Long - Time to go.

[Ryn]

for example Chopra's lethality is BRILLIANT. 72% of shots on target and 38% of those are goals

Can you give info for the 'lethality' of Shane Long, Noel Hunt and Simon Church please for comparison?

Last season Shane was on target about 50% of the time (18/38) (47%) but scored a third of the time (6 goals = 33.33%) he was on target.

This season he is actually on target more often (12/23) (52%) but has only netted 2 of those (16.67%) (presuming pens are counted as shots?)


Fair Play to Simon Church, his stats belie the idea he misses a lot.


11 08 On Target 03 Off 0 HW 3 Goals CHOPRA
13 07 On Target 05 Off 1 HW 2 Goals BELLAMY
13 10 On Target 03 Off 0 HW 3 Goals CHURCH
23 12 On Target 11 Off 0 HW 2 Goals LONG


That is Church (when on as a sub) exactly matches the lethality of Shane Long last season
whose six league goals all came from STARTS

Church, from starts this season, has zero goals so a lethality of ZERO per cent

Thanks for this

I'm not fussed about appearances as starter or sub, I just wondered if you had some info regarding a shots-to-goals ratio and shots on target as a comparison to Chopra, who is regarded as a very good finisher

[Hoop Blah]

I'm not fussed about appearances as starter or sub, I just wondered if you had some info regarding a shots-to-goals ratio and shots on target as a comparison to Chopra, who is regarded as a very good finisher

I wouldn't argue that Chopra isn't regarded as, or indeed isn't, a good finisher but I do think people get a bit clouded by that as a term of reference.

I think the better phrase is natural goalscorer. Not a lot of difference apart from a natural goalscorer naturally gets in the right positions to score and so end up getting more good chances to score and so they potentially end up taking a higher proportion of their chances. Their are also those players who are just so cool, calm and collected infront of goal that they're 'good finishers' but I think it's the ability to get the right chances that make you a natural goalscorer as opposed to being a good finisher.

[Snowball]

There are three basic counters.

Chances created per game (by the self, or getting into the right place at the right time)

Shots per Game. Note that shots per game does not perfectly equate with "chances".
Some players may always have a go. Others may pass to a team-mate in a better position.

Goals per game. Depends on Shots, of course, but also conversion rates.

Overall, I presume nobody disagrees that what matters is goals-per-game?
That is, a player may take less shots but only take shots with a high probability of a goal.

043.33 games 135 shots 3.12 shots per game Gylfi
021.00 games 054 shots 2.57 shots per game Rasiak
077.50 games 184 shots 2.37 shots per game Lita
036.00 games 077 shots 2.14 shots per game Church
040.33 games 079 shots 1.96 shots per game Noel Hunt
147.83 games 269 shots 1.82 shots per game Doyle
134.50 games 238 shots 1.77 shots per game Kitson
092.83 games 143 shots 1.54 shots per game Long
088.67 games 127 shots 1.43 shots per game Kebe

[Snowball]

Games Required to Score a Goal (excluding penalties)

2.100 Rasiak
2.402 Kitson
2.500 Lita
2.571 Church
2.881 Noel Hunt
2.889 Gylfi
2.899 Doyle
3.315 Long (Edited)
4.926 Kebe

CHANCES required to Score a Goal (ie how deadly)

4.25 Kitson
5.11 Long EDIT: Corrected - Shane's 30 goals reduced to 28
5.27 Doyle
5.40 Rasiak
5.50 Church
5.64 Noel Hunt
5.94 Lita
7.06 Kebe
9.00 Gylfi

[Wimb]

Games Required to Score a Goal (excluding penalties)

2.100 Rasiak
2.402 Kitson
2.500 Lita
2.571 Church
2.881 Noel Hunt
2.889 Gylfi
2.899 Doyle
3.094 Long
4.926 Kebe

CHANCES required to Score a Goal (ie how deadly)

4.25 Kitson
4.77 Long
5.27 Doyle
5.40 Rasiak
5.50 Church
5.64 Noel Hunt
5.94 Lita
7.06 Kebe
9.00 Gylfi

Is this chances stat inclusive of penalties? Just asking as you mentioned it for the first set but not the second.

[Snowball]

yes, but just realised (posted in another thread) that Shane is 28, not 30 (this season's pens have to come out)

[Millsy]

Why do we care about goals when the goalposts have changed so many times from scoring goals, to working hard and providing assists, to now - ahem - "tiring out the defenders".

Can't believe this thread is still going so it's time we all honour a player who has caused more debate than Darren Caskey, Andy Hughes and Stephen Hunt put together.

All hail our zero-goals hero.

All hail Mr Zero.



Perhaps the next goalpost change for the LongApologists will be "he freezes other players"

[Snowball]

What the stats show is that Shane takes chances quite well, second only to Kitson, one of the best-ever.

Hopefully that puts to bed the current idea that he misses a lot. He doesn't. Doyle missed more and
so did Rasiak, so does Church and Noel Hunt, and Lita, and Gylfi. Where Shane seems to fall down
is his total number of shots per game. He's off the pace with those. Is that because he spends too much
time out in the channels, acting as a virtual winger? Is it partly down to playing the 1 in 451 that
he clearly isn't a world-beater at (goals-wise)?

Interesting just how good Rasiak's goals per game was (better than any of the strikers (and Gylfi) in the last 6 years.

That didn't come so much from being deadly, but a combination of being on the end of chances, and converting fairly well.

But that figures because that was just about all we did when he played. "Stick it on 'is 'ead!"

Gylfi makes up for a very poor chances-to-goals ratio by getting more chances
(or shooting more often rather than passing.)

[handbags_harris]

What the stats show is that Shane takes chances quite well, second only to Kitson, one of the best-ever.

Hopefully that puts to bed the current idea that he misses a lot. He doesn't. Doyle missed more and
so did Rasiak, so does Church and Noel Hunt, and Lita, and Gylfi. Where Shane seems to fall down
is his total number of shots per game. He's off the pace with those. Is that because he spends too much
time out in the channels, acting as a virtual winger? Is it partly down to playing the 1 in 451 that
he clearly isn't a world-beater at (goals-wise)?

Interesting just how good Rasiak's goals per game was (better than any of the strikers (and Gylfi) in the last 6 years.

That didn't come so much from being deadly, but a combination of being on the end of chances, and converting fairly well.

But that figures because that was just about all we did when he played. "Stick it on 'is 'ead!"

Gylfi makes up for a very poor chances-to-goals ratio by getting more chances
(or shooting more often rather than passing.)

Bugger me I think we may have made a breakthrough!!

To be fair, a reasonably sound synopsis although it lacks a bit of detail. I remember when McDermott took over at the fans forum he explained that the reason why Longy wasn't playing and scoring was, quite simply, he wasn't getting into the right areas i.e. he wasn't in the penalty area often enough. Heseems to have reverted to type and spends an awful lot of time in the channels and doesn't get into the positions required to score the number of goals he scored in his excellent run through February and March. During that period he had a lot of chances and I am on record as saying that when Long gets into a goalscoring position I am pretty damn confident he will take it. He just rarely gets into those areas! And that is the massive difference between Long and, say, Rasiak - Rasiak simply got into the right areas. He wasn't a particularly gifted footballer but he had a knack of scoring goals, a poor man's Shaun Goater if you will. Doyle worked the channels just as much but also busted a gut to get into the middle, likewise Church, likewise Hunt, not so much Lita who is loved by most fans because he had a half-decent season in 05/06 and had a similar burst to Long last season in 06/07. Unfortunately for Long, all but Rasiak are much better footballers. And there is the 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 argument, with Long required to work both channels with little support. It does detract, but he has never had a decent run in a side that plays 4-4-2, and the games he has played he has predominantly failed to impress, and has therefore been down the pecking order. He is now the roundest peg to put into a round hole, hexagonal if you will, but unless he concentrates on getting in goalscoring positions he won't score as many goals as is required for a lone frontman.

[Victor Meldrew]

I think you have partly hit the nail on the head Handbags.
Players like Quinn,Cureton and Butler were natural goalscorers who knew where to be in the box and finding that extra yard was everything.
Unfortunately Shane is just not a natural footballer and I don't think penalty awareness is something that you can learn-you see it in 12 year-old kids and it is a very special commodity which probably only Church of our current squad has.
Unfortunately the fact that he is clueless in the air means that Church may never be the answer either.
Now if you could almalgamate Long's effort with Hunt's occasional guile and Church's awareness in the box we would then have one reasonable striker whereas unfortunately we have 3 moderate ones.

[handbags_harris]

almalgamate Long's effort with Hunt's occasional guile and Church's awareness in the box...

Martin Butler?

[Ian Royal]

Not sure I agree with your post handbags, but it makes compelling reading and there isn't a great deal to strongly disagree with.

[Snowball]

Not sure I agree with your post handbags, but it makes compelling reading and there isn't a great deal to strongly disagree with.

Well that covers all the bases

[Ian Royal]

Not sure I agree with your post handbags, but it makes compelling reading and there isn't a great deal to strongly disagree with.

Well that covers all the bases

I appreciate there aren't any numbers in it so you have trouble understanding the post.

Then again I'm yet to be convinced you understand numbers either.

[Snowball]

To be fair, a reasonably sound synopsis although it lacks a bit of detail. I remember when McDermott took over at the fans forum he explained that the reason why Longy wasn't playing and scoring was, quite simply, he wasn't getting into the right areas i.e. he wasn't in the penalty area often enough. Heseems to have reverted to type and spends an awful lot of time in the channels and doesn't get into the positions required to score the number of goals he scored in his excellent run through February and March. During that period he had a lot of chances and I am on record as saying that when Long gets into a goalscoring position I am pretty damn confident he will take it. He just rarely gets into those areas! And that is the massive difference between Long and, say, Rasiak - Rasiak simply got into the right areas. He wasn't a particularly gifted footballer but he had a knack of scoring goals, a poor man's Shaun Goater if you will. Doyle worked the channels just as much but also busted a gut to get into the middle, likewise Church, likewise Hunt, not so much Lita who is loved by most fans because he had a half-decent season in 05/06 and had a similar burst to Long last season in 06/07. Unfortunately for Long, all but Rasiak are much better footballers. And there is the 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 argument, with Long required to work both channels with little support. It does detract, but he has never had a decent run in a side that plays 4-4-2, and the games he has played he has predominantly failed to impress, and has therefore been down the pecking order. He is now the roundest peg to put into a round hole, hexagonal if you will, but unless he concentrates on getting in goalscoring positions he won't score as many goals as is required for a lone frontman.

From memory, Rasiak didn't do a lot of work. Maybe he did, but I don't remember it. But I'm guessing that wasn't his job.

I hear what McDermott says, but what does he tell Shane to do? In the old days, wingers were expected to come in
with white all over their boots. If McDermott wants Long central, how hard is it to tell him, "Shane, stay central,
in line with the penalty-box. If you can't do that, I'll play someone who can."

Or maybe Long is applauded for chasing wide, and is therefore caught between the Devil and...?

[Snowball]

Not sure I agree with your post handbags, but it makes compelling reading and there isn't a great deal to strongly disagree with.

Well that covers all the bases

I appreciate there aren't any numbers in it so you have trouble understanding the post.

Then again I'm yet to be convinced you understand numbers either.

I understand where you're coming from, Ian, and I sort of agree while disagreeing.
Then again, I don't agree with you but think you're broadly correct.

[Millsy]

Hurray.

Mr Zero becomes Mr One in a Million.

How wrong all the doubters were.

[Snowball]

It was HORRIBLE today, totally outplayed, very little confidence,
but at least Shane got a cracker in open play

Games Required to Score a Goal (excluding penalties)

2.100 Rasiak
2.402 Kitson
2.500 Lita
2.571 Church
2.881 Noel Hunt
2.889 Gylfi
2.899 Doyle
3.236 Long (Edited)
4.926 Kebe

CHANCES required to Score a Goal (ie how deadly)

4.25 Kitson
4.86 Long EDIT: Corrected - Shane's 30 goals reduced to 28 and upped to 29
5.27 Doyle
5.40 Rasiak
5.50 Church
5.64 Noel Hunt
5.94 Lita
7.06 Kebe
9.00 Gylfi

[Snowball]

Hurray.

Mr Zero becomes Mr One in a Million.

How wrong all the doubters were.

Church should have got his on target, 2WW, at least make the goal-keeper save.

Hunt didn't get a shot in either. The service for the first hour was DIRE

[Wimb]

Good goal from Shane today here's hoping its the start of a good run.

Ironically though it wasn't one of his best games but it wasn't a BAD game either.

More please Mr Long