I thought he did well tonight and battled even when obvious he wasn't fully fit. Could be a player with the character and nous that we need in the run in, and i hope he stays for a couple more months.
I like Murty and think his experience on the pitch is extremely valuable. The way he encourages his team-mates is great to see, especially as our actual captain Hudson rarely does it.
Murty is solid and looks determined to win, would have thought everyone would be happy with that after the full backs we've had in the last few years. Can see why he was captaining Reading as well. Although I do like Yassin like a lot of others do, doesn't stop Murty from being a good player.
He looked good tonight, calm and a great through ball first half to soares. Also proper player in the fact that he could barely walk by the end but with Fortune already off he was never going to leave without being dragged off
[cite]Posted By: mart77[/cite]I thought he did well tonight and battled even when obvious he wasn't fully fit. Could be a player with the character and nous that we need in the run in, and i hope he stays for a couple more months.
In a dog fight we need people that are gonna get stuck in and he fits the bill. So....I agree with you.
He took a knock and played on in what looked like considerable pain to me. Proves that in his case at least loan players do put in the effort. Not great going forward but as we have the worst defensive record in the league I am quite happy for defenders to be able to defend first. As for comments that he is woeful / Shameful I am at a loss as to what people actually know about football in making such woeful and shameful comments !
Granted he was very poor at Wednesday away and went to sleep for the first forest goal. Watching him last night, he is just too slow and could become a target for other teams to expose us.
However I sit four rows from the front and he did well to play on, he was in so much pain and played for the team. He gets a massive plus for me there!
[cite]Posted By: robroy[/cite]Granted he was very poor at Wednesday away and went to sleep for the first forest goal. Watching him last night, he is just too slow and could become a target for other teams to expose us.
Well, we have the choice of a fullback who is a target for the opposition because he is slow but at least knows how to defend or a fullback who is quick but is still a target for the opposition because he doesn't have a clue where he should be positioned.
Matter of personal choice what is better but Moots has cost us plenty of goals in his games for us too.
[cite]Posted By: kinveachyaddick[/cite]Shame in his two performances for us he's been woeful.
Murty OUT Moo2 IN
You are joking of course? Last night I went with a Millwall mate of mine. He thought, as did I that Murty was one of our better players and gave a real professionals performance.
The issue with players like Murty and Primus is their fitness. They are coming back after protracted injuries and are sent to us to get themselves match fit again. Therefore, we are not getting them at 100 per cent of their operational value, a fact that is directly linked to their status as loanees.
No complaints about Murty's attitude, though. As one of Parky's best mates, he seems totally committed to helping his old friend in every way he can.
[cite]Posted By: nigel w[/cite]The issue with players like Murty and Primus is their fitness. They are coming back after protracted injuries and are sent to us to get themselves match fit again. Therefore, we are not getting them at 100 per cent of their operational value, a fact that is directly linked to their status as loanees.
No complaints about Murty's attitude, though. As one of Parky's best mates, he seems totally committed to helping his old friend in every way he can.
Due to our current plight we're having to take certain gambles on players fitness levels as if they were fully fit the likes of Murty, could have moved to a club higher up the League. I also think that some players at 70% are more effective than some of our fully operational ones! I think we're looking at damaged goods players too like Demontagnac as Parky's hoping he can polish a rough diamond and suceed where others have failed. Not a great situation but that's life.
[cite]Posted By: Graham R.[/cite]I thought he was mostly ok against Forest. But I still don't want short-term loans.
well ok, we'll buy everyone and they turn out to be crap!
the idea of 1 month loans are to see what you think of the player and what the player thinks of you, and most of them, if not all have an option to extend for a further month, or in fact a further 2 months. Waghorn's was extended for a further month, but he was injured and let go and it wasn't extended, same with McEaveley.
Unless you have these rules in place, if Murty is seriously injured we could be stuck with him for 3 months, or if he is massivly crap (which he is not) then we can send him back and we've only committed to a loan fee (probably minimal if he's getting back to fitness as it does the loaner club a favour) and wages or percentage of wages.
Murty's initial loan must only have another week to go, as he joined us on Jan 6.
So I guess we've got him for the two away games v Burney and Bristol City, then it's decision time. Pretty sure Parky will want to extend and I hope we can keep him though February. But I'm also pretty sure that come March/April, Murty will want to be back for Reading's final promotion run-in. He's still club captain there, I believe, and will surely want to be part of it, even if he's only warming the bench.
[cite]Posted By: robroy[/cite]he is just too slow and could become a target for other teams to expose us.
A point made by a Palace fan I work with when bemoaning the fact they didn't even try once to expoit it - against more intelligent teams who have done their homework he could get horribly exposed. I still love his attitude and apparent commitment to our cause though, I don't agree with the woeful/shameful commtns one bit.
[cite]Posted By: Graham R.[/cite]I thought he was mostly ok against Forest. But I still don't want short-term loans.
well ok, we'll buy everyone and they turn out to be crap!
the idea of 1 month loans are to see what you think of the player and what the player thinks of you, and most of them, if not all have an option to extend for a further month, or in fact a further 2 months. Waghorn's was extended for a further month, but he was injured and let go and it wasn't extended, same with McEaveley.
Unless you have these rules in place, if Murty is seriously injured we could be stuck with him for 3 months, or if he is massivly crap (which he is not) then we can send him back and we've only committed to a loan fee (probably minimal if he's getting back to fitness as it does the loaner club a favour) and wages or percentage of wages.
To a degree you are, of course, right Suzi but too many of these are NEVER going to be permanent signings. Usually because they are young and Premiership Clubs want to give them first team football (e.g. Sinclair, Waghorn etc) or to get them fit (e.g. Cook, Primus etc)
I would venture to suggest that there wasn't a single other Club that went into this season with just two established and permanent centre backs in their squad. The decision to do so was simply unbelievable given inevitable loss of form, injury or suspension. And two thirds of the way through the season this still hasn't been resolved. This has contributed in a major way to the stat that we have the worst defensive record of any team in the division.
So who's to blame? The Manager(s) or the Board or a combination of the two?
And before anyone suggests this is hindsight, it isn't. Many of us made the point 5 months ago.
Comments
Murty OUT Moo2 IN
indeed, right attitude, not right ability
Which is why he's at Charlton, of course.
Christ, I realy do wonder about the intelligence of my estemeed colleagues on here. Am well prepared to be shot dowm ................. but come on.
In a dog fight we need people that are gonna get stuck in and he fits the bill. So....I agree with you.
He got stuck in last night whilst playing with an injury.
What more do people want??
What more do people expect from a defender?
However I sit four rows from the front and he did well to play on, he was in so much pain and played for the team. He gets a massive plus for me there!
Well, we have the choice of a fullback who is a target for the opposition because he is slow but at least knows how to defend or a fullback who is quick but is still a target for the opposition because he doesn't have a clue where he should be positioned.
Matter of personal choice what is better but Moots has cost us plenty of goals in his games for us too.
He certainly set a good example last night.
Blood and guts! Well done Graeme and thank you.
You are joking of course? Last night I went with a Millwall mate of mine. He thought, as did I that Murty was one of our better players and gave a real professionals performance.
Contract status is of little importance for good (or poor) players once they cross the white line.
No complaints about Murty's attitude, though. As one of Parky's best mates, he seems totally committed to helping his old friend in every way he can.
Due to our current plight we're having to take certain gambles on players fitness levels as if they were fully fit the likes of Murty, could have moved to a club higher up the League. I also think that some players at 70% are more effective than some of our fully operational ones! I think we're looking at damaged goods players too like Demontagnac as Parky's hoping he can polish a rough diamond and suceed where others have failed. Not a great situation but that's life.
well ok, we'll buy everyone and they turn out to be crap!
the idea of 1 month loans are to see what you think of the player and what the player thinks of you, and most of them, if not all have an option to extend for a further month, or in fact a further 2 months. Waghorn's was extended for a further month, but he was injured and let go and it wasn't extended, same with McEaveley.
Unless you have these rules in place, if Murty is seriously injured we could be stuck with him for 3 months, or if he is massivly crap (which he is not) then we can send him back and we've only committed to a loan fee (probably minimal if he's getting back to fitness as it does the loaner club a favour) and wages or percentage of wages.
So I guess we've got him for the two away games v Burney and Bristol City, then it's decision time. Pretty sure Parky will want to extend and I hope we can keep him though February. But I'm also pretty sure that come March/April, Murty will want to be back for Reading's final promotion run-in. He's still club captain there, I believe, and will surely want to be part of it, even if he's only warming the bench.
To a degree you are, of course, right Suzi but too many of these are NEVER going to be permanent signings. Usually because they are young and Premiership Clubs want to give them first team football (e.g. Sinclair, Waghorn etc) or to get them fit (e.g. Cook, Primus etc)
I would venture to suggest that there wasn't a single other Club that went into this season with just two established and permanent centre backs in their squad. The decision to do so was simply unbelievable given inevitable loss of form, injury or suspension. And two thirds of the way through the season this still hasn't been resolved. This has contributed in a major way to the stat that we have the worst defensive record of any team in the division.
So who's to blame? The Manager(s) or the Board or a combination of the two?
And before anyone suggests this is hindsight, it isn't. Many of us made the point 5 months ago.