Harte Signs

[Snowball]

Snowball is really starting to get on my tits.

He either is Shane Long or one of his hangers on...either way I don't care, he manipulate stats more than the Labour govt.

We aren't even TALKING about Shane, Shaka.

Did I say you were then?!?

No, you merely implied it.

[Snowball]

PS Do headers count as shots in your figures?

I've already answered that. Anf they are the OS official figures, not mine.

[Vision]

PS Do headers count as shots in your figures?

I've already answered that. Anf they are the OS official figures, not mine.

Sorry I must have missed amongst the barrage of pointless numbers.

So do they count or not, I'm genuinely curious?

[Snowball]

PS Do headers count as shots in your figures?

I've already answered that. Anf they are the OS official figures, not mine.

Sorry I must have missed amongst the barrage of pointless numbers.

So do they count or not, I'm genuinely curious?

The official site says "shooting" but doesn't mention headers as a separate issue
and I presume they mean, kicks and headers.

[Snowball]

Yes. And Kebe (a winger, I'm sure you'd agree) is over twice as deadly as Gylfi (penalties not included).

51 chances, 31 on target, 12 goals, 1 goal in 4.33 chances. (Kitson was 1 in 4.23, pens removed) (Gylfi is 1 in 9.07 pens removed)

I think if you check, virtually all of Gylfi's chances are central, MORE SO than a winger's.

Kebe's career stats arent twice as deadly though are they (1 in 7 according to you) as you published earlier but now seem to want to ignore. [/quote]

Not ignoring that, Vision. But you must admit there are two Kebe's. Last season and this season he's been totally different
and I'm comparing the two players in the same games, the same seasons. Even when you add in the first season when
Kebe's shooting was dire, he still comes out much bbetter overall than Gylfi.

A lot of Gylfi's will be cutting in from the left (where he played a fair chunk of last season) on the angle of the penalty area so certainly not central within the widths of his goals. Central or not; shooting from 20 yards plus is not generally as clear cut a chance as from within 10-12 yards which is where most of the strikers get theirs from.

AND THIS IS WHY I LIKE FACTS, Vish. What you say is provably NOT the case.

ZERO, NIL, NADA, NONE of Gyfli'sgoals, not a single one was "cutting in from the left. Not ONE.

I've posted every single goal he's scored for Reading, and most of the URL's to view them yourself.

FIFTEEN,[b] FIFTEEN [/b]of Gylfi's 22 goals are from 12 yards or less, one is 14 yards. 16 out of 22 in striker territory.

There were an awful lot of potshots from 20 yards plus (central or on the angle) which skews his ratio but you seem to find it difficult to accept that for some reason.

Now, here's the rub. Look at the post above, remove all those penalties and shots inside 14 yards, remove the free-kicks.

Now how many "pot-shots" did he have that were SUCCESSFUL?

THREE!!! EVER! Three in his whole career, out of how many attempts? What if he had dribbled towards the box, or picked out a team-mate?

This is my point. Gylfi was a FANTASTIC player and he scored some brilliant goals, but he was extremely wasteful. There are the goals, three
long-distance goals that were not free kicks, so every other shot from outside the box was wasted. EVERY-SINGLE-ONE.

My bet is that he'll learn to choose-better when to shoot and when to pass and when to dribble and win a penalty or free-kick.
My bet is his total goals per season will DROP. He will become a more complete player in so doing and his value will go UP.

PS Are headers counted as shots in your figures?

They are the OS figures.

I have presumed they include headers.

What I DON'T know is whether penalties being taken are counted as a shot.


Incidentally, I think I had Gylfi down as 7 penalites taken six scored.

It's actually EIGHT penalties with 7 scored so his stats have got worse.

Instead of 22 goals dropping to 16, they drop to 15.

[Vision]

I wasn't making a point about what Gylfi was or is, merely that the vast majority of goals closer than 13 yards I DEFINE AS "strikers' goals"

So what your saying is that when confronted with the same situations as the strikers you continue to compare him with, his "deadliness" is actually not as bad.

No I'm saying his deadliness was EXCEPTIONAL, (or appeared to be, I haven't checked it) probably better than Long, Doyle, Kitson, Forster, Lita, Hunt, Church,
which is why I believe that PART of his game was world-class but that he was wasteful in other areas, for example taking the long-shot option when he should have been looking to give and go etc.

Again though you've neglected for the umpteenth time to even consider that playing for a side that was struggling as we were for a big chunk of last season meant that shooting from distance was often the only option open to him. I dont think anyone is arguing that his shot volume is high, its your definition of wastefullness that is open to debate and comparing with players who face completely different situations and circumstances during any given game.

You see, this is a PRESUMPTION, which it's quite easy to see is NOT TRUE. I strongly disagree that we were a struggling side from the first Liverpool game onward. We got lucky and the world flipped over but we were AWESOME and playing table-topping form until we faded in the last 6-7 games before finishing OK

I suggest you look at the highlights again. We played some BRILLIANT football; P 22 W12 D4 L6 42-24, 40 points from 22 games plus DW v Liverpool W v Burnley, DW v WBA and lose to Villa W15 D6 L7 is very good indeed.

But that's just the numbers. Look at how various players played from the first Liverpool game onwards.

Kebe came good, McAnuff came good, Long scored 8 goals, Church broke through and scored about the same.

We were mostly on fire.

From memory (but someone else can do the work to check) I think just about ALL his goals have come from inside the box....

Which according to your definition of Gylfi would make Kebe a striker.....

The fans fall for it in exactly the same way. Screw van Nistelroy he just "taps them in" we want a Beckham...

For the umpteenth time though some players are not playing with a free scoring Van Nistelroy for the best side in the country, they're playing for a big part of a season for a struggling Champioship team with a misfiring forward line as Gylfi did last season.
This is why however much you want your stats to be conclusive, anyone with an open mind knows they cant really tell the full picture in the way that you want them to.

PS Do headers count as shots in your figures?

playing for a side that was struggling as we were for a big chunk of last season

I've already described it as half a season so your latest barrage of numbers has confirmed this not contradicted it.I'm fully aware of how much we improved second half of the season, I dont need your numbers to tell me that.

It's also possible that during the period you're talking about the simple fact that others were contributing merely highlights the fact that they weren't for the first half of the season which is the point I'm making about a fair chunk of the season.

[cmonurz]

I disagree, "rz", and there are a lot more possibilities than a pass.


Thirty-Five Yards Out. OPTIONS

1. Shoot, with about a 1% chance of scoring.

2. Hold the ball up, look for a winger or a midfielder in a good position. (You're good enough to retain the ball.)

3. Drop a shoulder and get another 5 yards further forward, going from 1% to 5% chance of scoring.

4. Dribble, trying to either create another opening for a closer shot, or pull a foul, knowing you have a wicked free-kick.

5. Play a through pass which you are VERY good at.

6. Turn and play a ball square or even back a few yards to a player with time and space who can see the whole picture.


etc

You're not getting my point.

You are trying to use stats to 'prove' it is better to pass when you have an opportunity to shoot from distance.

You can't 'prove' this as you want to because it is impossible to quantify the % chance of each of the options above generating a subsequent shooting chance, and then you have to factor in that fact that the majority of any chances then created will themselves be missed.

You're trying to do the impossible.

[Victor Meldrew]

Although this is under the old man Harte's topic a lot of it has been about Gylfi and Long.
Snowball,
How many headers from less than 12 yards has Long failed to score with and how do his percentage misses compare with Gylfi's misses from distance?
I raise this because midfielders are probably better at striking from distance and have more such opportunities whereas strikers (for the sake of this point let us assume that Shane actually is a striker and not a battering-ram)tend to have more chances from close range.

One other point and that is Gylfi probably (justifiably) had so little confidence in any of our strikers that he thought we would have more chance of scoring if he kept on shooting rather than trying to set up our strikers with golden chances that they so often miss.
Also he may not have been the selfish non-team player that you have made him out to be because he might well have been told to shoot at every opportunity.

As for our current team I would much prefer Gylfi still to be here despite our temporary elevated position in the league table as he is somebody we could have built a team around rather than what we have done which is to prop it up with a player on his last legs plus a bloke who belongs to another club-that IMHO is no way to build a side.

[Snowball]

A
How many headers from less than 12 yards has Long failed to score with and how do his percentage misses compare with Gylfi's misses from distance?
.

In terms of goals per chances.


That is how good at converting chances is the player, Long is the second-best player over the last 6 or so years!

This is how many chances to get a goal. Only Kitson beats him.

4.25 Kitson (Best)
4.77 Long
5.27 Doyle
5.40 Rasiak
5.50 Church
5.64 Noel Hunt
5.94 Lita
7.06 Kebe
9.00 Gylfi (Worst)

Long's overall goal record is down to the number of actual shots/headers he TAKES

Either he

1 Actually creates less chances for himself
2 Doesn't get into the right positions
3 Passes to a team-mate instead

[Snowball]

or all three, of course...

[Snowball]

Shane's goals less pens are 28, not 30

[Ian Royal]

Has anyone mentioned that it is always worth varying your shots from distance and in close because it means the defenders don't have to only be concerned about one option. If they don't know whether a player (lets call him Gylfi) will makes some space and let fly from range, or slip a pass through to someone else then it is far harder for them to defend.

You can't just work out the most statistically reliable way of scoring and solely go for that, because you become predicatable and one dimensional and easily defended against.

[Snowball]

Has anyone mentioned that it is always worth varying your shots from distance and in close because it means the defenders don't have to only be concerned about one option. If they don't know whether a player (lets call him Gylfi) will makes some space and let fly from range, or slip a pass through to someone else then it is far harder for them to defend.

Of COURSE. Nobody disputes that.

But if that means taking 110 pot-shots on the run, from distance, none of which go in?

134 shots excluding penalties (8)
126 shots from outside the box (9 goals other than penalties from inside 14 yards)
123 shots from outside the box, excluding the 3 scoring free-kicks


Leaving 123 shots. If you trawl through the OS footage, you'll see that Gylfi is very, very good at scoring in the box, probably better than 1 in 2, so say it's 1 in 2. That accounts for 9 of the 123 shots, leaving 114 shots

Those 114 other shots and free-kicks all from outside the box, resulted in THREE goals, 1 goal in every 38 attempts.

OK, that's unfair because it took out the 3 goals that went in. so add those goals (and shots) and you get 6/117

1 goal in about every 20 attempts


I find Gylfi's free-kicks and shots from distance exhilarating, and like anyone else
I'm out of my seat when he scores one, or one whistles over the bar or just wide.

But 1 in 20 is wasteful, end of. It's those wasteful attempts, (and surely 1 in 20 is a bit silly?)
that makes Long's goal-scoring "deadliness" so much better than Gylfi's

PS Long has scored from 30 yards, on the run...


Remove Penalties and Gylfi is more profligate than Long and even more profligate than Kebe.

You can't just work out the most statistically reliable way of scoring and solely go for that, because you become predictable and one dimensional and easily defended against.

True, but you can find the optimum balance between long shots and trying something else.

You could argue as a defender (and this has been stated by managers and players)

"Let him (any player) shoot from 30-Yards, they almost never go in."

How many times on TV have you heard the commentator say something like
(of a shot on the run from 25 Yards+, not a free-kick from 22 Yards)
"He's not going to beat "XXXXX" from there."

Shots from distance rarely produce goals, which is why teams try to work the ball into the (seriously) dangerous area

[Snowball]

Remember how Kebe could "never" hit the target?

127 Chances - - 069 ON Target 056 OFF - - 2 Hit Woodwork - - 18 Goals a goal every 7.06 chances - Kebe


140 Chances - - 073 ON Target 062 OFF - - 5 Hit Woodwork - - 28 Goals a goal every 5.00 chances - Long
135 Chances - - 067 ON Target 061 OFF - - 8 Hit Woodwork - - 15 Goals a goal every 9.00 chances - Gylfi


Just LOOK at that table. Look how similar Long & Gylfi are in terms of chances, on target shots/headers, off-target attempts...

But then look at GOALS. Long is almost twice as deadly as Gylfi,

and...

Long has scored 1 x 30-yarder on the run.
Gylfi has scored 1 x 30-yarder on the run.

I don't know if Long has scored any other "screamers" as I have never collated his goals,
but, despite all those "exciting shots from distance" Gylfi has only scored ONCE for Reading
from a shot in moving play, beyond 22 yards. Logic says, "try to get inside 25 yards before shooting."

Goal 21 - 20 Yards. CENTRAL v Scunthorpe, from the edge of the D.
Goal 10 - 22 Yards. CENTRAL v WBA. 95th minute, pass from Church, sublime 22 yard curler. (Can't find this on line. Was it further out?)
Goal 01 - 30 Yards. CENTRAL v Burton Fabulous 30-odd yarder, shoots from in line with the right hand post


IMO a manager should be trying to get Long to stay more central and less as a winger (or convert him to playing out there full-stop) telling him that his conversion rate goals-from-chances is up there with the very best the club has had in the last half-dozen years (INCLUDING Kitson and Doyle.) "You need to be in the box more, Shane. You need to be more selfish, Shane. Do that and you will be close to top-scorer in this division."

and to Gylfi?

"Shots from 30 yards LOOK great, and people forget the hundreds of misses, but look at your own stats; use your quite-brilliant skills to get at least 5 yards closer to the goal and you will score a LOT more goals. Do that and you will become WORLD-CLASS."

[Ian Royal]

Hogwash.

[Snowball]

Hogwash.

Why are we discussing your toilet habits, AGAIN?

[Snowball]

Ian, when you were agreeing and disagreeing at the same time with Handbags-Harris,
he was saying that Long WAS a good finisher but spent too much time on the wings
and therefore didn't get enough chances per game, and thus his goals-per-game was lower

I remember when McDermott took over at the fans forum he explained that the reason why Longy wasn't playing and scoring was, quite simply, he wasn't getting into the right areas i.e. he wasn't in the penalty area often enough. He seems to have reverted to type and spends an awful lot of time in the channels and doesn't get into the positions required to score the number of goals he scored in his excellent run through February and March. During that period he had a lot of chances and I am on record as saying that when Long gets into a goalscoring position I am pretty damn confident he will take it. He just rarely gets into those areas! And that is the massive difference between Long and, say, Rasiak - Rasiak simply got into the right areas.

but unless he concentrates on getting in goalscoring positions he won't score as many goals as is required for a lone frontman.

You answered:

Not sure I agree with your post handbags, but it makes compelling reading and there isn't a great deal to strongly disagree with.

And now you knee-jerk "Hogwash!"

I got up this morning to see, as expected, your name on the bottom of all these threads. If my sign off was "Ian Royal is cool!" You'd come on and start arguing without reading.

PS You'll now say you weren't arguing about the Long stuff, but just the Gylfi stuff...

[Snowball]

Snowball
Hob Nob Regular



EXCLUDING PENALTIES

141 Chances - - 074 ON Target 062 OFF - - 5 Hit Woodwork - - 29 Goals a goal every 4.86 chances - Long
135 Chances - - 067 ON Target 061 OFF - - 8 Hit Woodwork - - 15 Goals a goal every 9.00 chances - Gylfi


Just LOOK at that table. Look how similar Long & Gylfi are in terms of chances, on target shots/headers, off-target attempts...

But then look at GOALS. Long is almost twice as deadly as Gylfi,

and...

Long has scored 1 x 30-yarder on the run.
Long has scored 1 x 25 yarder on the run.

Gylfi has scored 1 x 30-yarder on the run.
Gylfi has scored 2 x 22-yarder on the run

[Alan Partridge]

When Long gets sold for £6million I'll eat Compo's Hat.

[Wimb]

Didn't have a great game today and for all his plus points from set pieces I can't help but believe Armstrong (if fully fit) would offer far more in general play.