Shane Long

[Hoop Blah]

It shows his performance in one element of the game.

It doesn't go very far in rating their whole performance though, but I take your point that if they were scoring at more than a goal a game or something like that then you wouldn't be too fussed about the rest of it.

That just isn't usually the case though, and if you have a player that can't do much else but still scores that many goals, then I'd hazard a guess that a more accomplished player would probably get pretty close to the same rate of goals per minute.

[Snowball]

And "appearances" can be an extremely false statistic.

Equally applicable to minutes on the pitch to be honest

Total minutes on the pitch is a valid statistic. Divide total minutes by 90
and you have an equivalent of "90 minute games"


For example, Noel Hunt is a lot better than either his starts or appearances show him to be
because I don't think he has ever played a 90 minute game for Reading

Excluding the few times he was injured in the first half-hour he often came off around the hour mark

Doyle, OTOH played almost all his games as full 90s or came off with a few minutes to go

So he was getting 1.5 times the minutes on the pitch, and was there in the last 20-30 minutes
when (allegedly) more goals are scored.


"Appearances" without examination, can be very misleading. A player may be brought on for the last 5-6-7 minutes to bolster midfield or as an extra defender. If he did that every game for 45 games that would be 270 minutes, or the equivalent of 3 full games

Yet "appearances" has him playing virtually every game.

[Snowball]

Players get picked on performance and what they show in training. Not goals per minute statistics

GPM stats are a very relevant factor in assessing a striker's performance.

Not really, not in the way that's been suggested.

The goals are a by product of how the team and the individual play and how good they actually are. Doyle didn't suddenly become a bad player or perform badly because his goals dried up at times (although at times his performances weren't as good of course) but his 'GPM' certainly wasn't in danger of getting him dropped because he remained our best forward.

What HAS been suggested? NOTHING except that in goals per starts or goals per minute played, Long tops the list.

I have not said "He's the best player"
I have not said, "He should be picked."
I have not said, "He is better than Doyle or Hunt."

IMO if a striker does nothing but stick his hands in his pocket and whistle Dixie,
if he never makes a pass or a tackle, but he scores a goal every other game
he should be selected, end of.*

Goals win games, and strikers cost fortunes because goals aren't easy.



That doesn't mean I would rather a player who tackles, makes goals, clears off his line AND scores 1 in 2, but any player who can consistently get goals will be a starter and always should be.

And before someone says, "What about contributing to the team performance (etc)?"

If a player, being lazy, or selfish (choose your insult) gets the goals he does his job
and the fact that the side can use him in the right way shows things are fine.

[Hoop Blah]

Just shows how you shouldn't turst stats to do anything but campare stats.

In a game as fluid and variable as football you largely have to trust your eyes and opinion when comparing player X with player Y and especially when thinking about something like effectiveness or team selection.

Stats can be useful to see how a team might play, eg in the way Prozone etc are used to detect patterns of play, but not in comparing how a player themselves has performed. Certainly not from the outside without the knowledge of how they've been asked to play.

[CMRoyal]

Total minutes on the pitch is a valid statistic. Divide total minutes by 90
and you have an equivalent of "90 minute games"


For example, Noel Hunt is a lot better than either his starts or appearances show him to be
because I don't think he has ever played a 90 minute game for Reading

Excluding the few times he was injured in the first half-hour he often came off around the hour mark

Doyle, OTOH played almost all his games as full 90s or came off with a few minutes to go

So he was getting 1.5 times the minutes on the pitch, and was there in the last 20-30 minutes
when (allegedly) more goals are scored.

As one who saw a high proportion of the games (let's say 100%* or so) that N Hunt and Doyle played in last season, it's clear to me that a cold look at the stats could disfavour Doyle in this kind of comparison, whereas in actual fact Noel was incapable of running his butt off for the cause for 90 minutes a game week in, week out as Doyler did. The two actually complemented each other well in that respect, and I would like to see the stats on them as a partnership.



* For anyone following the Tommy Smith rumour shenanigans elsewhere, that's actually 75% in snowball money.

[Snowball]

And how many times (seasons) did using Doyle 90 minutes for game after game
result in him having very long (too long) periods where he couldn't score to save his life?

I loved Doyle but his number of non-scoring games was too high IMO, possibly
because he did too much donkey-work, possibly because he was carrying injuries,
and possibly because he was over-worked.

Strikers should be there to score goals

[CMRoyal]

And how many times (seasons) did using Doyle 90 minutes for game after game
result in him having very long (too long) periods where he couldn't score to save his life?

I loved Doyle but his number of non-scoring games was too high IMO, possibly
because he did too much donkey-work, possibly because he was carrying injuries,
and possibly because he was over-worked.

Strikers should be there to score goals

Absolutely agree, but as in many dysfunctional environments, Doyle was the honest, overworked one who quite often ended up getting the blame precisely because he didn't shirk his responsibilities. That's not a reflection on N Hunt and Long - Kev just happens to be better than them, so it fell on his shoulders. He has his reward now - time for others to step up and share the burden that he's (rightly) left behind.

[Hoop Blah]

Strikers should be there to score goals

They should actually be there to contribute in whatever way the manager wants them to to contribute to a winning team.

Doyle did so much more than score goals that he was pretty much undropable.

I do agree that he was worked to the bone though and his willingness to do so, and it's benefits to the team, probably meant he scored less goals than he could've done if things had been done slightly differently.

That might not've resulted in us winning more games though.

[prostak]

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?

[Dirk Gently]

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.....

[Snowball]

Well IMO it's never down to a single striker (even in 4-5-1) but how the system works

So our best combo last year (by a country mile) was Doyle-Hunt

So if Shane was running around, scoring 3 while his partner (Hunt) scored 30 I'd be totally happy because "the two strikers" are scoring 33 between them.

I still say, whatever the damn era, if you can score 23+ goals you should be playing, end of.

[prostak]

I still say, whatever the damn era, if you can score 23+ goals you should be playing, end of.

The point I was making was more that the old style centre-forward would no longer be able to score this 23+ (?) goal target, and even if he could it would probably be at the expense of the team's performance as a whole. The 'damn era' does matter for various reasons. Having a lazy or unfit carthorse who can nonetheless score when given the ball in front of goal may have worked when everyone did it, but there's been a clear shift to the notion that each player must have certain basic skills and abilities - an apparent lack of these is why I'll never rate Long, to bring things back on topic. Admittedly he's neither lazy nor unfit; his problems run far deeper.

[Royal Rother]

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.....

I'm not entirely sure how that sentence was supposed to start but, as it seems to be an attempt to dig at Snowball, I'll just point out that our Statman has always maintained that Doyle was our best player, whether he was in scoring form or not.

Snowball rubs everyone up the wrong way at times, including me, but no way should that lead to mischievous misinterpretation and misrepresentation of his missives.

[Snowball]

I still say, whatever the damn era, if you can score 23+ goals you should be playing, end of.

The point I was making was more that the old style centre-forward would no longer be able to score this 23+ (?) goal target, and even if he could it would probably be at the expense of the team's performance as a whole. The 'damn era' does matter for various reasons. Having a lazy or unfit carthorse who can nonetheless score when given the ball in front of goal may have worked when everyone did it, but there's been a clear shift to the notion that each player must have certain basic skills and abilities - an apparent lack of these is why I'll never rate Long, to bring things back on topic. Admittedly he's neither lazy nor unfit; his problems run far deeper.

Easy to prove this is rubbish.

Any player who could score 30+ goals season after season will be sought after, even if he does NOTHING else

[Ian Royal]

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

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.

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.

[Snowball]

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

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.

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.

You must learn to engage your (small) brain, Jerky

"Any player who could score 30+ goals season after season will be sought after, even if he does NOTHING else"

Now, take this slowly... Do you see the two words, "even if" in the line above? Well, see, they mean, longhand, that a player scoring 30+ goals (and doing other things) or a player scoring 30+ goals and NOT doing other things, will be sought after. Y'see, little one, that is an "inclusive argument". It means that if a player scores 30+ a season he will be sought after. He will be sought after precisely because he scores goals. Anything else is a bonus.

The rest of your post is pure bollox. If there is a player capable of converting 30+ chances, every manager on the planet will make sure those chances will be created.

Just as a matter of interest, apart from Palm-Tree Day, have you ever watched a live game?

[ZacNaloen]

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.....

Only in the context of this thread where the statistics involved relate to goals scored and time on pitch.

The countless other statistics recorded in a game of football will show why that player is worthwhile.

[Ian Royal]

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

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.

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.

You must learn to engage your (small) brain, Jerky

"Any player who could score 30+ goals season after season will be sought after, even if he does NOTHING else"

Now, take this slowly... Do you see the two words, "even if" in the line above? Well, see, they mean, longhand, that a player scoring 30+ goals (and doing other things) or a player scoring 30+ goals and NOT doing other things, will be sought after. Y'see, little one, that is an "inclusive argument". It means that if a player scores 30+ a season he will be sought after. He will be sought after precisely because he scores goals. Anything else is a bonus.

The rest of your post is pure bollox. If there is a player capable of converting 30+ chances, every manager on the planet will make sure those chances will be created.

Just as a matter of interest, apart from Palm-Tree Day, have you ever watched a live game?

At least try to understand what I'm saying. It's a totally redundant point, because it is divorced from reality. You will not get a player that only scores goals in the modern game. To score a significant number of goals ina season you need to have a multifacited game. Even more so to consistently do it season after season. Therefore goals to minutes / games ratios are but a small part of overall performance and contribution. Not the be-all and end-all of a striker.

Stop making yourself look like a fool by acting like a child.

[Snowball]

"Any player who could score 30+ goals season after season will be sought after, even if he does NOTHING else"

[Snowball]

At least try to understand what I'm saying.

NO

It's a totally redundant point, because it is divorced from reality.

I disagree


You will not get a player that only scores goals in the modern game.

It's "who" not "that" and you're wrong


To score a significant number of goals ina season you need to have a multifacited game.

Multi-faceted. And again, I disagree. The more an individual does NOT striking at goal, the less he will strike at goal. Simples.




Even more so to consistently do it season after season.

Why? If it can be done in one season, it can be done in another.


Therefore goals to minutes / games ratios are but a small part of overall performance and contribution.

No, you I basing a conclusion on made-up, unprovable premise.


Not the be-all and end-all of a striker.

When did I EVER say it was the be-all and end-all of a striker?
It remains a simple fact (do you dispute it or not?) that any player scoring 30+ will be sought after.