You don't even need to be a pro to see this. I said it a while ago. This is so obvious. He need to simplify his game. It is that simple. But it is very difficult because he want to play as the guy. 

Edited December 7, 20232 yr by Bob stark

He was our best attacker today. Should have stayed on imo. Sterling was poor and understandably his form this season, rewarded him the 90 mins and Palmer, bar the goal struggled. Mudryk was our real threat going forward and we didn't do anything of note when he came off.

20 minutes ago, STATS said:

He was our best attacker today. Should have stayed on imo. Sterling was poor and understandably his form this season, rewarded him the 90 mins and Palmer, bar the goal struggled. Mudryk was our real threat going forward and we didn't do anything of note when he came off.

He was out of the game too much really. This was a game where we desperately needed a decent midfield option to come off the bench.

 

That highlight sums him up completely. And the thing is, as soon as he got the ball, I was expecting him to miscontrol it. 

Just now, Sconnie Blue said:

 

I know clips can be taken out of context but this isn't.  You instantly know someone knows nothing about football when they say Mudryk is fine technically but has issues with his decision making and IQ.

He's absolutely dogsh*t technically.

Reminds me of Salah when he first came literally always trying to overplay when he got the chance 

If a 19 year old academy player does what Murdyk does, we'd say we have a huge raw talent in the team. A 23 year old costing 80M, can't give him the same compliment. Got ask questions about our scouting ( or lack of ), surely we'd have spotted the features ( good and bad) if we scouted him thoroughly, not just watching the 8 minutes of ' Welcome to Chelsea' clips on Youtube

8 minutes ago, icecoolguy22 said:

If a 19 year old academy player does what Murdyk does, we'd say we have a huge raw talent in the team. A 23 year old costing 80M, can't give him the same compliment. Got ask questions about our scouting ( or lack of ), surely we'd have spotted the features ( good and bad) if we scouted him thoroughly, not just watching the 8 minutes of ' Welcome to Chelsea' clips on Youtube

Why we spent 80M on a player with only 44 professional appearances in his entire career, all in a sub-par league, is the real question.

Edited December 7, 20232 yr by Drogba1

7 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

 

Oh boy, well Lamps said it.

8 hours ago, Whats_The_Mata? said:

I know clips can be taken out of context but this isn't.  You instantly know someone knows nothing about football when they say Mudryk is fine technically but has issues with his decision making and IQ.

He's absolutely dogsh*t technically.

Technically he is good, not poor but not elite. 

 

 

😂😂😂

It is like jorgi thread, I am one of jorgi biggest critics but I defend him a lot. 

If you ignore Mudyrk age and his fee and think of him as and academy grad player, he is fine. It is normal for young winger to do what he does and he looks like a willing learner which is a good thing. 

 

 

Again, thought he was the only one in attack that actually did anything of note. 

I thought he played ok today better than we've seen previously , play him next match start to build his confidence 

Probably his best game for us, looked a threat when we got it to him early 

Yes, he was not bad today, although his final ball let him down. As did everybody's. He saw more of the ball than in many previous games, and used his pace to good effect. He, Palmer and Gallagher were all pretty decent. But as a team we are miles off it.

Final ball aside, he was threatening and looked dangerous. 

 

7 hours ago, JM7 said:

Final ball aside, he was threatening and looked dangerous. 

If we had half a decent forward line it would have scored so many assists.. if Enzo is our 10 and kids as CF what do we expect..

 

12 hours ago, Backbiter said:

Yes, he was not bad today, although his final ball let him down. As did everybody's. He saw more of the ball than in many previous games, and used his pace to good effect. He, Palmer and Gallagher were all pretty decent. But as a team we are miles off it.

And you just describe what is wrong. Mudryk imo played decent but It is not enough being decent. We played with only 3 attacker. Anything below very good is not enough. 

Is it crazy to ask a young winger to do that? Of course but that is the reality

 

Edited December 11, 20232 yr by Bob stark

So the problem is only 3 attackers and then one of the full backs is actually a centre back and the midfielders are not attacking midfielders or at least not like Maddison or De Bruyne are. If Maddison was here Poch would put him on the wing.

If Poch would put Palmer in the midfield we would be more vulnerable but more creative. The other two mids could sit deeper and there would be more structure and more threat. Then if we had any fit full backs they could also add a bit of pace.

Mudryck did ok even some of his final balls were close to being on the money. He did give the ball away a couple time but every attacker does that but a very few truly elites. Sterling gives the ball away heaps and always has done but his career shows the return is well worth the cost. No reason Mudryck should be any different. 

38 minutes ago, ozboy said:

So the problem is only 3 attackers and then one of the full backs is actually a centre back and the midfielders are not attacking midfielders or at least not like Maddison or De Bruyne are. If Maddison was here Poch would put him on the wing.

If Poch would put Palmer in the midfield we would be more vulnerable but more creative. The other two mids could sit deeper and there would be more structure and more threat. Then if we had any fit full backs they could also add a bit of pace.

 

You need to count Cucu as one of the cb because he is useless up high. 

It is basically just kids math. If you want to play 4 attacker, you need to make sure your midfield and defense can cope with it. Otherwise you need to get your attacker to defend more.

I felt for him because he's been trying, but just not good enough. He's 23, not a 18 year old kid just in his first season. He only played 40 something games before his arrival, and that's a serious flaw somehow overlooked by our scouting teams. At his age, expect an established player heading towards the prime, can't hide behind the 'promising young player with a bright future' tag. In hindsight, better off for everyone had he gone to Arsenal, he won't feel so pressured to prove himself since the team was on a good run, and we would have used to money for better ( or worse 🙄) players.

10 minutes ago, icecoolguy22 said:

I felt for him because he's been trying, but just not good enough. He's 23, not a 18 year old kid just in his first season. He only played 40 something games before his arrival, and that's a serious flaw somehow overlooked by our scouting teams. At his age, expect an established player heading towards the prime, can't hide behind the 'promising young player with a bright future' tag. In hindsight, better off for everyone had he gone to Arsenal, he won't feel so pressured to prove himself since the team was on a good run, and we would have used to money for better ( or worse 🙄) players.

Clearly has a good agent. No way would this guy ever get a game ahead of Martinelli.

I think Mudryk is doing ok - needs to start more often.

Given the quality of our current No 9's I'd like us to try Palmer in the middle:

Mudryk, Palmer, Sterling

              Enzo

Up front.

 

First time I'd really seen Broja was yesterday... maybe he'll get better but need someone with some nonce upstairs who isn't afraid to have a pop at goal - Palmer for me until we can get an out and out Striker.