The Snowball stat thread

[Snowball]

If you can't understand simple stuff like

"Long didn't need someone to tire out the opposition for him"

I'm not sure what there is to say.

Just as using large print doesn't enhance your credibility, resorting to patronising and abuse doesn't either....

What you said was perfectly understandable - just not in the slightest bit relevant to the fact which I am pointing out, which is that your statistics are not a valid way of measuring an individual's goalscoring abilities, because there is no way to take into account all the other factors that affect this.

I disagree. Better goal-scorers will score more goals in virtually all situations.

If they are starved of service they'll still score more goals than poorer strikers.

[cmonurz]

Do you consider the definition of a better striker to be 'a better finisher'?

Take Jamie Cureton and Nicky Forster, for example (I know you never saw them play, but that's not important). Cureton is the best finisher I have ever seen in a Reading shirt, yet in his last 29 games for the club he only scored 3 goals, and in his final full season (02/03) he only got 9 goals in total.

In that same season, Nicky Forster, an excellent player but a significantly inferior 'striker' and finisher, got 17 goals.

Cureton's problem? He was a goal poacher, a finisher, and not an all-round forward. We started playing differently, his supply dried up, and so did his goals. It didn't affect Forster so much, as he was an infinitely more creative player.

[Svlad Cjelli]

If you can't understand simple stuff like

"Long didn't need someone to tire out the opposition for him"

I'm not sure what there is to say.

Just as using large print doesn't enhance your credibility, resorting to patronising and abuse doesn't either....

What you said was perfectly understandable - just not in the slightest bit relevant to the fact which I am pointing out, which is that your statistics are not a valid way of measuring an individual's goalscoring abilities, because there is no way to take into account all the other factors that affect this.

I disagree. Better goal-scorers will score more goals in virtually all situations.

If they are starved of service they'll still score more goals than poorer strikers.

But any striker, poor or good, is likely to score more goals against a tired team than against a fresh team - or when playing with better wingers or midfielders - or when playing alongside better or less selfish strikers.

I think the above facts are unarguable - and once you've established that such external contributory factors are likely to increase increases the number of goals that any player (regardless of ability) is likely to score, it's invalid to present individual goal-scoring statistics which completely ignore any of these external contributory factors.

[cmonurz]

Do you consider the definition of a better striker to be 'a better finisher'?

Take Jamie Cureton and Nicky Forster, for example (I know you never saw them play, but that's not important). Cureton is the best finisher I have ever seen in a Reading shirt, yet in his last 29 games for the club he only scored 3 goals, and in his final full season (02/03) he only got 9 goals in total.

In that same season, Nicky Forster, an excellent player but a significantly inferior 'striker' and finisher, got 17 goals.

Cureton's problem? He was a goal poacher, a finisher, and not an all-round forward. We started playing differently, his supply dried up, and so did his goals. It didn't affect Forster so much, as he was an infinitely more creative player.

And a more obvious whole of football example is Torres struggling to score in a Chelsea side that simply doesn't play to his strengths, whereas he had a better record (not to say he wasn't out of form in patches there too) at Liverpool where the team was effectively built around him.

[Hoop Blah]

If you can't understand simple stuff like

"Long didn't need someone to tire out the opposition for him"

I'm not sure what there is to say.


Hoop comes back, ignores last season's stats when just FOUR of Long's 25-odd goals,
a mere 16% or so were in the last ten minutes, and still talks of when he was super-sub.

Seeing as you were directly referring to the theory that his goals as a sub were partly due to him being on the pitch at the end of the (and thus when goals are a little cheaper because more of them are scored at this stage) I only thought it right to discuss that period in time.

It's called answering the question, you might like to try it some time.

When he's on the pitch for 90 minutes most games (but not all) I don't think it's surprising that a lower percentage of his goals come in the latter stages than when he only used to play the last 20-30 minutes! That's not rocket science.

[Hoop Blah]

You CANNOT (reasonably) argue that last season, the "battering/tiring" theory
applied to Shane Long and his scoring record. It just DIDN'T.

Who did?

[Hoop Blah]

Arguments about what is included and what isn't aside, it's pretty shite that only three players average a single major contribution every 2 games, and two of those the stat is as much a function of the small number of minutes they have played as anything else.

Alf looks like our only good player, based on those stats.

And, to be fair, on their respective performances on the pitch!

[Snowball]

First-half v Second Half


We have not led at half-time once in twenty games

We are losing 2-7 in the first half
We are losing 4-14 in the first hour of games

We are winning 20-9 in the last 30 minutes
we are winning 12-2 in the last 15 minutes


First Half Form

P20 W0 - D16 - L4 02-07 16 Points First Half Form
P20 W7 - D09 - L4 22-17 30 Points Second Half Form

Only 2 goals in the first 51 Minutes, 1,020 Minutes
Only 4 goals in the first 60 Minutes, 1,200 Minutes
Only 6 goals in the first 70 minutes, 1,400 minutes

18 Goals in the last 20 Minutes plus injury time = 18 goals in 480 Minutes


[/b]

04% of our goals in the first 45 minutes 50% of the game
04% of our goals in the first 51 Minutes 57% of the game

25% of our goals 06 of 24 in the first 70 minutes 77% of the game
75% of our goals 18 of 24 in the last 20 minutes 22% of the game (plus ET)

46% of our goals 11 of 24 between 70 and 79 minutes 11% of the game
29% of our goals 07 of 24 between 85 minutes and the final whistle = 10% of playing time


1st. 2nd
0-0 2-2 Millwall Home
0-0 2-0 Leicester Away
0-0 0-1 Portsmouth Away
0-1 1-1 Barnsley Home
0-1 1-1 Charlton Away (League Cup)
0-0 0-1 Hull Away
0-1 0-2 Watford Home
0-0 2-0 Doncaster Home
1-1 0-0 Coventry Away
0-1 3-1 Bristol Away
0-0 0-0 Boro Home
0-0 1-0 Burnley Away
0-0 2-2 Derby Home
0-0 1-1 Saints Home
0-0 0-0 Palace Away
0-0 0-1 Forest Away
0-0 1-0 Birmingham Home
0-1 1-1 Cardiff Home
0-0 3-2 Ipswich Away
1-1 2-1 Peterboro Home<<<<<<<<<<<<<

2-7 22-17 TOTAL





Goal Times

2, 2, 12, 15, 25, 27,29, 48, 50, 51, 56, 59, 59, 61, 64, 67, 67, > >> > 73, 75, 75, 77>>>>>>>>>>>> 80 >>>>>>>>>>90 Goals Conceded
>>10>>>>>26>>>>>>>> 52, 59, > > > > > 64, 65 >>>>> 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 75, 75, 77, 77, 79 >>>>>>> 85, 87, 90, 93, 93, 94, 99 Goals Scored



Histogram


Goals Conceded

00-15 XXXX
16-30 XXX
31-45

46-60 XXXXXXX
61-75 XXXXXXX
76-90 XX



Goals Scored

00-15 X
16-30 X
31-45

46-60 XX
61-75 XXXXXXXX
76-90 XXXXXXXXX
....90+ XXXXX

[Snowball]

If you can't understand simple stuff like

"Long didn't need someone to tire out the opposition for him"

I'm not sure what there is to say.


Hoop comes back, ignores last season's stats when just FOUR of Long's 25-odd goals,
a mere 16% or so were in the last ten minutes, and still talks of when he was super-sub.

Seeing as you were directly referring to the theory that his goals as a sub were partly due to him being on the pitch at the end of the (and thus when goals are a little cheaper because more of them are scored at this stage) I only thought it right to discuss that period in time.

It's called answering the question, you might like to try it some time.

When he's on the pitch for 90 minutes most games (but not all) I don't think it's surprising that a lower percentage of his goals come in the latter stages than when he only used to play the last 20-30 minutes! That's not rocket science.

We are at cross-purposes here.

Shane had no problem scoring at any time and actually scored more in the first half.

The reason for pointing this out is that he DIDN'T need someone to batter defences for him.

Some is (ho-ho) suggesting that Church's "hard-running" or his "intimidating defenders" is wearing them down
and THUS le Fondre, Hunt, Manset, HRK are getting their goals late on "because Church is tiring them out".

I cannot think of a single instant this season of Church clattering a defender, and just one "tumble" last season (at Cardiff)

I am therefore arguing that our late goals this season has ALMOST NOTHING to do with Church being on early
and that he DOESN'T wear down defenders.

I believe that the coaching staff know we are a FAR weaker side without Shane Long and therefore play a much tighter game
for approximately 70 minutes and the reason we are scoring later is not (particularly) because of tired defenders, but because
we change tactics and go for the win.

[Hoop Blah]

I believe that the coaching staff know we are a FAR weaker side without Shane Long and therefore play a much tighter game
for approximately 70 minutes and the reason we are scoring later is not (particularly) because of tired defenders, but because
we change tactics and go for the win.

Agreed, and I've said as much a few times on here. We don't have the quality (or at least the in form quality) to attack teams and create enough whilst not getting exposed at the back.

Not sure where the cross purposes comes from. You said Long used to get the same stick for scoring late only because it was after defenders were tired etc etc and that he'd proven that was wrong. He hadn't and now you've started going off on numerous tangents about other things.

When Long was coming on as sub his goals to minute ration was enhanced because the majority of his goals were score during the most goal intensive period of a game. That he then maintained a good goals per minute ratio when playing the majority of 90 minutes doesn't make that less true.

[Snowball]

Anyone got the last home programme for last season?

They publish the percentage of goals for each 15 minutes

The final 15 is of course increased by injury time, usually 3/4/5 minutes

Near the end of last season I posted the stats and there was very little difference
and, if I remember, the first third of the second half had more goals

[Snowball]

Prem. when goals are scored

00-15 50 in 15 minutes 13.1%
16-30 52 in 15 minutes 13.6%
31-45 69 in 15 minutes 18.1% <<<< Most Goals per minute
46-60 61 in 15 minutes 16.0%
61-75 66 in 15 minutes 17.3% <<<<< second most goals per minute
76-94 83 in 19 minutes 21.8%

50 15 3.33 Goals per minute
52 15 3.47 Goals per minute
69 15 4.60 Goals per minute HIGHEST <<<<<

61 15 4.07 Goals per minute Fourth
66 15 4.40 Goals per minute SECOND HIGHEST
83 19 4.37 Goals per minute THIRD HIGHEST

So the most goal-full sixth is NOT the last fifteen minutes.

It's the last part of the first half. Strange that.

And the time period from 60-75 is the next highest.

So NOT tired legs, then? Maybe it's to do with strategy?

[Wycombe Royal]

So the most goal-full sixth is NOT the last fifteen minutes.

You haven't given the stats for the last 15 minutes, you've given them for the last 19 minutes.

So how many goals per minute are scored from 79 minutes to the final whistle? That is after all the last 15 minutes......

[Snowball]

So the most goal-full sixth is NOT the last fifteen minutes.

You haven't given the stats for the last 15 minutes, you've given them for the last 19 minutes.

So how many goals per minute are scored from 79 minutes to the final whistle? That is after all the last 15 minutes......

I don't have that stat, Wyc. But take a look at RFC's record and see what a significant percentage of this season's RFC goals
are after 90 minutes have elapsed. Not looking but is it 3 or 4 from 23 league goals scored after 90... about 14%


But those who say "loadsa goals late on" need to explain why other teams don't score them against RFC

[Wycombe Royal]

But take a look at RFC's record and see what a significant percentage of this season's RFC goals
are after 90 minutes have elapsed. Not looking but is it 3 or 4 from 23 league goals scored after 90... about 14%

Five I think:
Robson-Kanu vs Leicester
Manset vs Bristol City
Karacan vs Burnley
Hunt & Pearce vs Ipswich

[Snowball]

Look here to see the AMAZING effect of tired RFC players letting in bucket-loads of late goals this seas0n

Goals Conceded

00-15 XXXX
16-30 XXX
31-45

46-60 XXXXXXX
61-75 XXXXXXX
76-90 XX

23 goals conceded as follows

4 Goals Conceded 17.4% First 15
4 Goals Conceded 17.4% Second 15
0 Goals Conceded ZERO Third 15
7 Goals Conceded 30.4% Fourth Fifteen
7 Goals Conceded 30.4% Fifth Fifteen
2 Goals Conceded 08.7% Last Fifteen (despite being typically 18-19 minutes)

Unless RFC really, really are far fitter than other teams (which I seriously doubt)
the above has to be down to tactics

[Snowball]

But take a look at RFC's record and see what a significant percentage of this season's RFC goals
are after 90 minutes have elapsed. Not looking but is it 3 or 4 from 23 league goals scored after 90... about 14%

Five I think:
Robson-Kanu vs Leicester
Manset vs Bristol City
Karacan vs Burnley
Hunt & Pearce vs Ipswich

Thanks


If that's right, it proves my point

We do not score more goals per minute in the last 15 minutes plus added time
which rather suggests the "tired legs" argument is false.

I think we've scored 12 goals after 75 minutes, but only 7 therefore from 75-90. That is LESS than 45-60 and 60-74

[Snowball]

I THINK this is the goals


75, 75, 75, 77, 77, 79 >>>>>>> 85, 87, 90, 93, 93, 94, 99

8 or 9 in the last 15
4 or 5 in added time


not sure if that 90 I have was in normal time or ET


This the reality

46-60 XX
61-75 XXXXXXXX
76-90 XXXXXXXXX
....90+ XXXXX

but if you present it like THIS

00-45 XX

46-60 XX
61-75 XXXXXXXX
76-90 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX


It looks very different

[T.R.O.L.I.]

Unless RFC really, really are far fitter than other teams (which I seriously doubt)

This was certainly the aim in training a few years back.

[Ian Royal]

Unless RFC really, really are far fitter than other teams (which I seriously doubt)

This was certainly the aim in training a few years back.

The successful aim, I'd add. Our fitness is largely superb.