Shane Long

[Ian Royal]

In an attempt to save snowball's time and everyone else's minds I probably ought to demonstrate that, what I assume are responses to me, are completely useless.

This post was made by Snowball who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

[Snowball]

CLASSIC!

[Royal Rother]

You can hardly blame him.

I agree with almost all the points you make in and about the stats you produce and think you have been ridculously maligned and misinterpreted at times but Jeez, I know it ain't a popularity contest, but you really come across like a right little shit at times.

You might not like the quality of the oilve branches offered but if you were a normal functioning person you would surely have accepted them to some degree.

Is this how you were taught to teach? God help your pupils if that's the case.

[Snowball]

At the last count my pupils had won 131 First prizes and published 30 books

[Snowball]

RR I am THRILLED the IR has (allegedly) filtered me. I will be totally delighted if he has done so.

Of course he'll be peeking, but that's not the point.

I react to him because for 9 months now he has been looking to pick holes
for the most trivial of reasons. The recent dig I made at Sheffield being a great
example. He turned a mild joke at another club's expense into a long and tedious
debate about a single colloquialism as if the validity or otherwise of the colloquialism
mattered.

In that thread someone (I can't remember who) pointed out that the nit-picking
of my posts by him was a standard.

But I would like to correct one thing. NO "olive branch was offered". The correct way to
make such an offer is privately, without grandstanding and not at the same time as another insult.

If I was to post, "Rother, I know your a liar and shag sheep, and have extreme halitosis since
you left the asylum, but I'm willing to forget all that and be nice to you..."

That ain't an olive branch. That's passive-aggressive.

[floyd__streete]

Sorry to butt-in to what is I am sure a riveting national final of the 2009 Drone of the Year competition between Ian Royal and Snowball, but I'd just like to say that for the second successive game against non-league opposition Shane Long was absolute bobbins today. His first touch goes further than Trans-Siberian Railways.

[Ian Royal]

Sorry to butt-in to what is I am sure a riveting national final of the 2009 Drone of the Year competition between Ian Royal and Snowball, but I'd just like to say that for the second successive game against non-league opposition Shane Long was absolute bobbins today. His first touch goes further than Trans-Siberian Railways.

I conceed the title to snowball.

Shame Long's reverted to type after a good end to the season. He'd almost convinced me he'd come good this season. Now my confidence in that is erroding. Damn my positivity.

[Snowball]

So, shock news, Shane Long doesn't have a good first touch.

Why EXACTLY, do we think Shane should have "blossomed" since the end of last season?

He has played 2 x 45 minutes in two experimental 11s, in two meaningless friendlies, using a new system of play.

Would we EVER have imagined Shane Long as part of an intricate-passing set of 1-2's?

Of course not!

But can he win penalties? Yes.
Can he get on the end of good crosses? YES.
Can he hustle and bustle and chase aggressively? YES.


Can he score a goal every 178 minutes of play? YES.

He may stop developing. He may not suit the new regime, but it's totally laughable to see people
who "suddenly believed" in the "new Shane" at the end of last season now reverting to type after
2 x 45 minutes in two Mickey-Mouse friendlies when the squad hasn't been back two weeks yet, when the likely
starting back four has yet to play together, when the midfield is not yet settled, when the pattern of play has
not yet been finalised.

Laughable knee-jerking as always.

[floyd__streete]

Laughable knee-jerking as always.

Almost as laughable as your assertion a couple of pages back that Shane could score 23 goals this season but nowhere near as laughable as the reams of data you reeled out last season to prove why Bristol City wouldn't win at Reading.....final score Reading 0-2 Bristol City . You have as much credibility as Jeffrey Archer.

[Snowball]

I did not ASSERT any such thing.

You can READ, can't you?

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.

That is not an assertion. Use a dictionary

An ASSERTION, Dearie, would be me saying HE WILL GET 23 goals.

At the moment I'm not even certain he'll make the starting 11.

[floyd__streete]

Come on DEARIE, settle now. Like your worship, I actually like Shane, he has his merits. Strong lad, decent in the air, hard worker, a bit of pace and an instinctive finisher. He's also a good lad and nice to his mum. If he keeps up that one goal every 180 minutes ratio - which he might actually achieve as an impact sub of some substance - then we can both celebrate by tossing off over the Rothmans year book.

Serious Q tho: you rate Shane very highly, so why do you not feel sure he will get a place in the starting XI? Is this or is this not an acceptance on your part that his many flaws make him underserving of a place in our starting XI? Currently we aren't blessed with a plethora of proven strikers at this level.

[Arch]

I did not ASSERT any such thing.

You can READ, can't you?

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.

That is not an assertion. Use a dictionary

An ASSERTION, Dearie, would be me saying HE WILL GET 23 goals.

FAIL

[SLAMMED]

This must be the kind of stuff snowball gets off on. Post some shit about Shane Long then knock one out over the keyboard.

[weybridgewanderer]

No player who contributes nothing but goals, will get 30+ goals a season, 20+ goals a season, or probably even 15+ goals a season.

Kris Boyd?

Partly, because no one who is only able to score goals and do nothing else, will get enough of a chance in the first place to score the goals. And partly because no one without more than hitting the net to their game, will be capable of actually getting the chances to score that many goals if they do make it on the pitch, in the modern game.

Kris Boyd?

In the modern game you can't consistently score goals without several strings to your bow, so this argument about whether a player would be picked solely on goalscoring record is rather pointless IMO

Kris Boyd?

[weybridgewanderer]

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.

At the moment I'm not even certain he'll make the starting 11.

so what you are saying is if he plays as an impact player and gets the last 10 minutes of every game he has proven he'll score 1 goal roughly every 18 games?

[Snowball]

Come on DEARIE, settle now. Like your worship, I actually like Shane, he has his merits. Strong lad, decent in the air, hard worker, a bit of pace and an instinctive finisher. He's also a good lad and nice to his mum. If he keeps up that one goal every 180 minutes ratio - which he might actually achieve as an impact sub of some substance - then we can both celebrate by tossing off over the Rothmans year book.

Serious Q tho: you rate Shane very highly, so why do you not feel sure he will get a place in the starting XI? Is this or is this not an acceptance on your part that his many flaws make him underserving of a place in our starting XI? Currently we aren't blessed with a plethora of proven strikers at this level.

Because, if Rodgers plays a 4-5-1 we need a player in the "1" position like Jason Scotland who can hold the ball up.

That means very good with a first touch, difficult to shake off the ball etc. I don't think that's Shane's strength.

It wouldn't be Lita's strength either. It's a particular kind of player, IMO.

I think Shane is more of a hard-runner, particularly in the channels. MAYBE he could work RW of three striker/midfielders
but from the little I've seen of Henry & Church they seem better suited, having more raw skill (but less power?)

I dunno, and I don't profess to be that expert, but I think Shane looks better right side of the 2 in a 4-4-2

[papereyes]

Strikers should be there to score goals

Maybe 10-20 years ago this was true, but now an out-and-out goalscorer is as redundant as a libero. If all you can do is wait for the ball to come to you and then lump it vaguely goalward, you've no real place in modern football. At the very top level - would you rather have Ibrahimovic or Rooney in your side?

Dean Horrix (RIP) went for a large part of a season scoring hardly no goals at all (something liek 20+ games without a goal), but no-one questioned his role in the team - he created loads for Trevor Senior, and was always making run to pull defenders away and create space for others.

He undoubtedly a striker and nothing else, but using the logic of statistics alone he was clearly a waste of space and not worth his place.....

Depends which stats you're using and what questions you're using them to answer, doesn't it?

[Snowball]

Come on DEARIE, settle now. Like your worship, I actually like Shane, he has his merits. Strong lad, decent in the air, hard worker, a bit of pace and an instinctive finisher. He's also a good lad and nice to his mum. If he keeps up that one goal every 180 minutes ratio - which he might actually achieve as an impact sub of some substance - then we can both celebrate by tossing off over the Rothmans year book.

Serious Q tho: you rate Shane very highly, so why do you not feel sure he will get a place in the starting XI? Is this or is this not an acceptance on your part that his many flaws make him underserving of a place in our starting XI? Currently we aren't blessed with a plethora of proven strikers at this level.

To answer your question in a different way, I would make him an automatic pick
in a 4-4-2 playing a bit wide right striker, no hesitation. He has the power to cause
and defenders problems and is a lot different from Noel Hunt.

I agree that he might not prove to be a 15+ a season striker, but I think he would, and more.

We simply do not know for certain how he would perform given a decent run as a first choice but in the season
just gone he finally got a run of more than 2-3 games and finished as easily the best performing player in a side
that was playing with very little confidence.

he came on for 13 minutes at Sheffield and got the winner and then in the actual league games from then (including that game) he played

13
90
90
68
01
26
90
00
79
41
90
90
90

a total of 758 minutes (8.4 games) for six goals

The goals for the club in that time were

06 Long
02 Kitson
01 Doyle
01 Pearce
01 Matejovsky
01 Karacan
01 Noel Hunt

Shane also cleared off the line at Sheffield

If you add in the play-off games where we failed to score Long's ratio drops to 6 goals in 10.4 games, the equivalent of 26.54 goals in a 46 game season

For comparison (and yes I DO know Kevin Doyle did a lot more than just score goals) KD got 18 goals in 39 starts + 2 sub apearances

That equates to 21 goals in a 46 game season

His worth over that period is unquestionable. He deserves an extended run, make-it-or-bust, IMO

I am NOT saying that if Shane Long was to play 46 games of mostly 90 minutes (in a 4-4-2) he WOULD score 26-27 goals
but I do believe he would comfortably score enough goals to be a serious striker, 15+ probably nearer 20

[SLAMMED]

Come on DEARIE, settle now. Like your worship, I actually like Shane, he has his merits. Strong lad, decent in the air, hard worker, a bit of pace and an instinctive finisher. He's also a good lad and nice to his mum. If he keeps up that one goal every 180 minutes ratio - which he might actually achieve as an impact sub of some substance - then we can both celebrate by tossing off over the Rothmans year book.

Serious Q tho: you rate Shane very highly, so why do you not feel sure he will get a place in the starting XI? Is this or is this not an acceptance on your part that his many flaws make him underserving of a place in our starting XI? Currently we aren't blessed with a plethora of proven strikers at this level.

To answer your question in a different way, I would make him an automatic pick
in a 4-4-2 playing a bit wide right striker, no hesitation. He has the power to cause
and defenders problems and is a lot different from Noel Hunt.

I agree that he might not prove to be a 15+ a season striker, but I think he would, and more.

We simply do not know for certain how he would perform given a decent run as a first choice but in the season
just gone he finally got a run of more than 2-3 games and finished as easily the best performing player in a side
that was playing with very little confidence.

he came on for 13 minutes at Sheffield and got the winner and then in the actual league games from then (including that game) he played

13
90
90
68
01
26
90
00
79
41
90
90
90

a total of 758 minutes (8.4 games) for six goals

The goals for the club in that time were

06 Long
02 Kitson
01 Doyle
01 Pearce
01 Matejovsky
01 Karacan
01 Noel Hunt

Shane also cleared off the line at Sheffield

If you add in the play-off games where we failed to score Long's ratio drops to 6 goals in 10.4 games, the equivalent of 26.54 goals in a 46 game season

For comparison (and yes I DO know Kevin Doyle did a lot more than just score goals) KD got 18 goals in 39 starts + 2 sub apearances

That equates to 21 goals in a 46 game season

His worth over that period is unquestionable. He deserves an extended run, make-it-or-bust, IMO

I am NOT saying that if Shane Long was to play 46 games of mostly 90 minutes (in a 4-4-2) he WOULD score 26-27 goals
but I do believe he would comfortably score enough goals to be a serious striker, 15+ probably nearer 20

Did you jizz yourself after typing that?

[Snowball]

so what you are saying is if he plays as an impact player and gets the last 10 minutes of every game he has proven he'll score 1 goal roughly every 18 games?

NO

That's a dodgy use of stats. If you want to find Shane Long's strike rate AS AN IMPACT SUBSTITUTE
then you must measure ONLY those games where he is used as an impact substitute.

You would have to remove all his starts from the equation, maybe not use those games where has has come on after say 25 minutes for an injured player.

You might also have to ask, "Was he brought on with 15-20 to go to try and make a difference (eg chasing a game)
or was he brought on when we were winning 1-0 or 2-1 and asked to do something defensive..."