Shane Long

[Snowball]

s

you've really never studied statistics have you?

to be honest, all things being equal, this is the same sort of rubbish that you used to try and persaud us all we were not shit in the second half of last season

I TAUGHT statistics at Liverpool University

And that perfectly sums up what’s wrong with Universities.

Oh, wow, I am DEVASTATED by your ascerbic wit.

[Snowball]

99.9% of Snowball's posts bore the shit out of me, FACT.

and the other 1,200 statistics are excellent.

[Royalee]

99.9% of Snowball's posts bore the shit out of me, FACT.

and the other 1,200 statistics are excellent.

Our survey said eh eh

[prostak]

Oh, wow, I am DEVASTATED by your ascerbic wit.

*acerbic. I guess accurate SPG isn't a prequisite of university lecturing.

[Royal Rother]

Fook me, snowball's a teacher? I'd presumed he was 15...
Yes, (Long)'ll run all day, but as has been stated that first touch and simple lack of intelligence and awareness prevents me from ever accepting him. I'm just pleased I'm moving away so won't have the opportunity to watch him soil the number 9 shirt.

And from previous posts I'd presumed you were an intelligent adult.

[Snowball]

Oh, wow, I am DEVASTATED by your ascerbic wit.

*acerbic. I guess accurate SPG isn't a prequisite of university lecturing.

Not when teaching statistics





Did you mean prerequisite?

[CMRoyal]

so you assess his ability to score goals over ninety minutes counting all his games, when he has started and came on as a sub?

You then ridicule my assertion, using your same stat, that he would score once every 18 games if he only played the last time minutes, saying my use of your stat is unsound

all this shows is you, yet again, trying desperately to allow stats to back up your rather flimsy arguement

you've really never studied statistics have you?

snowball uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamp-post - for support rather than illumination.

[Northern Git]

I TAUGHT statistics at Liverpool University

And that perfectly sums up what’s wrong with Universities.

Oh, wow, I am DEVASTATED by your ascerbic wit.

Oh dear, wrong again SB, no wit, acerbic or otherwise, meant or intended. Just the view that, with tutors of your undoubted skill and perception, it is no wonder the quality of graduates entering the employment market has plummeted so rapidly. (stands back and waits for another avalance of meaningless stats)

[CMRoyal]

Noel Hunt, coming on as a sub, I think has never scored a league goal for us.

Did Doyle score when he came on as a sub last season? NO.

What about Lita?

[CMRoyal]

s

you've really never studied statistics have you?

to be honest, all things being equal, this is the same sort of rubbish that you used to try and persaud us all we were not shit in the second half of last season

I TAUGHT statistics at Liverpool University

Your patience and clarity of thought and explanation must have stood you in great stead.

[CMRoyal]

so the following stat was based only on his scoring ratio when he started games?

I said, it's a fact he scored fractionally better than a goal every 180 minutes in 2008-9
and IF HE PLAYED every game in 2009-20 he "could" (not WOULD) get 23 goals.

Jesus, I worry about the level of logic on this list.

If you are discussing a player's likely OVERALL contribution, goals-wise, then you look at ALL his appearances (altho' you might choose to ignore appearances that are less, than say, five minutes0


So, in order to ESTIMATE how Shane might do this year you total ALL his minutes, divide by 90 (= "games") and assess his "goals per game"

That's one way to do it, but if you want to estimate how he might do as a starting striker, you might prefer just to extrapolate from his record in the games he started last season. By doing what you suggest, all you're really predicting is how he'd do were he to remain an impact sub and be involved in all 46 matches.

So, extrapolate for me, snowball - let's say Shane started 30 games next season, was "impact sub" for 10 and missed 6.

What result would we get from ("goals per game from starts" * 30) + ("goals per game from the bench" * 6)

Based on last season's strike rates? And how is this not a reasonable basis for prediction?

[Hoop Blah]

Again - using statistics alone to form an argument as to how good a footballer is just doesn't work. It's a bit like saying Westlife are the greatest band of the past decade cos they've had the most number 1's.

Snowball - Have you any statistics to show how many times Long's just lumped the ball vaguely toward the goal cos he can't think what else to do with it?

LOOK >Someone tries to show that Long's 2008-9 goals were "because he had fresh legs and scored late"

and I conclusively proved that NOT to be the case. That's all.


I wasn't talking about his first touch. or his new house in Newbury,
or the price of cheese, or how he lumps in crosses. I was dealing
with an incorrect assertion about how and why he got his goals last
season. End of.

I think prostak's point was in relation to your whole existence on HNA as opposed to just that one post!

You just can't explain football with your use of stats I'm afraid.

[Snowball]

So, in order to ESTIMATE how Shane might do this year you total ALL his minutes, divide by 90 (= "games") and assess his "goals per game"

That's one way to do it, but if you want to estimate how he might do as a starting striker, you might prefer just to extrapolate from his record in the games he started last season. By doing what you suggest, all you're really predicting is how he'd do were he to remain an impact sub and be involved in all 46 matches.

So, extrapolate for me, snowball - let's say Shane started 30 games next season, was "impact sub" for 10 and missed 6.
What result would we get from ("goals per game from starts" * 30) + ("goals per game from the bench" * 6)
Based on last season's strike rates? And how is this not a reasonable basis for prediction?

It IS a reasonable basis. Never said it wasn't.

Shane scored seven goals from 13 starts and one game where he came on in the 25th minute (which I think counts more as a "full-game" rather than "late-sub")

Therefore (all other things being equal)* we ought to expect 15 league goals from 30 starts.

His sub appearances (less that 65-minute one above) totaled 25 and he got two goals from those (Norwich, and won a penalty, and the winning goal at Wednesday)

So if he is as good as last season, and the side is about the same, we could expect 15 from 30 and 1 as a sub = 16 goals, very, very respectable goal-scoring.

He was very close to a goal every two games, when starting, and very close to a goal every 180 minutes when playing as a sub.

The erroneous idea that he ONLY works as a sub was put to bed last season (77% of his goals were NOT as a late "impact sub")


* I don't think all things are equal.

I think we will be better this year

I think we will have more possession this year, have more confidence. I also expect Shane will be stronger and fitter and that (gradually) the manager will make him into a better player.

All those things being the case, IF, repeat IF, Shane's style suits the team's tactics (I'm not sure it will)
then I could see him getting as many as twenty if he was a regular choice.

However, for reasons stated before, I'm not sure he will be an automatic choice,
nor am I sure he will be suited to 4-5-1. He might do OK wide in a 4-3-3 but I
think both Church and Henry look more promising (and skillful) out there.

The question mark against both of those is how they can deal with a long season against
tough, hard-tackling (and better quality, faster, stronger) defenders.

[CMRoyal]

So, in order to ESTIMATE how Shane might do this year you total ALL his minutes, divide by 90 (= "games") and assess his "goals per game"

That's one way to do it, but if you want to estimate how he might do as a starting striker, you might prefer just to extrapolate from his record in the games he started last season. By doing what you suggest, all you're really predicting is how he'd do were he to remain an impact sub and be involved in all 46 matches.

So, extrapolate for me, snowball - let's say Shane started 30 games next season, was "impact sub" for 10 and missed 6.
What result would we get from ("goals per game from starts" * 30) + ("goals per game from the bench" * 6)
Based on last season's strike rates? And how is this not a reasonable basis for prediction?

It IS a reasonable basis. Never said it wasn't.

Shane scored seven goals from 13 starts and one game where he came on in the 25th minute (which I think counts more as a "full-game" rather than "late-sub")

Therefore (all other things being equal) we ought to expect 15 league goals from 30 starts.

His sub appearances (less that 65-minute one above) totaled 25 and he got two goals from those (Norwich, and won a penalty, and the winning goal at Wednesday)

So if he is as good as last season, and the side is about the same, we could expect 15 from 30 and 1 as a sub = 16 goals, very, very respectable goal-scoring.

Thanks, snowball.

16 goals strikes me as a far more reasonable expectation if, as you say, he is first choice. And if he continues his improvement and the team performs as we all hope, who knows he might hit the 20-23 mark being speculated about elsewhere on the thread.

[Snowball]

Thanks, snowball.

16 goals strikes me as a far more reasonable expectation if, as you say, he is first choice. And if he continues his improvement and the team performs as we all hope, who knows he might hit the 20-23 mark being speculated about elsewhere on the thread.

No probs.

Just to be clear... The 20-23 was not a prediction. I just said that based on his overall performance 2008-9, IF he played 46 starts he COULD get 20-23

In the early arts of this thread I said (and still believe) that he will get
10 Premiership goals, or 20 Championship goals, or 30 League One goals
(barring catastrophic injury) in the next few seasons.

Maybe that's why the club extended his contract when they did.

There is a FAINT possibility that the coaching and managerial staff at Reading FC know more than the people posting on this list.

[MartinRdg]

so you assess his ability to score goals over ninety minutes counting all his games, when he has started and came on as a sub?

You then ridicule my assertion, using your same stat, that he would score once every 18 games if he only played the last time minutes, saying my use of your stat is unsound

all this shows is you, yet again, trying desperately to allow stats to back up your rather flimsy arguement

you've really never studied statistics have you?

snowball uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamp-post - for support rather than illumination.

I like that!

[prostak]

Did you mean prerequisite?

Yes. Yes I did. Good job I didn't simultaneously boast of my own credentials, else I'd look even more stupid than I already do hm?
My problem isn't with your specific use of stats to create arguments, more a general suspicion of anything so clinical to classify the unpredictable (and it really doesn't get much more unpredictable than the trajectory of a ball when kicked by Shane Long). I don't think we'll ever convince each other a centimetre toward our respective positions, to be honest.

Royal Rother - I'm pleased to have shattered that illusion - what exactly was it that changed your mind?

[Royal Rother]

"Soiling the No.9 shirt..."

Unnecessary, juvenile and pretty contemptible in my eyes.

[Ian Royal]

"Soiling the No.9 shirt..."

Unnecessary, juvenile and pretty contemptible in my eyes.

Did you not know that Shane suffers from an IBD and may shit himself at any point if he has an attack?








I made that up, and also think that anyone upset with Long being No. 9 is a bit pathetic.

[floyd__streete]

"Soiling the No.9 shirt..."

Unnecessary, juvenile and pretty contemptible in my eyes.

You really are a sanctimonious and pious prat aren't you?