Shane Long

[Sun Tzu]

He Wasn't free, I think about 17k was the price although whether in £ or Euro I'm not sure.

More than proved his worth in the past, and now could be Doylesque in his contribution this season.

[Snowball]

I didn't rate him

--> Snowball showed me stats

--> I changed my mind and thought ok he might be useful

--> My blushes are relatively spared

Thank you Snowball.

Cheers! What's more he's IMPROVED his stats. Now 9 goals in "15 games" this season

But look at THIS statistic

14 shots on target (for his 9 goals, 65% of on target shots = goals that is LETHAL!) (Doyle is 42%, Noel is 37%)
12 shots off target
03 shots hit the woodwork
02 goals disallowed

[cmonurz]

Have to say, Mr Long is proving me absolutely wrong, full credit to him, he looked a different player last night, dare I say a bit like an in-form Doyle. Good on the ball, quick, harried defenders, and two clinical finishes. Can't ask more than that, and long (chuckle) may it continue.

[boy1985]

Have to say, Mr Long is proving me absolutely wrong, full credit to him, he looked a different player last night, dare I say a bit like an in-form Doyle. Good on the ball, quick, harried defenders, and two clinical finishes. Can't ask more than that, and long (chuckle) may it continue.

i thought this too, which can only be a good thing. but this is also the reason why they can't well play together.

[Snowball]

These are the stats to date. I find it amazing to read that Kitson has
had so many shots on target for only two goals

Games-Sub-Minutes/90, then goals-per-game, then 1 game ever X games, shots on target, shots off target, hit woodwork

The line for Noel Hunt "Hunt adjusted" is to show his rating allowing for the fact he was usually brought off after 60-65 minutes
and twice started but only played 25 or so minutes.




ST SU 'Games'

10 26 15.20 - - 0.59 goals per game = one goal every 1.69 games - - - 1.78 shots per game - - 14 On Target - 10 Off 03 HWW 09 Goals 2 Assists Shane Long

18 10 20.00 - - 0.55 goals per game = one goal every 1.82 games - - - 2.85 shots per game - - 30 On Target - 22 Off 05 HWW 11 Goals 3 Assists Noel Hunt (Adjusted)

39 01 39.20 - - 0.46 goals per game = one goal every 2.18 games - - - 1.89 shots per game - - 43 On Target - 27 Off 04 HWW 18 Goals 5 Assists Kevin Doyle

27 10 29.00 - - 0.38 goals per game = one goal every 2.64 games - - - 1.97 shots per game - - 30 On Target - 22 Off 05 HWW 11 Goals 3 Assists Noel Hunt

08 01 08.20 - - 0.24 goals per game = one goal every 4.10 games - - - 3.17 shots per game - - 16 On Target - 09 Off 01 HWW 02 Goals 0 Assists Dave Kitson

06 04 06.80 - - 0.15 goals per game = one goal every 6.80 games - - - 2.21 shots per game - - 08 On Target - 07 Off 00 HWW 01 Goals 0 Assists Leroy Lita

[Snowball]

I doubt Shane will ever quite have the first touch or close control of Kevin Doyle

But Doyle is 26 this year and Shane just 22, still raw in training terms
and has three and a half years to hone his skills and catch up to Kevin.

What was Kevin doing aged 22?

18 league goals in 41.8 appearances Doyle 2005-6
09 league goals in 15.2 appearances Shane 2008-9


Again, in goals per game, Shane is doing better than Kevin did in the 106-Season.

We can never know how Shane would do if he played 41.8 games, but in 3 times
the games, isn't there a reasonable chance he'd bag twice as many goals?

If his first touch keeps improving, Shane could be a very good striker indeed

[Snowball]

Have to say, Mr Long is proving me absolutely wrong, full credit to him, he looked a different player last night, dare I say a bit like an in-form Doyle. Good on the ball, quick, harried defenders, and two clinical finishes. Can't ask more than that, and long (chuckle) may it continue.

i thought this too, which can only be a good thing. but this is also the reason why they can't well play together.

Kitson plays (too) deep. But Doyle has played like that also.

With either Kitson or Doyle playing as the deep striker, it helps out the midfield, esp against 5-man midfields
and then Shane can do loads of running in the channels etc.

[Snowball]

On another thread some tosser, still refusing to give Shane Long his due,
asked how many points has Shane COST US this season by being crap.

I made the point that in the ten games where Shane didn't play at all we won just ONE game (1-0 at Barnsley)
and scored just 3 goals in 10 games, conceding 9 goals.

Shane has cored some vital goals this season and the perception of him is probably still "super-sub"
but in fact he has scored six of his nine goals from his ten STARTS, three goals from 26 SUB appearances
so it looks like, he's inverted what used to be the case.

Also, one of his sub-appearances (and goal) was where he came on early (25th minute) v Burnley

so SEVEN of his 9 goals this season have come from a long time on the pitch, NOT a late sub appearance


STARTS

4-2 0 Palace H 68 mins
0-2 0 Ipswich A 60 mins
1-1 1 Saints A 90 mins
2-2 0 Plymouth A 90 mins
2-2 2 Charlton H 90 mins
0-1 0 Ipswich H 68 mins
0-0 0 Coventry A 90 mins
2-2 0 Blackpool A 79 mins
2-0 1 Derby A 90 mins
2-0 2 Norwich A 90 mins

15-12 6 "9 games"

W3 D5 L2

[Ian Royal]

Do you have to spam quite so much shit snowball? Was all that really necessary? It adds virtually nothing to the discussion.

Thanks to those of you who highlighted my comments. Long has certainly come on leaps and bounds. He showed a fairly good first touch, good control, determination and clever play in that game. Things that were almost completely lacking in the games earlier in the season.

I didn't think he had it in him, but with a run of games, cometh the hour, cometh the man.

[brendywendy]

LOL

you can just scroll past it you know

[Snowball]

Do you have to spam quite so much shit snowball? Was all that really necessary? It adds virtually nothing to the discussion.

I disagree. Someone said Shane has cost us points this season, when he has clearly WON us points.

This IS a thread about Shane Long. The stats are relevant AND important.

Thanks to those of you who highlighted my comments.

Your poor judgment, you mean.

Long has certainly come on leaps and bounds. He showed a fairly good first touch, good control, determination and clever play in that game. Things that were almost completely lacking in the games earlier in the season.

I didn't think he had it in him, but with a run of games, cometh the hour, cometh the man.

OIC, you mean PRECISELY what I said would happen.

and he's still a kid.

[Ian Royal]

Do you have to spam quite so much shit snowball? Was all that really necessary? It adds virtually nothing to the discussion.

I disagree. Someone said Shane has cost us points this season, when he has clearly WON us points.

This IS a thread about Shane Long. The stats are relevant AND important.

No someone said can you quantify the number of points he has cost us by being shit or missing chances. You then restated teh number of points he has won. Well done. Completely avoiding teh question.

I'll give you 1 game for a start. Ipswich away. He was absolutely awful. Didn't look good enough for League 1, wasted ball after ball after ball. But that's not really important right now.

[Snowball]

Do you have to spam quite so much shit snowball? Was all that really necessary? It adds virtually nothing to the discussion.

I disagree. Someone said Shane has cost us points this season, when he has clearly WON us points.

This IS a thread about Shane Long. The stats are relevant AND important.

No someone said can you quantify the number of points he has cost us by being shit or missing chances. You then restated teh number of points he has won. Well done. Completely avoiding teh question.

I'll give you 1 game for a start. Ipswich away. He was absolutely awful. Didn't look good enough for League 1, wasted ball after ball after ball. But that's not really important right now.

ONE game! I have pointed out that in TEN games, where he didn't step on the pitch, we won 1 game, conceded 9 goals, scored a measly 3. That is, of all our dropped points
there are 21 which in an instant we can see he is utterly blameless.

He was let down by the appalling defending of others after scoring two versus Charlton.

All players have bad days, but his record shows that this season, overall, he has been an important player for Reading,
is third top scorer, has two assists, has had two goals disallowed, has directly won us at least 9 points (should have been 11)

And that for a player who has only started ten games and been on the pitch for a total of minutes equating to 15 games

[Ian Royal]

Yes one game, from the top of my head, when I've seen 9 this season and I can't be arsed to waste my time on trawls like you do. Why don't you look for the rest? Or do you only like finding statistics that prove you right and ignore teh ones that don't?

[Snowball]

No someone said can you quantify the number of points he has cost us by being shit or missing chances.

But he has a fantastic record in front of goal this season and I posted those stats

14 on target
03 hit woodwork
09 goals
02 disallowed goals
10 shots off target

THAT'S THE BEST RATIO OF ANY READING STRIKER and he scores more often when on target than any other striker

16 on target = 2 goals = Kitson
14 on target = 9 goals = Long

Why is there not a thread questioning Kitson's missed chances when Long is 12.5 times more lethal?

[brendywendy]

Why is there not a thread questioning Kitson's missed chances when Long is 12.5 times more lethal?

snowball rules

you just cant argue with FACTSSSSSSS like that

[Snowball]

Yes one game, from the top of my head, when I've seen 9 this season and I can't be arsed to waste my time on trawls like you do.
Why don't you look for the rest? Or do you only like finding statistics that prove you right and ignore teh ones that don't?

You are such a dick.

You ever heard of "proving the negative"?

Proving a negative is quite difficult. It would require an agreed system of what is good, what is bad.

For example, Long came on when we were already losing 4-2 at Charlton (the last 14 minutes) and the match report says he got in two excellent crosses which the strikers (Lita-Hunt) failed to convert.

So he did his job. There is not a single negative comment about his play, yet when I raised these facts earlier in this thread I was ridiculed.


To accurately assess if a player is "shit" you would need to agree some way of proving it.

Lita, this season has required 15 shots for one goal. Long has had 27 shots for 9 goals. Long is 5 times more lethal. That's a measure. Something people can agree, while maybe imperfect IS objective.

But if one punter says, "Lita is petulant" or "Kitson doesn't try hard enough" or "Long's running off the ball is appalling" how the hell do
we decide if that's accurate or bullshit?

A striker's job, almost all his job, is to score goals. Long is doing that better than any other Reading player.

What you would need to do is list the times that Long is singled out for a BAD miss (like Kebe's "open goal")
as opposed to shots just wide, or straight at the keeper.

Then you would have to look at balls given away versus balls won, a player wandering offside too much etc.

And the problem with these "stats" is they are incomplete, subjective

[Dirk Gently]

And the problem with these "stats" is they are incomplete, subjective

At last Snowball says what everyone else is thinking.

[Snowball]

Why is there not a thread questioning Kitson's missed chances when Long is 12.5 times more lethal?

snowball rules

you just cant argue with FACTSSSSSSS like that

My apologies, typo

OFFICIAL CLUB STATS

16 on target shots for 2 goals (.13) Kitson
14 on target shots for 9 goals (.64) Long

Long is five times more lethal, this season, than Kitson

[brendywendy]

i was being open and honest, and had not analysed your stats for these errors

i just enjoyed the idea that he was 12.5 times more lethal


like you were comparing poisons