How unbelievably biased these are I don't expect local journos to be too 'down' on the club, but some of these are laughable. Benno 6 and Howson 5, ffs. Norwich mainly 5 / 6, Luton mainly 6 / 7. If you're going to bother at all, Archant, at least take your green and yellow scarf off and do it fairly http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/norwich_city_v_luton_town_player_ratings_1_1830001
Elliott Bennett was the only one who deserved a 6 in my opinion - Rudd had little to do apart from pick the ball out of the net and gets a 5 from me. The rest get a 4 with Surman and Kane getting 3.5.
I feel too many people look at the score and then choose the ratings. Having seen the match, it was not the disaster people are making out. Kane and Surman came into it with little playing time before and it's a lot to expect a great performance in those circumstances. Each was a 5 or 6 for me. Luton defended in depth and pressed well, playing well above their non-league status (and non-league football is much better these days), but they were in no way the better team. They stuck to their strategy of defend in depth and occasionally break, but they only really had one chance of scoring and they took it. That doesn't make them the better team, IMO. City, on the other hand, had 12 shots, the majority on target. Had Barnett's shot gone a few inches further over the line or Holt's header had gone in, I doubt Luton would have had that chance on the break. It wasn't a great performance, but it was a professional one. Jackson and Kane worked hard without getting many chances (Kane had a good shot on target that was deflected away for a corner - not his fault). The defence limited Luton to one chance and they took it. Criticism is corrosive. This is the squad for the rest of the season, barring a player or two coming in. To survive in this all-important season, they need support to get back to the form they had in the 10 match unbeaten run. I for one am willing to give that. OTBC!
To be fair he came within a whisker/defender's shin of scoring in the first half which could well have led to a comfortable home win had it gone in
Player ratings never ever reflect the true contribution they make in the game. If you score a couple of goals you instantly are worth 8+ If you concede plenty all defenders will get-5 Not worth looking at. Scoring Refs is no better.
I beg to differ. Luton were the better team because they had a game plan, and theirs was the professional approach, stuck to it and got the result. Buckle said they knew how we would play and they could plan to contain it. He knew they wouldn't get roughed up, pounded with balls in the box or run off their feet because we defended on our 18 yard line again and kept possession 50 yards from their goal. Of course everyone will be supporting the team on Wednesday and Saturday. That is a given. That is why there are 22K season ticket holders.
yes remember that now. like i said, this is based on the radio commentary which is probably not the best way to give match ratings out. the guy probably needs a goal which will help his confidence and get the supporters behind him.
Redruthyella said: "I beg to differ. Luton were the better team because they had a game plan, and theirs was the professional approach, stuck to it and got the result." Yes, Luton kept to their plan and it worked in the end - but would you want to watch that every week? I can remember the outcry when City played like that earlier in the season against bigger teams (2 or 3 shots in the whole game). It's not always about results.
Paddy Davitt, who does the ratings, has a fairly strong Northern accent, so, even though I don't know this for sure, I don't think it's a given that he's even a Norwich fan. I do agree that he was being a bit generous though.
We were beaten by a team four leagues below us, too many generous ratings. We were outplayed by inferior opposition most our players would of got a 4 from me. As usual the staff at Archant are watching a different game.
