The Murray and Forster Effect?

[Djmiles]

We all know Murray and Forster are two pivotal players in our side, scoring 27 goals in all competitions between them. But how do we cope with and without them?

Murray and Forster:

Won - 4
Drawn - 5
Lost - 8

For - 22
Against - 25

Points per game: 1.00


Forster without Murray:

Won - 2
Drawn - 4
Lost - 5

For - 9
Against - 19

Points per game: 0.91


Murray without Forster:

Won - 1
Drawn - 3
Lost - 3

For - 6
Against - 8

Points per game: 0.86


Without Murray and Forster:

Won - 1
Drawn - 0
Lost - 3

For - 4
Against - 10

Points per game: 0.75

With 7 games remaining, and the fact that we will be without Murray and Forster for all of them, it is nigh on impossible for us to average the 2.14 points a game we now need for safety.

But still, even with them in the side we've been a bit crap, haven't we?

(The Argus are free to use this information, as we all know Naylor get's half his stories and bullshit from NSC anyway)

 

[e77]

Quite interesting, although if we got a point a game every time Murray and Forster played together we would still only finish with 46 points which would probably see us relegated.

 

[Mendoza]

It is weird, as they are both top players.
Murray has looked at his best when he is not playing with Forster, not sure why, but I think he has.

Forster has played well in the absence of Murray. I am not too sure how many games we have played where they have both scored, or one has an assist for the other, but I bet it is far less than people imagine.

We do need them both, and I hope we keep them both, but it is weird how they dont always gel as we think they should, but that is probably due to lack of time on the pitch together after September

 

[The Large One]

I still think that's misleading. The issue for me is and always has been our pisspoor midfield - especially central midfield.

With a couple of decent players there, even Owusu or Dixon or Davies might be made to look half-decent. Or half-interested.

 

[Silent Bob]

It is weird, as they are both top players.
Murray has looked at his best when he is not playing with Forster, not sure why, but I think he has.

Forster has played well in the absence of Murray. I am not too sure how many games we have played where they have both scored, or one has an assist for the other, but I bet it is far less than people imagine.

We do need them both, and I hope we keep them both, but it is weird how they dont always gel as we think they should, but that is probably due to lack of time on the pitch together after September

I thought that they looked like they were developing a decent understanding last season. As you say it could be a lack of playing time, or part of the larger malaise that has affected us, we've not looked like a team at all this season. We don't play as a unit, just 11 players.

 

[Djmiles]

I still think that's misleading. The issue for me is and always has been our pisspoor midfield - especially central midfield.

That is very true. How I would love a Hammond type player back in the side.

 

[sam86]

Gary flippin' Hart

-END-

 

[El Presidente]

I think a lot of people have underestimated the effect that Westlake and Racon had on the side last season.

Compare a midfield of

Westlake Thomson Racon Cox

to this seasons 273 combinations and that explains 50% of the reason for us going down.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I honetly think we have looked best with Murray on his own and two wide players.

I know it seems strange to leave out Forster, but I think having two wide players makes us more solid defensively (with three central midfield players) and helps counter our pretty crap creativity.

I think a lot of people have underestimated the effect that Westlake and Racon had on the side last season.

Compare a midfield of

Westlake Thomson Racon Cox

to this seasons 273 combinations and that explains 50% of the reason for us going down.

Racon was class but hardly CREATIVE. Thomson was rubbish.

I do think we should have signed Westlake over McLeod though. Thought that at the time and seen nothing to change my mind since.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

With 7 games remaining, and the fact that we will be without Murray and Forster for all of them

Why?

 

[El Presidente]

I honetly think we have looked best with Murray on his own and two wide players.

Forster is probably the best crosser of the ball at the club, so he could fill one of those roles.

 

[murraymints4brighton]

I still think that's misleading. The issue for me is and always has been our pisspoor midfield - especially central midfield.

With a couple of decent players there, even Owusu or Dixon or Davies might be made to look half-decent. Or half-interested.

I like the way you have put Davies after Dixon.

 

[Djmiles]

Why?

Slade has said we will be lucky to see either of them again this season.

 

[Storer68]

Originally Posted by Djmiles

With 7 games remaining, and the fact that we will be without Murray and Forster for all of them

Why?

Skipper and talisman Nicky Forster suffered what exploratory surgery threatens to reveal is a serious knee injury in totally innocuous fashion, with no team-mate near him.

Russell Slade has not had much luck since he took charge but that was the cruelest stroke of all.

It destroyed hopes of re-uniting 15-goal Forster with 12-goal Glenn Murray and, to make matters even worse, Murray was injured on his comeback from hernia surgery against Tranmere the following day.

He has a torn stomach muscle – whether or not it is related to the hernia has been a subject of debate inside the club – and, like Forster, is expected to miss the rest of the season.

It would have been tough to stay up, even if Albion were at full strength. Without Forster and Murray, and a crippling list of other casualties to boot, it looks impossible.