Long - Time to go.

[Snowball]

7 Blanks - GOAL - 12 Blanks. 1 Goal in 20 Games Maynard 2009-10 and 9-8-5-5 game droughts the previous season. a 6-4 the previous

As he prepares to face Fulham at Craven Cottage on Sunday, revised Opta figures show that Rooney’s current goal drought stands at 1,081 minutes — 79 minutes longer than his barren run during the 2005-06 campaign. Whichever way the figures are spun, they make grim reading for Rooney, Manchester United and England — 13 games, 1,081 minutes, 18 hours and one minute. Nothing since March 30.



Compared to 3 goals in 14 games for Long


or 9 goals in 47 games for Man Utd Diego Forlan 2002-3

[Snowball]

But vastly-experienced striker Klose, who won the golden boot at last year's World Cup and has scored 33 international goals in 67 games, must break his duck having gone 1122 minutes without a goal.

"Once he gets his first goal, more are sure to follow", said midfielder Frings about his team-mate, who is being heavily-courted by Italian giants Juventus to join them next season.

[londinium]

Seeing as you want to continue with your endless stats - show us the percentage of matches played in the Premiership....

56.6% of Doyle's games for Reading were in the Championship 65% of his goals (36 Championship goals v 19 Premiership)
73.3% of Long's games for Reading have been in the Championship 78% of his goals. 25 Championship goals v 7 Premiership


Seems that Long finds it almost the same scoring in the Premiership, whereas Doyle, by comparison, struggled.

Surely the amount of goals scored by a striker is pretty relative as to how the team is performing.

If the team is firing (as we obviously did in the Championship year) then goals will come easier.

If the team is struggling (as we did post January 08 til end of that season) then goal scoring is going to be at a premium (Longy's goals actually kept us in the play off picture).

[cmonurz]

So you completely ignored my post (again) and moved on to a different angle (again). This time, you are comparing Shane Long to Wayne Rooney, who iirc scored 30-odd goals last season, and to Miroslav Klose, one of the highest scorers in international and World Cup history?

At least you seem to have finally admitted that Long is not a consistent goal-scorer.

[Snowball]

So you completely ignored my post (again) and moved on to a different angle (again). This time, you are comparing Shane Long to Wayne Rooney, who iirc scored 30-odd goals last season, and to Miroslav Klose, one of the highest scorers in international and World Cup history?
.

It's hardly my fault that your brain works like an oil-tanker, is it?

I am merely pointing out that most strikers, Long, Maynard, Klose, Rooney etc have barren spells.

What is quite rare is the player whop simply score every other game forever. They may AVERAGE that, but getting a goal every other game, has it ever happened for a whole season?

And the most prolific scorer for Reading in the last 6-7 years, Kitson, how about HIM?

[Snowball]

If the team is struggling (as we did post January 08 til end of that season) then goal scoring is going to be at a premium (Longy's goals actually kept us in the play off picture).

So LONG was able to score EVEN THOUGH the team was performing badly? Well done, Shane!!

[cmonurz]

Quit the personal digs, they are getting tiresome. You are continuing to ignore my posts to make further, different points of your own. This has been pointless for a while but even I'm done with it now.

[Snowball]

KITSON

16-08-2008 0
23-08-2008 0
30-08-2008 0
14-09-2008 0
20-09-2008 0
27-09-2008 0
05-10-2008 0
19-10-2008 0
26-10-2008 0
29-10-2008 0
01-11-2008 0
08-11-2008 0
15-11-2008 0
22-11-2008 0
10-01-2009 0
17-01-2009 0
15-08-2009 0
22-08-2009 0
29-08-2009 1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
12-09-2009 0
19-09-2009 1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
26-09-2009 0
04-10-2009 0
17-10-2009 0
27-10-2009 0
08-11-2009 0
20-02-2010 0
07-03-2010 0
10-03-2010 0
13-03-2010 0
20-03-2010 0
27-03-2010 0
03-04-2010 0
11-04-2010 0
17-04-2010 1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
25-04-2010 0


3 Goals in 36 Premiership Appearances

14-03-2009 Football League Championship Reading 0-1 Ipswich 0
17-03-2009 Football League Championship Doncaster 0-1 Reading 1
21-03-2009 Football League Championship C Palace 0-0 Reading 0
04-04-2009 Football League Championship Coventry 0-0 Reading 0
10-04-2009 Football League Championship Reading 0-1 Sheff Utd 0
13-04-2009 Football League Championship Blackpool 2-2 Reading 0
18-04-2009 Football League Championship Reading 0-0 Barnsley 0
21-04-2009 Football League Championship Derby 0-2 Reading 1
27-04-2009 Football League Championship Norwich 0-2 Reading 0
03-05-2009 Football League Championship Reading 1-2 Birmingham 0
09-05-2009 Championship Play-Off Burnley 1-0 Reading 0
12-05-2009 Championship Play-Off Reading 0-2 Burnley 0

And 2 in 10 for us when he came to save us.

[Snowball]

Quit the personal digs, they are getting tiresome. You are continuing to ignore my posts to make further, different points of your own. This has been pointless for a while but even I'm done with it now.

The oil-tanker?

That's not a dig. You argue laboriously, in a straight line (unless you feel the need to camouflage stuff)

It's not my fault I have an agile mind and can spin half-a-dozen mental plates.

[super darren caskey]

stats zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Ian Royal]

HIS FULL READING CAREER IS 80 (83) = 93.83 Games = 32 Goals Or do you dispute that?

I dispute this. Because it's your arbitrary assertion that a sub appearance equals a certain number of minutes on pitch and multiple sub appearances can be added together to form the equivalent of a starting appearance.

It is not an indisputable fact. Actually it is a pretty suspect and weak generalisation, taking no account of changing weather, pitch, personel (opposition plus team-mates) & game circumstances, let alone actual time on the pitch.

In fairness cmonurz... if you are going to exclude a number of games as an anomalous run, in this case Long's best scoring run, then you need to remove an equivalent number of games from his poorest goalscoring run.

Even if you did it from both the period before and after that purple patch I suspect it would still show Long's record is pretty poor when it comes to consistently scoring goals, let alone goals from open play.

[cmonurz]

In fairness cmonurz... if you are going to exclude a number of games as an anomalous run, in this case Long's best scoring run, then you need to remove an equivalent number of games from his poorest goalscoring run.

Even if you did it from both the period before and after that purple patch I suspect it would still show Long's record is pretty poor when it comes to consistently scoring goals, let alone goals from open play.

That's exactly what I have done in the latest stats I put forward, they are a couple of pages back I think.

Start of 09/10 season: 15 games, no goals from open play.
'Purple patch': 4 games, 4 goals
Every game since: 26 games, 2 goals

I expanded my sample, as Snowball asked, and still I get told I'm selective. I include a whole season (and a bit more) and still I get told I'm selective.

I'm not 'excluding' Long's purple patch at all, I'm saying looking at the wider picture, outside of that decent run of 4 in 4, there ain't a lot else. And the reason I brought this up was purely and simply to challenge Snowball's completely incorrect assertion that Long's relative goal drought was a 'temporary change' to the norm, when in fact it is that purple patch that stands out as being against the trend.

That's it - as a result, we've been treated to Dave Kitson's career history, and a comparison to Rooney and Klose. The mind boggles.

The fact is you can be as selective or as broad with your sample as you like, Long hasn't scored enough goals, and you can't credibly show that he has.

[Snowball]

HIS FULL READING CAREER IS 80 (83) = 93.83 Games = 32 Goals Or do you dispute that?

I dispute this. Because it's your arbitrary assertion that a sub appearance equals a certain number of minutes on pitch and multiple sub appearances can be added together to form the equivalent of a starting appearance.

It is not an indisputable fact. Actually it is a pretty suspect and weak generalisation, taking no account of changing weather, pitch, personel (opposition plus team-mates) & game circumstances, let alone actual time on the pitch.

In fairness cmonurz... if you are going to exclude a number of games as an anomalous run, in this case Long's best scoring run, then you need to remove an equivalent number of games from his poorest goalscoring run.

Even if you did it from both the period before and after that purple patch I suspect it would still show Long's record is pretty poor when it comes to consistently scoring goals, let alone goals from open play.

Funny how we've been using this stat for a lot more than a year now, maybe two years and it was never in doubt before.

And what the HELL are you talking about "taking no account of changing weather, pitch, personnel (opposition plus team-mates) & game circumstances," That is HILARIOUS. You might as well say that if Doyle plays in a game that Kitson doesn't the game should be dropped from comparisons. Of COURSE not! Weather, opposition (presuming same league) team-mates, luck etc etc etc all even out.

Or do we now say there's no comparisons such as "Who is the world's greatest striker!" "Or who is the best striker in the Premiership" because "It doesn't take into account the f-cking WEATHER?


Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that "APPEARANCES" is a fair comparison? It can be shown that some players START and almost never come on as subs. You were bitching a couple of days ago arguing that people like Tommy Smith "couldn't be fairly compared" because they had had 9 SUB appearances.

So what is it, what is fair, you tell us.

Starts? Appearances? Minutes on the Pitch?


WHAT exactly?



Incidentally, I actually CHECKED the rule of thumb of starts being 1 and sub appearances being one-sixth and found it was a near-perfect predictor of minutes.


But, no problem, what is YOUR best and fairest measure?


I'm all ears

[Bandini]

The obvious answer is to notice that

HIS FULL READING CAREER IS 80 (83)

And leave it at that, rather than trying to simplify the stats, and in so doing present them in a misleading way.

[Ian Royal]

Long has started 33 of the last 40 games, scoring 9 goals in the process and being out of the side for no longer than 3 games. A fairly average record on the face of it, but four of those goals came in three games in a four consecutive game spell. Clearly that is unbalancing his record somewhat.

So remove those three games, plus an equal number where Long does not score for balance (fairly standard statistical practive to remove potentially anomalous or result skewing results as I understand it) and that makes his record 27 starts, 5 goals. - Or a goal every 5 and a half games roughly which is, to put it bluntly, poor for a striker. Especially when 2 are penalties that someone else could have taken and reasonably been expected to score.

McDermott seems to be a big fan, seeing as this last 40 where Long has been playing regularly corresponds with his managerial takeover. Or is it just that McDermott hasn't really had much in the way of alternatives?

snowball: You've been using it, we haven't, and I'm pretty confident I've challenged you on it before. I'm using starts as above. However, I generally don't use stats when it's impossible to find a set that are reasonably comparable. Unless I'm making a point that yours are effectively useless.

[Snowball]

McDermott had no alternatives to Long?

Not Rasiak?
Not Church?
Not Hunt?
Not HRK?
Not Kebe?
Not McAnuff?
Not a brought-in Loanee?
Not a New Signing?
Not Antonio
Not Mooney?
Not Bignall?
Not Taylor?

[Snowball]

The obvious answer is to notice that

HIS FULL READING CAREER IS 80 (83)

And leave it at that, rather than trying to simplify the stats, and in so doing present them in a misleading way.

Those stats are BS and seriously over-estimate how much a sub plays.

Look at Long v Church this season. They have the same number of "appearances". Should we pretend they've played the same amount of time?

Long has started most games and mostly finished them.

Church is listed as the same amount of appearances 14 League and 1 Cup but he averages a half-hour on the pitch in the league, Long almost 3 times that.


CHURCH

70 START (Hunt 20)
75 START (Hunt 15)
73 START (HRK)
63 START (Hunt)

SUB APPEARANCES

35
29 (Scored) Doncaster
20
28
16 (Scored) Burnley
15
14
05 (Scored)
01 Boro
01 Palace


14 League Appearances = 475 Minutes = 32 minutes each appearance


Incidentally Church's 4 (10) = 5.8 x 90 minutes = 512 Minutes using the 1/6th rule, so OVER-estimates the sub's time on the pitch

[Bandini]

The obvious answer is to notice that

HIS FULL READING CAREER IS 80 (83)

And leave it at that, rather than trying to simplify the stats, and in so doing present them in a misleading way.

Those stats are BS and seriously over-estimate how much a sub plays.

There's no over-estimation in there at all.

[winchester_royal]

You know, it's funny Snowball, you are quite happy to discard Church's goal as a sub due to the fact it's easier to score coming off the bench, yet you are giving Long's goals from the bench the same weighting as the ones which he gets when he starts.

Your rather blatant manipulation of stats (which are pretty pointless in football anyway) to fit your point is becoming a little bit desperate.

[Ian Royal]

McDermott had no alternatives to Long?

Not Rasiak - one option
Not Church - second option
Not Hunt - injured virtually all last season and only just coming back to fitness in the last few games
Not HRK - not really a striker
Not Kebe - not in anyway a striker
Not McAnuff - not in anyway a striker
Not a brought-in Loanee - yes it's really easy to just find someone better than we have on wages we can afford who is interested - afterall it was a great success with Thorvaldsson. This is not football manager. Besides, they involve bringing someone in and are not alternatives actually available.
Not a New Signing - see above.
Not Antonio - not a striker and only just breaking into the fringe of the team
Not Mooney - deemed not good enough, hence why he's been on loan in the division below not setting the world alight
Not Bignall - completely unproven and in need of experience at a lower level
Not Taylor - not a striker as I understand it and same goes as for Bignall otherwise

snowball, come on, we know you aren't illiterate, or educationally subnormal, just incapable of functioning normally in society.

Where exactly do I say he had no alternatives? I'll give you a clue, the answer is I didn't. For clarity I've edited your post. I make that two genuine alternatives to Long, one in his break through season with little previous goalscoring form and the other a different type of player who wasn't exceptional. Both of who played significant parts in last season.