Shane Long

Trapped wrote: TioPepe wrote: He really needs to score soon in all seriousness.  I heard he has 1 goal in 43 games for club and country. Is that stat correct?

24 games, I don't know where the 43 figure came from. He last scored in February, he hasn't played 43 games since then.

1 in 43 is the stat. Doesn't it go back to Moldova away..

Edited by rolo - 16 Oct 2017 at 12:55am

But it's the same thing really, whatever way you look at it, he has 20 something games without a goal, and prior to that goal, you are looking back 20 games to find the previous goal he scored. He was never prolific, bar one single season a good few years ago now, but even those ''OK-by-the-standards-of-other-Irish-strikers'' stats have dipped alarmingly, to the extent that he was outscored last year by Seamus Coleman, who didn't play after March. 

The O'Shea wrote: You count a barren patch from the last time a player scored, so the 1 in 43 is a ridiculous stat, why not say he has 2 in 44 or whatever else.... He hasn't scored in 24 games, which is awful form, but not nearly as bad as "1 in 43" makes it sound.

So if Shane Long scored 1 goal all season in say the 37th game, instead of saying he's had a bad season in front of goal, you would say "he's grand, sure he scored two games ago"? That is a very bizarre (and flawed) way of assessing a striker's goal scoring ratio.

i cant remember the last time this man scored

Trapped wrote: The O'Shea wrote: You count a barren patch from the last time a player scored, so the 1 in 43 is a ridiculous stat, why not say he has 2 in 44 or whatever else.... He hasn't scored in 24 games, which is awful form, but not nearly as bad as "1 in 43" makes it sound. So if Shane Long scored 1 goal all season in say the 37th game, instead of saying he's had a bad season in front of goal, you would say "he's grand, sure he scored two games ago"? That is a very bizarre (and flawed) way of assessing a striker's goal scoring ratio.

Then you would say "They scored once over the course of the season".

I have never, ever heard of another players barren streak being described in the way Long's has been, it is completely misleading and absolutely arbitrary. If someone hasn't scored in 10 games, you say they haven't scored in 10 games. You dont say they haven't scored in 10 games, plus five games previous to the match where they did score... There's no logical reason why you would start counting from that particular point, like what is the particular relevance of "1 goal in 43 games" as opposed to "2 goals in 44", or "3 goals in 49" or whatever else it may be, you might as well just wind it all the way back to his total amount of goals in his total appearances made...

Edited by The O'Shea - 16 Oct 2017 at 11:12am

Is Murphy better at holding up the ball though? His touch is appalling, and his passing is nothing more than basic. He's not as quick, as good in the air, or as good at running the channels as Long, and despite being a lot bigger, he's only marginally stronger. I don't think either of them are going to score many at international level, but with Long that's more down to his current lack of form, whereas with Murphy it's down to a lack of ability, he's been at the top of his game for 3 years so what he's doing now is the very best he's capable of doing.

The O'Shea wrote: Trapped wrote: The O'Shea wrote: You count a barren patch from the last time a player scored, so the 1 in 43 is a ridiculous stat, why not say he has 2 in 44 or whatever else.... He hasn't scored in 24 games, which is awful form, but not nearly as bad as "1 in 43" makes it sound. So if Shane Long scored 1 goal all season in say the 37th game, instead of saying he's had a bad season in front of goal, you would say "he's grand, sure he scored two games ago"? That is a very bizarre (and flawed) way of assessing a striker's goal scoring ratio. Then you would say "They scored once over the course of the season". I have never, ever heard of another players barren streak being described in the way Long's has been, it is completely misleading and absolutely arbitrary. If someone hasn't scored in 10 games, you say they haven't scored in 10 games. You dont say they haven't scored in 10 games, plus five games previous to the match where they did score... There's no logical reason why you would start counting from that particular point, like what is the particular relevance of "1 goal in 43 games" as opposed to "2 goals in 44", or "3 goals in 49" or whatever else it may be, you might as well just wind it all the way back to his total amount of goals in his total appearances made...

The O'Shea wrote: No, I'm arguing against the misleading phrasing and arbitrary nature of the statistic. As I have already said, 43 games ago is a baseless starting point. You may as well pick any old number, it'd be just as relevant. The logical statistic (and the one referenced on Sky yesterday) is that he hasn't scored in 24 games. That is the standard applied to every other striker I can think of, so why would Long be any different?