by Maguire » 01 Nov 2010 15:53
by andrew1957 » 01 Nov 2010 15:58
Vision Depends on your aspiration surely. If we're content to just be average then a list of numbers that shows us such is probably ok. If we're looking to make the play-offs then surely being "average" isnt good enough. I'm assuming you're still coming from the perspective of thinking we'll get relegated in which case you may have a point that "average" might be what we're looking for.
It should be pointed out that our 4 & 3 figures on this list are for Kebe and Mills so I'm not entiely sure what they have to do with Shane Long. If there are 19 players who already have 5 and Long only has 2 then how many players have more goals than him. All your quoted "facts" tell us is that there are at least 40 players in this division who have scored more goals than Long this season. Given that you've said if he gets 10 he will score more than most strikers in this division it doesn't exactly push home that point does it?
I think you're right about people's obsession with a 20 goal a season man being a bit fanciful as there are usually only a handful at best in any given season. However not many sides will have much of a season if they're happy for their main striker to be outscored by at least 2 players from the majority of the teams in the division.
by Snowball » 01 Nov 2010 16:00
Wimb
Where did I say goals from sub were unfair? I added them to Long's tally after all what's your point Snowball?
You basically couldn't get past my stat so tried to change the rules again, SHOCKER
by Wimb » 01 Nov 2010 16:06
SnowballWimb
Where did I say goals from sub were unfair? I added them to Long's tally after all what's your point Snowball?
You basically couldn't get past my stat so tried to change the rules again, SHOCKER
Not at all. At least half-a-dozen people have said it's wrong to link starts to goals
and not mention what percentage of goals have come when coming on as a sub.
The OLD argument against Long used to be he was a good impact sub but couldn't get goals WHEN HE STARTED
That is pretty much the case with Church. His scoring rate as a sub is MASSIVELY better than when he starts
As I have been beaten up for conflating goals when starting with goals as sub, perhaps you'd be kind enough to show how many goals and goals in open play Church has scored WHEN . He has 15 career goals, just 6 from STARTS, and 9 as an impact sub. Yet he has had more than twice the minutes on the pitch for his starts v sub appearances
2407 Minutes STARTS for 6 goals = 1 goal every 401 minutes
0471 Minutes AS SUB for 9 goals = 1 goal every 52.33 minutes
That is, his scoring rate as a sub is EIGHT TIMES BETTER than when starting
by Vision » 01 Nov 2010 16:10
andrew1957Vision Depends on your aspiration surely. If we're content to just be average then a list of numbers that shows us such is probably ok. If we're looking to make the play-offs then surely being "average" isnt good enough. I'm assuming you're still coming from the perspective of thinking we'll get relegated in which case you may have a point that "average" might be what we're looking for.
It should be pointed out that our 4 & 3 figures on this list are for Kebe and Mills so I'm not entiely sure what they have to do with Shane Long. If there are 19 players who already have 5 and Long only has 2 then how many players have more goals than him. All your quoted "facts" tell us is that there are at least 40 players in this division who have scored more goals than Long this season. Given that you've said if he gets 10 he will score more than most strikers in this division it doesn't exactly push home that point does it?
I think you're right about people's obsession with a 20 goal a season man being a bit fanciful as there are usually only a handful at best in any given season. However not many sides will have much of a season if they're happy for their main striker to be outscored by at least 2 players from the majority of the teams in the division.
I was just pointing out that Long gets unfair stick. Many strikers in this division have no more goals that he has this season. Three goals in the next three games (far from impossible) and suddenly he is amongst the top group.
For the record Church also has 3 - as well as Mills. My point is that there are only 19 players who have scored 5 or more - and several of those are midfielders and not strikers. Therefore, a lot of teams in this division do not have a striker with 5 goals so far.
by Wimb » 01 Nov 2010 16:10
by Snowball » 01 Nov 2010 16:11
Vision
Depends on your aspiration surely. If we're content to just be average then a list of numbers that shows us such is probably ok. If we're looking to make the play-offs then surely being "average" isnt good enough. I'm assuming you're still coming from the perspective of thinking we'll get relegated in which case you may have a point that "average" might be what we're looking for.
It should be pointed out that our 4 & 3 figures on this list are for Kebe and Mills so I'm not entiely sure what they have to do with Shane Long. If there are 19 players who already have 5 and Long only has 2 then how many players have more goals than him. All your quoted "facts" tell us is that there are at least 40 players in this division who have scored more goals than Long this season. Given that you've said if he gets 10 he will score more than most strikers in this division it doesn't exactly push home that point does it?
by Snowball » 01 Nov 2010 16:23
Wimb Oh and if you're saying my stats are wrong because your old argument over Long was also flawed, is that you admitting you were wrong before?
by Wimb » 01 Nov 2010 16:32
SnowballWimb Oh and if you're saying my stats are wrong because your old argument over Long was also flawed, is that you admitting you were wrong before?
No I am saying that a stat that doesn't differentiate between goals-when-starting and goals-scored-as-sub is mis-leading
A better stat display shows super-sub versus goal-grinder-out.
And Shane Long when STARTING has done very well the last two seasons.
But he now can't score as a sub!
The comparison should be with Church (Option 2) and Church's goals-when-starting is poor to date, whereas it's EXCELLENT when coming on as a sub.
So what we should do is take the man who scores as a sub (but not when he starts) and have him start.
And take the man who has had 11 goals in his last 24 Starts (12) 10 of those from starts, 1 goal as a sub.
and OBVIOUSLY, we'd do brilliantly to switch them round.
It is November 1st 2010. The last time Shane Long scored as a substitute was Jan 13th 2009, 21 Months, 2 weeks and 5 days ago.
by Snowball » 01 Nov 2010 16:46
Wimb
As I said, when on the pitch in the Championship, Church is scoring on average 1.5 goals per game more then Long. Church has also scored 3 from open play this season compared to Long's 0. I'm not disputing the stat that Church seems an effective sub and hasn't performed as well from the start. However my argument for the 100th time is this...
Long isn't scoring enough from open play and it MIGHT be time to give another player a chance. The most recent stats we have show that Simon Church happens to currently be the most prolific when on the pitch, raising a reasonable suggestion that he might perhaps be a better goalscoring option then Long.
Brian Mc obviously thinks Long's overall contributions are outweighing any negatives that come from his lack of goals. HOWEVER as a fan and a general football fan I believe the team could be EVEN BETTER if we had a lone striker who was scoring goals from open play.
by cmonurz » 01 Nov 2010 21:08
Snowball Average over what time-period? Had this question been asked at twenty-to-five on the day of the Ipswich game we'd've been saying,"That's the 11th game of the season and Church hasn't scored ONCE!!" Then he had three blanks, then he gets two very late goals. Why should he not now go 10.9 games without a goal? He hasn't scored ANY goals this season in his 5 starts.
The point is, you're grabbing at tiny time-slots.
by Royalee » 01 Nov 2010 21:45
floyd__streeteHugo Boss Shane LOLong.
Gets taken off, everything completely changes and we end up winning. His replacements look hungry with one getting a goal. Surprise, surprise.
F*ck off Long.
You forgot to mention that the other replacement set up the first goal of the comeback with a quite brilliant cross, the likes of which I cannot recall Long coming even remotely close to replicating. Otherwise a massive +1 from me. Plain-speaking Hugo > a few dozen pages of skewed statistical guff which mean nothing in the light of another touch-heavy chance-missing performance from LOLong.
What I would like to see though is some stats showing any other Championship strikers with as many minutes on the pitch as LOLong this season who have also managed ZERO poxy goals from open play.
by The Rouge » 01 Nov 2010 22:00
by handbags_harris » 01 Nov 2010 22:09
Snowball It is November 1st 2010. The last time Shane Long scored as a substitute was Jan 13th 2009, 21 Months, 2 weeks and 5 days ago.
by cmonurz » 01 Nov 2010 22:13
by Snowball » 01 Nov 2010 22:16
by cmonurz » 01 Nov 2010 22:18
by Snowball » 01 Nov 2010 23:04
cmonurz Not much point if you can't even read, Snowball.
by Snowball » 01 Nov 2010 23:06
by cmonurz » 01 Nov 2010 23:07
Snowball PS I LOVE it that you're stalking me.
You're so much prettier than the man with the plastic tree.
Users browsing this forum: Armadillo Roadkill, Bing [Bot] and 282 guests