Ex Player Watch

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Dec 15, 2015
7,290
5,270
263
A savvy player would eventually realise that with no end product the need to cover Kent wasn't as pressing as appeared and so over time his ability to 'drag defenders out of position' would decrease. The defender would be more willing to let him go a bit because the chance of him actually doing something with it wasn't that high.

Remember a game from back during school days. We found that the opposition had a player who was quick as lightning and we just couldn't catch so the entire team dropped back to not give him the space to run but all that did was put us under pressure and they dominated the game with us playing deep. But we also noticed that this player didn't have that good ball control (would just kick it and run after it), never had his head up looking for anyone (to be fair most of the time he was by himself anyway cos no-one could keep up with him) but most importantly every single shot he either scuffed, shanked or toe poked. So second half we decided we'd let him have that space because he couldn't shoot, pushed up and the game completely changed in our favour. They kept hoofing the ball to him over the top and I reckon he must have had two dozen shots in that second half and didn't score.
Get off this forum. Showing some knowledge about football? How dare you.
 

Skybluefaz

Well-Known Member
Aug 1, 2011
4,667
3,867
263
Coventry
You've seen my name pop up and decided to try and have a go when you obviously haven't really read through everything I was saying. Your obsession of following me around this forum trying to argue with me is a bit strange to be honest.

O'Brien was not a youth player like those two. I'm not even saying he was a better player, but his value to us and what he did was much higher.

Kent did nothing, and as I keep saying, Murphy was the worst player on the pitch for about 20 games that season.
Oh don't be a snowflake. It's a different opinion. You are not special.

In all honesty if you feel like I'm picking on you I'll ignore your posts from now on.
 
Last edited:

harvey098

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2011
1,743
1,171
163
A savvy player would eventually realise that with no end product the need to cover Kent wasn't as pressing as appeared and so over time his ability to 'drag defenders out of position' would decrease. The defender would be more willing to let him go a bit because the chance of him actually doing something with it wasn't that high.

Remember a game from back during school days. We found that the opposition had a player who was quick as lightning and we just couldn't catch so the entire team dropped back to not give him the space to run but all that did was put us under pressure and they dominated the game with us playing deep. But we also noticed that this player didn't have that good ball control (would just kick it and run after it), never had his head up looking for anyone (to be fair most of the time he was by himself anyway cos no-one could keep up with him) but most importantly every single shot he either scuffed, shanked or toe poked. So second half we decided we'd let him have that space because he couldn't shoot, pushed up and the game completely changed in our favour. They kept hoofing the ball to him over the top and I reckon he must have had two dozen shots in that second half and didn't score.
Like an Alan Bennett memoir this 😂 have you got any other chapters?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackdg

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2013
8,875
7,143
313
You've seen my name pop up and decided to try and have a go when you obviously haven't really read through everything I was saying. Your obsession of following me around this forum trying to argue with me is a bit strange to be honest.

O'Brien was not a youth player like those two. I'm not even saying he was a better player, but his value to us and what he did was much higher.

Kent did nothing, and as I keep saying, Murphy was the worst player on the pitch for about 20 games that season.

Murphy was the worst player on the pitch for 20 games to the people that actively sought out to pick fault with him because they disliked him.. IMO

I won't have it that a player who got 10 goals and 10 assists in that season was our worst player for pretty much HALF the season, he only started 29 league games for starters
 
Last edited:

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Dec 15, 2015
7,290
5,270
263
Oh don't be a snowflake. It's a different opinion. You are not special.

In all honesty if you feel like I'm picking on you I'll ignore your posts from now on.
That's not really an argument.

You've been following me around this forum for a while now, doesn't matter what thread it is. You see my name pop up and decide that you must try and say something negative to what I've posted. It's blatantly obvious and quite sad really.

You can do whatever you want, I'm just pointing out what I've noticed.
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2013
8,875
7,143
313
I definitely wouldn't. Armstrong was class, 20 goals a season striker at 18/19. Murphy was skilfully but a bit hit and miss. 9 out 10 then 3 out of 10 the next game. Still a good player but Armstrong for me.
Murphy was hit n miss but Armstrong wasn't despite not scoring for 14 games before Oldham away on the final day? How does that work
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendel

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Dec 15, 2015
7,290
5,270
263
Murphy was the worst player on the pitch for 20 games to the people that actively sought out to pick fault with him because they disliked him.. IMO

I won't have it that a player who got 10 goals and 10 assists in that season was our worst player for pretty much HALF the season, he only started 29 league games
It is the same with Kent. There were a lot of people that said both of them could do nothing wrong, and there were also fans that couldn't give either of them any praise.

The reality was Murphy was genuinely the worst player on the pitch for about 20 games (perhaps more). That was also in the ratings which wasn't just the hate mob, it was a collective vote. He was amazing on his day, but that rarely happened.
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2013
8,875
7,143
313
It is the same with Kent. There were a lot of people that said both of them could do nothing wrong, and there were also fans that couldn't give either of them any praise.

The reality was Murphy was genuinely the worst player on the pitch for about 20 games (perhaps more). That was also in the ratings which wasn't just the hate mob, it was a collective vote. He was amazing on his day, but that rarely happened.
I absolutely disagree, I didn't miss a single game home and away that season and what you are saying simply isn't true

We talking about the ratings on the telegraph site where the hate mob just took over?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wantageskyblue

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Dec 15, 2015
7,290
5,270
263
Murphy was hit n miss but Armstrong wasn't despite not scoring for 14 games before Oldham away on the final day? How does that work
There was a bit of a dry spell from Armstrong, but he still played pretty well during that time. Murphy was largely useless. 7 of his 9 league goals came across three games and most of the rest of the time he was a burden on the pitch. When the team went through a collective dry spell, he was a consistent weak link. I remember at the time many fans questioning why he kept picking Murphy.

I don't think you can put Murphy in even the same category as Armstrong. I find it amazing anyone would pick the former over the latter to be honest.
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Dec 15, 2015
7,290
5,270
263
I absolutely disagree, I didn't miss a single game home and away that season and what you are saying simply isn't true

We talking about the ratings on the telegraph site where the hate mob just took over?
I'm talking about ratings on here, on the telegraph, from fan blogs etc. A lot of people had the same point of view around that time, and as it went on, many also tried to defend him just for the sake or argument.

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but I also went to nearly every game that season and you must have been watching a different team from me. Murphy was a burden on the team most of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fergusons_Beard

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2013
8,875
7,143
313
There was a bit of a dry spell from Armstrong, but he still played pretty well during that time. Murphy was largely useless. 7 of his 9 league goals came across three games and most of the rest of the time he was a burden on the pitch. When the team went through a collective dry spell, he was a consistent weak link. I remember at the time many fans questioning why he kept picking Murphy.

I don't think you can put Murphy in even the same category as Armstrong. I find it amazing anyone would pick the former over the latter to be honest.

I dont, Murphy last season scored a goal every 254 minutes from a wide/inside forward position in a weaker team than Armstrong who scored a goal every 214 minutes...

Completely rational argument to choose 1 over the other either way tbh
 

Evo1883

Well-Known Member
May 25, 2013
8,875
7,143
313
I'm talking about ratings on here, on the telegraph, from fan blogs etc. A lot of people had the same point of view around that time, and as it went on, many also tried to defend him just for the sake or argument.

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but I also went to nearly every game that season and you must have been watching a different team from me. Murphy was a burden on the team most of the time.

He wasn't a burden... He was the whipping boy
 

ccfctommy

Well-Known Member
Jul 24, 2008
3,498
742
163
Murphy was one of five or so players, including Maddison, whose form dropped off a cliff in the second half of the season.
 

skyblue025

Well-Known Member
Jun 12, 2012
834
308
63
Hampshire
Murphy was hit n miss but Armstrong wasn't despite not scoring for 14 games before Oldham away on the final day? How does that work
He scored 20 in a season. Yes he had a dry spell but still played well feeding on scraps with barely any chances created. Murphy was either on fire or invisable. Given the choice of one or the other it's Armstrong for me. 20 goal a season strikers don't come along that often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fergusons_Beard

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2011
9,320
3,975
213
2nd half of the season collectively poor, but part of that imo was not having Kent pulling players wide and not having a threat both sides.
 

Malaka

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2014
1,728
1,210
163
Coventry
Lewis Page let go by Charlton, offered pay as you play at Plymouth, but Exeter are sniffing around to. Bad luck with injuries for the last two seasons, will get a rolling contract or pay as you play
 

Sbarcher

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2011
2,219
1,170
163
Oxford
Maddison just signed a new 4 year contract. Do we get a kickback for his new deal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky Blue Pete

Fergusons_Beard

Well-Known Member
Aug 18, 2011
1,248
1,325
163
I’m not deluded at all. I’m just remembering a poll I saw. Take it as you like, I don’t give a shit.(y)
So it wasn’t your opinion it was because you remembered a ‘poll’ from way back.

Honestly can’t believe a poll would class Murphy as better than Armstrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Tommo1993

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
3,013
2,099
163
So it wasn’t your opinion it was because you remembered a ‘poll’ from way back.

Honestly can’t believe a poll would class Murphy as better than Armstrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Wrong again. Nowhere did I even say it was an opinion of mine. Merely a reference to a poll
 
Last edited:

Skybluedownunder

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2020
217
135
93
Maddison just signed a new 4 year contract. Do we get a kickback for his new deal?
We only received 10% of his transfer from Norwich, any transfer after that is not our deal.

We also get a fee when he starts a match for England which I think was $150k. He has to start though and not just come off the bench


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Skybluemichael

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2019
277
201
93
We only received 10% of his transfer from Norwich, any transfer after that is not our deal.

We also get a fee when he starts a match for England which I think was $150k. He has to start though and not just come off the bench


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes but Norwich have a sell on, so we get 10% of there 10%
 

Sbarcher

Well-Known Member
Mar 23, 2011
2,219
1,170
163
Oxford
Was it Fisher who said effectively he would be a cash cow throughout his career?