Harte Signs

[Shaka's Giant Hands]

Snowball, you really are deluded if you think Long is anywhere near Gylfi's quality.

Manipulate all the stats you want and put as many RANDOM words you like in capitals.

[Snowball]

Snowball, you really are deluded if you think Long is anywhere near Gylfi's quality.

Manipulate all the stats you want and put as many RANDOM words you like in capitals.

Where the he'll have I EVER suggested Shane is Gylfi's quality?

He's just a lot better than the knockers say, is all..

[RoyalBlue]

Didn't have a great game today and for all his plus points from set pieces I can't help but believe Armstrong (if fully fit) would offer far more in general play.

Fully agree. What a shame the bald one doesn't see it the same way.

Still reckon Harte will cost us as many goals as he scores.

[Victor Meldrew]

Didn't have a great game today and for all his plus points from set pieces I can't help but believe Armstrong (if fully fit) would offer far more in general play.

Fully agree. What a shame the bald one doesn't see it the same way.

Still reckon Harte will cost us as many goals as he scores.

I think it would be more-time for Armstrong to get his rightful place back.

[Shaka's Giant Hands]

:oops:

Snowball, you really are deluded if you think Long is anywhere near Gylfi's quality.

Manipulate all the stats you want and put as many RANDOM words you like in capitals.

Where the he'll have I EVER suggested Shane is Gylfi's quality?

He's just a lot better than the knockers say, is all..

Just looking at one page of this thread and I can see you suggesting Long is better than Gylfi...

141 Chances - - 074 ON Target 062 OFF - - 5 Hit Woodwork - - 29 Goals a goal every 4.86 chances - Long
135 Chances - - 067 ON Target 061 OFF - - 8 Hit Woodwork - - 15 Goals a goal every 9.00 chances - Gylfi

Just LOOK at that table. Look how similar Long & Gylfi are in terms of chances, on target shots/headers, off-target attempts...

But then look at GOALS. Long is almost twice as deadly as Gylfi,

[Snowball]

Just looking at one page of this thread and I can see you suggesting Long is better than Gylfi...

141 Chances - - 074 ON Target 062 OFF - - 5 Hit Woodwork - - 29 Goals a goal every 4.86 chances - Long
135 Chances - - 067 ON Target 061 OFF - - 8 Hit Woodwork - - 15 Goals a goal every 9.00 chances - Gylfi

Just LOOK at that table. Look how similar Long & Gylfi are in terms of chances, on target shots/headers, off-target attempts...

But then look at GOALS. Long is almost twice as deadly as Gylfi,

Doing it again. Where to I SAY "I think Long is better than Gylfi"? I don't. I have never thought that. You're being ridiculous. Gylfi was sold for 7 Million, a very good price for us. I've said that Gylfi "Is easily Premiership top six." I aslo said I believe that Gylfi can be WORLD CLASS.

The biggest, most optimistic thing I've said about Shane is that I believe, in a full-playing, injury-free season, playing striker in a 442 he could get 10 Premiership goals, 20 Championship goals or 30 goals in League 1.

Gylfi has already got his 20 Championship goals and he's, what 21, and now in the Bundesliga!

There is a massive difference between saying that Long gets too much stick and is an unsung hero,
that he's better than the knockers say... but where have I suggested that he's even worth £1M
on the transfer market?

[Snowball]

But LONG IS more deadly than Gylfi, massively so.

When deadliness is classified as converting chances.


"Deadliness" though, is only one factor.

Being in the right area and GETTING ORE CHANCES is another.

Gylfi was VERY wasteful of chances, but he compensated by getting so many more than even Kitson and Doyle managed.

That still doesn't mean he wasn't wasteful.

[Maguire]

What's a "chance"?

If you're defining a chance as an attempt at goal then you'd expect midfielders to be more profligate in these terms than strikers because more of their "chances" would come from range.

With the ball 20-30 yards out then I'd rather the chance fell to Sigurdsson than Long every single time. You say he was "VERY WASTEFUL" of chances but that treats all chances as the same, whereas many of his attempts were from distance.

[Wycombe Royal]

What's a "chance"?

If you're defining a chance as an attempt at goal then you'd expect midfielders to be more profligate in these terms than strikers because more of their "chances" would come from range.

With the ball 20-30 yards out then I'd rather the chance fell to Sigurdsson than Long every single time. You say he was "VERY WASTEFUL" of chances but that treats all chances as the same, whereas many of his attempts were from distance.

Don't bother wasting bandwidth, Snowball will never get it.

[Snowball]

With the ball 20-30 yards out then I'd rather the chance fell to Sigurdsson than Long every single time. You say he was "VERY WASTEFUL" of chances but that treats all chances as the same, whereas many of his attempts were from distance.

But he only scored 1 in 20 of them!! Is it therefore worth shooting?

Long has score 2 screamers from distance that I know of. HOW MANY HAS HE MISSED?



Answer this hypothetical question. Imagine Long had to play midfield and every game for the rest of the season he shot three times from 25+ yards out = 93 shots and he scored 3 maybe 4 times. Would we not be screaming at him for wasting so much possession with a ridiculous low-percentage shot?


In the box Gylfi was really, seriously deadly. Outside the box, ignoring just 3 free-kicks (because that is all he actually ever scored) he was TERRIBLE, absolutely TERRIBLE. That's what people can't get.

Ignore the penalties (8) (7 scored) that leaves 135 chances. Take away the 3 FCs he scored = 132

He was scoring 1 in 2 in the box (best estimate) so that means he had 30 chances, leaving 102 shots


102 shots from outside the box for THREE goals.


Do you REALLY think that's a good return? How many more goals might he have got from 5 yards closer?

[Snowball]

Wycombe, I DO get the fact that shooting from further and further out reducing the likelihood of scoring.


That's why we try to get the ball to within 20 yards before shooting, preferably inside the penalty area


And that's why a foul IN THE AREA, results in a penalty, not a free kick
because the likelihood of a goal was so much greater.


What I'm saying is, that if you are converting 1 in 30 long shots, DON'T SHOOT SO OFTEN FROM THAT FAR OUT.

[Maguire]

With the ball 20-30 yards out then I'd rather the chance fell to Sigurdsson than Long every single time. You say he was "VERY WASTEFUL" of chances but that treats all chances as the same, whereas many of his attempts were from distance.

But he only scored 1 in 20 of them!! Is it therefore worth shooting?

Long has score 2 screamers from distance that I know of. HOW MANY HAS HE MISSED?

So you're saying that Shane Long is better from distance than Sigurdsson?

Bewildering.

[Snowball]

Maguire, define "better from distance"...


Say I trawled through all the highlights and discovered that in his Reading career Shane had had three shots from 25 yards + and scored every time.

Say we saw that many times he COULD HAVE shot, but instead squared the ball to a winger instead, or went for a 1-2, or chipped for the other striker.

Say, just say we found that Long had never missed from distance, and had scored 3/3. What then?


Problem would be you'd then say, "Yeah but Shane doesn't try to shoot from distance..."


To define better you'd have to look at

(a) Number of shots and success rate.

(b) Whether the player chose another option, and whether that option led to a better chance or not


But we can't answer the question without your definition of "better from distance".


Just because someone SHOOTS A LOT from distance? What does that really MEAN? A fullback might shoot from distance once a game and yet NEVER score

[Millsy]

I left the Long threads because they were getting boring only to come to a Harte thread to see Long is desperately needing to be defended again.

I have honestly never known a player who is so bad that he has needed SEVERAL HUGE threads dedicated to his defence PLUS other huge threads not originally even related also turned into his defence.

Does this tell us something?

And I see goalposts are changing again from him being a great 20-goal championship striker --> him just doing a lot of hard work and providing assists --> him just being there to tire out defenders --> a random obscure statistic about how his long-distance efforts are more likely to go in than Sig's....

FFS ENOUGH ABOUT LONG.

Snowball I have to admit I'm going from liking and respecting you to seeing what others are saying about random and twisted stats to try to make a point. Give it a rest.

The saddest thing about all this is that you've even pretty much turned me - generally the optimistic defender of players and managers - to being anti-Long.

There is NO defence for a striker who (finally!!) scores one goal in open play all season. End of.

Now what's the discussion re: Harte?

[Shaka's Giant Hands]

FFS ENOUGH ABOUT LONG.

Snowball I have to admit I'm going from liking and respecting you to seeing what others are saying about random and twisted stats to try to make a point. Give it a rest.

The saddest thing about all this is that you've even pretty much turned me - generally the optimistic defender of players and managers - to being anti-Long.

There is NO defence for a striker who (finally!!) scores one goal in open play all season. End of.

Now what's the discussion re: Harte?

+1!!!

[Snowball]

We were discussing Harte's quite phenomenal scoring record, when the nay-sayers brought up
the idea "take out the penalties"... so I did and that made GYLFI look a lot worse.

Shane was in there as part of a table of various players, Doyle, Kitson etc

if someone raises a question or objection and it's answered... it is about RFC's players past and present after all, why does it matter who comes up in any particular post?


Finally, at least one person (Handbags) has stated that Long is in actual fact very accurate and a good finisher
(contrary to the BS too-many people here spout without thinking)


But then we get that Gylfi is great from distance (in fact he wastes an incredible amount of shots from distance), 6 goals in over 100 attempts
and three of those were free-kicks from 22 yards and two more in free play from about the same distance.

So FOR READING, Gylfi has actually score a single goal EVER from over 25 yards, that against BURTON ALBION of League 2


Or take the probably inaccurate idea that "virtually all of Long's goals" are from about six yards.

is THAT true?

[Snowball]

HARTE


In the last two seasons Harte is a better free-kick taker than Gylfi.

He has scored more free-kicks and at a much higher conversion rate.


Gylfi, actually, factually has scored just THREE free-kicks for Reading. In 43 (5) appearances, missing an awful lot of them.


Harte has scored 2 free-kicks already in 15 starts, (1 every 7.5 starts) about twice the rate of Gylfi (3 in 48 appearances) (1 every 14.6)

Harte is also more "deadly" 3 goals in 8 shots (37.5%) compared to 22 goals in 143 shots for Gylfi (13.9%) (includes pens)

Harte is also more deadly 2 goals in 7 shots (28.6%) compared with 15 in 136 shots for Gylfi (11.03%) (excluding pens)

[floyd__streete]

Harte is also more deadly 2 goals in 7 shots (28.6%) compared with 15 in 136 shots for Gylfi (11.03%) (excluding pens)

Shame he is so slow, so laboured defensively and just as likely to cost us as many goals as he makes at the other end.

[Snowball]

Harte is also more deadly 2 goals in 7 shots (28.6%) compared with 15 in 136 shots for Gylfi (11.03%) (excluding pens)

Shame he is so slow, so laboured defensively and just as likely to cost us as many goals as he makes at the other end.

So how many of yesterday's were down to him?

The ball central that hit the bar was straight down the centre and HRK and Howard screwed up

First goal was opposite wing, Karacan and Griffin skinned after Howard let the pass go out to Taarabt, and then it's Howards bad tackle.

The other goal was again to the left, well away from Harte's wing, failure by Mills (nowhere) and presumably Griffin.

Other goal Harte is done with a pass, fair enough.

[Victor Meldrew]

Didn't have a great game today and for all his plus points from set pieces I can't help but believe Armstrong (if fully fit) would offer far more in general play.

Fully agree. What a shame the bald one doesn't see it the same way.

Still reckon Harte will cost us as many goals as he scores.

I think it would be more-time for Armstrong to get his rightful place back.

One game too many yesterday?
Time for a long overdue rest.