Long - Time to go.

[Royal With Cheese]

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?

You may as well include Hearte in that list as he's more than capable of scoring goals too.

[Snowball]

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.

Not at all. I was TOLD that by the knockers month after month. Personally it is NOT something I believe in. IMO it takes time to get in the run of things, and to get a goal straight away is excellent. But when I used to talk of Shane's late goals it was drummed into me that it was "MUCH" easier to score goals late than early, that Doyle had soften up the defence for Long and it was much much easier for him to score.

I thought it was bollox then. I think it's bollox now.

It is true we get a high proportion of our goals in the last 15 minutes but that is (IMO) because we deliberately go for the win, throw everything forward, and have often gone 442

[Snowball]

Purple Patches & Dry Periods

So which players DON'T have purple patches and droughts?

3 Goals in 4 Games, All 4 goals in 8 Games, Not scored in last 7 - Kebe (wink)
3 Goals in 6 Games splurge, first goal in our 11th game, Church
3 Goals in 2 consecutive games, then waited ten matches for next one, Millsy
2 Goals in 5 Games splurge after 11 consecutive blanks Karacacan
2 Goals in 2 consecutive games, none since, HRK
1 Goal on his 8th Appearance, Antonio


Seems that spreading the goals round evenly hasn't really happened yet for any RFC player.

Long scored in his 5th game, 13th game and 15th game, nice spread, Shane.

Harte scored in his 1st, 4th, 10th games

[Snowball]

Goals for Minutes Played this Season

0,120 Mins 01.33 Games Rasiak
0,180 Mins 02.00 Games Gylfi
0,218 Mins 02.43 Games Church
0,259 Mins 02.88 Games Antonio
0,274 Mins 03.04 Games HRK
0,311 Mins 03.46 Games Kebe
0,320 Mins 03.56 Games Harte
0,323 Mins 03.58 Games Mills
0,396 Mins 04.40 Games Long
0,693 Mins 07.69 Games Karacan
1,071 Mins 11.90 Games Pearce
1,322 Mins 14.69 Games McAnuff

[Wimb]

Purple Patches & Dry Periods

So which players DON'T have purple patches and droughts?

3 Goals in 4 Games, All 4 goals in 8 Games, Not scored in last 7 - Kebe (wink)
3 Goals in 6 Games splurge, first goal in our 11th game, Church
3 Goals in 2 consecutive games, then waited ten matches for next one, Millsy
2 Goals in 5 Games splurge after 11 consecutive blanks Karacacan
2 Goals in 2 consecutive games, none since, HRK
1 Goal on his 8th Appearance, Antonio


Seems that spreading the goals round evenly hasn't really happened yet for any RFC player.

Long scored in his 5th game, 13th game and 15th game, nice spread, Shane.

Harte scored in his 1st, 4th, 10th games

Shane Long has scored from open play in the 15th game. Bad spread Shane, or the start of a turnaround..... I hope for the later myself.

[Snowball]

I couldn't care less how a player scores, and neither do the record books.

[Wimb]

I couldn't care less how a player scores, and neither do the record books.

You should seriously look back at your posts and see what you did. You repeat this trick time and again.

1. Snowball posts stats and make argument
2. Poster argues against those stats
3. Snowball posts different stats to prove a different point.

[cmonurz]

Shane Long's goals from open play since start of 2009-10

1. 15 games, no goals
2. 4 games, 4 goals
3. 26 games, 2 goals

Snowball, in no way whatsoever is the pattern above 'the norm'. The exception to that rule is Doyle's 20-odd games without a goal - and iirc at the time this board was full of posts questioning why, week in week out, Coppell was picking Doyle for the team. 4 goals in 4 games - great. 2 goals in the other 41 games - absolutely toilet.

[brendywendy]

Karacan admitted that he and the rest of the Reading dressing room were sick of the jeers that the Republic of Ireland striker had received in previous games this season.

well done lads

[Maguire]

Karacan admitted that he and the rest of the Reading dressing room were sick of the jeers that the Republic of Ireland striker had received in previous games this season.

well done lads

Stop playing like a pcunt if you don't want to be jeered. Might start on the little turk tomorrow night if he misplaces a couple of passes.

[brendywendy]

lol

[Snowball]

I couldn't care less how a player scores, and neither do the record books.

You should seriously look back at your posts and see what you did. You repeat this trick time and again.

1. Snowball posts stats and make argument
2. Poster argues against those stats
3. Snowball posts different stats to prove a different point.

Try reading "Reasoning and Argument in Psychology"



Say you produce an argument and support that argument with statistical or other evidence

Say I respond nah-mah-mah-mah-nah, SNOT TRUE

I could post the same stats and say TIS TIS TIS! (the normal HNA method)
or I could post another view, a different angle, reflecting on the same matter


A "point" might be a truth, a large mountain. To reach that truth might require illustrating small parts of the landscape at a time.



For example, if we are to fairly and accurately discuss goal-scoring abilities WE NEED TO DEFINE AND AGREE CRITERIA.

Do we choose "Appearances"?

That would be extremely unfair to players getting bit parts. Antonio has had 10 appearances this year, Long has only had 15, but their minutes played are massively different.

Do we choose STARTS?

It's a fair statistic (most of the time) except that some players are usually played for the whole 90 or at least 85 whereas others (like Hunt) have often been subbed at 60 minutes. Over a season that could mean 46 x 30 minutes NOT played.

But if we DID choose only starts, what about goals scored as a sub? Use them or ignore them?

Or Do We Use Starts with Sub Appearances?

Obviously fairer, but even then not completely fair. Do we think it's easier to score as a sub (fresh legs v tired legs, more goals scored in the last 20), or might we argue that some players need to work themselves into a game and don't "suit" being a sub? Vice-Versa, maybe some people are natural subs, impact players but poor when starting.

And if we DO use 80 (56) as our best-measure, what is a fair formula for approximating overall time on the pitch? Doyle, for example, started 90% of his RFC games, his few sub appearances weren't crucial. Long, or Church OTOH have started as a sub as often (or more often) than an actual start.

I have used the formula Starts = 1, subs = .166r and shown that this comes out to within a couple of per cent of actual minutes. Now for some bizarre reason that's poo-hooed.

So Should We Use Minutes Played?

What could possibly be wrong with that? I'm sure the list will come up with SOMEthing.


But the point is, you can argue in great circles about goal-scoring (and I'm ONLY talking goal-scoring at this moment) but you need a reasonably universal method for calculating. Do you downgrade penalties (I wouldn't, they are goals and not everyone scores them) do you downgrade tap-ins from four yards (why?)... Do you downgrade headers or shots that came from getting on the end of a free-kick (as if this isn't REALLY "open play", and do we UPgrade shots from 35 yards cos they LOOK good?

IMO a goal is a goal is a goal, from whatever distance, and however scored, and the best measure of goals-per is goals-per-minute.

[Snowball]

Shane Long's goals from open play since start of 2009-10

1. 15 games, no goals
2. 4 games, 4 goals
3. 26 games, 2 goals

Snowball, in no way whatsoever is the pattern above 'the norm'. The exception to that rule is Doyle's 20-odd games without a goal - and iirc at the time this board was full of posts questioning why, week in week out, Coppell was picking Doyle for the team. 4 goals in 4 games - great. 2 goals in the other 41 games - absolutely toilet.

Yawn. I'm interested in GOALS, not how they are scored.

How many of those games did he START, how many minutes did he play?

15+4+26 = 45, one short of a 46-game season. And he scored NINE goals, not in 45 STARTS, 45 APPEARANCES. That isn't a terrible record.

But why oh why oh why do you not simply pick SEASONS? How is he doing the last two seasons? You can add this relatively quiet patch if you like, but don't add in his Irish goals (5 in 15 appearances), because that will make him look a better player.

[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.

What PRECISELY is misleading in presenting appearances as:

80 (83) = 93.8 "Games" = 32 Goals.

The STARTS are there
The SUB APPEARANCES are there
The GOALS are there

if someone doesn't like the approximater they can ignore it.

[Snowball]

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.

That is SOOOO funny. You know nothing about stats.

A man does the lottery. He buys a ticket every week for 100 weeks. He wins a tenner 3 times and in week 82 he wins £36,987,654.88p

Now TAKE OUT the jackpot winning week, "AND FOR FAIRNESS" take out one week where he didn't win.

So in 100 tries he won £30. Therefore it was a waste of time doing the lottery


Or why not simply add in ALL tickets and leave it at that?


I'm happy to include ALL Shane's RFC games, right back to before he was shaving, subs, starts, Championship, Premiership, League Cup, FA Cup, games against League 1 and League 2 Sides, Cup games versus Premiership sides.

If you are somehow trying to say that is in some way "unfair" then you are a very weird man indeed.

The only justification you could have for such a selectivity would be if you thought a player was "blown" and past it and would never recover his ongoing average scoring rate.

[cmonurz]

Shane Long's goals from open play since start of 2009-10

1. 15 games, no goals
2. 4 games, 4 goals
3. 26 games, 2 goals

Snowball, in no way whatsoever is the pattern above 'the norm'. The exception to that rule is Doyle's 20-odd games without a goal - and iirc at the time this board was full of posts questioning why, week in week out, Coppell was picking Doyle for the team. 4 goals in 4 games - great. 2 goals in the other 41 games - absolutely toilet.

Yawn. I'm interested in GOALS, not how they are scored.

How many of those games did he START, how many minutes did he play?

15+4+26 = 45, one short of a 46-game season. And he scored NINE goals, not in 45 STARTS, 45 APPEARANCES. That isn't a terrible record.

But why oh why oh why do you not simply pick SEASONS? How is he doing the last two seasons? You can add this relatively quiet patch if you like, but don't add in his Irish goals (5 in 15 appearances), because that will make him look a better player.

I have picked seasons, I've used stats for the last two seasons, this season, and last season.

And your long novel about how to look at appearances was a complete waste of time, by the way. You decide as you go along what factors you want to consider, and change them as it best suits you. You've been joining the argument about goals from open play for some pages now, but now you've decided you are 'not interested' in that stat, only total goals. You talked about Forster's 'ineffectiveness' (having never watched him play) based on his stats, and when I put up a similar sort of comparison (Defoe to Sheringham), you decided you 'weren't interested' in that either.

When you get a spare moment (you seem to have plenty), look back over this thread. You raise the argument, set its terms, decide what is relevant to it, dismiss what you consider not to be, and move it along when you feel like it. This is a discussion board, but you're not discussing anything, with anyone.

[Snowball]

Stop playing like a pcunt if you don't want to be jeered. Might start on the little turk tomorrow night if he misplaces a couple of passes.

Very few (normal) fans think Long is "playing like a pcunt". Most (like the manager) think he's doing lots of good work, but some argue he's not scoring enough goals, this despite the fact that he's always been quieter before December.

[Wimb]

No Snowball.

The difference is you never concede the ground and that's why you're so frustrating.

Typical example.

You post a stat saying that Long scores a goal every X number of games.

URZ challenges you on that stat saying that if you look beyound that stat Long's current goalscoring record in the last 2 years suggests he isn't a consistent goalscorer

You then post a different stat regarding to how many games Doyle went without scoring.


Now, if I were you trying to defend Long i'd go along the lines of this.

Valid point URZ, however I think that Long may yet flourish as other strikers in the past have gone many games in between scoring runs, and eventually worked it out. For example Kevin Doyle had similar barren spells, as has Wayne Rooney. I admit that currently Long isn't in the best of form but using the other examples you can see how Long might follow a similar pattern in the future.

See that's the difference between yourself and others right now, you just post up a stat saying it proves you right, you never concede the ground and you try and compare apples and oranges. I don't think you've ever given another posters stats an ounce of credit, or conceded that your own stats might not tell the entire story.

As for the rest of the guff below then you just simply need to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. If someone argues that they are worried about Long's goal ratio from open play because he's only got 1 in 25. Then how can you dispute that, the numbers don't lie.

IF someone said 'Long's shit because he's only got 1 from open play in 25' then by all means post stats to show his worth to the team because he scores penalties, is widely praised by managers for his workrate and in the past he's shown the ability to go through purple patches.

The scattergun nature of your posts and statistics make it impossible to follow your train of thought and you start to look desperate. I actually agree with you to an extent that Long's under-rated and he certainly shouldn't be booed. But no amount of stats on this earth can turn Shane Long into Kevin Doyle.

[Snowball]

I have picked seasons, I've used stats for the last two seasons, this season, and last season.

Have you used COMPLETE seasons? You know, "This is our first game, this is our last game, these are the games in between.."?

And your long novel about how to look at appearances was a complete waste of time, by the way. You decide as you go along what factors you want to consider, and change them as it best suits you.

So agree some criteria!!

You've been joining the argument about goals from open play for some pages now, but now you've decided you are 'not interested' in that stat, only total goals.

Check back. Right from post 1 I have said that all goals are equal and that I thought the dichotomy a dumb one. I've mentioned top players whose records included penalties. Before this recent prrrrt did anyone EVER suggest taking out Kitson's 6 penalties or Doyle's 5 penalties?

Over 9% of Doyle's goals were pens, almost 10% of Kitson's.


No, of course not. But it HAPPENED that the strikers weren't scoring in open play, and that became exciting player-basher of the week. Then (in a purple patch, all squeezed together) Church got 3 goals, one a deflection, one a total mis-hit cross, and one good goal...) so not in open play became the by-word.

[Snowball]

In the last 2 full season's (where Long only started 35 games total) and 15 starts this season

Long has scored 9+9+3 goals = 21 goals, 4 of which were pens

Now when did 21 Goals in 50 Starts become bad striking?

I really don't care whether a player scores in bursts or 1 every 2-3 games. I care whether OVERALL he scores X goals at Y rate and wins us some points or doesn't. For example the God Lita score ONE goal per season for 2 seasons and both goals were meaningless goals scored at the death when we were already winning 3-0

As someone kindly pointed out yesterday, Long was the only player who appeared to want to try to keep us in the play-offs in 2008-09. He has scored only goals, winning goals, won crucial penalties, got us the win at Anfield, put us 2 up against Villa. And he keeps getting picked by the resident professional.

GREAT, WORLD-CLASS players have long goal-droughts. DOYLE has gone longer than Shane has EVER done, and Doyle's run was STARTS, Shane's was mostly sub-appearances.