In praise of Shane Long...

[Terminal Boardom]

Compare Doyle and Long's RFC Form




106 Starts 82 Sub Appearances = 120 x "Games" 51 Goals, Strike Rate 2.35 Long

145 Starts 17 Sub Appearances = 148 x "Games" 55 Goals. Strike Rate 2.69 Doyle

Quite. But don't forget that for two seasons, we were in the PL which - if you hadn't noticed, is a higher standard to the Championship. Now, if you were to compare Championship and PL records separately, I would expect the figures to be different and to reflect that Doyle's scoring record at both levels is somewhat better.

[Snowball]

Compare Doyle and Long's RFC Form




106 Starts 82 Sub Appearances = 120 x "Games" 51 Goals, Strike Rate 2.35 Long

145 Starts 17 Sub Appearances = 148 x "Games" 55 Goals. Strike Rate 2.69 Doyle

Quite. But don't forget that for two seasons, we were in the PL which - if you hadn't noticed, is a higher standard to the Championship. Now, if you were to compare Championship and PL records separately, I would expect the figures to be different and to reflect that Doyle's scoring record at both levels is somewhat better.

Shane also had those two seasons in the premiership. I'll check the figures

[Snowball]

Compare Doyle and Long's RFC Form




106 Starts 82 Sub Appearances = 120 x "Games" 51 Goals, Strike Rate 2.35 Long

145 Starts 17 Sub Appearances = 148 x "Games" 55 Goals. Strike Rate 2.69 Doyle

Quite. But don't forget that for two seasons, we were in the PL which - if you hadn't noticed, is a higher standard to the Championship. Now, if you were to compare Championship and PL records separately, I would expect the figures to be different and to reflect that Doyle's scoring record at both levels is somewhat better.

Doyle v Long: Championship. Long is Better

82 Starts 10 Sub Appearances 84 x 90 38 Goals Hit-Rate 2.21 Doyle
85 Starts 49 Sub Appearances 91 x 90 44 Goals Hit-Rate 2.07 Long

[readingbedding]

Long is not a better player than Doyle, not saying he won't be, but at the moment, no.

All this Long is better than Doyle means nothing, and more importantly is bollox.

[Terminal Boardom]

Compare Doyle and Long's RFC Form




106 Starts 82 Sub Appearances = 120 x "Games" 51 Goals, Strike Rate 2.35 Long

145 Starts 17 Sub Appearances = 148 x "Games" 55 Goals. Strike Rate 2.69 Doyle

Quite. But don't forget that for two seasons, we were in the PL which - if you hadn't noticed, is a higher standard to the Championship. Now, if you were to compare Championship and PL records separately, I would expect the figures to be different and to reflect that Doyle's scoring record at both levels is somewhat better.

Doyle v Long: Championship. Long is Better

82 Starts 10 Sub Appearances 84 x 90 38 Goals Hit-Rate 2.21 Doyle
85 Starts 49 Sub Appearances 91 x 90 44 Goals Hit-Rate 2.07 Long

Just so I understand, 92 apps, 38 goals for Doyle and 134 apps, 44 goals for Long. Thanks for clearing that up.

[sandman]

When Doyle got injured for the Republic in the Macedonia match they didn't look the same side Shane did well but they were nowhere near as effective as they were before Doyle went off.

It might not be a statistical opinion but even Arsene Wenger knows that stats don't prove anything in football.

[Snowball]

Doyle v Long" The Premiership Seasons for RFC

Shane (then only aged 19-20) was marginally inferior, by less than a goal a season (equivalent) in the Premiership, playing for RFC

Shane's strike rate in the Premiership is marginally BETTER than Doyle's overall 3.71 v 3.76. They are both on 10 goals per season for a full season played.

Shane's strike rate versus Premiership teams (including cups) is a lot better than Doyle's 2.8 (almost 14 goals a season) v 3.7 (10 Goals)

Doyle is AT his peak, possibly in decline. Long is 3 years OFF his peak and still improving.

I'd say Long is worth more than 6.5M that we got for Doyle



64 Starts 10 Sub = 66 x 90 = 19 Goals Strike Rate 3.5 Prem Only (Equiv 10.9 Goals in 38 Starts) (RFC) Doyle
22 Starts 24 Sub = 26 x 90 = 07 Goals Strike Rate 3.7 Prem Only (Equiv 10.2 Goals in 38 Starts) (RFC) LONG

31 Starts 30 Sub = 36 x 90 = 13 Goals Strike Rate 2.8 All Premiership Opposition Would equal 13.6 Goals in 38 Prem Starts LONG*

Doyle Prem (RFC & Wolves)

122 (11) = 124 x 90 = 33 Goals Strike Rate 3.76 (Equiv 10.1 Goals in 38 Starts)

A couple of points worth noting. First, Shane was 19-20 when we were in the Prem.




* Second, he has done well in FA Cup games versus Premiership sides, another six goals there, so he has 11 goals v Premiership opposition


9 (6) Cup Appearances v Premiership Sides 6 Goals

31 Starts 30 Sub Appearances 13 Goals

[Royal With Cheese]

I really hope you're not adding up the minutes on the pitch as a substitute and trying to substitute them for games. That immediately invalidates everything you're trying to put across.

Long's age is irrelevant. The amount of time a substitute spends on the pitch is irrelevant as there is no way of quantifying the uplift on a performance you have to take into account because you're playing against opposition who have been on the pitch longer than the substitute.

Stop trying to add subjective quantities into "statistics" so it supports your arguement.

[Terminal Boardom]

I really hope you're not adding up the minutes on the pitch as a substitute and trying to substitute them for games. That immediately invalidates everything you're trying to put across.

You should know by now that Snowball will twist and warp whatever stats exist to substantiate his opinion. Sad really. Some of the stats do make interesting reading. Shame there is little consistency with their interpretation.

[readingbedding]

Doyle is a better player.

[Royal With Cheese]

I really hope you're not adding up the minutes on the pitch as a substitute and trying to substitute them for games. That immediately invalidates everything you're trying to put across.

You should know by now that Snowball will twist and warp whatever stats exist to substantiate his opinion. Sad really. Some of the stats do make interesting reading. Shame there is little consistency with their interpretation.

I've just added the same thoughts to my post.

[Snowball]

Just so I understand, 92 apps, 38 goals for Doyle and 134 apps, 44 goals for Long. Thanks for clearing that up.

Don't be a burke, TB. A tremendous number of Long's sub appearances were for 1/2/3/4/5 minutes, often under 10 minutes.

How about we compare actual minutes played?

6,825 Minutes Championship Football 38 Goals Scored A Goal every 179.61 Minutes LONG
7,100 Minutes Championship Football 36 Goals Scored A Goal every 197.22 Minutes DOYLE

[Royal With Cheese]

Doyle is a better player.

I'd love to see the two of the reunited next season if we get promoted and Wolves go down.

[Royal With Cheese]

How about we compare actual minutes played?

How about we just stick to the recognised stat of games played?

[Snowball]

Long scores at a better minutes per goal ratio than Doyle.


OTOH we could just compare starts/goals, or compare 20 Goals this season (with 8 games to play) against Doyle's best-ever of 18?

[Royal With Cheese]

Just so I understand, 92 apps, 38 goals for Doyle and 134 apps, 44 goals for Long. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Snowball]

How about we compare actual minutes played?

How about we just stick to the recognised stat of games played?

"Recognised Stat"? of GAMES PLAYED.

Are you saying "Appearances" and trying to say that a one-minute sub appearances is the same as a start and playing the full 90 minutes?

There are plenty of sites that measure minutes to goals. It's a perfectly valid stat.

[Snowball]

Long is not a better player than Doyle, not saying he won't be, but at the moment, no.

All this Long is better than Doyle means nothing, and more importantly is bollox.

Just to clarify. I was saying only that Long's goal-scoring strike-rate is better.

[Terminal Boardom]

How about we compare actual minutes played?

How about we just stick to the recognised stat of games played?

"Recognised Stat"? of GAMES PLAYED.

Are you saying "Appearances" and trying to say that a one-minute sub appearances is the same as a start and playing the full 90 minutes?

There are plenty of sites that measure minutes to goals. It's a perfectly valid stat.

A sub can come on in the 1st or 90th minutes or anywhere in between. HTH.

[Royal With Cheese]

How about we compare actual minutes played?

How about we just stick to the recognised stat of games played?

"Recognised Stat"? of GAMES PLAYED.

Are you saying "Appearances" and trying to say that a one-minute sub appearances is the same as a start and playing the full 90 minutes?

There are plenty of sites that measure minutes to goals. It's a perfectly valid stat.

Only when it supports an argument you want to forward. That's the whole point.

Anyway - I'm sure I'll pick the same debate up in another 20 pages or so. You carry on.