by cmonurz » 05 Mar 2009 12:03
by brendywendy » 05 Mar 2009 12:12
by cmonurz » 05 Mar 2009 12:15
brendywendy of course it means something
even if all it means is that he copes better with not having regular games than the others
by Snowball » 05 Mar 2009 12:18
by CMRoyal » 05 Mar 2009 12:23
Snowball First game after the 8-defeats run
01/3/08 W 1-0 Boro ............ Played 90 minutes
08/3/08 W 2-0 Man City SCORED Subbed on 82 for Kitson
15/3/08 L 1-2 Liverpool.......... Subbed on 63 for Kitson (the shirt throwing incident)
by Ian Royal » 05 Mar 2009 12:28
SnowballIan Royal
And why are we now changing it to 3 starts? You said 4 earlier.
3 starts, 4 goals total. One 65 minute game was not a startWere you wrong is it 3 in the league? Either way it's 7 starts total. You can't deny that.
You know I don't count the cup. Starts = 3I don't know what I'm supposed to have not admitted that I've got wrong, please enlighten me.
Gwath-hoppa, you say Shane Long, no goals flom his starts this season. You silly boy foregt Sout-am-tonAlso, when exactly has Coppell said that? It sounds nothing like something Coppell would say in an interview. Come on, admit it, you've made it up.
And on Shane Long's thrilling impact from the bench..."He is a good player, and in many ways, for a couple of years now, we have wanted to give him a real run in the team.
"But we're blessed with some good forwards and Shane is the best impact substitute I've got.
"He wouldn't be happy to hear me say that, bur we know that when he comes on something is going to happen.
"He contributed largely today even though he wasn't on the pitch for any length ot time."
by IMAMATEOFJOVSKY » 05 Mar 2009 12:30
by Snowball » 05 Mar 2009 12:30
cmonurz '3 starts, 4 goals' does not mean anything.
Total appearances, 4 goals, means something. Total minutes played, 4 goals, means something.
'3 starts' represents nothing. It doesn't even necessarily represent 3 x 90 minutes.
by Dr Hfuhruhurr » 05 Mar 2009 12:32
Snowball
3 game run (incl cup) scores one cup goal
by Ian Royal » 05 Mar 2009 12:35
by Stranded » 05 Mar 2009 12:43
Snowballcmonurz '3 starts, 4 goals' does not mean anything.
Total appearances, 4 goals, means something. Total minutes played, 4 goals, means something.
'3 starts' represents nothing. It doesn't even necessarily represent 3 x 90 minutes.
3 starts show he isn't getting enough starts
In the one time he got 5 consecutive starts we WON 4 L 1 12 points from 5 games and he scored twice in "3.5 games"
I DO realise he is very unlikely to get a run of starts unless there's an injury to Doyle or Noel Hunt
but those listers who say "He has been given loads of chances and failed every time" are clearly talking out of their backsides.
5 consecutive starts, W4 L1, 11-5 IN THE PREM and scoring twice is hardly failure, nor is the 2.4 points per game in that mini-run
He has not had runs-in-the-team of any significance
5 game run (all league) scores twice in "3.5" games and we amass our best every points/game run (in Prem)
3 game run (incl cup) scores one cup goal
3 game run W1 L2 2-5 no goals = one point per game
3 game run W2 L1 4-2 scores = two points per game
That's it! 14 starts in "runs" and 4 goals in 1099 minutes (12 games) so scoring 1 in 3 overall (in runs)
by Ian Royal » 05 Mar 2009 12:53
by Snowball » 05 Mar 2009 12:55
Ian Royal You are clearly rather disturbed at the moment. This abuse is rather unfounded as well. I've been perfectly polite to you recently. All I'm getting in return is patronising comments and an inability to actually respond to anything I'm saying.
In turn. You can't dismiss a start because the player was only on the pitch for a certain amount of the game. He still started.
I know you ignore cups. I don't.
I've shown Long's record isn't especially great from League starts
You can't simply dismiss cups.
If you cast your eye back up the thread, as soon as I checked the figures, I acknowledged I called Saints wrong in my first post after reading your correction (had my finger over the Saints game in the programme and didn't cross check the matches when I looked at soccerbase). I take it an apology is way to much to expect from you?
So your quote that I was responding to was made up. Thank you.
Long maybe a fairly good impact sub, but that is all he is and all he has been for about 2 seasons. Shane Long maybe a major RFC tragedy, but he is not a player to move the club on and his record does not justify a starting place.
Much like Lita's. However Lita has proved he has quality enough to score plenty of goals in previous seasons and has put in some promising performances this season. Even if he has scored only 1 goal (for us). I would prefer him starting to Long.
The quote in bold. We may have wanted to give him an extended run in the team, but whenever the chance for him to get it has shown up he has been very poor (see Ipswich performance) and has quickly been dropped in preference of someone else.
by donface » 05 Mar 2009 12:55
by Snowball » 05 Mar 2009 12:59
by Snowball » 05 Mar 2009 13:01
IMAMATEOFJOVSKY Shane Long is our "David Fairclouigh" - supersub - He is very good at what he does, coming on late in a game and running against tired defenders - Coppell has found Long's niche, so dont change the wimming formula
by Snowball » 05 Mar 2009 13:02
donface LOL@statistics
by Hoop Blah » 05 Mar 2009 13:07
by Snowball » 05 Mar 2009 13:17
Hoop Blah Still doesn't change what I see with my eyes, and that's a player that consistently looks less likely to cause teams problems than our other forwards. That must be a similar thought to Coppells and hence why he doesn't hold down a starting place even when he's bagged the odd goal or two. I'm still a bit of a loss as to what your argument really is Snowball. You might have one but it's just lost to me in pages and pages of stats.
by CMRoyal » 05 Mar 2009 13:19
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 291 guests