Rodrigo Muniz.

sambaDTR

sambaDTR

Well-known member
We scouted him then lost out to Fulham who payed 8 million Euros. We then managed to get him back on loan. Couldn’t get many games for us due to injuries, Chuba and Archer. Probably worth £40m+ now. Strange game!
 
The way we play under Carrick wasn’t how muniz thrives by the looks of it. Bustling old school forward.

Balogun was more suited to Carrick.

Thats football though. Im certain Forlan would have been a success at Boro. Flopped at Man Utd but was a superstar everywhere else
 
Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants said:
The way we play under Carrick wasn’t how muniz thrives by the looks of it. Bustling old school forward.
Click to expand...
While that's true, Carrick was picking Crooks ahead of him for a spell who, when played as a striker is probably more like a bustling old school forward than anything else. So I think there was more to it than just the type of striker he was.

Would be interested in Carrick's thoughts, but probably lots of reasons. Not quite ready at the time, language issues meant he was struggling to understand tactics? Maybe mentally wasn't quite right? (probably easier for a Brazilian to settle in London, big Brazilian community there etc). He was only 20 when he was here.

We would hopefully have persisted more if he was our player.
 
We can only speculate TBF .....I would say that Carrick probably didn't trust him to do the job he wanted him to do.... Perhaps his work rate/work ethic wasn't good enough, and we weren't short of goals!
 
festa5 said:
While that's true, Carrick was picking Crooks ahead of him for a spell who, when played as a striker is probably more like a bustling old school forward than anything else. So I think there was more to it than just the type of striker he was.

Would be interested in Carrick's thoughts, but probably lots of reasons. Not quite ready at the time, language issues meant he was struggling to understand tactics? Maybe mentally wasn't quite right? (probably easier for a Brazilian to settle in London, big Brazilian community there etc). He was only 20 when he was here.

We would hopefully have persisted more if he was our player.
Click to expand...
We also had too many loads so one had to miss out
 
TeaCider said:
He missed a substantial portion of the second half of the season through a knee injury.

He still barely got picked by Carrick when he was fit, but it wasn't all down to that.
Click to expand...
He played one game, Preston away, and was then dropped by Carrick.

It was obvious he didn't fancy him, but an injury maybe compounded that view.
 
I don’t think his heart was in the Club and wasn’t that happy. He clearly was keen to get back to London and that reflected in his performances when he was picked. Started promisingly with the header against Watford at Vicarage Rd but didn’t get any better.
 
Steffen Giles Archer and Ramsey were in the team and Mowatt was needed as midfield cover. There wasn't room in the squad for Muniz most of the second half of season. As a club we got it wrong by having too many loans. We couldn't drop Crooks for Muniz as crooks wasn't a loan player.
 
If he continues at this current rate some big clubs will come calling. A no 9 of his type is a bit of a dying art. He’s got something special about him that’s for sure.
 
Who do we think we are that we don't have to do anything to accommodate a player's strengths, style, language problems etc?
 
I think they wanted him off the wage bill in January to bring in Archer. Fulham/Muniz wouldn't end the loan so was purposely given little game time.
 
We'll never know how he'd have done under MC.

However, there was a window before January when MC could have used him without the number of loanees being an issue.

One more thought: we had success with loanees, but Muniz, FB and Connolly show that we couldn't assume going down the loan route again would see a replication of last year's form.

On the whole I'm glad we've moved away from that model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top