Search results

It showed that Murray could score when in the right team playing the right way - the same player that only scored 6 the year before. CMS I didn't say we don't know the number of shots they had. If a team is struggling to break the opponents down, they might shoot from distance more. That won't...

But we played him as a target man.

Thanks for the warning. I haven't ignored that, it wasn't relevant to the point. Yes, Murray went on to have a great season. CMS might have had one too if he hadn't got injured and played in a 442. Murray's record before his great season was worse than Craig's, so there's certainly no proof that...

Plenty here would have said the same about Barnes, but they can't now as he's proved them wrong. CMS can't prove anyone wrong now. He wasn't good enough to play as a lone target man, he didn't have the all round game to fit to our system. But if he (prior to injury) was in the team we have now...

What that shows is that a player could go from 6 goals (or whatever it was) in a season to 30. If Murray had been badly injured after his first year with Palace then people would look back and say it's been proven that he wasn't good enough for the Championship. Buzzer was trying to show that...

Seems reasonable to me. Beats the 12 goals Murray got for us. Not too bad for a first season in the Championship, despite being in a relegated side. Lots more than Murray got. Looks good. While Murray got 7 from 43. Yep, he couldn't fit into Poyet's style. Still, 11 from 29 Championship games is...

How often did we play 2 up front, prior to his injury? And it's not like he never scored for us. Well I don't like to be rude to you Mellotron, but yes, you sound a little off. CMS easily looked passable at this level (prior to injury) even with the wrong system. I expect he'd have looked pretty...

Opportunities in a system that didn't suit him. He'd have done very well in the team we have now.