11 minutes ago, DidierDrogbalala said:

Probably my favorite Mudryk game. His first half was almost Hazardesque.

I think you've gotten what Hazard looked like on the pitch. It wasn't cutting inside and then blasting it into row Z.

Mudryk still looks very raw. Plenty of pace but very inconsistent with the ball. He also needs to improve on the defensive side of his game. 

I like how Poch chose to not play him in the position he has been playing well in lately and threw him back on the wing, brilliant management.

Just now, dkw said:

I like how Poch chose to not play him in the position he has been playing well in lately and threw him back on the wing, brilliant management.

When he plays and he is awful, why Poch choose him. When he doesn't play, why Poch left him on bench

I don't understand this fan schizophrenia

Played well, still has a heavy touch at times but he looks like he can make something happen when he has the ball. 

Just now, JJ8 said:

When he plays and he is awful, why Poch choose him. When he doesn't play, why Poch left him on bench

I don't understand this fan schizophrenia

What the f**k are you going on about. 

Edited March 30, 20242 yr by dkw

4 minutes ago, dkw said:

What the f**k are you going on about. 

Look at previous matches and comments. 

Mudryk played left wing for Ukraine in both games in the international break. 

Probably because he's a left winger I guess ?

He's played the central attacking midfield role in just 3 of his 111 senior appearances ... 

He needed space to run into, once Burnley went to 10 they defended deeper , and mitigated most threat from Mudryk. There are a lot to like about Mudryk, but limitation is obvious at this stage.

On 31/03/2024 at 03:58, Sexyfootball said:

Mudryk played left wing for Ukraine in both games in the international break. 

Probably because he's a left winger I guess ?

He's played the central attacking midfield role in just 3 of his 111 senior appearances ... 

Mudryk situation is very complicated. You really don't want to convert him into a 10,that path will be long and almost impossible. 

At the same time, he is better of playing as a 10 right now. 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫

 

7 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Mudryk situation is very complicated. You really don't want to convert him into a 10,that path will be long and almost impossible. 

At the same time, he is better of playing as a 10 right now. 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫

 

Depends on the kind of 10 you are referring to. He's never gonna be a traditional 10 but he would be fine as effectively a second striker playing quick one twos and getting in behind. A bit like Hazard did for us on the few occasions he did play there. 

13 minutes ago, Remodez said:

Depends on the kind of 10 you are referring to. He's never gonna be a traditional 10 but he would be fine as effectively a second striker playing quick one twos and getting in behind. A bit like Hazard did for us on the few occasions he did play there. 

In 352 maybe but in 442 system, this won't work unless we are thinking about selling Enzo. 

 

In my opinion he's only played at a 10 because he's hopeless off the ball and it gives him less to worry about. He's also lost out on the wing sometimes and coming centrally gets him more involved. He doesn't have the intelligence of someone like Palmer to pick the ball up in right areas and he doesn't have the runs that Sterling makes.

He needs to be micromanaged during a game and there's not a lot of players on the pitch who can do that.

I just dont see it. What’s he supposed to be good at again? Cut our losses in the summer if we can

16 minutes ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

I just dont see it. What’s he supposed to be good at again? Cut our losses in the summer if we can

Running onto a pass played in front of him. It's the one thing he is good at and can be dangerous with. I don't know why we let him take any set pieces, I have never seen him take a good one.

5 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

Running onto a pass played in front of him. It's the one thing he is good at and can be dangerous with. I don't know why we let him take any set pieces, I have never seen him take a good one.

Which is not really enough, is it. 

52 minutes ago, AndyDowsleftflank said:

Which is not really enough, is it. 

Nope. Nowhere near it.

100m sprinter that’s all he is. That free kick at the end was a disgrace, he’s Pony 

This guy is not a footballer.

This transfer sums up the takeover. 

Worse player than any of the wingers he came in to replace. Worse player than Trossard who Arsenal signed instead. 

Did we scout him? Or did Eghbali just fancy swinging his dick about?

Wouldve been better off with Pulisic. 

Just now, big blue said:

This transfer sums up the takeover. 

Worse player than any of the wingers he came in to replace. Worse player than Trossard who Arsenal signed instead. 

Did we scout him? Or did Eghbali just fancy swinging his dick about?

Wouldve been better off with Pulisic. 

I maintain it was just a covert way for the CIA to get some war funds over to Ukraine ... 

Just now, Sexyfootball said:

I maintain it was just a covert way for the CIA to get some war funds over to Ukraine ... 

That would make more sense!

Winstanley was the one who signed him. 

The biggest wast of space Ive ever seen on a football pitch  The guy has absolutely no idea how to play football

Still think Arsenal tricked us into signing him, many weren't even aware who he was until Arsenal allegedly into him. Boehly said thanks for the scouting reports, I'll double the price. He's a good athlete, but haven't played much football. I recall when we signed him he played fewer than 50 games, that's pretty low even for a 21 year old.