Shane Long

[CMRoyal]

As expected, the eyes have it!

Au contraire, Monsieur. The EYES of the media got it wrong, did they not? And they are being paid to SEE well.

I don't know if the people doing the web-site just rip-off the media report or EYEBALL it themselves but they
have awarded an assist for NOT touching it?

Sometimes I can't help thinking that you just need to learn to let things go, snowball. It's a sign of strength, not weakness. My quote was just a lighthearted play on words.

[Snowball]

I'd argue that Long's challenge is an assist and again it highlights how limited stats can be. In most stats packages that wouldn't be classed as an assist (if recorded correctly) but without that key contribution the goal wouldn't have happened.

All these assist stats are so limited because they're usually just taken as the last attacking player to touch the ball before a goal is scored. Any one who knows anything about football is aware that that isn't always the key moment in the build up to a goal.

Agreed, and reflecting on this 'accidental' credit (which simultaneously negates MM's part in the goal), I'm not sure we can trust official stats on assists at all. They usually give us only a partial picture, and as demonstrated here can also be incorrect anyway.

What's the alternative? Use a couple of lister opinons? Whose?

All the Harper-haters KNOW Harper never makes a goal-scoring pass.
All the Kebe haters KNOW Kebe never shoots, can't shoot, never scores

etc

It's a bit much now pooh-hooing the official stats to make points. They are the best we have and no less
likely to be right than the many and varied opinions on the list. In fact they are MORE likely to be right
than any lister. They have less bias, less axes to grind, probably the ability to check videos etc


As for "accidental credit". Isn't that a matter of opinion? Some will see a faint head on, some will see he didn't head the ball
but him JUMPING almost certainly played a part, and as some have said, his bustle was "worth" an assist.

[Snowball]

As expected, the eyes have it!

Au contraire, Monsieur. The EYES of the media got it wrong, did they not? And they are being paid to SEE well.

I don't know if the people doing the web-site just rip-off the media report or EYEBALL it themselves but they
have awarded an assist for NOT touching it?

Sometimes I can't help thinking that you just need to learn to let things go, snowball. It's a sign of strength, not weakness. My quote was just a lighthearted play on words.

And I was just replying light-heartedly, also

[CMRoyal]

Au contraire, Monsieur. The EYES of the media got it wrong, did they not? And they are being paid to SEE well.

I don't know if the people doing the web-site just rip-off the media report or EYEBALL it themselves but they
have awarded an assist for NOT touching it?

Sometimes I can't help thinking that you just need to learn to let things go, snowball. It's a sign of strength, not weakness. My quote was just a lighthearted play on words.

And I was just replying light-heartedly, also

Apologies for not realising - I'm still relatively new to internet/email etiquette, but I was under the impression that writing in capitals was the equivalent of shouting.

[Snowball]

Snowball further adding to them with his analysis of the OS match reports it doesn't make for the most accurate source for information.

They are the best we have. Not remotely saying they are perfect, even good... but (for example) when Ian Royal spouts such patent bollox about Kebe throwing away 3 chances a game for the early part of the season, other than watching ten videos, in order to counter such "invention", the best we have is the reports.

I was looking at last year in particular and they are very keen to highlight BAD misses.

The name Lita kept popping up.

[Snowball]

Apologies for not realising - I'm still relatively new to internet/email etiquette, but I was under the impression that writing in capitals was the equivalent of shouting.

It made be but it's the most ridiculous "convention" ever.

This is a written communication, why shout, even if we could?

The caps and bold should have had quote-marks around them, just a shorthand
there for the haters being certain, and me emphasising their (probable) error

[Hoop Blah]

What's the alternative? Use a couple of lister opinons? Whose?

All the Harper-haters KNOW Harper never makes a goal-scoring pass.
All the Kebe haters KNOW Kebe never shoots, can't shoot, never scores

etc

I think you need to learn that there are some posters you just need to ignore on here, and some that will give a worthwhile opinion (even if it's not one that you agree with!).

The alternative to using flawed stats is to fall back on trusting what you see, paying specific attention to parts of the game that you're unsure about or want to understand a little more and not to fall back on stats that don't always mean anything when applied to such a varied and fast moving game as football.

You may be a statitician, but I think you need to realise that not all evidence has to be in the form of raw statistics.

[Snowball]

I looked at the stats for substitutes and scoring yesterday

but made the point that some substitutions were early and not of the type where SSC
throws on a few late changes in hope. For example Shane has come on twice, half-way
through the first half (both times for Noel Hunt) and in one game he scored.

For all intents and purposes they weren't short "sub-appearances" but more like starts.

Ditto for a couple of Gunnarson appearances, eg when he came on after Bikey was sent off at Cardiff

So I looked at ONLY substitutions where the Reading player played a maximum of 25 minutes


Minutes-goals-mins/goal

282 2 141 Long
055 1 055 Lita
120 1 120 Cisse
086 0 000 Harper
099 0 000 Noel Hunt
133 0 000 Gunnarson

So in a season where we have scored 62 league goals just FOUR have come from subs coming on for the last 25 minutes

That kinda blows away the idea that subs on 65 minutes or so have some great advantage

I think Shane has had 813 minutes now for his four goals 1 goal every 203 minutes

Of course you could argue that his other two goals coming from starts or longer stints total 531 minutes (265 per goal)
show a bias towards being super late-sub but really the numbers are too small to make real judgments

[cmonurz]

I disagree with your logic there. What those stats show is not necessarily that they get know advantage coming on late in the game, but simply that this season, our subs have not, generally, come on and scored goals.

If you look at the distribution of all of our goals, I'm sure the majority are scored in the last 20 minutes (the analysis must surely be on one of these threads somewhere). And that's not surprising. It isn't flawed to suggest it is 'easier' to score towards the end of the game.

[Snowball]

I disagree with your logic there. What those stats show is not necessarily that they get know advantage coming on late in the game, but simply that this season, our subs have not, generally, come on and scored goals.

If you look at the distribution of all of our goals, I'm sure the majority are scored in the last 20 minutes (the analysis must surely be on one of these threads somewhere). And that's not surprising. It isn't flawed to suggest it is 'easier' to score towards the end of the game.

I posted the stats on when goals are scored. Majority is greater than 50% and you could hardly be more wrong


Our goals per minute rate for the first fifteen minutes, the second 15 and the last "15" are almost identical (this includes Wednesday & Plymouth

30/62 goals we score in the 1st half (46 minutes with 1 minute extra) = .652 goals per mnute
32/62 goals we score in the 2nd half (48 minutes with 3 minutes extra) = .667 goals per minute

In fact the difference between first and second half is dues to the 15 minutes before half-time when scoring falls away a lot

We actually score MORE goals per minute in the first 30 minutes than in the last 33 (add 3 Extra Time minutes)

24 goals in first 30 minutes = .800 goals per minute
26 goals in last 33 minutes = .788 goals per minutes








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

[Snowball]

I'm sure the majority are scored in the last 20 minutes (the analysis must surely be on one of these threads somewhere). And that's not surprising. It isn't flawed to suggest it is 'easier' to score towards the end of the game.

Note you said, I'm sure the majority (of goals) are scored in the last 20 minutes

Do you see how "intuition", prejudice, bias, guesswork, "common-knowledge", common-sense, everybody knows, kind of stuff needs to be TESTED by facts?

39% of our goals are scored in the first half-hour
66% of our goals are scored in the first hour
84% of our goals are scored in the first 75 minutes

Just SIXTEEN per-cent are scored in the last 18 minutes

[Platypuss]

Reading between the lines, I think he was considering proportionate goals in the last 20 minutes in comparison to other 20 minute slots - 0-20, 25-45 etc.

[Snowball]

Reading between the lines, I think he was considering proportionate goals in the last 20 minutes in comparison to other 20 minute slots - 0-20, 25-45 etc.

Do I have to read between the lines, then and ignore the common meaning of words and statements?

But even so, there is no proportional extra either.

[Royal Rother]

Reading (and quoting) cmonurz's whole sentence would have been a decent start.

[VOR]

Apologies for not realising - I'm still relatively new to internet/email etiquette, but I was under the impression that writing in capitals was the equivalent of shouting.

It made be but it's the most ridiculous "convention" ever.

This is a written communication, why shout, even if we could?

The caps and bold should have had quote-marks around them, just a shorthand
there for the haters being certain, and me emphasising their (probable) error

May I humbly recommend that you lie down in a darkened room for a few hours, then have another look at all the time and energy you have wasted on this thread, buy yourself a sense of humour on ebay and then have a good laugh at yourself. I guarantee you will feel much better for it.

[Mike Hunt]

Watching it again, Kebe did REALLY well, he had two men on him plus the keeper and an awkward ball to control.

Agreed, I watched the highlights, and have to agree. The cheek he had to slot it through the keepers legs made me LOL.
Keep it up Kebe.

Actually, Kebe was aiming for the top left hand corner.

On-topic, I am really loving Shane Long at the moment, seeing him chase down that almost impossible ball, and claim it - was amazing.

Lets hope his form can continue!

If he starts tomorrow - he will score.

[Platypuss]

Reading between the lines, I think he was considering proportionate goals in the last 20 minutes in comparison to other 20 minute slots - 0-20, 25-45 etc.

Do I have to read between the lines, then and ignore the common meaning of words and statements?

Like ignore the common meaning of terms like "distribution", for example?

You're making yourself look silly.

[Snowball]

Reading (and quoting) cmonurz's whole sentence would have been a decent start.

You mean: If you look at the distribution of all of our goals, I'm sure the majority are scored in the last 20 minutes (the analysis must surely be on one of these threads somewhere). And that's not surprising. It isn't flawed to suggest it is 'easier' to score towards the end of the game.


That is TOTALLY clear IMO, and the analysis had already been done by me
and had shown that we DIDN"T score more foals per minute in the last 15+

Perhaps cmonurz and yourself don't know what "majority" means

It isn't flawed to suggest it is 'easier' to score towards the end of the game.

IF it is easier to score towards the end of the game, then we should expect more goals towards the end of the game.

Reading do NOT get more goals towards the end of the game (per minute). The difference is because of extra time. .80 v .83 is a tiny difference.

Now a difference like .8 v .4 (the 15 minutes before half-time is relatively goal-free) THAT is something real, at least in reading games

[Snowball]

Reading between the lines, I think he was considering proportionate goals in the last 20 minutes in comparison to other 20 minute slots - 0-20, 25-45 etc.

Do I have to read between the lines, then and ignore the common meaning of words and statements?

Like ignore the common meaning of terms like "distribution", for example?

You're making yourself look silly.

What the hell has "distribution" to do with anything/ That's just an extra word

Here is the distribution with attached goals per minute

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

What you can say is, the majority of goals are scored in the second half, but this is a TINY majority (51.6%)

The grid of facts immediately above IS a distribution

[Snowball]

Watching it again, Kebe did REALLY well, he had two men on him plus the keeper and an awkward ball to control.

Agreed, I watched the highlights, and have to agree. The cheek he had to slot it through the keepers legs made me LOL.
Keep it up Kebe.

Actually, Kebe was aiming for the top left hand corner.
On-topic, I am really loving Shane Long at the moment, seeing him chase down that almost impossible ball, and claim it - was amazing.
Lets hope his form can continue! If he starts tomorrow - he will score.

I hope he starts and I hope he scores. I'm a fan and think he gets/has got far too much stick on these boards.

As for Kebe, perfect example of the fickleness of this board. Watching his goal live, GREAT! But what if the keeper had stopped that cute nutmeg like he did with Doyle's chance and we lost 2-1?

One split-second. We would now be "doomed" to staying down, the team breaking up and there would be a call for Kebe to be kicked out of the club immediately (after being disembowelled.