Walsall Team Ratings.

[chrisfox]

Martin 4 (at fault for both goals, why is he ahead of Henderson!?)

Gilbert 4 (appaling game for him, definately cost us a goal gave away too much possesion, not enough awareness of those around him, or reading of the game)

Powell 7 (looked comfortable, tried to get forward when he could, but Dyer let him down)

Hobbs 5 (very poor game, should not start next game now Kisnorbo is back)

Tunchev 7 (very solid and reliable, when those around him were so poor)

Gradel 6 (redeemed himself with his corners, always looking to get forward but needs to realise he doesn't have to go round 3 players before he passes! simple ball son)

Dyer 6 (was poor for large sections of the game never really looking to get forward, but came into the game more and causd a few problems, but below par performance)

Oakley 5 (Not sure why he took 75 minutes to realise he could run the midfield, but was good for the last 15 mins.)

King 4 (should not be in the squad let alone starting. Only given 4 beacuause of his goal. never looked for a forward pass all night, too much sideways passing, then running towards the player he just passed to. lots of times he could have passed and looked for a forward return.)

Fryatt 5 (did some good running early on but never got into the game. disappointing)

Howard 4 (for someone of his so called ability and experience to miss that header, then the chance towards the end is unforgivable in my opinion)

Mattock 6 (looked fairly solid for the brief time he was on)

Kisnorbo 7 (assured in the centre, always looking for a forward pass, must start along side Tunchev next game)

Pearson 5 (needed to change things around second half but only subbed like for like, was doing his nut on the touch line from what i could see)

[Ric Flair]

Martin 5

Gilbert 5

Hobbs 6

Tunchev 7

Powell 6

Gradel 7

King 7

Oakley 6

Dyer 5

Howard 5

Fryatt 6

Subs:

Kisnorbo 6.5

Berner 5

Mattock 5

A fairly poor performance, but we easily could and should have won it. First game I can remember in a long while where Fryatt didn't really have a shot. He looked a lot quicker last night and I thought he was decent, but anonymous in terms of hurting Walsall in the area. How Howard missed that cross/come shot of Fryatt's in the 2nd half though is beyond me. Howard had one of those games where nothing came off for him, missed some disgusting and embarrassing chances, but these things happen. He did cause Walsall's defence moments of panick and doesn't deserve the abuse he was getting last night.

Gradel had a very topsy turvy game, but still set both goals up and in patches seemed to get the confidence back to take players on and cause problems. He's got a long way to go to become the polished jewel, but if he puts performances in like that when the rest of our team is struggling then we'll be ok as he dug us out the shit with 2 corners that Nicky Adams could only dream about. Admittedly, both goals were fantastic headers, but Gradel appears to have got a bit more pace and penetratin trajectory on the crosses than Adams has been serving up.

King got better as the game went on, does pass backwards far too often though, even if his main responsibility is to make sure he never gives the ball away.

[Father Ted]

Martin 4

Gilbert 5

Hobbs 5

Tunch 8

Powell 6

Gradel 7

Oakley 7

King 7

Dyer 5

Fryatt 5

Howard 7

Walsall Goalkeeper: 0 - worst goalie I have ever seen! If only we had more long range shots we would have scored more.

[billyfox1]

Martin - 6 - Didn't do a lot. Couldn't prevent the second from going in. Maybe he could of.

He definately could have prevented the second from going in

[Father Ted]

He definately could have prevented the second from going in

I was directly behind it and he got his WHOLE hand on to it and it still went in and for the first why did he jump?! When he jumped it went underneath him, all he had to do was stand up to the player!

[JakeShingler]

He definately could have prevented the second from going in

that one he tipped over the bar was decent tho.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

If King played a forward pass in the game I must have missed it, the only positive from his performance was a well taken goal.

Gilbert is a liability, no footballing ability just some pace, his poor aerial ability hampers a pretty solid back four.

Gradel was patchy but his corners were excellent and he was aided when Gilbert decided to make a forward run.

Having said that Howard who I have supported was utter rubbish, he had an absolute stinker and I hope he can put more performances like his against oldham, than the one last night.

Martin - 6 (I think it's harsh to blame him for the second goal, it was a very firm header and overall not a bad performance. His claiming from crosses was impressive)

Gilbert - 4 (at fault for both goals)

Tunchev - 7 (good goal and didn't put a foot wrong)

Hobbs - 4 at cb, 7 at rb (looked much more solid at right back)

Powell - 7 (put some good balls over, very steady)

Gradel - (see above)

Dyer - 6 (quiet game)

King - 5 (play a fooking forward pass you twat)

Oakley - 4 (never got hold of the midfield at all)

Fryatt - 6 (very little service)

Howard - 3 (stinker)

subs

Kisnorbo 7 (a welcome return)

Mattock 7 (looked bright and sharp)

Berner 6 (not on long enough)

[billyfox1]

that one he tipped over the bar was decent tho.

i agree but i still can't see how he failed to save the second one. It wasn't even a powerful header and like Father Ted said he got a full hand on the ball and some how managed to put it in the top corner. His arms must be made of jelly

[Simi]

Martin - 6

Gilbert - 6

Tunchev - 7

Hobbs - 6

Powell - 6.5

Gradel - 7

Oakley - 6

King - 7

Dyer - 6

Fryatt - 5

Howard - 5

Subs

Mattock - N/A

Kisnorbo - 6

Berner - N/A

[dandannieldanok]

King 7 (At fault with others for the first goal but scored a vital headed equaliser by ghosting in on the far post - something he did so often in lower grade football. Also was one of the few players who consistently passed the ball crisply and accurately to team-mates and thus setting numerous moves in motion. My lad said he hadn't noticed him so I made mention to him of every time his broke a Walsall move up and launched one of ours and it was so noticeable that he had to admit he just didn't realise how much he was doing. It's just a pity he was used so defensively again in the main.).

No offence or anything meant by this, but I'm glad I wasn't sitting next to you last night.

[Father Ted]

No offence or anything meant by this, but I'm glad I wasn't sitting next to you last night.

I thought Oakley and King had good games. They spread the ball around and wanted to get on the ball. They got stuck in aswell. King scored and Oakley had a couple of long rangers which could have gone in.

[Ash]

I dont understand, the ratings in the mercury gave mostly 8s and 7s!?!?!

[dandannieldanok]

I dont understand, the ratings in the mercury gave mostly 8s and 7s!?!?!

Dyer got 9.

[Jimmy]

Martin 6

Gilbert 6

Hobbs 7

Tunchev 7

Powell 6

Gradel 8

Oakley 5

King 6

Dyer 6

Fryatt 4

Howard 7

Kisnorbo 7 (just for managing to actually pass the ball)

Mattock 5 (looked off the pace still)

[Thracian]

Martin 4 (at fault for both goals, why is he ahead of Henderson!?)

Gilbert 4 (appaling game for him, definately cost us a goal gave away too much possesion, not enough awareness of those around him, or reading of the game)

Powell 7 (looked comfortable, tried to get forward when he could, but Dyer let him down)

Hobbs 5 (very poor game, should not start next game now Kisnorbo is back)

Tunchev 7 (very solid and reliable, when those around him were so poor)

Gradel 6 (redeemed himself with his corners, always looking to get forward but needs to realise he doesn't have to go round 3 players before he passes! simple ball son)

Dyer 6 (was poor for large sections of the game never really looking to get forward, but came into the game more and causd a few problems, but below par performance)

Oakley 5 (Not sure why he took 75 minutes to realise he could run the midfield, but was good for the last 15 mins.)

King 4 (should not be in the squad let alone starting. Only given 4 beacuause of his goal. never looked for a forward pass all night, too much sideways passing, then running towards the player he just passed to. lots of times he could have passed and looked for a forward return.)

Fryatt 5 (did some good running early on but never got into the game. disappointing)

Howard 4 (for someone of his so called ability and experience to miss that header, then the chance towards the end is unforgivable in my opinion)

Mattock 6 (looked fairly solid for the brief time he was on)

Kisnorbo 7 (assured in the centre, always looking for a forward pass, must start along side Tunchev next game)

Pearson 5 (needed to change things around second half but only subbed like for like, was doing his nut on the touch line from what i could see)

I really don't understand the negativity about King last night. It was clear he was the fulcrum midfielder, the guy responsible for taking the ball from defenders and feeding the attack.

We had two wingers and King's job was the feed them as often as possible. He did pass the ball sideways, but they did receive plenty of the ball even though usually tightly marked and it was a good job really because no-one was making runs in the central attacking areas.

Not Howard, not Fryatt, not Oakley and even the wingers might be faulted for not coming inside occasionally.

King did manage some extra, not least his goal but essentially he almost always retained possession and set many an attack in motion.

Possession wise we never had a problem. It was just the urgency, the selfless running and the fast support in numbers that was lacking.

[Thracian]

I dont understand, the ratings in the mercury gave mostly 8s and 7s!?!?!

The Mercury move in mysterious ways, few of which have much to do with the game they supposedly watch. I doubt that Dyer wouldn't have given himself nine and as for the 8's and 7's I'd love to hear the basis for their arguments.

[Webbo]

Martin 5 (Definitely at fault for their second goal and might have done better for the first. With Walsall's second all our players drifted left for his kick and he aimed it straight into the heart of a group of four Walsall players in the centre of the field, thus conceding possession unnecessarily. Showed some decent handling at times but a slip near the end caused by rushing might easily have proved disastrous had Walsall been showing any ambnition by then and had ny of their forwards been alert to a slip.

Gilbert 5 (Not impressed. Arguably at fault for both goals and so often delayed his passes momentarily leaving Gradel trapped up a blind alley. Hardly ever sought to make an overlap or to get forward dangerously and his defending, including at the far post for their first goal was way below what we've come to expect).

Hobbs 5 (Worst I've seen him play. Ponderous and his distribution was awful. They scored from two simple diagonal crosses into the heart of the penalty area where strikers were given free headers).

Tunchev 6 (Welcome and well taken goal on the near post made up for a generally sub-standard performance for reasons mentioned above and because of some indifferent clearances when not under great pressure).

Powell 6 (Steady, reliable but of no great consequece).

Gradel 7 (Two pinpoint assists from his corners, created much of the threat we did have by persisting in trying things despite being closely marked and was largely responsible for us salvaging a point despite the mistakes and misjudgements).

Oakley 5.5 (It must have been 15 minutes before he made an accurate pass, let alone a telling one. Improved thereafter but not enough to play anything like the captain's role needed).

King 7 (At fault with others for the first goal but scored a vital headed equaliser by ghosting in on the far post - something he did so often in lower grade football. Also was one of the few players who consistently passed the ball crisply and accurately to team-mates and thus setting numerous moves in motion. My lad said he hadn't noticed him so I made mention to him of every time his broke a Walsall move up and launched one of ours and it was so noticeable that he had to admit he just didn't realise how much he was doing. It's just a pity he was used so defensively again in the main.).

Dyer 5.5 (Showed brief moments of brilliance but was nothing like his best again, partly, because of the lack of movement and support around him).

Fryatt 5 (Disappointing. Rarely threatened goal but also did so little to link play or make space for others).

Howard 5 (What you see is what you get. He's never going to be making darting runs across and behind defenders but he did win his share of flick-ons and did get into positions from which he might or should have scored but sadly suffered the ignominy of missing two fairly simple chances, particularly the header from about 10 yards).

Subs: Kisnorbo 6.5 (How welcome was he when he took the field. Slipped straight into his close-marking, no nonsense defensive style and looked a class apart in that respect. He even passed the ball out of defence. It was right he should wait his chance to return but his presence was much needed tonight and he will surely now partner Tunchev as first choice.

I would probably give Howard 6 but overall I'd agree with that.

[dandannieldanok]

I really don't understand the negativity about King last night. It was clear he was the fulcrum midfielder, the guy responsible for taking the ball from defenders and feeding the attack.

Didn't really do his job then, I can't think of any occasion in which King fed the attack. Sideways passes to wingers that are completely predictable wouldn't fall under that category for most, including me. I'm not saying the rest of the players were any better than King last night but you could telegraph every pass King made, and even then he seem to dwell and get caught on the ball more often than usual.

[Thracian]

I would probably give Howard 6 but overall I'd agree with that.

He possibly deserved a six but I marked him down because of the two good chances he misssed. Looked at another way you could say he was in position to have the chances. As a centre-forward though he should have nailed at least one.

[colbo68]

I really don't understand the negativity about King last night. It was clear he was the fulcrum midfielder, the guy responsible for taking the ball from defenders and feeding the attack.

We had two wingers and King's job was the feed them as often as possible. He did pass the ball sideways, but they did receive plenty of the ball even though usually tightly marked and it was a good job really because no-one was making runs in the central attacking areas.

Not Howard, not Fryatt, not Oakley and even the wingers might be faulted for not coming inside occasionally.

King did manage some extra, not least his goal but essentially he almost always retained possession and set many an attack in motion.

Possession wise we never had a problem. It was just the urgency, the selfless running and the fast support in numbers that was lacking.

agree with you on King - he did what he could do given the way that Walsall set-out their stall

mark my words - if we dont get automatic promotion this season it will be down to the front two not taking enough chances - the problem is not one of supply, its one of finishing - if Howard had put just one of his three chances away last night the crowd would have been happier, the contributors to this site more positive and the world a more rosy place. If the lack of finishing is not addressed soon (and I speak as much about Fryatt as as about Howard), we will end up in the play-offs

[Koke]

Didn't really do his job then, I can't think of any occasion in which King fed the attack. Sideways passes to wingers that are completely predictable wouldn't fall under that category for most, including me. I'm not saying the rest of the players were any better than King last night but you could telegraph every pass King made, and even then he seem to dwell and get caught on the ball more often than usual.

I agree with that and it ticks me off so much. Matt Oakley are sort of like him as well sometimes. At one point, Dyer was a free man on the left and instead of a quick cross field ball to him, King decides that he'd rather play it safe and pass it back to Gilbert. It does my head in really.

[Milky]

The ratings in the Merc come from a fan each game, so for once they can't take the blame. Actually, choose some better fans.

[Joe.]

The mercury fan ratings are always laughable.

Admittedly they do come from the Leicester fans who see our team through their all to familia rose-tinted glasses, but in general they produce some of the most biased match reports known to man.

[Stuliasz]

You have one more day to register your vote at www.player-ratings.com/rate for the Walsall game. Results will be posted tomorrow.