Simon Church

[winchester_royal]

LOL @ even the thought of letting Church go out on loan.

[Archie's penalty]

I think Church might benefit from going to a Conference or League Two club for a season or 6 months. He could get a good club who'd be delighted to have him. It's clearly below the level he is capable of playing at, but it's physical and real football. He needs a season somewhere banging in the goals to get his eye in and get that scoring touch, which he's never really seemed to have.

two of his five goals have gone in off him, not been shots

He's just not a goalscorer, never has been from what I remember.

He performs a role and does a job for the team but, a bit like a Heskey or a Mark Hughes at times, he just isn't going to score many goals.

He's had loan spells in the lower leagues and not scored. There isn't much point in him playing at a level miles below his standard just to score goals as he won't be learning anything and stepping back up will then again be a readjustment.

We just have to accept that he isn't a prolific scorer.

Disagree. I think he'll get there. Lol at comparing him to Heskey. Infinitely better touch and movement then the big lump.

[Hoop Blah]

Firstly, I didn't compare the two in terms of style of play, just in the way they can contribute to a teams effectiveness without actually scoring many goals at the same time.

Secondly, Heskey's movement and touch are pretty good, that’s part of the reason why he's played as many games as he has for a top 10 international team you plank!

I hope Church proves me wrong, but I doubt he'll ever be a consistent 15-20 goals a season forward at this level, or at League 1.

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

I like Church.

But he doesn't have a single quality even half as good as Heskey. What a joker.

Church is fine, he's been a bit over exposed this season, it the same with Jem. They'll both be much better players after this season.

[johnnym]

I think Church might benefit from going to a Conference or League Two club for a season or 6 months. He could get a good club who'd be delighted to have him. It's clearly below the level he is capable of playing at, but it's physical and real football. He needs a season somewhere banging in the goals to get his eye in and get that scoring touch, which he's never really seemed to have.

two of his five goals have gone in off him, not been shots

He's just not a goalscorer, never has been from what I remember.

He performs a role and does a job for the team but, a bit like a Heskey or a Mark Hughes at times, he just isn't going to score many goals.

He's had loan spells in the lower leagues and not scored. There isn't much point in him playing at a level miles below his standard just to score goals as he won't be learning anything and stepping back up will then again be a readjustment.

We just have to accept that he isn't a prolific scorer.

Disagree. I think he'll get there. Lol at comparing him to Heskey. Infinitely better touch and movement then the big lump.

LOL at someone Lol-ing at Heskey. How many England caps does he have now?? Is that three England managers that have picked him?? Was it Rooney who finished as top scorer in qualifying.....mostly as a result of support from Heskey??

[Archie's penalty]

I can LOL at whoever I want thanks. Maybe Heskey had good touch and movement as a nipper but now?

Ok let me backtrack a bit. I think Church's movement and touch are very good and I don't think they were the things that Heskey was/is renowned for.

Infinitely better was a bit of a skip of the keyboard!

[facaldaqui]

Much as I admire Church's work-rate and awareness, he is not a natural goalscorer and never will be. For this reason, I think we should let him go as soon as that's feasible. I don't buy the idea that this is only his first season so we should wait for him to improve: it's too late, he hasn't got it, and we need to grasp the nettle rather than letting this process drift on. I was speaking to a guy last week who played with him at Crewe, and before I'd said a thing about Church, he said that he doesn't score enough goals and completely lacks what is necessary when the moment comes to strike.

[rob the royal]

LOL at LOL-ING.

Anyway hopefully we'll all be LOL-ing, including Church, if and when he scores a goal!

[Snowball]

My subjective view of Church is he shoots wide or over a lot.

What do the stats say?

ON-OFF Hit woodwork)

12 13 0 When on target, scores 1 in 02.4, 1 in 05 overall Shane Long
35 33 3 When on target, scores 1 in 04.0, 1 in 08 overall Gylfi
21 20 2 When on target, scores 1 in 04.0, 1 in 08 overall Simon Church
21 19 1 When on target, scores 1 in 03.5, 1 in 07 overall Grzegorz Rasiak
14 15 2 When on target, scores 1 in 07.0, 1 in 15 overall Brian Howard
15 21 2 When on target, scores 1 in 15.0, 1 in 38 overall Jobi McAnuff

Seems he gets approximately the same percentage on target as Gylfi, or Shane. Currently Shane is the deadliest

[facaldaqui]

Trouble is, his on-target shots are often pretty flimsy.

[Hoop Blah]

My subjective view of Church is he shoots wide or over a lot.

What do the stats say?

ON-OFF Hit woodwork)

12 13 0 When on target, scores 1 in 02.4, 1 in 05 overall Shane Long
35 33 3 When on target, scores 1 in 04.0, 1 in 08 overall Gylfi
21 20 2 When on target, scores 1 in 04.0, 1 in 08 overall Simon Church
21 19 1 When on target, scores 1 in 03.5, 1 in 07 overall Grzegorz Rasiak
14 15 2 When on target, scores 1 in 07.0, 1 in 15 overall Brian Howard
15 21 2 When on target, scores 1 in 15.0, 1 in 38 overall Jobi McAnuff

Seems he gets approximately the same percentage on target as Gylfi, or Shane. Currently Shane is the deadliest

What are his stats on fails to get a meaningful shot off because he dithers about a bit too much or wastes a good opportunity by what seems to be taking the wrong option?

[Ian Royal]

I think Church might benefit from going to a Conference or League Two club for a season or 6 months. He could get a good club who'd be delighted to have him. It's clearly below the level he is capable of playing at, but it's physical and real football. He needs a season somewhere banging in the goals to get his eye in and get that scoring touch, which he's never really seemed to have.

two of his five goals have gone in off him, not been shots

He's just not a goalscorer, never has been from what I remember.

He performs a role and does a job for the team but, a bit like a Heskey or a Mark Hughes at times, he just isn't going to score many goals.

He's had loan spells in the lower leagues and not scored. There isn't much point in him playing at a level miles below his standard just to score goals as he won't be learning anything and stepping back up will then again be a readjustment.

We just have to accept that he isn't a prolific scorer.

He played there at a pretty early age. I personally think it might be worth it for him to find a scoring touch. He finds and makes shooting chances, he just doesn't bury them.

Lets face it, if he scored half the shots he should do, he would have been picked up by someone far bigger than us in January. His work rate, pace and movement are superb for a player of his age and experience.

Personally I think his lack of finishing isn't because the level is too hard for him to score. If he scored well at a lower level I think he'd bring the knack back with him.

I'm happy for him to remain a non-prolific goal scorer if he really won't ever be, which is certainly possible. He'd still be an excellent asset for us. We just need the Kitson/Morley/Quinn/Cureton alongside him to bang them in.

[Snowball]

Trouble is, his on-target shots are often pretty flimsy.

As his 1 in 4 shows, compared to Shane's 1 in 2.4

10 on target shots from Shane gets 4 goals, Simon manages 2.5, so not "deadly"


Mind you Church = Gylfi's hit-rate. Must be because Gylfi shoots more from distance.

[Ian Royal]

Trouble is, his on-target shots are often pretty flimsy.

As his 1 in 4 shows, compared to Shane's 1 in 2.4

10 on target shots from Shane gets 4 goals, Simon manages 2.5, so not "deadly"


Mind you Church = Gylfi's hit-rate. Must be because Gylfi shoots more from distance.

Sig has fluffed a fair few chances in the box and takes freekicks.

I think you're missing the rather significant average number of shots per game and average number of shots on target comparison for Long and Church. If Church gets double the shots on target long does, things even up a little again.

(I don't expect it to show that. Church misses the target plenty)

[Snowball]

Sig has fluffed a fair few chances in the box and takes freekicks.

I think you're missing the rather significant average number of shots per game and average number of shots on target comparison for Long and Church. If Church gets double the shots on target long does, things even up a little again.

(I don't expect it to show that. Church misses the target plenty)

I base "games played" as starts plus sub appearances divided by 6.

Long beats Church on total shots per game 2.21 v 1.98
Long beats Church on on-target shots per game 1.15 v 0.97
Long beats Church on games needed to score 2.26 v 4.14

Columns are: Games/Goals Games required to score a goal. On target shots per game/off-target shots per game

11.3 5 2.26 1.06 1.15 2.21 Long
22.5 9 2.50 1.56 1.47 3.02 Gylfi
15.3 6 2.55 1.37 1.24 2.61 Rasiak
20.7 5 4.14 1.01 0.97 1.98 Church
15.0 2 7.50 0.93 1.00 1.93 Howard

If those numbers aren't easy to digest, on form so far this season,
if all these players started 34 games and were subs 12 times they'd get
(based on form so far)

15.90 goals Shane
14.40 goals Gylfi
14.12 goals Rasiak
08.70 goals Church
04.80 goals Howard

Would we consider a 9-goal return from Church in his first season to be a good return? Surely that's a YES?

[Elm Park Old Boy]

Sig has fluffed a fair few chances in the box and takes freekicks.

I think you're missing the rather significant average number of shots per game and average number of shots on target comparison for Long and Church. If Church gets double the shots on target long does, things even up a little again.

(I don't expect it to show that. Church misses the target plenty)

I base "games played" as starts plus sub appearances divided by 6.

Long beats Church on total shots per game 2.21 v 1.98
Long beats Church on on-target shots per game 1.15 v 0.97
Long beats Church on games needed to score 2.26 v 4.14

Columns are: Games/Goals Games required to score a goal. On target shots per game/off-target shots per game

11.3 5 2.26 1.06 1.15 2.21 Long
22.5 9 2.50 1.56 1.47 3.02 Gylfi
15.3 6 2.55 1.37 1.24 2.61 Rasiak
20.7 5 4.14 1.01 0.97 1.98 Church
15.0 2 7.50 0.93 1.00 1.93 Howard

If those numbers aren't easy to digest, on form so far this season,
if all these players started 34 games and were subs 12 times they'd get
(based on form so far)

15.90 goals Shane
14.40 goals Gylfi
14.12 goals Rasiak
08.70 goals Church
04.80 goals Howard

Would we consider a 9-goal return from Church in his first season to be a good return? Surely that's a YES?

Interesting - but what's the rationale for the underlined bit?

[Snowball]

I figure it like this

Many starts are not the full 90 minutes, but I'm counting all starts as 90 minutes.

Often subs are for 2-3-4-5 minutes, sometimes for 30-35, but usually 25 or less.

Last season when I did Shane's minutes, his average time on the pitch as a sub was under 20 mins
and that included two games where he came on as a sub in the first half

So I'm saying 1 start and 1 sub is 105 minutes (excluding extra time)

And applying the same rule for all players

[Snowball]

Here are all the subs, an average of 24.6 minutes

01 Thor
02 Harper
02 Rasiak
06 Long
06 Thor
06 Karacan
09 Kish
09 Long (+30)
12 Kebe
12 Cisse
12 Long
13 Tabb
13 Kebe
13 Long
14 Cisse
14 Karacan
15 Church
15 Kebe
16 Rasiak
16 Kebe
16 Rasiak
16 Bignall
17 Antonio
17 Church
17 Howard
17 HRK
19 Hunt
19 Karacan
20 HRK
20 Hunt
21 Karacan
21 Church
22 Rasiak
22 Gylfi
23 Davies
23 Church
23 Mills
24 Hunt
24 Harper
24 Kebe
25 Long
25 Kebe
25 Rasiak
25 Gunnarson
25 Kebe
Mac 25 Kebe
25 HRK
25 Kebe + 30
26 Long
26 Long
27 Gunnarson
29 Long
29 Kebe
30 HRK
30 Rasiak
31 Rasiak
31 Matejovsky
31 Howard +30
32 Harper
32 Cisse
32 Siggi
33 Karacan
34 Long
36 HRK
37 Long
45 Hunt
45 HRK
45 Long
45 HRK
45 Kebe
45 Howard
47 Odea
55 Kebe
67 Kebe
70 Karacan

[Snowball]

That rough and ready way has me saying Shane has played 11.33 games


Totaling his minutes, turns out he's he's played 11.77 games. The guess is out by 4%

[Hoop Blah]

He played there at a pretty early age. I personally think it might be worth it for him to find a scoring touch. He finds and makes shooting chances, he just doesn't bury them.

Lets face it, if he scored half the shots he should do, he would have been picked up by someone far bigger than us in January. His work rate, pace and movement are superb for a player of his age and experience.

Personally I think his lack of finishing isn't because the level is too hard for him to score. If he scored well at a lower level I think he'd bring the knack back with him.

I'm happy for him to remain a non-prolific goal scorer if he really won't ever be, which is certainly possible. He'd still be an excellent asset for us. We just need the Kitson/Morley/Quinn/Cureton alongside him to bang them in.

But he's never had 'that goalscoring touch' at any level he's played. He might have the odd good season in terms of goal return, but basically he isn't a prolific goalscorer, so he just won't find that knack at a lower level and bring it back as you say.

His workrate is excellent yes, his movement pretty good and his touch nothing more than you'd expect from a professional, he's not that quick either so don't know where your getting this 'superb pace' from...basically I do think people are getting carried away with him and believing the hype far too much!

He's an average hard working forward, not a lot more. That's fine though, good enough to be in our squad at the moment, just not goos enough to be winning us games as part of our starting XI (in my opinion).