Long - Time to go.

[Maguire]

I don't expect 20 goals but "a" goal would be nice.

Although as much as I enjoy disparaging Long and his stupid run, I do happen to think he's our best striker. He's just not a very good one.

[andrew1957]

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.

[Snowball]

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

[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

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

Right

And this has what to do with Shane Long Snowball?

It seems to me you're trying to make Long look better by making Church seem worse? :/

[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.

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.

He gets unfair stick because people are only concentrating on his goals record this season from open play other than the positive attributes he brings to the team. By quoting goals scored you're merely re-inforcing their point. At least 40 players have more goals (its certainly more) in general and I'm not sure there is a team in this division that are fielding as their main striker a man who hasnt scored from open play from 13 starts.

Long's contribution to the team is about more than mere goals scored but he, McDermott and everyone else knows that the pressure will mount if it carries on and the other strikers start putting pressure on him.

[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?

[Snowball]

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.

BUT YOU MISS A FUNDAMENTAL POINT. our current style is to keep the opposition quiet, and not-to-concede. That means we are less adventurous for the first 60 minutes. That's why, although we are SEVENTH TOP SCORERS (reading this thread you would think we're 17th) we are third or fourth-best defence and third best on goal-difference which has a predictabilty of final position above 90%

Watford have scored 26 goals. They are 9th! Why? Because they play attacking football and let in a lot of goals.

We play somewhere in between, and prefer to go for a win than settle for a draw.

Swansea are 11th-top scorers, Coventry are 9th-top-scorers but they lie in 3rd and 4th in the table.

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?

And it could easily be 3 Long, 2 Mills if Mills had let Long's back-heel go over the line. Some say it had gone over the line.

We should NEVER measure a team by it's star goal-scorer, but by the team's OVERALL scoring, and whether it also keeps it tight at the back. We let in 5 goals in our first 4 games, 3 in the latest. In the 9 goals between we conceded just 6 while scoring 13.

It's a very good sign when a team is getting a decent sum of goals and the goals are spread round. It makes it much harder to mark a goal-scorer out of the game as sides had started to do with kebe.

[Snowball]

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.

[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?

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.

Just unbelievable spin as usual.

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.

God if you can't even agree with this then you really are lost up Long's arsehole

[Snowball]

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...

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. Go read the "After the Match" threads for the first ten games and see Church getting slagged off for not being good enough. One lucky goal and one very good goal in a week, does not a summer make. Three more in the next three games, and Longy blanking, and then you might have a case. As it is it's 2 goals v 3 goals (nothing) and Long admired for his hard work, winning another penalty for Harte, two assists (Church has how many?) It all counts.

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.

But manager's know that it's a very different beast coming on late.

1. You are fresh. They are tired.
2. You can go flat out because you only have 20 minutes not 90 to run for.
3. Often the side is "going for it" (eg 442) rather than containing, so more chances per minute will arise.
4. You've a lot less to lose cos you're "just a sub" and not EXPECTED to score.


All this was bayed at me for 2 YEARS when I tried to argue Long's case, because he kept doing what Church is doing now.

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.

For the 1,265th time... I believe Long is far better suited to 442 and can be a top Championship striker
playing 442 with a partner. But I also believe he's as tough as boots and our best 451 striker (though
it makes him look like he can't score) and doing a great, great job for his team, and I note we are sixth.

Of COURSE a Premiership top-man like Kevin Davies would improve us, but the KD is now an England player

[cmonurz]

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.

Coming from the chap who adds Shane Long's one decent run in front of goal to a set of stats and then assigns him an average scoring rate over the whole period based on that, your criticism of Wimb's post above is hilarious.

[Royalee]

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.

This.

Oh, and go away Snowball.

[The Rouge]

My take on Shane Long is this. There have been times where he has looked terrible. There was a spell last season where he was our best player. Once you have seen a player be that effective, it can be no surprise that the coaching staff try to get him to replicate it. I don't think 4-5-1 has helped him, he has had more bad games than good games this season. The amount of headers he is winning is impressive though, so if we got midfielders or a second striker running beyond him we would score more goals.

Any talk of getting rid of him seems stupid really, especially when we haven't bought a replacement.

[handbags_harris]

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.

I honestly think you're taking the p*ss now Snowball because, quite frankly, there was no game played on the date you specify. If this is the level of your statistics (in this case a mere information look up) then it leaves me with even less faith than I already had with the statistics you have to work out for yourself.

FYI, Shane Long's last goal scored as a substitute was vs Sheffield Wednesday on 3rd March 2009.

[cmonurz]

On top of repeatedly claiming his stats for Diego Forlan were for 'all competitions', despite his source clearing stating right underneath the numbers '* Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only', I'm beginning to doubt Snowball's claims to have moonlighted as a stats teacher.

[Snowball]

Maybe we should have a chat about Multiple Regression Analyses, Gwathoppa

[cmonurz]

Not much point if you can't even read, Snowball.

[Snowball]

Not much point if you can't even read, Snowball.

I have voice recognition

[Snowball]

PS I LOVE it that you're stalking me.

You're so much prettier than the man with the plastic tree.

[cmonurz]

PS I LOVE it that you're stalking me.

You're so much prettier than the man with the plastic tree.

I'm not stalking you, Snowball, it's a discussion board. Feel free to count our relative responses on this and other threads, if you wish.