morning Folks! Just to clarify as the posts made after mine were about moaning and incase they were made on the basis of my post. My View on McGoldrick is very positive. I think he is a very talented player and I have no problems with him. I My first comment was that he is a very unnatural (ie positioning etc) natural (in the fact he can get half a yard and find the target from next to nothing) goalscorer (explains itself) If he can keep creating and scoring by not being a 'fox in the box' then we dont have a problem. It may not work in every game but no 1 player is likely to have the correct profile for every game and thats why we have a squad to play around with.
Just because Didsy's goals have not been tap ins, it does not mean he has made them all himself, I can recall at least 3 of his goals this season have come from a direct assist from Murphy (Leeds, Boro & Brighton) admittedly he still had work to do with at least two of these but nether the less Murphy has been influentual in the majority of Didsy's Goals this season.
Hoppers, I think people see 'striker' and think 'goals' Im not Murphy's biggest fan but we certainly look better with him on the pitch then we do when hes not around. I also think he has improved hugely since he first arrived here under RK. I think certain fans have written him off based on the player he was rather than what he does now. Its definately a partnership that is currently working well and is one of those things that MM has done really well since he came here. He can see the balance that players can offer each other.
Problem is we have no other option at this time than Murphy & Didsy, I like the partnership but Murphy does need to start waying in with some goals. Its a simillar situation to Skuse & Hyam, neither partnership is probably what we all desire but at this time they are both the best options available.!
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that McG is a very talented player, and whi is currently extremely confident, which you need in a striker, but i still don't think he is the 15-20 goal a season striker all teams are looking for. Yes, he's scored 5 goals, but he has only scored in 3 games out of ten, so the theory of him scoring in patches could be relevant. We do need someone else to chip in and be the plater that gets on the end of crosses, and gets the tap ins - to use the typical analogy, we need a fox-in-the-box. McG WILL have some baron patches, so it is vital that we find another goalscorer...personaly, i'd slowly introduce Marriot into the team as i'm sure he's chomping at the bit to get on - and he's got to be a better option than Lee or Nouble at the moment.
I think that a 'fox in the said box' would not offer the same defensive capability as Murph and Goldy so we might score a few more goals we might also concede a few more also, which is why JET was shown the door imo he can score a goal but his work rate is not good enough people go on about why did we let him go just because he has scored a few goals but those goals don't seem to be helping Bristol City maybe his laxidazical play is leading to the other team scoring a few goals they shouldn't so maybe he is a bit of a luxury that we don't need, i could be wrong as i've not seen any BC games this season just going on what i saw of him here.
You probably would have sold him if he played poorly in the one game you watched him play in .....................To be fair i can only think of one person who thought selling Rhodes was a good idea and we all know who that was. As for T.Smith a few people did slate him but the majority of us could see his ability/potential and supported him you were by no means a lone voice if you were in his corner. And i can't recall Hyam getting much stick on here from anyone.
Although Murphy got the assist and it was a good flick on it wasn't exactly putting it on a plate for McG was it, not many players would've made out of it what McG did. McG is class and I like him but I feel it'll be difficult for him to score goals of that calibre on a consistent basis. In fact i think most of McG goals this season have come from him receiving the ball in a fairly non-dangerous position but making it for himself.
Agree with the Murphy thing. Whilst I don't overly rate him there (I thought he was better on the left) at the moment he's our best option and with certain strikers you don't need to score to have an effect on the game. Certain players make the life of their striker partner alot easier, i.e playing the target man but I do think Murphy is okay and in certain games can make a good foil especially when he was playing with DJ but for me he's still not the best target man as actually he doesn't win as much in the air as he should and for me doesn't attack the ball enough. I would disagree with the Skuse Hyam partnership though, I think both are good players but we could have a better combination with Wordsworth, Tunnicliffe or Tabb coming in with one of Skuse or Hyam
That's a problem, I think we need that fox in the box or that player who plays on the shoulder, I think we'd not only create more, score more but it would also give us another dimension and also an outlet but generally that type of player lacks a bit of muscle and height and would mean we'd have to play through teams rather than sometimes going a bit more direct. So ideally we'd need a fox in the box, a penalty box striker who is also a target man I think that is a downside of having McG in the team it's difficult to find a partner which he's and the team are suited to. JET wasn't that fox in the box though, he was more like McG but with more flair and worse ball retention.
It was slightly tongue in cheek Diego. A day we could've done with a late winner and the form man didn't score.
