Shane Long

[brendywendy]

LOL at bringing in competition for our best left back in my time? at the time he was playing very well, amnd the competition would realistically have been facing a long sit on the benchfrom his past experiences with the player coppell was expecting a sidwell type reaction from him, and instead he got shit
lesson learned-not everyone will behave professionally in that situation, whether delibeately or through subconcious disapointment

[Snowball]

One of the "criticisms" aimed at Shane Long tried to argue that he only gets his goals because he comes on late and the opposition is tired.

I thought I would look at ALL the substitutions made, the minutes played, and see who has scored what.

We have had SEVEN (total) goals scored by subs in 1792 minutes on the pitch ("20 games"). (I set play to 93 minutes)

Note that Noel Hunt "coming on when defences has tired (seven times) hasn't scored.

Some substitutions are NOT late ones. Long has twice come on in the middle of the first half, so has Gunnarson twice and Cisse once.

23 sub appearances 548 Minutes 3 goals LONG (Plus won two penalties and one assist, one goal-line clearance)
13 sub appearances 324 Minutes 2 goals Gunnarson
10 sub appearances 153 Minutes 1 goals Cisse
04 sub appearances 055 Minutes 1 goal LITA


07 sub appearances 132 Minutes 0 goals Noel Hunt

06 sub appearances 161 Minutes 0 goals Matejovsky
05 sub appearances 086 Minutes 0 goals Harper
04 sub appearances 047 Minutes 0 goals Henry
03 sub appearances 057 Minutes 0 goals Convey
03 sub appearances 046 Minutes 0 goals Kelly
02 sub appearances 037 Minutes 0 goals Bikey
01 sub appearances 022 Minutes 0 goals Federici
01 sub appearances 031 Minutes 0 goals Kebe

Long gets his goal every two games (182 minutes), Gunnarson has done even better 1 every 162 minute, Cisse is on 153. Lita is on 55 minutes a goal (as a sub) but most imprtantly there is no evidence of players filling their boots against half-dead defenders, and Noel has still to score as a sub.

[Royalee]

No, I don't accept it for a second.

It's Coppell's "I'm happy with what I've got" and "I wouldn't swap my squad for any other in this league" mentality that has continually led to weaknesses in our squad.

Does anyone really believe that, had our manager wanted some competition for Shorey last season, that the Chairman would have turned him down?

It's well documented that there was money on the table that Coppell chose not to spend and look how much Armstrong cost when he finally arrived

Coppell has also gone on record as saying that the Chairman has never turned him down.

Coppell apologists are too prone to blame the Chairman in this respect when all the evidence points to the contrary.

Not bringing in an alternative to Shorey (no back up) has nothing to do with not bringing in a striker in January when we already had 6 (SIX) on the books.

What difference does it make what number of strikers we have on our books? I bet Church, Mooney and Long are barely being paid altogether what S Hunt was/is a week. Nevermind that two of them are out on loan and Lita's been to Norwich recently, leaving us with 3 strikers. Like Woodcote says, Coppell's always said that Madejski's backed him 100%, whether idiot conspiracy theorists like you believe it or not.

[Ian Royal]

LOL @ calling me a conspiracy theorist!

I've never said the money isn't there. But questions may be asked if we're bringing in a 7th striker and Madejski (and Coppell & Hammond) are unlikely to want to bring in another player when they're already juggling 5 strikers currently at the club not on loan (at the time). It's just not great sense to bring in more players when we're already paying some not to be played.

I think we needed a striker, but when Lita didn't move on it was obvious we wouldn't be getting one. Why do you think we let him talk to Sheffield?

I seem to recall somethig about players needing to leave before we made signings at the start of the season as well!

[OLLIE KEARNS]

One of the "criticisms" aimed at Shane Long tried to argue that he only gets his goals because he comes on late and the opposition is tired.

I thought I would look at ALL the substitutions made, the minutes played, and see who has scored what.

We have had SEVEN (total) goals scored by subs in 1792 minutes on the pitch ("20 games"). (I set play to 93 minutes)

Note that Noel Hunt "coming on when defences has tired (seven times) hasn't scored.

Some substitutions are NOT late ones. Long has twice come on in the middle of the first half, so has Gunnarson twice and Cisse once.

23 sub appearances 548 Minutes 3 goals LONG (Plus won two penalties and one assist, one goal-line clearance)
13 sub appearances 324 Minutes 2 goals Gunnarson
10 sub appearances 153 Minutes 1 goals Cisse
04 sub appearances 055 Minutes 1 goal LITA


07 sub appearances 132 Minutes 0 goals Noel Hunt

06 sub appearances 161 Minutes 0 goals Matejovsky
05 sub appearances 086 Minutes 0 goals Harper
04 sub appearances 047 Minutes 0 goals Henry
03 sub appearances 057 Minutes 0 goals Convey
03 sub appearances 046 Minutes 0 goals Kelly
02 sub appearances 037 Minutes 0 goals Bikey
01 sub appearances 022 Minutes 0 goals Federici
01 sub appearances 031 Minutes 0 goals Kebe

Long gets his goal every two games (182 minutes), Gunnarson has done even better 1 every 162 minute, Cisse is on 153. Lita is on 55 minutes a goal (as a sub) but most imprtantly there is no evidence of players filling their boots against half-dead defenders, and Noel has still to score as a sub.

I think you need to look at the key attributes of Shane Long to understand why he does so well as a sub. Also, it's not so much about tired defenders as the fact that the game will often be stretched in the last 20 minutes. Shane is a real threat when he is facing goal and he is poor with his back to goal. The stretched element of the game allows the ball to be played in front of him as opposed to feet with defenders marking him tightly.
Once you create that set of circumstances then he is a real threat in that a) he can run defenders in channels and b) he is actually a very good finisher when given chances.
It's been sad to see him fail to dramatically improve some of his weaker points but I think he has made some gradual progress. Sounds like he did well yesterday and I thought he also played well at Saints.
I hope he plays and scores against Charlton as a run in the side could really help him progress again.

[Southbank Old Boy]

Not bringing in an alternative to Shorey (no back up) has nothing to do with not bringing in a striker in January when we already had 6 (SIX) on the books.

It shouldnt matter how many forwards we have, and if you are going to count Church and Mooney you may as well count Bignall and maybe Robson-Kanu as well

3 of that 6 are not first team material at the moment. None of them are the centre forward we need to add to this squad

I am sure that JM would sanction a move for a player if Coppell said we needed them, the problem is that Coppell doesnt see the need

[Snowball]

One of the "criticisms" aimed at Shane Long tried to argue that he only gets his goals because he comes on late and the opposition is tired.
I thought I would look at ALL the substitutions made, the minutes played, and see who has scored what.
We have had SEVEN (total) goals scored by subs in 1792 minutes on the pitch ("20 games"). (I set play to 93 minutes)
Note that Noel Hunt "coming on when defences has tired (seven times) hasn't scored.
Some substitutions are NOT late ones. Long has twice come on in the middle of the first half, so has Gunnarson twice and Cisse once.
23 sub appearances 548 Minutes 3 goals LONG (Plus won two penalties and one assist, one goal-line clearance)
13 sub appearances 324 Minutes 2 goals Gunnarson
10 sub appearances 153 Minutes 1 goals Cisse
04 sub appearances 055 Minutes 1 goal LITA
07 sub appearances 132 Minutes 0 goals Noel Hunt
06 sub appearances 161 Minutes 0 goals Matejovsky
05 sub appearances 086 Minutes 0 goals Harper
04 sub appearances 047 Minutes 0 goals Henry
03 sub appearances 057 Minutes 0 goals Convey
03 sub appearances 046 Minutes 0 goals Kelly
02 sub appearances 037 Minutes 0 goals Bikey
01 sub appearances 022 Minutes 0 goals Federici
01 sub appearances 031 Minutes 0 goals Kebe

Long gets his goal every two games (182 minutes), Gunnarson has done even better 1 every 162 minute, Cisse is on 153. Lita is on 55 minutes a goal (as a sub) but most imprtantly there is no evidence of players filling their boots against half-dead defenders, and Noel has still to score as a sub.

I think you need to look at the key attributes of Shane Long to understand why he does so well as a sub. Also, it's not so much about tired defenders as the fact that the game will often be stretched in the last 20 minutes. Shane is a real threat when he is facing goal and he is poor with his back to goal. The stretched element of the game allows the ball to be played in front of him as opposed to feet with defenders marking him tightly.
Once you create that set of circumstances then he is a real threat in that a) he can run defenders in channels and b) he is actually a very good finisher when given chances.
It's been sad to see him fail to dramatically improve some of his weaker points but I think he has made some gradual progress. Sounds like he did well yesterday and I thought he also played well at Saints.
I hope he plays and scores against Charlton as a run in the side could really help him progress again.

Fairy Nuff, Ollie. Interesting that Noel doesn't blossom as a sub. I see Lita has his goal but I think that might be anomalous, being so late against a dispirited team already being hammered (as at Derby last season)

[Ian Royal]

I'd say the figures are misleading on Hunt.
He's come on and had quite strong impacts, at least early in the season, hitting the bar 2-3 times iirc. You'd probably want to count assists as well before saying he hasn't been a successful/useful sub.

[Yellowcoat]

How about providing some statistical facts to back up your view (rather than your biased personal opinions which you seem to post on just about every thread possible)?

[Ian Royal]

How about providing some statistical facts to back up your view (rather than your biased personal opinions which you seem to post on just about every thread possible)?

Because I'd be making them up. You can't get statistics for everything. Sometimes you have to rely on observation and your analysis of that.

For the record, given the snowball statistic love in recently I have put up a fair few posts including numbers, where appropriate. But this is a football discussion forum. Not a statisticians convention.

[CMRoyal]

I think there are two things with NHunt. Firstly, his great strength is getting in the end of crosses. With our wide players being shut out regularly the crosses have dried up putting the focus on other elements of his game which aren't so strong. He isn't especially quick and doesn't take people on so all he really has to offer is hard work running the channels, something that he can be relied on to provide. Secondly, and here's where the hard work comes in, I think he's been looking a bit leggy in recent weeks and can understand SCC going with some fresh legs. Playing 46 games in this league is a much greater burden compared to playing in the SPL so it's not a total surprise if he is in need of freshening up.
Whilst it's good to see Shane performing well I remain concerned that we didn't sign a striker in the window. I think Leroy coming back probably prevented that from happening and it could be our downfall. My view of needing another striker was posted during the window so it's not a post goal drought opinion either.
A proven striker coming into the squad would have provided options as well as momentun within the squad. Anyway, we are where we are so let's hope that Shane can step up to the plate !

Agree with all this, although there is always the loan system. Having said that, I don't know who we would bring in!

[The Rouge]

Saturday was a good example of how stats can be misleading. Shane Long had a good game on Saturday, one of our better players. Yet the stats will simply show he didn't score. As no player's sole responsibility is to score goals, they should be seen as part of the picture but not the full picture.

[Snowball]

I'd say the figures are misleading on Hunt.
He's come on and had quite strong impacts, at least early in the season, hitting the bar 2-3 times iirc. You'd probably want to count assists as well before saying he hasn't been a successful/useful sub.

Look CAREFULLY at what I said about Noel Hunt. Did I say that he is no good, or no good as a sub, or an unsuccessful sub?

You jump to conclusions again, Ian.


My post was SOLELY about answering the incorrect statement often made that Long's late goals
are less to do with his quality than they are to do with defences being tired out by the starters

So, the obvious thing to do is look at ALL the substitutions and see if the other subs get loads of late goals
and my comment on Noel was ABOUT GOALS. I don't think I added a comment suggesting he was "an unsuccessful sub"

Here are my actual words:

Note that Noel Hunt "coming on when defences has tired (seven times) hasn't scored.
and
Noel has still to score as a sub.

You see? YOU converted that into me saying Noel "hasn't been a successful/useful sub"


You mention assists. It would require searching all his seven sub appearances to discover if he made any assists while a sub, but consider this:
He has made three assists ALL SEASON (25 STARTS, 7 as sub) so if he gets assists as a sub he ain't doing well assist-wise when he starts.

[cmonurz]

Your problem Snowball is that all of your stats are quite clearly used to make very particular points. Whilst I don't debate your version of what you did and didn't write, if you highlight Hunt's not scoring or assisting as a sub, and then compare it quite plainly to that of other players, you are making a judgement on his usefulness as a sub (or at least appear to be). You can't blame anyone from taking that from your post.

[Snowball]

Saturday was a good example of how stats can be misleading. Shane Long had a good game on Saturday, one of our better players. Yet the stats will simply show he didn't score. As no player's sole responsibility is to score goals, they should be seen as part of the picture but not the full picture.

Of course, but he IS credited with an assist for Kebe's goal, and they are official stats.

But just remember, this part of the thread was answering the idea that Shane's GOALS were because the last 15-20 minutes is much easier to score in.

It isn't. That's another myth.

Allow for the fact that HT gets an average of 1 minute extra, and FT gets an average of 3 minutes extra

We score goals as follows

00-15 Mins 12 goals in 15 minutes = .080
16-30 Mins 12 goals in 15 minutes = .080
31-46 Mins 06 goals in 16 minutes = .040 (shutting up shop until half-time?)
46-60 Mins 11 goals in 15 minutes = .073
61-75 Mins 11 goals in 15 minutes = .073
76-93 Mins 15 goals in 18 minutes = .083 virtually identical to the first half-hour


The only reason there is a SLIGHT difference in goals (15 v 12) is because we play 20% more football!


To me these stats are interesting, because if you had asked me and I'd responded casually
I would have said we were something like TWICE as likely to score in the last 10-15 minutes
but we are not. Maybe it's the intensity and excitement of chasing an equaliser or the winner
or getting the killer goal that closes out the result. But the actual stats... not a real difference per minute

[Snowball]

Your problem Snowball is that all of your stats are quite clearly used to make very particular points. Whilst I don't debate your version of what you did and didn't write, if you highlight Hunt's not scoring or assisting as a sub, and then compare it quite plainly to that of other players, you are making a judgement on his usefulness as a sub (or at least appear to be). You can't blame anyone from taking that from your post.

Utter bollox. Earlier in these threads I was accused of precisely the opposite. I was accused of posting the stats and NOT making judgments or conclusions.

I was not interested in making a judgment on Noel or Gunnar or anyone. I simply posted the stats for all to see and those people (well, the ones with brains)
can clearly see that Shane does better over an extended run of sub appearances than other similar players.

You can see I showed that, at least theoretically/statistically Gunnarson, Cisse and Lita have done better:

"Long gets his goal every two games (182 minutes), Gunnarson has done even better 1 every 162 minute, Cisse is on 153.
Lita is on 55 minutes a goal (as a sub) but most importantly there is no evidence of players filling their boots against half-dead defenders, and Noel has still to score as a sub."

They are slightly misleading as is Shane's "sub" appearances, because there have been a few cases where players have come on in the first half or at half-time.

Gunnar and Shane have scored "as a sub" when they've come on quite early, and then, obviously, the late-goal thing doesn't apply

Maybe we should limit our analysis to the last 15 or 20 or 25 minutes.

[CMRoyal]

Saturday was a good example of how stats can be misleading. Shane Long had a good game on Saturday, one of our better players. Yet the stats will simply show he didn't score. As no player's sole responsibility is to score goals, they should be seen as part of the picture but not the full picture.

Yes, I couldn't help but think of the irony of how bald stats might make Shane look worse after Saturday, when in fact he did his claims a power of good by and large.

[CMRoyal]

Of course, but he IS credited with an assist for Kebe's goal, and they are official stats.

Again, this is where the eyes are more trustworthy than the stats. That wasn't a Long assist.

[OLLIE KEARNS]

Of course, but he IS credited with an assist for Kebe's goal, and they are official stats.

Again, this is where the eyes are more trustworthy than the stats. That wasn't a Long assist.

Stats can be misleading but then so can the eye in terms of how you interpret something over a period of time. I will allways form a visual opinion first and foremost but occasionally I'll see some stats that make me think twice and possibly reconsider.
Snowball, in that respect your stats are a useful logic check so keep them coming

[Snowball]

How about providing some statistical facts to back up your view (rather than your biased personal opinions which you seem to post on just about every thread possible)?

Because I'd be making them up. You can't get statistics for everything. Sometimes you have to rely on observation and your analysis of that.

For the record, given the snowball statistic love in recently I have put up a fair few posts including numbers, where appropriate. But this is a football discussion forum. Not a statisticians convention.

Fans are quoting statistics even when they don't quote statistics.

If we say Stretch has been brilliant every damn game, that's a statistical statement.

Judgments are based on rough/rule of them/informal statistical analysis

Trouble is they are often horribly wrong as a few thousand psychology experiments have shown


For example, Ian Royals was on about Kebe getting 3 chances a game in early season and missing etc.

Yet if you go to the match reports, actually look at the historical record, the Kebe positives MASSIVELY outweigh the negatives

In the first 9 games (the first two months) (that's "early in the season, right?

In those 9 EARLY games there were 38 mentions of Kebe including one miss, one shot over the bar, one piece of poor control, one case of a good save but maybe too close to the keeper, (4 negatives)

but then there were 34 positives, including scintillating, great cross, cracking cross, superb, brilliant, our best attacking player, beautiful, excellent cross, Kebe brilliance, Kebe's lightning pace leads to goal, clever back-heel creats goal, Kebe's great skill leads to goal, magnificent run and shot, bamboozles defender, wins corner which leads to goal, header-assist for Doyle goal, header brilliantly saved, surging run creates Hunt goal, brilliant trickery leads to Doyle chance, excellent Kebe, Kebe's hits upright, Kebe beautiful interchange, Kebe superb on the night, assist.