[sheffield_fox]

Huddersfield Town 2-3 Leicester City
4 October 2008

Matty Fryatt received the accolades after scoring a brace against Huddersfield Town at the Galpharm Stadium this weekend. Fryatt received his second man of the match award of the season with a fairly unspectacular score of 7.09 pipping in-form Lloyd Dyer to the award with Dyer being the only other player to receive an average rating of 7 or above. Bulgarian international Aleksandar Tunchev rounded off the top three.

At the other end of the scale, midfielder Andy King failed to impress the travelling fans once again claiming another flop of the match award with Steve Howard and David Martin rounding off the worst three of the day.

Full results below:

Player Awards:

Man of the Match: Matty Fryatt – 7.09

Flop of the Match: Andy King – 5.71

Best Defender: Aleksandar Tunchev – 6.91
Best Midfielder: Lloyd Dyer – 7.00
Best Striker: Matty Fryatt – 7.09

Full Ratings:

1. Matty Fryatt – 7.09
2. Lloyd Dyer – 7.00
3. Aleksandar Tunchev – 6.91
4. Jack Hobbs – 6.54
5. Chris Powell – 6.26
6. Nicky Adams – 6.23
7. Kerrea Gilbert – 6.09
8. Matt Oakley – 5.89
9. David Martin – 5.86
10. Steve Howard – 5.80
11. Andy King – 5.71

Voter Awards:

Top Voters: wbtcb

Most Generous Voter: 1st – billyfox1 – 7.36; 2nd – Robbie Flude – 7.27; 3rd – PDS / General Smuts / lcfc123456789 – 7.00

Harshest Voter: 1st – anonymous – 4.74; 2nd – backinthebigtime / diggler / bert– 6.09; 3rd – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar / beaumontfox / LD3 – 6.18

[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]

It was an average performance for our very own high standards. I'm not usually particularly harsh on our players, but I thought they all warranted 6, and Fryatt and Dyer a 7 each.

[lildave3]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, on Oct 6 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

It was an average performance for our very own high standards. I'm not usually particularly harsh on our players, but I thought they all warranted 6, and Fryatt and Dyer a 7 each.

Exactly the same.

[chesterfox]

BEG TO DIFFER - Andy King doesn't warrant worst performer and it was a good performance against a tough side. Both Fryatt and Dyer have had better games but obviously their goals have taken them to the summit -

[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]

chesterfox, on Oct 6 2008, 08:06 PM, said:

BEG TO DIFFER - Andy King doesn't warrant worst performer and it was a good performance against a tough side. Both Fryatt and Dyer have had better games but obviously their goals have taken them to the summit -

I don't think anyone performed really badly. But someone has to be last on the list. If wasn't him, it'd Howard or Oakley. And they weren't the worst performers either.

[Ric Flair]

King did not deserve flop of the match, crazy.

[beemeroo]

Who on earth gave the team an average rating of 4.74?!

What would you have done for some of the performances last season?

[Litster]

King played better then Adams, FACT.

If anything Adam's would be flop of the match, as for man of the Match i'd of had Fryatt or Tunchev.

[Thracian]

If Kingy had a worse game than Oakley then the commentators must have being ignoring virtually everything Oakley did.

I think he was mentioned once and that was in the second half and for nothing consequential.

Right or wrong King was mentioned for having three shots, one of which was a one-on-one that went wide, another was parried to Howard who scored a disallowed goal and a third shot which missed the target. He was also mentioned as having a minor hand in two goals and on numerous occasions for his general involvement.

However I've yet to read a single comment about Oakley's involvement - it was as if the game passed him by. But, he's our skipper. He's been generously treated for an indifferent career with City so far and it seems he is rated close to having a good game against Huddersfield without anyone being able to mention anything he actually did.

Seems to me that if, like King, you actually support attacks and get into shooting positions but miss you're more harshly treated than if you remain anonymous.

[C-man]

King was nowhere near flop of the match!! I swear some of our fans need their eyes testing and actually notice the good work he puts in. For example people have just forgotten that he played the great through ball to Dyer before he won the penalty and chipped the ball in to Tunch for the winner. Okay they don't count as assists but they're just examples of his good play. Two incidents don't make a good game but his general play was pretty good, although I'd like to see him get the ball down on the floor more often.

He's been far better than Oakley all season in my opinion.

[potter3]

Yeah in the game he's always taking control of the ball and playing a decent pass, keeping possession. He's never the best player in the team but he's never the worse either.

[Bert]

Thracian, on Oct 7 2008, 11:35 AM, said:

If Kingy had a worse game than Oakley then the commentators must have being ignoring virtually everything Oakley did.

I think he was mentioned once and that was in the second half and for nothing consequential.

Right or wrong King was mentioned for having three shots, one of which was a one-on-one that went wide, another was parried to Howard who scored a disallowed goal and a third shot which missed the target. He was also mentioned as having a minor hand in two goals and on numerous occasions for his general involvement.

However I've yet to read a single comment about Oakley's involvement - it was as if the game passed him by. But, he's our skipper. He's been generously treated for an indifferent career with City so far and it seems he is rated close to having a good game against Huddersfield without anyone being able to mention anything he actually did.

Seems to me that if, like King, you actually support attacks and get into shooting positions but miss you're more harshly treated than if you remain anonymous.

Oakely laid the ball on the for Adams who assisted Fryatt for the first goal. In your book that's an assist.

Oakley did more than the commentators made out.

[chesterfox]

Bert, on Oct 8 2008, 12:38 AM, said:

Oakely laid the ball on the for Adams who assisted Fryatt for the first goal. In your book that's an assist.

Oakley did more than the commentators made out.

great thing about Pearson's work to date is his manging to achieve a very well balnced team who contribute to the success - cannot participate in this Oakley is better - no he's not debate they both make valid contributions! This is King's first season and I repeat I think too many fans cannot ee the work he puts in.
Anyone remember Jon Sammels?? Great midfielder and sooo unappreciated at home - similar thing

[lavrentis]

chesterfox, on Oct 11 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

great thing about Pearson's work to date is his manging to achieve a very well balnced team who contribute to the success - cannot participate in this Oakley is better - no he's not debate they both make valid contributions! This is King's first season and I repeat I think too many fans cannot ee the work he puts in.
Anyone remember Jon Sammels?? Great midfielder and sooo unappreciated at home - similar thing

My dad said he was crap

[Thracian]

Bert, on Oct 8 2008, 12:38 AM, said:

Oakely laid the ball on the for Adams who assisted Fryatt for the first goal. In your book that's an assist.

Oakley did more than the commentators made out.

Something I mentioned to DavieG today in another context. I actually think both do more than is noticed and results would suggest it too. What pleases me most about the ratings is that there is not a lot of diference between the best and worst player's in the list. It does suggest an effective team effort - something that has been a feature this season anyway - when, so often in the past, there has been a seven or eight for one of the centre-backs or Stearman and perhaps marks as low as three or four for some others.

[Ric Flair]

Bert, on Oct 8 2008, 12:38 AM, said:

Oakely laid the ball on the for Adams who assisted Fryatt for the first goal. In your book that's an assist.

Oakley did more than the commentators made out.

Not enough to get in the team of the week though, that really was laughable.