Plymouth player ratings

[James.]

Fulop 9

N'Gotty 7

Mattock 5

Kisnorbo 8

McAuley 8

Sheehan 6

Clemence 7

Wesolowski 6

Hume 7

De Vries 6

Campbell 4

Porter 5

Kishishev 6

Cort 7

This game was about heart, determination, grit and fine defending. Plymouth put us under some significant pressure on set pieces but although it got a little hairy towards the end overall we coped really well. Given this last week couldn't really have been more turbulent I thought this performance was excellent.

It showed another side to our game after the 4-1 victory against Watford. And it's pleasing to know that when it comes down to it we are able to defend well and soak up pressure. Because this won't be the only game this season where we need to show more grit than flair.

A first clean sheet of the season at a ground we never win at shouldn't be shirked at. And it's no surprise to see it's the people who weren't at the game suggesting these ratings are over the top.

[Monk]

Fair enough. Edited now.

mwahahahaha

[Thracian]

Don't you have some golf and squash to play?

All in good time.

[Thracian]

Fez's ratings are spot on.

I'm afraid our left side consisting of Mattock and Sheehan just didn't work first half and we looked weak. Mattock just looks lost really, but I'm sure this will change with experience. Sheehan improved second half when moved to left back, and he actually had a decent game there.

Fez's ratings and reasons, along with most others seem pretty consistent. It just struck me that they seemed high for what sounded like a damage prevention exercise.

While the point is made that the defence did well to hold out it didn't sound via the radio as if they gave much support to the attackers.

If that impression is wrong I'm quite happy to accept the fact.

[Lillehamring]

How anyone can criticise the player ratings when they didn't go to the game is beyond me.

no one is criticizing the player ratings, as far as relative performance is concerned, ie campbell seems to have a crap game compared to kisnorbo so should get a lower mark. i think what seems odd is that, those of us who don't go to the game associate a performance worthy of 9/10 to have been one of those special games that happen once or twice a season, like if a striker bags a hattrick for example.

no one is saying that fulup didn't deserve to be given man of the match but whilst he obviously kept a clean sheet, according to the plymouth boss, and many 'neutral' reports, the plymouth strikers weren't THAT special, so 9 (or whatever, seems odd).

of course we didn't go to the match! so we have to accept that most people gave player 'A' 4 or 5, and player B 7 or 8, so if we see most of the team getting above average or rather high ratings, ratings on a par or higher than those for the watford game, its difficult to really know the full story. i'd have loved to have seen the game, given how unhelpful the radio is, reports and ratings from genuine fans on here are the next best thing....

but as i said previously, people will do what they do, its up to us to assess it the best we can from the various sources we have...

i hope this explains that we weren't complaining or criticizing just establishing some kind of perspective....

[sdb]

Interesting to give a defender four in a clean sheet and considering he was supposed to have made two vital blocks near the end.

you were just moaning about how the ratings seemed too high!!!! the defence were excellent, thats why everyone's given them high ratings. arrgghh!! we didn't concede did you not notice?!