Will Osula had waited since the opening day of the season for another Premier League start. Within two minutes of the second half at Selhurst Park, he had given Matthias Jaissle a reason to be pleased with bringing him back.
Jacob Murphy found space on Newcastle’s right and curled a cross towards the near post. Osula moved across his defender, reached the ball first and finished from close range.
Newcastle were ahead against Crystal Palace. Eleven minutes later, another attack down the same flank would put the game beyond the hosts.
This time, Amar Dedić was the provider. Having advanced down the right to receive Nico González’s pass, he sent a low ball back into the area for Harvey Barnes to finish near the penalty spot.
Two goals, two different deliveries and three players who had been brought into the starting lineup. Newcastle’s 2–0 victory on 25 October gave Jaissle something he had been looking for during a difficult fortnight: attacking moves that ended with the ball in the net.
To understand why those eleven minutes mattered, it helps to look at the two defeats that came before them.
Against Coventry City, Newcastle had taken 19 shots and generated 1.84 expected goals, yet lost 4–1. Their attacking players missed three big chances, while defensive mistakes made an already frustrating afternoon considerably worse.
Aston Villa presented a different challenge. Newcastle attempted another 16 shots, but nine were blocked. Of their 28 crosses, only four reached a teammate. Villa’s defenders repeatedly dealt with balls delivered into crowded areas, and Newcastle finished with just 0.99 expected goals.
Across those two matches, Newcastle had taken 35 shots and scored once.
MATCHIQ’s previous analysis made an important distinction between the defeats. Coventry exposed Newcastle’s failure to convert useful opportunities. Villa revealed how difficult they found it to create those opportunities against organised defending.
Sending more players forward or attempting another cross was not automatically going to fix both problems.
Jaissle responded against Palace by changing five members of his starting eleven. Dan Burn and Fabian Schär came into defence, Dedić returned at right-back, Murphy was selected on the wing and Osula started ahead of Yoane Wissa.
There were no immediate signs of an attacking transformation.
Palace threatened during the first half, particularly when Adam Wharton’s free-kick created a scramble involving Jean-Philippe Mateta. Dwight McNeil also dragged an effort across goal. Newcastle, meanwhile, struggled to produce a convincing opening.
Then Murphy delivered the cross that Osula had been waiting for.
The goal worked because the movement and the pass suited each other. Murphy did not send the ball aimlessly into a collection of defenders. He picked out the near-post space just as Osula attacked it.
Newcastle nearly added another when Joelinton played Joe Willock through five minutes later. Willock finished, only for VAR to rule the goal out for offside.
Palace’s reprieve lasted just six minutes.
Dedić’s cutback for Barnes offered a different answer to the same attacking challenge. Instead of asking a forward to win a header, the right-back found a teammate arriving in a central shooting position.
That second goal was especially interesting in the context of Newcastle’s defeat to Villa.
MATCHIQ’s earlier examination had suggested an alternative to the repeated high crosses Villa were comfortably defending: shorter combinations and lower passes back towards attackers in dangerous positions. One possible route involved Lewis Hall and Barnes combining from the left.
Against Palace, the successful low delivery came from Dedić on the opposite flank.
It would be wrong to suggest that Jaissle had adopted someone else’s proposed solution. What happened on the pitch simply illustrated why that attacking option deserved consideration. Newcastle had found a way to create a shot without relying on another aerial contest.
The finishing was excellent, although the broader numbers tell a more restrained story.
Newcastle managed ten shots against Palace, with only two on target. Both went in. Sky Sports recorded 0.95 expected goals, slightly below the 0.99 they had produced against Villa.
Newcastle were more clinical when their best openings arrived. They were not suddenly creating a steady stream of high-quality chances.
For Jaissle, there is a useful lesson here. Murphy’s earlier cross and Dedić’s later cutback gave Newcastle two attacking routes from the same side of the pitch. The challenge is to preserve that variety when an opponent is prepared for both.
The defensive picture also deserves attention, although for different reasons.
Burn and Schär were making their first league starts of the season, while Sven Botman and Malick Thiaw dropped to the bench. Newcastle kept a clean sheet, an outcome that offers a reasonable argument in favour of Jaissle’s changes.
Palace did not consistently open them up through ordinary attacking play. The cited Sky Sports breakdown attributed only 0.38 expected goals to Palace’s open-play opportunities.
The danger came primarily from dead balls.
Palace took 17 shots and generated 1.59 expected goals overall, approximately 1.20 of which came from set pieces. That distinction matters. It would be misleading to describe Newcastle’s defence as repeatedly failing in open play when the strongest evidence points elsewhere.
Goalkeeper Lukáš Horníček made four saves. Newcastle also recorded 44 clearances, including 20 headed clearances. Their defenders dealt with plenty of balls arriving in the box, and they did enough to protect the lead.
The first-half scramble following Wharton’s free-kick showed why the coaching staff should still investigate those situations. A successful clearance is good defending, but allowing an opponent a dangerous opportunity before making that clearance is a separate matter.
Palace’s own performance must be part of the assessment. They had drawn 2–2 away to Beşiktaş on Thursday and used the same starting eleven on Sunday. Their response to Newcastle’s attacking movement after half-time was poor. Whether the European trip contributed to that is not established, but Newcastle certainly benefited from the openings they were given.
Jaissle therefore leaves Selhurst Park with two different decisions.
In attack, he has a reason to continue exploring the combinations involving Murphy, Osula, Dedić and Barnes. If Dedić is given licence to advance regularly, keeping González deeper during those moves is one possible way to protect against a turnover. That would sacrifice some support further forward, and it remains an option to test rather than a proven requirement from this match.
At the other end, Newcastle need to examine Palace’s dangerous set-piece sequences before deciding whether the marking, the protection of second balls or the organisation around the penalty area needs to change. The overall statistics identify the risk, not its exact cause.
Everton now provide an unusually convenient opportunity to examine both questions. Newcastle visit them in the League Cup on 29 October before hosting them in the Premier League on 2 November.
Those games can show what happens when opponents prepare for the near-post cross and the low cutback that hurt Palace.
Jaissle has discovered that his revised selection can produce effective attacking combinations. The next advance is not simply scoring another two goals. It is giving Newcastle forwards good positions to finish even when the opposition knows where the danger is coming from.
If that happens, the victory at Selhurst Park will have marked the beginning of a genuine attacking improvement rather than one particularly productive eleven-minute spell.
Sources and previous coverage