Shane Long

[Dirk Gently]

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

Which just proves that you can prove absolutely anything in th world to be the case if you choose the correct statistic to quote.

Using exactly the same measure, Adam Federici is the most lethal striker the whole of English professional football and in fact the most lethal striker in Reading's entire history. 1 on target shot for 1 goal (100%).

[brendywendy]

but you just cant get away from the truth of that statement dirk!

he is totally feckin lethal

[cmonurz]

And whilst I've no doubt Long's goals to shots ratio is better than Kitson's, to only use shots on target is misleading, since, theoretically, Shane 'Lethal' Long could also have 100 off target shots to his name, and Kitson only 10 (by way of illustration).

[Dirk Gently]

The critical skill of getting in the right place to have a shot - and the number of times you don't get there in time - is one that no stats in the world will show.

Ditto the position those shots are taken from. 2 shots that score from 10 outside the area is more worthwhile than 5 shots out of ten with open goals in the 6 yard box.

[Arch]

Snowball's relentless statisticizing drains all the excitement out of Long's performance for me. I wish I hadn't read the last few pages. What's wrong with just recognizing a great live-wire performance from a talented Reading youngster?

[CMRoyal]

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

Probably because he's being criticised in many other threads at the moment, and about a lot more than missed chances. Lest we forget, it was you who created this one about Shane.

I'm not having a go, I think you've been proved right about Shane in a number of ways, so well done on that.

[papereyes]

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

I understood it to be a round number in euros and therefore an odd number in pounds, but that might have been the combined fee for Doyle + Long.

[SCIAG]

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

I understood it to be a round number in euros and therefore an odd number in pounds, but that might have been the combined fee for Doyle + Long.

It was the combined fee- I seem to remember Long saying this his portion was "about a tenner", with his tongue firmly in cheek. And yeah, I'm confident £17k was in pounds which would have been something like 30k in euros.

ironically we paid more for 10% of Doyle than for the whole of both players...

[Hoop Blah]

Sorry for dragging this one up again....but have only just seen this post.

One question Snowball....how are the Actim stats and the club stats compiled?

Here's a clue for you, people watch the games and feed back what they see.

Objective analysis is important, but your statistics just aren't being applied objectively or with much appreciation of what they represent and how they should be interpreted.

Actually, NO, (and yes)...

If you or I or Ian (or anyone) is watching a game, we rarely COUNT, quantify, qualify. The people who do Actim or Pro-Zone have systems which objectify their otherwise dodgy perceptions.

Let's use an example, SHunt. He is (allegedly) a winger and this list/the crowd is on his back. They are LOOKING for errors. When he does something good, unless it's spectacularly good, it's barely noticed. I was one of those who felt he needed dropping but at a recent game my son and I made a special point of clocking EVERYTHING he does. He tackles back, he heads clear in the box, he often gets in half-tackles which lets ANOTHER Reading player win the ball immediately after.

In one case I saw just that, SHunt's challenge causing the player to lose total control, someone else won the ball for Reading and someone near me said something like, "THAT's how to do it, Hunt." The reason the second player won the ball was because Hunt had broken up the rhythm.

SHunt, tho, as an attacking winger appears less successful, and he fails with the crosses, fails to beat his man, AND THIS IS WHAT THE CROWD/LIST decides to notice.

At one moment we moan about Kitson playing too deep and not being on the end of crosses (making the wingers look LESS effective because they passed into thin air)... but then he helps the midfield, clears from his own box...

Personally I do take quite a bit of notice of what players do and how that effects the overall game, that's one of the reasons why you'll see I've stood up for Harper quite a bit this season because I appreciate what he does off the ball as well as on it.

Now are you telling me that the average punter quantifies these things? Ian was saying (just to think of another stick to use) that Kebe was getting more ball because SHunt was marked out of the game. I don't agree, but if he was, isn't that a contribution? It's like the contribution of Harps, or Gilberto when he was at Arsenal. It isn't always about goals, or crunching tackles, or marvelous passes.

The point is, to PROPERLY decide if a midfielder passes the ball well requires COUNTING and accurate, balanced, unbiased assessment. Go to a game, get a feel for who is good and bad, then watch it on TV replays half a dozen times and discover how wrong first impressions are.

Actually I think subconciously your more savvy punter does qualify what they see over time. I think you even said so much yourself when you first arrived and it was pointed out to you that what you see is better than a pass percentage. Your reply was that the viewer builds up their own internal count of what they see. Have you now changed your mind?

I've no doubt some supporters are more adept at accurately and impartially analysing what they see. I think it's quite obvious from your postings that you can't do that and you need some statistical analysis to help form your opinions on the game. That's fair enough, but it is a very limited way of drawing your conclusions to a game that just can't be measured by statistics in the same way as something like Cricket or American Football because the game flows so much and has far too many vairables and uncaptured influencing factors for statistics to be anything more than just a side note.

[Hoop Blah]

A side willing to carry (Long) won't be good enough to have a 20 goal a season forward. (Hoop Blah)

I still stand by that comment.

Long had a very good game last night and showed more ability in the rest of the game than he has in the past. I still stand by my opinion that he doesn't quite have the alround game to be a regular starter for a team at the top of this division and that if he was playing week in week out for a side in this league I don't think they would be a side good enough to get him 20 goals in a season.

I've always said that, given good chances, even half chances, where he has to make an instinctive finish then Long is as good as our other forwards at taking them. He has a good knack of finding a bit of space and, usually when not given time to think about his options, puts his chances away well.

Last night he did exactly that. He found some space, was picked out by a team mate and finished off well.

As for Kebe...two more assists and a decent performance again. He is still too inconsistent though and, although the two crosses were excellent balls into the box they were blind crosses into an area where he hoped a forward would be. That's not a bad thing but I would be even more impressed if he'd looked up and picked long out than just put in percentage crosses. That's not to belittle the balls he put in, they are examples of playing the percentages and players having a degree of understanding over where their team mates will be trying to find space/put the ball.

Still doesn't change the fact that I think he doesn't have the basic skills I want to see in one of our important first team players.

[Dr Hfuhruhurr]

At the end of the day, we've all chosen to sign up to a football discussion forum which suggest we want to discuss football. IF football was reduced to logic and facts and the subjective element was taken out, god, it would be boring.

[brendywendy]

Long had a very good game last night and showed more ability in the rest of the game than he has in the past

he was widely touted as our best player in the last game also

[Hoop Blah]

Long had a very good game last night and showed more ability in the rest of the game than he has in the past

he was widely touted as our best player in the last game also

I meant in general, but I didn't go to Derby either and usually only judge by what I see myself not on second or third hand opinions.

He does seem to be playing better though, but I'd have to say the defenders he's but up against haven't been the best. Fair play to him though, it's good to see him kicking on a bit and helping to ensure we don't miss Doyle and Hunt too much in the run in.

[susieroyal]

A la la la la Long A la la la la Long Long lee Long Shane Long!!

Is that an actual chant yet? I was singing that to my mate at a previous game and he loved it.

DO IT

It is in my house!! And in my head!!

[Ian Royal]

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

At last Snowball says what everyone else is thinking.

Bloody hell he's finally adimitted it! He can be a bit dense but I think he's got there in the end.

[West Stand Man]

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

At last Snowball says what everyone else is thinking.

Bloody hell he's finally adimitted it! He can be a bit dense but I think he's got there in the end.

.. which is, of course, total rubbish. The stats are completely objectively presented (they are, after all a presentation of fact). The assessment of them can be subjective, but ALL the other comment made by individuals is based on totally subjective personal views.

[Snowball]

And whilst I've no doubt Long's goals to shots ratio is better than Kitson's, to only use shots on target is misleading, since, theoretically, Shane 'Lethal' Long could also have 100 off target shots to his name, and Kitson only 10 (by way of illustration).

I posted the accuracy for all the strikers, TOTAL shots, Shots on target, shots off target, and hit woodwork

The point is, shots-on-target might be lame headers straight at the keeper, but shots on targets that become GOALS shows a lethal striker

Shane is 14 ON 12 Off 3 Hit woodwork, 9 GOALS and that is very good.
The "on target" accuracy of the top four strikers is quite similar, but
the GOALS per shots statistic paints a very different picture.

On goals per shots Long is the best at 3 shots = 1 goal.

Kitson requires THIRTEEN shots to get a goal

14 10 03 09 03.0 LONG
43 27 04 18 04.1 Doyle
30 22 05 11 05.2 Hunt
17 11 00 05 05.6 CISSE
16 09 01 02 13.0 Kitson
08 07 00 01 15.0 Lita



Accuracy, not lethality (hitting woodwork counting as on target)

43 On Target 27 Off Target 04 Hit Woodwork (63.5%) 18 Goals - - Doyle
30 On Target 22 Off Target 05 Hit Woodwork (61.4%) 11 Goals - - Hunt
14 On Target 10 Off Target 03 Hit Woodwork (62.9%) 09 Goals - - Long
16 On Target 09 Off Target 01 Hit Woodwork (65.3%) 02 Goals - - Kitson
08 On Target 07 Off Target 00 Hit Woodwork (53.3%) 01 Goals - - Lita

17 On Target 11 Off Target 01 Hit Woodwork (62.1%) 05 Goals - - Cisse

[Snowball]

If you say that hitting the woodwork is a shot off-target you get a curious table

61.5% Kitson
60.7% CISSE
58.1% Doyle (Second most lethal striker, one goal every 4.1 shots)
53.3% Lita
52.6% Hunt (Third most lethal striker, one goal every 5.2 shots
51.9% LONG (Most lethal striker in GOALS per shot, one goal every three shots)


I can only conclude that Long prefers to pass to someone with a better chance of goal.
if he shoots it's because he has a good chance of scoring

You have to ask, why is Kits getting most shots/headers on target for a lousy 2-goal return?

Is he desperate to score rather than pass? Is he heading from too far out because he's too deep?

[Snowball]

Using exactly the same measure, Adam Federici is the most lethal striker the whole of English professional football and in fact the most lethal striker in Reading's entire history. 1 on target shot for 1 goal (100%).

1. He isn't a striker.
2. He wasn't playing as a striker.
3. It's a small sample, not large enough for realistic statistics.

If Feds goes up again this season and MISSES one, his stats drop to 50%. if Long or any of the others have one more shot and miss, their stats hardly alter


The comparison between Long and Kitson this season, or Long and the other strikers, IS, however, totally valid and meaningful

[Snowball]

The critical skill of getting in the right place to have a shot - and the number of times you don't get there in time - is one that no stats in the world will show.

Disagree. Kitson, if you ignore shots hitting the woodwork, is getting more shots on target
than any other Reading striker, but he isn't converting them into goals.

That may well be because his shots and headers are from further out, because he plays too deep.

He gets into positions to manage a shot. He's accurate enough to be on target. BUT HE'S NOT SCORING! (Much)

Ditto the position those shots are taken from. 2 shots that score from 10 outside the area is more worthwhile than 5 shots out of ten with open goals in the 6 yard box.

I have said this when defending the wingers. many of their chances are from narrow angles, whereas
many chances for the strikers are more central and often in the six-yard box