CONFIMRED - Glenn Murray on loan

[P!ssed Off]

So to clarify, Player A will get a shot away 5 times a match when otherwise the ball would have gone to the opposition, but Player B just won't get the shot away?

You've got to go with Player A. Even if his shots usually miss, he's got a better chance of scoring.

What an absolute strawman!

[P!ssed Off]

A few people still don't quite grasp that it is not a case of 'Pogrebnyak or Murray'
Pogrebynak is staying whether you like it or not.
It's a choice of 'Pogrebynak or Both'.

Given they're both shit and expensive, the choice is obvious.

[P!ssed Off]

Murray has been shit since debut. I couldn't give a oxf*rd if he works hard or links up play.
He's not here to hold the ball up, or flick it on, or win cheap free kicks.
He's here to put the ball in the back of the oxf*rd net.
And he's failing miserably.

Bizarre post. Surely when you buy a strong, 6ft striker at this level, you want him to do all of those things (as well as score)?

His minimum requirement under the terms of his £25,000 per week contract should be "score goals".
If he wants to do other good things in his spare time, that would be a bonus.

Sick of seeing nonsense like "Murray played well in that game because he worked hard and won a few freekicks."
No! if a lone striker misses all his clear-cut chances then he's had a shit game, end of.

[melonhead]

As a lone striker you have other duties just* as important.

Holding the ball up, bringing in other players and winning free kicks. Which he does better than anyone at the club.

*not quite

[M Brook]

When his loan ends, Murray should be politely thanked and given the bus fare back to South London. He is not a permanent solution to our need for a goalscorer. Indeed, he has shown over the past couple of months that he is not even a temporary solution. His recent appearences at the MadStad have shown quite clearly that he is a man who knows his future is anywhere but with RFC. He is clearly not up for the fight and playing him in preference to Cox is having a detrimental effect on Cox's confidence. If he plays no part in Clarke's vision for RFC then he would do well to send him back at the first opportunity and use Cox as his main striker option.

[SCIAG]

So to clarify, Player A will get a shot away 5 times a match when otherwise the ball would have gone to the opposition, but Player B just won't get the shot away?

You've got to go with Player A. Even if his shots usually miss, he's got a better chance of scoring.

What an absolute strawman!

I'm not sure you know what a straw man is. Mostly, people don't begin arguments with a straw man with "to clarify"...

How else would you interpret "not getting into a decent positions nearly enough or hitting Row Z 5 times a game"? I mean, I guess Player B could miss the ball and it goes to Ronaldo on the far post who scores...

Certainly to me, "not getting into a decent position" implies missing cutbacks and crosses rather than getting to them and then dallying or playing the ball to someone else.

On Murray - yes, he hasn't been good enough in front of goal. At the start of his spell he was getting the best out of the players around him and creating more chances. If we can get him back to that form then great. You'd have to be blinded by an irrational dislike, or else a consistent idiot, if you couldn't see that Murray has contributed some worthwhile things on top of his goalscoring. He's not as extreme an example as Les Ferdinand was, but he's another who didn't score many goals but greatly improved our play.

[P!ssed Off]

So to clarify, Player A will get a shot away 5 times a match when otherwise the ball would have gone to the opposition, but Player B just won't get the shot away?

You've got to go with Player A. Even if his shots usually miss, he's got a better chance of scoring.

What an absolute strawman!

I'm not sure you know what a straw man is. Mostly, people don't begin arguments with a straw man with "to clarify"...

How else would you interpret "not getting into a decent positions nearly enough or hitting Row Z 5 times a game"? I mean, I guess Player B could miss the ball and it goes to Ronaldo on the far post who scores...

Certainly to me, "not getting into a decent position" implies missing cutbacks and crosses rather than getting to them and then dallying or playing the ball to someone else.

On Murray - yes, he hasn't been good enough in front of goal. At the start of his spell he was getting the best out of the players around him and creating more chances. If we can get him back to that form then great. You'd have to be blinded by an irrational dislike, or else a consistent idiot, if you couldn't see that Murray has contributed some worthwhile things on top of his goalscoring. He's not as extreme an example as Les Ferdinand was, but he's another who didn't score many goals but greatly improved our play.

I think you meant to say "instead of" there.

The guy misses sitter after sitter, yet some of you lot are still wnking over how he won a couple of soft freekicks, or how he held the ball up for 5 seconds, or 'did you see that pass to the winger'? Now that is irrational.

As for "greatly improved our play":
Pre-Murray: 5 games, 7 points. 1.4 points per game.
Post-Murray: 17 games, 18 points. 1.06 points per game.

The old 'never mind we're losing every week, look at how much our play has improved' rears its ugly head.

[catfork]

Good to see the team board is enjoying the festive season.

[sandman]

Good to see the team board is enjoying the festive season.

Perhaps start an AE thread on what your favourite Christmas food is.

[Ian Royal]

So to clarify, Player A will get a shot away 5 times a match when otherwise the ball would have gone to the opposition, but Player B just won't get the shot away?

You've got to go with Player A. Even if his shots usually miss, he's got a better chance of scoring.

Plus, game with more shots = more exciting.

[JamesWN]

So to clarify, Player A will get a shot away 5 times a match when otherwise the ball would have gone to the opposition, but Player B just won't get the shot away?

You've got to go with Player A. Even if his shots usually miss, he's got a better chance of scoring.

+1

[Zana Badawi]

So to clarify, Player A will get a shot away 5 times a match when otherwise the ball would have gone to the opposition, but Player B just won't get the shot away?

You've got to go with Player A. Even if his shots usually miss, he's got a better chance of scoring.

+1

+2. For me, Murray >>>> Pogrebnyak. At least he's disproven the myth that Pogrebnyak hasn't had enough chances created for him, by instantaneously turning the striker position around 180 degrees. However, we've had a need for his goals recently and he hasn't delivered. I know its a tough ask, made even harder by the fact that we don't have the personnel to form a regular front 2 to help him/Pog out, but thems the cards they've been dealt and they have to play with them. I think he HAS to score before the New Year.

[Ian Royal]

I know Murray has missed a lot of chances, several of which he should have done much better with, and several of which were not goals by the narrowest of margins. I just don't get the criticism that he's poor or his goal scoring record is poor.

If you compare his goals to games against Reading strikers past and present, he's actually scoring at a decent rate. Yes, he's on a bit of a more barren spell at the moment, but all strikers go through that, particularly when a team is playing poorly.

If you compare games to goals, acknowledging that sub appearances may skew things a little, then there's actually nothing wrong with his scoring rate. In fact it's good. Realistically you want a striker to be scoring between once every 2.5 or 3.5 games. Anything better than that over an extended period is phenomenal.

Cureton 2.31
Kitson 2.45
Murray 2.66
Le Fondre 2.68
Doyle 2.91
Forster 3.19
Cox 3.43
Pogrebnyak 3.86
NHunt 4.15

There just seems a lot of unnecessary and unfounded criticism jumping around at the moment. We'll do extremely well to find a better performer than Murray. We might be stuck with Pogrebnyak, but that doesn't mean we should just settle for him in the starting line up. His record isn't too bad, but everything about his presence at the club is bad news and he's shown even less this season than he did in previous ones. Seeing as he's here he'll do as back up, but we need someone else and why gamble elsewhere when we've got an option on Murray, who we already know and is doing ok, with plenty of room for improvement.

[P!ssed Off]

I know Murray has missed a lot of chances, several of which he should have done much better with, and several of which were not goals by the narrowest of margins. I just don't get the criticism that he's poor or his goal scoring record is poor.

If you compare his goals to games against Reading strikers past and present, he's actually scoring at a decent rate. Yes, he's on a bit of a more barren spell at the moment, but all strikers go through that, particularly when a team is playing poorly.

If you compare games to goals, acknowledging that sub appearances may skew things a little, then there's actually nothing wrong with his scoring rate. In fact it's good. Realistically you want a striker to be scoring between once every 2.5 or 3.5 games. Anything better than that over an extended period is phenomenal.

Cureton 2.31
Kitson 2.45
Murray 2.66
Le Fondre 2.68
Doyle 2.91
Forster 3.19
Cox 3.43
Pogrebnyak 3.86
NHunt 4.15

There just seems a lot of unnecessary and unfounded criticism jumping around at the moment. We'll do extremely well to find a better performer than Murray. We might be stuck with Pogrebnyak, but that doesn't mean we should just settle for him in the starting line up. His record isn't too bad, but everything about his presence at the club is bad news and he's shown even less this season than he did in previous ones. Seeing as he's here he'll do as back up, but we need someone else and why gamble elsewhere when we've got an option on Murray, who we already know and is doing ok, with plenty of room for improvement.

Those comparisons are completely pointless. Kitson and Doyle had two seasons in the Premier League. Pogrebynak, Noel Hunt and Adam Le Fondre had one season in the Premier League. Noel Hunt, Adam Le Fondre and Jamie Cureton made so many substitute appearances it is laughable to suggest that only skews things "a little". Simon Cox is not even playing as a striker. Which of those players played the vast majority of their games as lone strikers, where they were the target of every cross and opportunity?
We're not asking Murray to score goals against Man Utd or Chelsea, and giving him 15 minutes and one chance to do so, we're asking him to score goals against Watford and Charlton, giving him 90 minutes and 5 chances to score.

Murray's poor form has often gone under the radar largely thanks to our poor defence this season.
When you concede 6 against Birmingham it's easy to blame solely the defence rather than consider that whilst their players only needed 11 shots to score 6 goals, our own striker needed 6 shots to score once.

When you lose 3-0 at home it's easy to blame the defence for being shit, forgetting that your own striker had 7 shots at goal, and scored none.
Had Murray scored his header in the 10th minute we'd have opened the scoring
Had Murray scored his chance in the 31st minute we'd have equalised.
Had Murray scored his header in the 33rd minute, and not hit the post, we'd have equalised.
Had Murray not missed his header in the 63rd minute we'd have pulled it back to 2-1.
A Murray shot in the 75th minute.
A Murray shot in the 76th minute.
A Murray shot in the 77th minute.
79th minute: Derby score. 3-0. Game Over.

4 shots to score against Sheffield Wednesday, including a penalty. Lost 1-0.
3 shots to score against Leeds. Drew 0-0.
5 shots to score against Charlton. Lost 0-1.
3 shots to score against Bolton. Drew 0-0.
3 shots to score against Watford. Lost 0-1

Murray's 3 chances against Watford are described by whoscored as follows:
0' Glenn Murray attempt missed. Big Chance.
42' Glenn Murray attempt missed. Big Chance.
53' Glenn Murray attempt missed. Big Chance.

"Glenn Murray attempt missed. Big Chance." perfectly sums up his time at Reading.

[From Despair To Where?]

A few people still don't quite grasp that it is not a case of 'Pogrebnyak or Murray'
Pogrebynak is staying whether you like it or not.
It's a choice of 'Pogrebynak or Both'.

Given they're both shit and expensive, the choice is obvious.

That is the bottom line. Can we afford both or should we use the money earmarked for Murray to strengthen somewhere else. As you say, the choice is obvious.

Oh, and Ian, Pogrebnyak's shown even less this season than others because he got injured in August and is only now coming back to fitness. You'll be criticising Karacan's contribution next.

[Ian Royal]

A few people still don't quite grasp that it is not a case of 'Pogrebnyak or Murray'
Pogrebynak is staying whether you like it or not.
It's a choice of 'Pogrebynak or Both'.

Given they're both shit and expensive, the choice is obvious.

That is the bottom line. Can we afford both or should we use the money earmarked for Murray to strengthen somewhere else. As you say, the choice is obvious.

Oh, and Ian, Pogrebnyak's shown even less this season than others because he got injured in August and is only now coming back to fitness. You'll be criticising Karacan's contribution next.

He was showing oxf*rd all before his 'injury'. His main contribution has been to miss a gilt edged chance easier than Blackman's on Saturday.

[From Despair To Where?]

A few people still don't quite grasp that it is not a case of 'Pogrebnyak or Murray'
Pogrebynak is staying whether you like it or not.
It's a choice of 'Pogrebynak or Both'.

Given they're both shit and expensive, the choice is obvious.

That is the bottom line. Can we afford both or should we use the money earmarked for Murray to strengthen somewhere else. As you say, the choice is obvious.

Oh, and Ian, Pogrebnyak's shown even less this season than others because he got injured in August and is only now coming back to fitness. You'll be criticising Karacan's contribution next.

He was showing oxf*rd all before his 'injury'. His main contribution has been to miss a gilt edged chance easier than Blackman's on Saturday.

But he's still not played enough to say he's showing less than previous seasons.

Could you now answer the question, which has been my tack all along, that when you take into account Pogrebnyak is going nowhere this window, is Murray worth signing or not?

[Hoop Blah]

I don't really get the dislike of Murray on here. Admittedly he's not scored as many goals as we'd have liked but his movement, work rate and general play is just what the side needed.

He misses chances yes, like all forwards, but it is still a positive that he's getting into the positions to be on the end of the rare chances we've been created the last couple of months. That's a good start. Hopefully we'll now see the whole side grow in confidence and, if he remains part of the squad, I'm sure his performances will start to yield more in the way of goals.

would I spend a significant amount of money on him in January if I were the club/Steve Clarke? Probably not no. He's 31 and unlikely to sign a 1.5 year deal to take us up to the end of next season so I'd probably want to spend the wages and fee elsewhere and try and make better use of Blackman (can't believe I've just typed that!) and Pogrebnyak as partners for Cox and give Tanner and Samuel a bit more of a chance.

To say Murray isn't any good is just a tad daft though. He's part of an under performing squad that's dragging it's own performances down and has cost the manager his job (the manager being a large part of that underperformance of course). The movement and ability he's shown though proves he's still a good forward at this level, he just needs it to click into place a little more.

[Snowball]

Well said, Hoop

[DaddyKuhl]

I agree. I too would cancel the purchase of Murray and use the 2 mill or so to fund a centre half and left back. Our squad is woefully short of pretty much everything at the back and I feel is the root of our problems. If you keep clean sheets then you aint gonna lose and players such as cox, blackman, pog, mackie and hrk are capable of nicking a goal or two which is good enough if we are keeping clean sheets! Also would move Hector into midfield if we get a new centre half and push Norwood and Williams up a bit.