Shane Long

[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.

[brendywendy]

of course it means something
even if all it means is that he copes better with not having regular games than the others

[cmonurz]

of course it means something
even if all it means is that he copes better with not having regular games than the others

My point is that on it's own, the stat is irrelevant.

He could come on as a sub in the second minute of every game and play most of the season, but record 0 starts.

Every time I have challenged it, Snowball has quoted other stats that look at total minutes played, and included sub appearances.

Does Federici really have '0 starts (outfield), 1 goal'? Again, it means nothing.

[Snowball]

Last Season, 2 three-game runs

15/8/07 L 1-2 Chelsea Subbed on 74 forGunnarson
18/8/07 W 1-0 Everton Played 90
25/8/07 L 0-3 Bolton Played 90

=======================================================================================
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)

========================================================================================




12/4/08 Fulham 0-2 Subbed on 61 for Kitson


W3 L4 6-9 9 points from 7 games = 1.29 pts/game
550 minutes, 1 goal (but scored two other goals as sub)

[CMRoyal]

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)

He certainly did OK in that City game. I wonder what might have happened had he not overhit the through ball to Oster when we were one up at Anfield? A minute or so later they equalised, and Long seemed to let it really affect the rest of his performance.

In my opinion, if he can work on his first touch and learn to be patient when things aren't going well for him on the pitch, he might yet be part of our long term plans. Which I guess is more than we can say for Lita at the moment.

[Ian 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 start

Were 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 = 3

I 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-ton

Also, 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."

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, I've then demonstrated it's much worse if you include cup, which I believe is relevant. You continue to ignore this totally,, presumably because it doesn't help your arguement. You can't simply dismiss cups. They exist, they are not mickey mouse. our rotation policy does not render the game irrelevant.

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.

As I've said. If he'd got that run at a lower level 2 years ago, he may have become a top player. Given his late start to football and lack of coaching from an early age. AND the fact he is now in his 20s without a single season with more than 4 goals to his name, and without having forced himself into the team for period longer than about 5 games. His future is elsewhere down the leagues.

[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

[Snowball]

'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)

[Dr Hfuhruhurr]

3 game run (incl cup) scores one cup goal

Be careful.

[Ian Royal]

I thought you didn't include cup under any circumstances? DoubLOLe standards.

[Stranded]

'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)

But then that begs the question, why when he has got these runs - and appranently done OK in pure figures going by your stats has he been dropped. Is it that his all round game doesn't stand up to scrutiny over a prolonged time?

[Ian Royal]

Especially given Coppell's fundamental style that the shirt belongs to the player in possession and that he doesn't change a winning team. AND that he gives a losing team a chance to make amends.

[Snowball]

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.

Classic! "You ae disturbed" = "perfectly polite". Got yer.

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.

Where do I do that?

I merely note, for Long and Noel Hunt, that they often only play 60-65 minutes so get less time than Doyle.

I know you ignore cups. I don't.

I know you don't ignore cups. I do.

I've shown Long's record isn't especially great from League starts

Coming in for single games here and there is not the same as a run of games. Shane in his one decent-length run of games (5) scored twice in 320 minutes or so ("3.5 games") ... We also put together our best-ever points per game run with him playing.

You can't simply dismiss cups.

I can.

Watch. I 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?

Correct

So your quote that I was responding to was made up. Thank you.

No it was not. It was a paraphrasing of a quote deliberately made by Coppell on Tuesday Night and posted in this thread by me in full.

You can't blame me if you are too simple not to see the obvious paraphrasing or the full quote copied from the RFC website

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.

PLEASE FIND ANY PLACE IN THE WHOLE OF THIS BOARD WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID
THAT LONG SHOULD BE A REGULAR STARTER

I have never said it. But I HAVE said that Doyle-Hunt is BY FAR our best combination
and that these two should start wherever possible.

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.

That is because you are not very bright and can't do sums. Lita has started SIXTY games (plus 23 as sub) and scored just 20 league goals in all that time, all those starts, all 83 appearances.

Lita has started three times as many league games as Long and yet has 20 goals versus Long's 12. Long's goals in terms of starts is miles better than Lita, Long's goals per minute is miles better than Lita, Long is more of a team player and has assists and is a club man

All these Lita-lovers are living a long way in the past. He had his best season when we were scoring 99 goals, then a passable season in the Premiership = 7 goals from 22+11 league appearances (hardly Alan Shearer, is it?).... But that would be passable for a third striker if he hadn't followed it up with two seasons where in 16+8 he scored just 2 goals. That absolutely STINKS. He has been going downhill steadily for Reading and the stats make it abundantly clear.

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.

Classic example of HNA auto-speak AND IT IS CLEARLY WRONG.

Here is his longest run, 5 consecutive games, in the Premiership, 5 starts, 352 minutes ("3.5 full games") 2 goals and FOUR WINS out of five amassing 12 points at 2.4 points per game.

20/1/07 W 3-1 SCORED Sheff Utd 73 Seol
30/1/07 W 3-2 SCORED Wigan 80 Kitson
3/2/07 W 2-0 XXXXXX Man City 75 Kitson
10/2/07 W 2-0 XXXXXX Villa 2-0 62 Kitson
24/2/07 L 1-2 (Poor Game) Boro 1-2 62 Kitson


On what planet would that be (for a 19 year-old BTW) be considered "VERY POOR"? (Your words)

[donface]

LOL@statistics

[Snowball]

Message to the mindless.


The current conversation is about CONSECUTIVE RUNS IN THE TEAM.

If Long was given a run of

League game
League game
Cup game
League game
League game
Cup game
League game
League game


Don't you think the consecutive nature of the games would be important?

In fact it's only happened once as far as I can see, and it's added for completeness.

However I would be DELIGHTED to drop that one cup game because then it would show that Long had had even less consecutive-game runs and as already shown, when he did get a 5-game run, he scored in two of the first four games and we won all four!!

[Snowball]

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

Isn't it interesting that I TOO HAVE SAID DON'T CHANGE A WINNING FORMULA

I have NOT asked for Long to start. I do NOT think he deserves to start

I think Hunt-Doyle is our best partnership and keep saying so


This thread is not about "deserving to start"

It's about the fact that Long is a lot better than this myopic list thinks

[Snowball]

LOL@statistics

Thank-you for you (typical) inane contribution.

[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.

[Snowball]

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.

I made my "statement" at the top of the thread. It's not my fault if people distort it and try to make out I am saying he's better than Doyle or Noel Hunt. Here is the statement again.

A few of the more sensible posters on this list have pointed out that some members just decide to dislike certain players,
even when the stats say otherwise. Steve Hunt & Kebe, for example, either have scored or made 60% of our league goals

But it seems that almost everyone on this list has a down on Shane Long. I think you're all wrong.

Shane doesn't get to play many full 90 minute games, and coming on as sub for 5-15 minutes is never easy.

But Shane has earned some vital points for Reading this year. His brave last-ditch header against Southampton was HUGE for us.

The home game against Norwich was headed for a 0-0 draw. Long came on in the 80th minute, won a penalty in the 84th
which Hunt scored (1-0) and then Shane scored another.

Shane won the free-kick that led to Hunts FK and Doyle's goal at Birmingham

(ADDED)

And he won us the game at Sheffield.

[CMRoyal]

Idiotic, brain-dead, mindless, myopic. Any more insults you want to direct at the list, as you call it, snowball?

One wonders why you bother so much if that's what you think of us.