Sheffield United Player Ratings

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

At the game.

Weale - 6 - Did what he had to do reasonably well, one or two fumbled crosses and awkward moments.

McGivern - 5.5 - Decent enough in the air, caught out one or two times, generally not too bad, but by no means is he Berner.

Hobbs - 6.5 - Having a decent game keeping the United frontline quiet until subbed.

Morrison - 8.5 - MOTM - When the ball needed clearing, he did it, absolutely dominant in the air, and intercepted and prevented more than a few United attacks. Needs to keep his place at centre back with Hobbs.

Neilson - 5.5 - As McGivern really, for everything decent he did, he did something to cancel it out.

Dyer - 7.5 - Very good, used his pace, easily the best weapon in his locker, and gave the United defence more than a few scares. Looked confident.

Wellens - 6.5 - Couple of very, very, well timed passes, and some good link up with King in the centre, but didn't really impose himself on the game.

King - 6.5 - Didn't realise e was playing until about 25 minutes in. Once the ball's kept on the deck, he looks much more assured.

Oakley - 4 - Probably biased, not his biggest fan, but didn't really do anything of note for me, one or two half decent set piece deliveries.

Fryatt - 7 - Some quite nimble footwork at times, impressed me now and then, well won and cooly taken penalty.

Howard - 5 - Once a few decisions went against him and he got the arse, got frustrated and contributed little. Kermorgant soon please.

[Lillehamring]

Kermorgant's proved absolutely nothing, he's not even scored for us yet. If he was as good as everyone on here makes out, he'd be starting games regularly. Howard's come in and gave us a focal point, he knows the English game inside out and he knows how to play against Championship defenders. Yes he's old and hasn't got many years left in the game, but if he's fit and playing well then there's no problem. Fryatt looks a better player with Howard as his foil.

kermo's proved worthy of a two and a half year deal, pearson obviously sees a future for the lad, maybe if he had as many starts as howard gets we'd see a lot more. maybem who knows

... and quite frankly, the only thing anyone can say about howard on the few occasions he has had a good game, are that he's won a few flick-ons (that may or may not have gone to a city player) and that he's created space for fryatt...not exactly stellar form... and at the same time how much has he cost us constantly giving away free kicks, and encouraging the ball into the air.

i'm sorry, but winning a few headers in the centre of the park is not good enough, at least give kermo 20 minutes to get used to playing alongside fryatt.

if goal scoring isn't part of his game, then why the hell not - plenty of 'big lads what can head' can also score, or at least hit the bleedin target.

all the best stuff attack wise yesterday came from the feet of fryatt and his great reading of the game, or dyer's pace and movement, not howard lumbering around the centre circle - yes he contributed to the attack but so did neilsen, so did morrison.

winning a few headers and making runs off the ball once every half dozen games just seems like a waste to me...i can't see why that should be so controversial

[okie fox]

At game.

Weale - 7 - Flapped at a few crosses

Neilson - 6 - Average

Morrison - 8 - Great shot, good in defence

Hobbs - 7 - Hobbled

McGivern - 7 - Good in air. Deserves lot of credit for performance as fill-in centre half

Oakley - 6 - OK

King - 7 - Good

Wellens - 7 - Hit bar, some good passes

Dyer - 8 - Attacked defenders at pace, caused problems, helped out a lot in defence

Fryatt - 9 - Great close dribbling, good movement off ball, Montgomery stepped on his foot for penalty

Howard - 7 - Worked hard, but up against Morgan & Kilgannon

O'Neill - 5 - Slow & out of his depth

[shiv]

At game

Weale 7 - Did well when called upon

Neilson 7 - One of his better performances, although still not convincing as our 1st choice RB

Hobbs 6 - Looked a bit shakey without Brown

Morrison 8 - Great game, solid at the back and amazing shot!

McGivern 7 - Definately improving defensively

Oakley 5 - Honestly don't know why he's in the team, either play him in the centre or don't play him at all!

Wellens 8 - Passing was brilliant and controlled the midfield well

King 7 - Quiet, but effective

Dyer 9 - MOTM for me, ran his socks off and caused them a lot of probems

Howard 6 - Won some good headers but still unconvincing

Fryatt 9 - Great movement and showed some good skill

O'Neill 6 - Not bad but still young and learning

[Cat Burger]

kermo's proved worthy of a two and a half year deal, pearson obviously sees a future for the lad, maybe if he had as many starts as howard gets we'd see a lot more. maybem who knows

... and quite frankly, the only thing anyone can say about howard on the few occasions he has had a good game, are that he's won a few flick-ons (that may or may not have gone to a city player) and that he's created space for fryatt...not exactly stellar form... and at the same time how much has he cost us constantly giving away free kicks, and encouraging the ball into the air.

i'm sorry, but winning a few headers in the centre of the park is not good enough, at least give kermo 20 minutes to get used to playing alongside fryatt.

if goal scoring isn't part of his game, then why the hell not - plenty of 'big lads what can head' can also score, or at least hit the bleedin target.

all the best stuff attack wise yesterday came from the feet of fryatt and his great reading of the game, or dyer's pace and movement, not howard lumbering around the centre circle - yes he contributed to the attack but so did neilsen, so did morrison.

winning a few headers and making runs off the ball once every half dozen games just seems like a waste to me...i can't see why that should be so controversial

I agree.

Those who know their football will have seen that Kermo has something, so far this can only be backed up with a few efforts, videos and by seeing how comfortable he is on the ball...That is enough. To say he's not worth it, well, he has had precious little time on the pitch, let alone up front.

My problem with Steve at the minute is that he seems to have gotten back into the team after a strop, not through performance. Despite this he has done reasonably well since he's been back. It was alluded to several times that he was not happy to be on the bench, but he didn't strike me as someone who was busting a gut to get back in. I feel there was someone ahead of him and I've talked about him already.

[dandannieldanok]

1) kermo's proved worthy of a two and a half year deal, pearson obviously sees a future for the lad, maybe if he had as many starts as howard gets we'd see a lot more. maybem who knows

2) ... and quite frankly, the only thing anyone can say about howard on the few occasions he has had a good game, are that he's won a few flick-ons (that may or may not have gone to a city player) and that he's created space for fryatt...not exactly stellar form... and at the same time how much has he cost us constantly giving away free kicks, and encouraging the ball into the air.

3) i'm sorry, but winning a few headers in the centre of the park is not good enough, at least give kermo 20 minutes to get used to playing alongside fryatt.

4) if goal scoring isn't part of his game, then why the hell not - plenty of 'big lads what can head' can also score, or at least hit the bleedin target.

5) all the best stuff attack wise yesterday came from the feet of fryatt and his great reading of the game, or dyer's pace and movement, not howard lumbering around the centre circle - yes he contributed to the attack but so did neilsen, so did morrison.

6) winning a few headers and making runs off the ball once every half dozen games just seems like a waste to me...i can't see why that should be so controversial

1) The reason he hasn't had as many starts as Howard is because he clearly isn't seen as effective as Howard. Pearson isn't a fool, if Kermorgant was showing more in training than Howard was then he'd be playing.

2) We played some excellent football against Sheff Utd, I didn't see Howard's inclusion encouraging a long ball game at all.

3) Well it is good enough, since Howard's return: 2 games, 2 wins. 5 goals.

4) this must have been debated in at least 50 topics throughout the last year

5) Howard occupied defenders allowing Dyer and Fryatt more space.

6) And you think Kermorgant would do what more exactly? He's not Drogba.

I agree.

Those who know their football will have seen that Kermo has something, so far this can only be backed up with a few efforts, videos and by seeing how comfortable he is on the ball...That is enough. To say he's not worth it, well, he has had precious little time on the pitch, let alone up front.

My problem with Steve at the minute is that he seems to have gotten back into the team after a strop, not through performance. Despite this he has done reasonably well since he's been back. It was alluded to several times that he was not happy to be on the bench, but he didn't strike me as someone who was busting a gut to get back in. I feel there was someone ahead of him and I've talked about him already.

What is enough? Being comfortable on the ball? To be honest I thought he's looked distinctly uncomfortable on the ball, generally not upto the pace of the championship. We need impact players, we've already got King and Wellens to stroke the ball around we don't need another.

Pearson's strong enough not to cave in to someone like Steve Howard so I don't go along with that theory at all. When we played poorly against Forest and Bristol, Pearson saw the need for a target man and he chose Howard over Kermorgant. The result: 5 goals and 6 points for the team, what more can you ask?

Look, I'm not Howard's biggest fan, but I'm looking at the clear facts. He's been brought back in and we've won 2 out of 2 and scored 5 goals (and plenty of extra chances too). I get the feeling that people seem to love this Kermorgant because a) he's French b) he's got an exotic name c) he's scored an overhead kick. The reason I deduce this: because I've seen nothing to suggest the guy is an improvement on what we've got during his spell his so far. People will mistake me for hating the guy, I don't, but I just don't buy into this theory that he should be first choice.

[Guest Mee-9]

1) The reason he hasn't had as many starts as Howard is because he clearly isn't seen as effective as Howard. Pearson isn't a fool, if Kermorgant was showing more in training than Howard was then he'd be playing.

2) We played some excellent football against Sheff Utd, I didn't see Howard's inclusion encouraging a long ball game at all.

3) Well it is good enough, since Howard's return: 2 games, 2 wins. 5 goals.

4) this must have been debated in at least 50 topics throughout the last year

5) Howard occupied defenders allowing Dyer and Fryatt more space.

6) And you think Kermorgant would do what more exactly? He's not Drogba.

What is enough? Being comfortable on the ball? To be honest I thought he's looked distinctly uncomfortable on the ball, generally not upto the pace of the championship. We need impact players, we've already got King and Wellens to stroke the ball around we don't need another.

Pearson's strong enough not to cave in to someone like Steve Howard so I don't go along with that theory at all. When we played poorly against Forest and Bristol, Pearson saw the need for a target man and he chose Howard over Kermorgant. The result: 5 goals and 6 points for the team, what more can you ask?

Look, I'm not Howard's biggest fan, but I'm looking at the clear facts. He's been brought back in and we've won 2 out of 2 and scored 5 goals (and plenty of extra chances too). I get the feeling that people seem to love this Kermorgant because a) he's French b) he's got an exotic name c) he's scored an overhead kick. The reason I deduce this: because I've seen nothing to suggest the guy is an improvement on what we've got during his spell his so far. People will mistake me for hating the guy, I don't, but I just don't buy into this theory that he should be first choice.

It seems everyone worships Kermo as god, ever since he arrived at the club. He hasn't done anything for me.

[Spiritwalker]

1) The reason he hasn't had as many starts as Howard is because he clearly isn't seen as effective as Howard. Pearson isn't a fool, if Kermorgant was showing more in training than Howard was then he'd be playing.

2) We played some excellent football against Sheff Utd, I didn't see Howard's inclusion encouraging a long ball game at all.

3) Well it is good enough, since Howard's return: 2 games, 2 wins. 5 goals.

4) this must have been debated in at least 50 topics throughout the last year

5) Howard occupied defenders allowing Dyer and Fryatt more space.

6) And you think Kermorgant would do what more exactly? He's not Drogba.

What is enough? Being comfortable on the ball? To be honest I thought he's looked distinctly uncomfortable on the ball, generally not upto the pace of the championship. We need impact players, we've already got King and Wellens to stroke the ball around we don't need another.

Pearson's strong enough not to cave in to someone like Steve Howard so I don't go along with that theory at all. When we played poorly against Forest and Bristol, Pearson saw the need for a target man and he chose Howard over Kermorgant. The result: 5 goals and 6 points for the team, what more can you ask?

Look, I'm not Howard's biggest fan, but I'm looking at the clear facts. He's been brought back in and we've won 2 out of 2 and scored 5 goals (and plenty of extra chances too). I get the feeling that people seem to love this Kermorgant because a) he's French b) he's got an exotic name c) he's scored an overhead kick. The reason I deduce this: because I've seen nothing to suggest the guy is an improvement on what we've got during his spell his so far. People will mistake me for hating the guy, I don't, but I just don't buy into this theory that he should be first choice.

Agreed, I too have been critical of Howard this season but after watching at the game and on tv I can not believe he is

being slated (by some) for his performance. He was excellent and won almost everything in the air usually against 3 defenders,including some great flick ons for Fryatt. He is not in the team for his pace.

[Lillehamring]

Agreed, I too have been critical of Howard this season but after watching at the game and on tv I can not believe he is

being slated (by some) for his performance. He was excellent and won almost everything in the air usually against 3 defenders,including some great flick ons for Fryatt. He is not in the team for his pace.

it's not about slating him, it's about considering the long term development of the team...

i'm just describing the performance i witnessed and it was ordinary - nothing more nothing less - but as long as people on here are going to imply that he is supremely influential, i am going to challenge that because we won the last two games by playing a sensible formation with a proper midfield and proper strikers, NOT because howard made a few runs off the ball and a couple of speculative flick ons...

this nonsense that fryatt and dyer would have struggled if howard hadn't spent half the game chugging round the centre circle just pushes the realms of plausibility too far,

and too say howard MUST play because we won the last two games is again stretching it a bit, we've only lost five all season, two of which he started, and when he came on against forest we were only 1-0 down, and would anybody on here blame him for the final score? of course not, it is a team game...just like we need to avoid getteing stuck in this mentality that certain players are great and certain players are shit

howard's contribution to the team performance is alright, for the time being at least, but it seems to be very limited and a quick fix, supporters saying we need to at least try the other options is no worse than sucking his balls and believing that we can't win without him...

[Tony Pine]

At the game.

Weale - 6 - Did what he had to do reasonably well, one or two fumbled crosses and awkward moments.

McGivern - 5.5 - Decent enough in the air, caught out one or two times, generally not too bad, but by no means is he Berner.

Hobbs - 6.5 - Having a decent game keeping the United frontline quiet until subbed.

Morrison - 8.5 - MOTM - When the ball needed clearing, he did it, absolutely dominant in the air, and intercepted and prevented more than a few United attacks. Needs to keep his place at centre back with Hobbs.

Neilson - 5.5 - As McGivern really, for everything decent he did, he did something to cancel it out.

Dyer - 7.5 - Very good, used his pace, easily the best weapon in his locker, and gave the United defence more than a few scares. Looked confident.

Wellens - 6.5 - Couple of very, very, well timed passes, and some good link up with King in the centre, but didn't really impose himself on the game.

King - 6.5 - Didn't realise e was playing until about 25 minutes in. Once the ball's kept on the deck, he looks much more assured.

Oakley - 4 - Probably biased, not his biggest fan, but didn't really do anything of note for me, one or two half decent set piece deliveries.

Fryatt - 7 - Some quite nimble footwork at times, impressed me now and then, well won and cooly taken penalty.

Howard - 5 - Once a few decisions went against him and he got the arse, got frustrated and contributed little.

it's the only "weapon" in his locker (he played a lot better than usual though, still needs better end product)

pretty much agree with your assessment, a few minor changes here and there..

also think fryatt looked out of sorts up until the pen...a bit tentative and disinterested

(at the game)

[James.]

At the game:

Weale 7 - couple of dodgy punches but some good saves as well.

Neilson 6 - couple of mistakes, some decent defending, typical Nielson really (does make me nervous though).

Morrison 7 - good in the air but missed Hobbs' presence later in the game.

Hobbs 7 - we suffered at the start of the second half without him.

McGivern 6 - thought he did alright but not someone who fills me with confidence.

Oakley 6 - in and out the game but generally a positive impact.

King 7 - I didn't notice him and we won so I guess that means he had a good game.

Wellens 7 - can be frustrating but spread it around nicely and was tough when required.

Dyer 9 - quality wing play, Sheff defence were shit scared of him.

Fryatt 9 - excellent all round display of forward play capped with a well taken penalty, they couldn't handle him.

Howard 6 - see Valerenga.

O'Neill 5 - struggled big time but did make one memorable tackle.

[dandannieldanok]

it's not about slating him, it's about considering the long term development of the team...

Craig Levein had this philosophy during his time at the club, it didn't work.

i'm just describing the performance i witnessed and it was ordinary - nothing more nothing less - but as long as people on here are going to imply that he is supremely influential, i am going to challenge that because we won the last two games by playing a sensible formation with a proper midfield and proper strikers, NOT because howard made a few runs off the ball and a couple of speculative flick ons...

this nonsense that fryatt and dyer would have struggled if howard hadn't spent half the game chugging round the centre circle just pushes the realms of plausibility too far,

and too say howard MUST play because we won the last two games is again stretching it a bit, we've only lost five all season, two of which he started, and when he came on against forest we were only 1-0 down, and would anybody on here blame him for the final score? of course not, it is a team game...just like we need to avoid getteing stuck in this mentality that certain players are great and certain players are shit

howard's contribution to the team performance is alright, for the time being at least, but it seems to be very limited and a quick fix, supporters saying we need to at least try the other options is no worse than sucking his balls and believing that we can't win without him...

I completely disagree but I'm not going to debate it further because we share completely different opinions and neither of us should change to suit the other. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[C-man]

There's no doubting that Howard's return and the back to basics (4-4-2 with one wide man) approach that served Pearson so well last season has won us the last two games. Add that to the apparent return to form of Lloyd and we're looking pretty set.

It's no reason to say that Kermorgant's not good enough and doesn't deserve a contract, but it's definitely reason for Howard remaining in the side for as long as he serves us.

In all honesty, I think Waghorn's suspension has actually been a good thing. He was our best player during our bad patch and it's unfortunate that the system we're best at doesn't seem to fit him.

[jag-02]

good perormance from the lads

weale 8 - brilliant reactions from eveerything that ws thrown at him

nielson 7.5 - no real negatives in performances

mcgivern 7 - didn't make much impact in the game

morrison 9 - outstanding performance. created and score the goal - MOTM

hobbs 7 - seemed a bit off and didn't play like his usual self

oakley 8 - another exceptional performance

wellens 8.5 - vision and passing was phenomenal. unfortunatley didn't get on the scoresheet with that stunner. deserves a goal

king 7.5 - average performance

dyer 7-5 - streched the defenders and beat dfenders with ease

howard 8 - another hardworking performance.

fryatt 8.5 - looks a new player and now has all the attibutes to a striker.

WELL DONE LADS