do the most damage to discredit your own stupid stats, the two aren't even close and it's the reason Doyle is playing in the Premier League and why Shane is in danger of being replaced by a 21 year old Welsh International.

You can't bask in past glories to defend a player.

Lee Nogan and Stuart Lovell are brilliant examples of strikers from Reading's history who in the past had purple patches of goalscoring but then tailed off so extremely in the space of just 12-18 months that they dropped a division or two even at relatively young ages.

As a stats man answer this honestly. What's more likely to happen in the future...

Scenario A) Form over the last 25 games
Scenario B) Form over the 25 games perviously

A range of outside factors can lead to the two of those ranging from close to totally far apart but I DARE you to say you've put your house on scenario B.

You're missing the entire point of this debate in that some fans are questioning whether Shane Long is doing well enough RIGHT NOW as a STRIKER to warrant this formation or his own selection. Right now the results are going our way, Brian is happy and we're at or above where we expected to be, so stats or no stats we should be happy, but it doesn't mean we can't question things.

You miss the point that PERHAPS a different striker playing in Shane's place, could have meant better results so far OR MIGHT help us get better results in the future. Sadly there are no stats to prove this either way, the one man in charge of the team has placed his faith in Shane and as LOLong as the results go well then praise must be given to the manager and player for being part of a successful team.

But look at it this way Snowball, is Shane Long honestly and truly the man you'd pick going forward, based on the this season's performances? would you settle for Long scoring 5 goals from open play this season? he might win another 5 penalties but if we missed them all they'd count far jack, so the point is mute.

The fact is throughout footballing history the most successful teams around have been those with a striker who can score goals. Statistically speaking and based on years of watching the game, having a striker that scores goals from open play benefits the whole team. Yes a team can 'carry' a hard working striker that goes on a bad run, the same way a good striker like say Darren Bent can carry the other 10 who don't score. However in the vast majority of cases a good team needs a striker that can chip in with goals and help ease the pressure on the rest of the team.

Have people been too harsh on Long in the past? Perhaps.

Have people written him off in the past without good reason? Perhaps

Could your stats about Long be giving a false picture of his quality? Perhaps

If you actually conceded ANY GROUND WHATSOEVER you'd win back some credibility, every single poster who has debated this with you has conceded ground at some stage or the other but you? no you dont.

Consistently you refuse to be drawn into any debate where you feel you might lose, the Defoe against Sheringham one is just the latest of those. It was an excellent chance for you to establish how good the stats you produce are but once again you REFUSE to open up the methodology of your stats for debate and that is why they fall down. If you are prepared to examine the premise of your stats then they seem credible. If your stats are reasonable and well thought out then they stand up on their own. If SO MANY people are questioning them, as a good statistician should you not be prepared to critique them yourself?

[Wimb]

You 'felt' they should be included? Your claim to be some sort of expert statistician takes another hit - the size of a sample shouldn't be subjective.

How are bad or good runs commented on in football? 'United are unbeaten in 22 games in all competitions' is an example. The stat highlights the extent of the current trend. When people are writing about United's unbeaten run, you don't look at the stat and say 'well they lost the three games before that, so we should include them, what a devious sleight of hand'.

It's not a sleight of hand, it's asking how long has Long's quite pathetic 'goalscoring' record been following this trend. The answer is 25 league appearances. That's it. No including games for a different team, no worrying about whether he started or not (I only added that later), no talking about assists or penalties or quoting parts of match reports; just 'Long's last 25 league games'.

For a former stats teacher, you have an alarming inability to identify a relevant sample. You're just fitting the sample to your argument, which is what led to your remarkably week response to Rev that you just 'felt' that another six games should be pegged on top. As has been pointed out to you, if you are going to add those on, why not add the 17 games prior, where Long added only 1 further goal?

And this illustrates how your arguments break down - performance can't be analysed from an average this or that.

Using 'your' sample, Long has 7 goals from 30 games, or 1 goal every 4.29 games? Not awful, right? But it's bullshit. Because take out your decision to peg on those 6 games, and we are left with 3 goals since (including 2 penalties), and only 1 further goal dating back to the start of last season if you take the data back that far.

Perhaps you could now have the decency to admit there is little good faith in the stats you are putting together, you just collate them and use them in a way that supports your point of view.

Wish I hadn't just written my long post, this puts it far better then I

[Snowball]

Gwathoppa, why did you choose 25 games?

What book suggest "25 games"? NOT 24, 30 OR A SEASON'S WORTH?

There's 6 games, 12 games, 18 games, or a season, maybe.

But you chose precisely the block of games where his relatively barren period started, KNOWING it would portray him badly.



Tell me then, would it be fair to choose ALL last season and the start of this season?

OR

The last 46 games (corresponding to a season)


But no, you chose the absolute worst possible "snapshot" deliberately, falsely. AND YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID.

[Wimb]

Gwathoppa, why did you choose 25 games?

What book suggest "25 games"? NOT 24, 30 OR A SEASON'S WORTH?

There's 6 games, 12 games, 18 games, or a season, maybe.

But you chose precisely the block of games where his relatively barren period started, KNOWING it would portray him badly.



Tell me then, would it be fair to choose ALL last season and the start of this season?

OR

The last 46 games (corresponding to a season)


But no, you chose the absolute worst possible "snapshot" deliberately, falsely. AND YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID.

Do you also think he was behind 9/11 or was the shooter on the grassy knoll?

[Snowball]

Tell me then, would it be fair to choose ALL last season and the start of this season?



ALL of 2009-10 plus ALL of this season

35 (9) = 36.5 games 11 goals, 8 from open play = 1 goal every 3.18 games

Do you call that POOR? Doyle was 1 in 2.65 games and was sold for 6.5 MILLION

[brendywendy]

yes yes, very good.

snowball-stop it
the rest of you stop it

didnt you all read the whiff this week, there was a very sternly worded article berating HNA? for its childish discussion, and these gay anti snowball argumants really dont help

[Wimb]

yes yes, very good.

snowball-stop it
the rest of you stop it

didnt you all read the whiff this week, there was a very sternly worded article berating HNA? for its childish discussion, and these gay anti snowball argumants really dont help

valid

[Maguire]

didnt you all read the whiff this week

[Snowball]

You 'felt' they should be included? Your claim to be some sort of expert statistician takes another hit - the size of a sample shouldn't be subjective.

Or ABRITRARY. You chose SUBJECTIVELY 25 games to show Long in the worst-possible light

How are bad or good runs commented on in football? 'United are unbeaten in 22 games in all competitions' is an example.
The stat highlights the extent of the current trend. When people are writing about United's unbeaten run, you don't look at
the stat and say 'well they lost the three games before that, so we should include them, what a devious sleight of hand'.

The DIFFERENCE is, that's not a stat that just popped up. YOU WENT LOOKING FOR IT.

YOU manipulated it. You worked backwards, knowing he's had a dry run this season, AND AS SOON AS YOU REACHED
GAMES WHERE HE WAS SCORING, you stopped and backed up

It's not a sleight of hand

It IS.

It's a disgusting cheat made to make a great servant look bad.

it's asking how long has Long's quite pathetic 'goalscoring' record been following this trend. The answer is 25 league appearances. That's it. No including games for a different team, no worrying about whether he started or not (I only added that later), no talking about assists or penalties or quoting parts of match reports; just 'Long's last 25 league games'.

What a shame then, "Mother Theresa" that you didn't point out his OVERALL good record.

Then I might have some respect for you.

His OVERALL record since he has joined the club is close to the very very best that have played for us.

His record THIS SEASON is 1 in 6.5 BETTER THAN LITA'S RECORD!!! But yes, he's struggling to find the net,
but these 13 games (where he has helped us into the top six) and last season's games, he has had those
undeniable 11 goals, penalties won, assists, opponents carded and sent off. That's why he got the Number 9 shirt.

For a former stats teacher,

For the thousandth time. I have NEVER said I was a stats teacher.

I SAID "I taught stats at university. TRUE. I was primarily a psychologist

you have an alarming inability to identify a relevant sample. You're just fitting the sample to your argument,

and you Gwathoppa WEREN'T?

You're unbelievable.

which is what led to your remarkably week response to Rev that you just 'felt' that another six games should be pegged on top. As has been pointed out to you, if you are going to add those on, why not add the 17 games prior, where Long added only 1 further goal?

Ah, but Gwathoppa, I DID

I have used THE WHOLE SEASON 2002-10 AND this season so far 2010-11 and his stats are GOOD!

And this illustrates how your arguments break down - performance can't be analysed from an average this or that.

Yes they CAN. You simply "agree terms" first, like DEFINING an attacking free kick.

Using 'your' sample, Long has 7 goals from 30 games, or 1 goal every 4.29 games? Not awful, right? But it's bullshit. Because take out your decision to peg on those 6 games, and we are left with 3 goals since (including 2 penalties), and only 1 further goal dating back to the start of last season if you take the data back that far.

Shoot yerself in the foot, why don't yer?

As I said I am HAPPY to use the whole season as a basis.

24 starts, 12 sub appearances = 26 games, for 9 goals. better than 1 in three

[Snowball]

Can you stop with the Gwathoppa crap, wherever it came from its derogative and highlights the fact that you're getting desperate and losing the argument

LOSING THE ARGUMENT?

Last season ALL HIS GAMES plus this season ALL HIS GAMES 24 starts, 12 sub appearances = 26 games, for 9 goals. better than 1 in three

add in this year (poor so far)


36 (12) = 38 for 11 goals = 1 goal in 3.45 games (INCLUDING this barren run) more than twice Lita's league stats.

[Wimb]

Can you stop with the Gwathoppa crap, wherever it came from its derogative and highlights the fact that you're getting desperate and losing the argument

LOSING THE ARGUMENT?

Last season ALL HIS GAMES plus this season ALL HIS GAMES 24 starts, 12 sub appearances = 26 games, for 9 goals. better than 1 in three

add in this year (poor so far)


36 (12) = 38 for 11 goals = 1 goal in 3.45 games (INCLUDING this barren run) more than twice Lita's league stats.

What the feck has Lita got to do with anything? who's comparing Long to Lita? for the record I believe most of HNA as slagging Lita off for the fact he didn't score other then 2 purple patches in 4 years.

How's this for a stat.

FROM OPEN PLAY IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP SHANE LONG HAS SCORED 13 GOALS FROM OPEN PLAY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF 2008/2009. IN THREE SEASONS HE AVERAGES LESS THEN 5 GOALS A SEASON.

If you want to keep banging on about ''cup goals' 'penalties won' 'assists' blah blah blah. FINE but the statistics clearly show that Shane Long is not scoring enough goals, end of.