Shane Long

[Snowball]

I've by-passed all the crap on this thread, I can't be bothered to read your long stats filled posts. But looking at the past two pages, are you now arguing that Long is a better player than Noel Hunt?
When I first saw Hunt play in the league cup against Luton, I was very impressed by him and thought he should start alongside Doyle in the league. I was proven right.


NOPE. I've said that minute-for minute Hunt is as good goal-scoring wise as Doyle.

For the same time on the pitch they both have scored ten league goals

Hunty's stats were the best. All I've been saying is that Shane does very well for his total minutes play, and he isn't crap.

Why has SSC stepped up Long's minutes on the pitch this season? 20 times as a sub and averaging 30 minutes now.

Are we saying Noel can only play 60-65 minutes and is knackered, or does SCC think we do well enough with Hunt alongside Doyle

Doyle & Hunt 24 x 60 minutes = 1440 minutes Doyle scores 10 goals, Hunt 10 goals. Doyle minutes per goal 144 PAIRING minutes per goal 72 (two-thirds of the time)
Doyle & Long 23 x 30 minutes = 0690 minutes Doyle scores 07 goals, Long 03 goals. Doyle minutes per goal 099 PAIRING minutes per goal 69 (one-thirds of the time)

So when Long comes on for Hunt Doyle gets more goals per minute played, the Doyle-Long partnership is fractionally better than Doyle-Hunt (per minutes played)

[Hoop Blah]

Having delivered more cold hard facts in just a few days than many on here could produce in a life time, the need for those who prefer to moderate the kind of bilge that has driven many away to undermine such a contributor, was, sadly, all too predictable.

How is Sidwell doing?

I've already said elsewhere that Sidwell is doing well this season but am at a loss to understand why a mod would wish to undermine a thread on a completely different topic unless, of course, the truth really hurts that much.

Whatever you think of Snowball's views, unlike most he's backed them up time and again with hard facts and if that earns him little but ridicule from those who are supposed to run this forum, there really is nothing left to say.

The problem is that these hard facts are a little soft around the edges at time.

CMRoyal has highlighted a lot of the problems with these stats and how they really translate to football. There just isn't a way of covering all the eventualities and variables for direct comparison between players stats to be anything but an interesting discussion point. It's not hard and fast proof that A is better than B etc etc...

[cmonurz]

Long is averaging 30 minutes per sub appearance? Really?

[Deathy]

Long is the worst of our 4 strikers. He really hasn't improved much in his time here and we need to push on and let the lad further his career at a lower level IMO.

I'm sure Danny Wilson would love him at Swindon.

I dont count Mooney because he will never get near the first team.

[CMRoyal]

I've by-passed all the crap on this thread, I can't be bothered to read your long stats filled posts.

Oh, the irony...

[Hoop Blah]

Why has SSC stepped up Long's minutes on the pitch this season? 20 times as a sub and averaging 30 minutes now.

Potentiall lots of reasons including:

Hunt has been injured at times this season
we're going to be playing more games and so the frontline forwards need more of a rest where possible
perhaps Coppell needs to finally see Long step up the plate and deliver and he's giving him more of a chance
Long is now 3rd choice and not 4th because of other factors and so is always likely to have to play more
We're playing in a league that's closer to his level of ability

...or possibly Long is just a bit better than he used to be!

[Snowball]

The problem with stats and logic is that they only tell you so much. There are so many variables to upset cold hard logic, eg A Leftwinger may have 56% completed passes compared to A Rightwinger's 52%. But what if A Leftwinger had an international-class B Leftback to pass to, compared to a revolving series of inadequate players filling the right-back position?

OK, that doesn't apply to Reading, but we know that things aren't entirely symmetrical - Rosenior/Kebe seems a more fluent partnership than Hunt/Armstrong, but how do stats show how much of that can be attributed to the individual players? Also, when Harps/Cisse play together, the accent seems to me to be more towards feeding the left-wing than the right. How much is that down to Hunt (who then gets more chance to cross/pass/shoot) and how much is it down to Harper being left-footed, or the runs the front players make, or the way the opposition sets itself out (maybe they pay more respect to an established ex-Premiership player)?

So, please excuse some of us for being sceptical if you state an opinion and then produce a series of statistics that you allege "prove" your case. You can buttress an argument with stats up to a point, but numbers don't line opinions with a copper bottom, all they can do is illustrate your point. This "I am right, I have the numbers to prove it" actuarial approach is bound to wind people up because we know the game is far more nuanced, intricate and random than that. And thank goodness it is, else it would be extremely boring!

Good Post, and I do know these things

But my point has never been to "prove" X is actually better than Y, but that he's vastly UNDER-rated.

I've defended Kebe against MORONIC statements about how "useless" he is. Ditto Shane.

There's no point in an argument that goes.

Shane Long is crap.
Oh no he isn't!

Kebe is crap.
Oh, no he isn't!

Harpur is crap
Ohm, no he isn't.

But that's how the list seems to work. People "decide" X is bad and Y is good, pure subjectivity, end of.

If the debate is split and entrenched, go to the actual reports.

Example. Some listers suggested S Hunt does not get in enough crosses in open play.

When you check the stats, that turns out to be TRUE.

[Schards#2]

If statistics determined what was most likely to happen in a game, the best managers would would be computer programmers. They don't and they aren't. A point demonstrated by all of Snowballs stats showing that, on paper, Long is underrated when, on grass, to anyone who understands football, he clearly isn't.

[Huntley & Palmer]

I've already said elsewhere that Sidwell is doing well this season but am at a loss to understand why a mod would wish to undermine a thread on a completely different topic unless, of course, the truth really hurts that much.

Whatever you think of Snowball's views, unlike most he's backed them up time and again with hard facts and if that earns him little but ridicule from those who are supposed to run this forum, there really is nothing left to say.

I simply bring it up as an example of someone that generally talks a load of bollocks, i.e. you. Snowball just manages to come up with a load of stats and a statement about how he has played football for 20 years and managed a team of kids for 5, so he therefore must be providing us with an educated opinion. So it's still a big LOL. I also fail to see what my rare moderation of this forum has to do with my opinion on whether someone is a complete joke or not

[heathrow royal]

Harpur is crap
Ohm, no he isn't.

Am i wrong in thinking we have signed a new player?????????

[Snowball]

Long is averaging 30 minutes per sub appearance? Really?

No, sorry. I meant he's averaging 30 minutes playing time including his three starts

In fact that's wrong too

90
68
65
63
62
60
36
29
28
27
22
21
18
17
17
15
14
14
10
10
09
07
06

708 Minutes in 3+20 23 Appearances = 22 minutes average.. so that means the Doyle-Long stat is wrong

[CMRoyal]

There's no point in an argument that goes.

Shane Long is crap.
Oh no he isn't!

Kebe is crap.
Oh, no he isn't!

Harpur is crap
Ohm, no he isn't.

But that's how the list seems to work. People "decide" X is bad and Y is good, pure subjectivity, end of.

Fair enough, snowball, I know the feeling and it does take a while to tune out the relentless negativity by a minority about certain players (and Ye Olde Jokes about never spending any money on players unless they are cheap Irishmen who play for Brentford). But credit where it's due, the majority of people do try to give an honest, considered view on matters, and no amount of number crunching is going to stop a lot of RFC fans sighing the next time Jimmy or Shane trap the ball further than they can pass it. The guys are still on the upward curve, and that's bound to result in a certain amount of frustration at the moment.

[Hoop Blah]

Example. Some listers suggested S Hunt does not get in enough crosses in open play.

When you check the stats, that turns out to be TRUE.

Except for the fact that you don't have that stat to back it up!!!

None of your stats show how many times player X has done something well, or done something bad, made the correct decision or the wrong one, miscontrolled a ball or created a moment of excitement or a goalscoring opportunity with a great first touch etc etc

Your stats have gapping holes in them unfortunately, and although a lot of them are actually quite interesting the way you've been using them has meant they've been lost in your message.

[Schards#2]

Long is averaging 30 minutes per sub appearance? Really?

No, sorry. I meant he's averaging 30 minutes playing time including his three starts

In fact that's wrong too

90
68
65
63
62
60
36
29
28
27
22
21
18
17
17
15
14
14
10
10
09
07
06

708 Minutes in 3+20 23 Appearances = 22 minutes average.. so that means the Doyle-Long stat is wrong

I sincerely believe that no one gives a toss so don't worry about it.

[heathrow royal]

Long is averaging 30 minutes per sub appearance? Really?

No, sorry. I meant he's averaging 30 minutes playing time including his three starts

In fact that's wrong too

90
68
65
63
62
60
36
29
28
27
22
21
18
17
17
15
14
14
10
10
09
07
06

708 Minutes in 3+20 23 Appearances = 22 minutes average.. so that means the Doyle-Long stat is wrong

I sincerely believe that no one gives a toss so don't worry about it.

Agreed

[Snowball]

Long is the worst of our 4 strikers. He really hasn't improved much in his time here and we need to push on and let the lad further his career at a lower level IMO.

This is the sort of rubbish that drives me potty.

It's contrary to the facts as supported by actual goals and assists, VITAL goals in many cases.

You can complain about stats as much as you like but it's a FACT that Lita has scored two
totally meaningless goals (both in the 90th minute when we were already winning 3-0) in TWO seasons!

In the same time period, from LESS MINUTES ON THE PITCH Long has scored SIX goals, won a point
at Southampton, won 2 points v Norwich, won two penalties (that's just THIS season)

But ignore the facts, just keep saying Long is crap and Lita is a better player.

The reality is FOUR SEASONS ago, when Long was 18 at the start of the season, Lita score 11 in 22+4
but in a side that was FLYING, and got 106 points. He didn't do so well the next season and in the following
season got just 1 goal which is a joke. One third of Long's goals but with more playing time

I dont count Mooney because he will never get near the first team.

This, of course proves that the reading Scouts are morons, that SCC is an imbecile.

The club watches a player for God knows how many games, then spends money to get him
knowing (like Long) that it's a long-term project
and you (highly qualified football pundit?) can tell ALREADY that Copppell and the others
are so blind, deaf, dumb and stupid that the guy "will never get near the first team"

Yer avin a laff.

[Hoop Blah]

Long is the worst of our strikers though, not by a long way because Lita isn't a lot better, and your facts and stats aren't measure of his ability. They're just a measure of how well he's performed in terms of goals and assists (mainly coming off the bench where I would say he's a player more adept at playing that role than Lita).

As much as it hurts I have to agree with Jay that Mooney won't get near a place in the first team. I have no idea how many times we watched him or anything like that, but history shows how a decent percentage of these cheap gamble signings don't pay off.

This summer we went for Mooney and Hunt. Hunt has paid off so far, Mooney looks like he's going to follow the likes of Bennett as a punt gone wrong.

[SpaceCruiser]

I've by-passed all the crap on this thread, I can't be bothered to read your long stats filled posts.

Oh, the irony...

I'm sure you'll get over it.

I dont count Mooney because he will never get near the first team.

This, of course proves that the reading Scouts are morons, that SCC is an imbecile.

The club watches a player for God knows how many games, then spends money to get him
knowing (like Long) that it's a long-term project
and you (highly qualified football pundit?) can tell ALREADY that Copppell and the others
are so blind, deaf, dumb and stupid that the guy "will never get near the first team"

Yer avin a laff.

Jay is one of those silly pcunts who think that, having never seen Mooney in action, he's never played for the first team therefore he must be crap. This approach, of course, totally ignores whoever is in the first team and the people in the squad have to compete for limited spaces in the starting team. Doyle and Hunt are both in form and Lita and Long are, at the moment, ahead of Mooney. Does not mean that Mooney is totally crap.

[Schards#2]

If you are of the opinion that Lita and/or Long are crap then, presumably, yes.

[Hoop Blah]

Jay is one of those silly pcunts who think that, having never seen Mooney in action, he's never played for the first team therefore he must be crap. This approach, of course, totally ignores whoever is in the first team and the people in the squad have to compete for limited spaces in the starting team. Doyle and Hunt are both in form and Lita and Long are, at the moment, ahead of Mooney. Does not mean that Mooney is totally crap.

To be fair to Jay I don't think he said Mooney was crap, didn't he just say that he wouldn't get near the first team...ie he doesn't think he's going to budge Doyle, Hunt, Long and possibly Lita out of the queue.

I think thats a pretty fair assumption from the little I've seen of Mooney and his lack of involvement so far this season.