Shane Long

[Snowball]

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?

Well, because over about sixty pages I've been told Long is utter shite
and will never be good enough to be a proper Championship striker.

Second, he still has "only" nine goals this season, and "only" 17 league goals "in four seasons"

The point that he has had so few STARTS and has only played the minute equivalent of 15 games
this season is a vital part of the equation.

I was dancing round the room when he scored his first v Norwich
even happier because Kebe had put in the cross.

When the two much-maligned players combined for the second goal it was even better.

[Snowball]

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

Actually I think subconciously your more savvy punter does qualify what they see over time.

and what percentage of footie fans are "savvy" (is it one percent or two?)

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?

No, I haven't changed my mind. All other things being equal a "savvy fan" builds some inner analysis of tackles made, passes, failed passes, shots and goals, etc. but it is a statistic that can be badly affected by single incidents, by personal dislike (or like) for a player.

It is also the case that even savvy fans tend to notice-less the ordinary pass (which may actually be good), the covering of a man out of position, the filling of a hole to prevent an opposition pass even being attempted. Theoretically, a player could have a BRILLIANT game and not touch the ball. A midfielder might be running back on a line that stops the opposition passing to a dangerous player, and he might do that twenty times - he might cover for out-of-position team-mates so the ball is played elsewhere (this is the Harper argument)

SHunt gets a lot of stick but the number of times he hassles a player or gets in half-a-tackle, only to see a second Reading player get the ball. The second player got the ball BECAUSE SHunt got in the half-tackle. Early this season that was actually spoken about by the players, where they win ball by the first OR second OR THIRD tackle.

But the difference between professional assessors and amateurs is the ability to judge more than the obvious, more than the glamorous, and to avoid being carried away by one glamorous shot, or one apparent howler. The Kebe-haters never see a bobble, or two players tackling, or the space made for others. they are WAITING for the mistake. In the end, warts and all, the best judgment of a winger is the stats, goals and assists and Kebe is now well-clear in third in this league and would be second if Shunt didn't take penalties, corners and many free-kicks. That's why SSC plays him

[Snowball]

I've no doubt some supporters are more adept at accurately and impartially analysing what they see.

One in a hundred at best.

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.

Rubbish. Of COURSE I can.

I've been watching soccer for fifty years and stats like these haven't been available for most of that time.

What I have learned is ALL fans (me included) get it wrong time and time and time again
but now we have action-replays, slow-motion, Sky-Plus, Player-cams, Actim, Pro-Zone.

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.

Do you think all the professional managers who DO use pro-Zone do it for fun? or do they maybe use it because it's a useful tool
that supplements their imperfect, subjective, heat of the moment view?


One example. Man Utd v Arsenal or Reading v Birmingham

A tackle goes in on the edge of the box. The defending manager may well think, (a) Good tackle (b) outside the box. The attacking manager thinks (a) foul (b) INSIDE the box. There are four possibilities and only one is right. how come two PROFESSIONALS don't see the same thing?

Answer, and there is loads of research on this. We see what we want to see.

[CMRoyal]

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?

Bugger, posted a long treatise about why there's little point in comparing stats between Long and Kits in isolation, and it disappeared into the ether. In summary, they have different attributes which means that Kits is more likely to go for the speculative.

[CMRoyal]

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.

Or it's because he's our only striker capable of scoring a goal like the one against Donny. Shane (rightly) wouldn't even have tried that, he'd have driven into the box (and possibly ended up passing or being tackled). Similarly, Kits nearly won the game for us at Palace with a speculative curling effort. What a goal that would have been, but statistically it goes down as a shot off-target. In a similar position, Shane's stats would have probably been an extra few yards dribbled and an extra completed pass at best.

They have completely different styles, so you can only compare their stats superficially - if you dig deeeper, it becomes an exercise in speciousness. The crucial point is they seem to be complementing each other reasonably well, and I would argue that the stats on goals scored and points gained as a combination would be far more instructive than your attempts to puff Shane Long up further by knocking Dave Kitson.

[westendgirl]

Whilst I like numbers and statistics I can understand why some(!) of Snowballs posts put people off - but surely if Prozone works (and a lot of football clubs spend a lot of money on it so I naively assume it does) the statistics are relevant.

If professional coaches think the Prozone results add to their decision process then surely there is more to it than just years of watching football.

Still internet message boards are a place where everyone can express an opinion or possibly more importantly a prejudice so maybe it is no place for this sort of analysis other than to increase the page count

[CMRoyal]

Whilst I like numbers and statistics I can understand why some(!) of Snowballs posts put people off - but surely if Prozone works (and a lot of football clubs spend a lot of money on it so I naively assume it does) the statistics are relevant.

If professional coaches think the Prozone results add to their decision process then surely there is more to it than just years of watching football.

True, but Steve Coppell's an analytical guy so I'm willing to bet that rather than looking at Shane 3, Dave 1 and their shots-on-target percentages over the last two games he'll be looking at how each other's movement allowed space for their team-mate, how well they combined, where they might have impeded each other's runs, etc. All within the context of the whole team's play (and that of the opposition). A few games ago, it seemed that Kits was taking a lot of Doyler's space. Now Kits is being criticised for playing too deeply, but who knows this might be a ploy to a) take away markers, b) give the second, faster striker more space to operate and do damage and c) to plug defensive gaps farther up the field than usual.

This is to take nothing away from Shane's excellent recent performances, or indeed to deny that snowball has been vindicated by his faith in Shane when he wasn't a first choice for the team. I just think that the statistics are often used too much as a blunt instrument.

[Hoop Blah]

Answer, and there is loads of research on this. We see what we want to see.

We see what we see. How we interpret that on the other hand is obviously influenced by our perception, involvement and emotional attachment to what's in front of our eyes.

I think it's very dismissive of you to claim that only 1% of fans are capable of distinguishing players abilities after watching them over a number of games or even years. Personally I know I'm a pretty decent judge of a players abilities but I can also recognise that others like a different abilities in a player and so sometimes I will disagree with others who's opinion I trust and respect on the benefit a player will bring to a team.

I still don't feel the need for a bunch of stats to confirm or deny what I see though.

[Hoop Blah]

Whilst I like numbers and statistics I can understand why some(!) of Snowballs posts put people off - but surely if Prozone works (and a lot of football clubs spend a lot of money on it so I naively assume it does) the statistics are relevant.

If professional coaches think the Prozone results add to their decision process then surely there is more to it than just years of watching football.

Still internet message boards are a place where everyone can express an opinion or possibly more importantly a prejudice so maybe it is no place for this sort of analysis other than to increase the page count

The key is in how they use the information.

They won't be using the stats to tell them who the better forward is. They will be using them to see where player X did most of their work and how far they've run or how Team A like to move the ball around etc.

Snowball just pulls out a stat and thinks it proves a point that it doesn't.

[Royal Rother]

Excellent comments from Snowball.

SHunt gets a lot of stick but the number of times he hassles a player or gets in half-a-tackle, only to see a second Reading player get the ball. The second player got the ball BECAUSE SHunt got in the half-tackle. Early this season that was actually spoken about by the players, where they win ball by the first OR second OR THIRD tackle.

But the difference between professional assessors and amateurs is the ability to judge more than the obvious, more than the glamorous, and to avoid being carried away by one glamorous shot, or one apparent howler. The Kebe-haters never see a bobble, or two players tackling, or the space made for others. they are WAITING for the mistake. In the end, warts and all, the best judgment of a winger is the stats, goals and assists and Kebe is now well-clear in third in this league and would be second if Shunt didn't take penalties, corners and many free-kicks. That's why SSC plays him

[CMRoyal]

Excellent comments from Snowball.

SHunt gets a lot of stick but the number of times he hassles a player or gets in half-a-tackle, only to see a second Reading player get the ball. The second player got the ball BECAUSE SHunt got in the half-tackle. Early this season that was actually spoken about by the players, where they win ball by the first OR second OR THIRD tackle.

But the difference between professional assessors and amateurs is the ability to judge more than the obvious, more than the glamorous, and to avoid being carried away by one glamorous shot, or one apparent howler. The Kebe-haters never see a bobble, or two players tackling, or the space made for others. they are WAITING for the mistake. In the end, warts and all, the best judgment of a winger is the stats, goals and assists and Kebe is now well-clear in third in this league and would be second if Shunt didn't take penalties, corners and many free-kicks. That's why SSC plays him

'greed. When he gets away from cold stats and insults snowball adds a lot of value to the discussion. Which is why a lot of us get frustrated with him.

[Snowball]

Bugger, posted a long treatise about why there's little point in comparing stats between Long and Kits in isolation, and it disappeared into the ether. In summary, they have different attributes which means that Kits is more likely to go for the speculative.

Yup and 26 "speculative" shots for 2 goals, FROM A STRIKER

Doesn't that suggest he is getting that part of his game WRONG?

maybe he should have

(a) Carried the ball further looking for a better shot or a penalty

(b) Passed to a team-mate. he plays too deep so there will always be a few in front of him or alongside

[Snowball]

'greed. When he gets away from cold stats and insults snowball adds a lot of value to the discussion. Which is why a lot of us get frustrated with him.

I'm the list's Kebe

[brendywendy]

its a ruddy board though

[Snowball]

Or it's because he's our only striker capable of scoring a goal like the one against Donny. Shane (rightly) wouldn't even have tried that, he'd have driven into the box (and possibly ended up passing or being tackled). Similarly, Kits nearly won the game for us at Palace with a speculative curling effort. What a goal that would have been, but statistically it goes down as a shot off-target. In a similar position, Shane's stats would have probably been an extra few yards dribbled and an extra completed pass at best.

No "statistically" about it. It IS a shot off target. We still have to say 2 goals from 26 shots is not good. that's Lita territory (1 from 15)

A full season for Kits on current form would be Started 40 Sub 6, 10 goals from 130 shots!

I wonder if he was so speculative in the past?



Personally I'd like to see shots on and off target divided up. There are shots on target that are powder-puff scuffs or soft headers straight at the keeper, or long shots that bounce twice and trickle into the keeper's hands, yet (presumably) they count as shots-on-target.

Other side of the coin is a great run and a rasping shot from 20 yards that just goes wide or just goes over the bar.

They need 'near-misses' and bad misses. Steve Hunt's volley at Southampton was so wide it probably didn't even get logged as a shot.

They have completely different styles, so you can only compare their stats superficially - if you dig deeeper, it becomes an exercise in speciousness. The crucial point is they seem to be complementing each other reasonably well, and I would argue that the stats on goals scored and points gained as a combination would be far more instructive than your attempts to puff Shane Long up further by knocking Dave Kitson.

Woah! I am not knocking Dave Kitson. I hope we sign him (but not for 4.7 Million)... Like Mick Gooding keeps saying, I just think he plays a few yards too deep, too often and if he played a little further up could get a bag-full of goals.

Of course we may be playing better because him playing deep effectively means we are playing (almost) a 4-5-1 and getting more ball

[Snowball]

Snowball just pulls out a stat and thinks it proves a point that it doesn't.

YOU say.


I was "proving" the quality of Shane Long from post 1 of this thread when he had scored very few goals.

I was arguing that people were making errors of judgment because he was not getting ball-time

And I have been proven right. The stats in this case were ESSENTIAL, especially when various knee-jerkers
were saying stuff like "Long has been given numerous chances and blown them all"

[CMRoyal]

Bugger, posted a long treatise about why there's little point in comparing stats between Long and Kits in isolation, and it disappeared into the ether. In summary, they have different attributes which means that Kits is more likely to go for the speculative.

Yup and 26 "speculative" shots for 2 goals, FROM A STRIKER

Doesn't that suggest he is getting that part of his game WRONG?

maybe he should have

(a) Carried the ball further looking for a better shot or a penalty

(b) Passed to a team-mate. he plays too deep so there will always be a few in front of him or alongside

Bugger, it's happened again. I lost my comments.

In summary: yes, I agree he has not been playing that well, and he does become frustrating to watch when he's in a dip. But the more withdrawn role might well be a tactic designed to help us defensively and open up space for the speed-merchants around him.

[Snowball]

True, but Steve Coppell's an analytical guy so I'm willing to bet that rather than looking at Shane 3, Dave 1 and their shots-on-target percentages over the last two games he'll be looking at how each other's movement allowed space for their team-mate, how well they combined, where they might have impeded each other's runs, etc. All within the context of the whole team's play (and that of the opposition). A few games ago, it seemed that Kits was taking a lot of Doyler's space. Now Kits is being criticised for playing too deeply, but who knows this might be a ploy to a) take away markers, b) give the second, faster striker more space to operate and do damage and c) to plug defensive gaps farther up the field than usual.

This is to take nothing away from Shane's excellent recent performances, or indeed to deny that snowball has been vindicated by his faith in Shane when he wasn't a first choice for the team. I just think that the statistics are often used too much as a blunt instrument.

You shouldn't presume that just because I post a stat for goals per minute or shot-accuracy that this is the only thing I consider. But you should remember I was fighting 95% of the list when I defended Shane (look at the first 30 pages of this thread). it was so "obvious" that Shane was "useless" that some wag even argued that the thread was a WUM from the players.

Shane, for example, with his charge down against Norwich (daft to bother, keepers aren't that dumb, Shane) but this keeper WAS too slow/too dumb and Shane DID charge the ball down. Not only that, he outran the defender for the rebound won the ball back at the touchline and did a delightful back-heel to a Reading player (can't remember who, think it might've been Glen, see the eyeball and brain is fallible)

the move then fizzled out, but Shane did well (does that make the stats?)

I've already said that Kits makes a difference to midfield and agree that he may be extra-marked making space for Longy or whoever.

Personally, though, I think Long is making his own luck, his own space with his energy and determination. The trick is to USE HIM right, he's fast and strong, a channel-runner or someone to latch on to the through ball 9as well as being not-at-all-bad at getting on the end of crosses.

[CMRoyal]

PS unless you are Terry Venables or possibly American, players don't play "deep" they play "deeply".

[Snowball]

Bugger, it's happened again. I lost my comments. In summary: yes, I agree he has not been playing that well, and he does become frustrating to watch when he's in a dip. But the more withdrawn role might well be a tactic designed to help us defensively and open up space for the speed-merchants around him.

I agree.

The list is often a bit daft. That may be the "why" and he may be playing to orders

Hunt carrying an injury and not-playing, was, for a while, "a conspiracy"

Ingy was carrying an injury

Stretch has had injury issues for years.

Was Doyle less-than-his-best form because he didn't care, was a prima donna, burnt out, or simply a dodgy knee?