Those ratings are remarkably close (6.48-6.58) which suggests that it was reasonably even. Had Sargent been playing instead of Placheta, Zaha's goal might have been prevented, but the Pole had a reasonable game at 6.5 and covering a lot of ground. Palace had a lot of possession but didn't produce many quality chances.
Normann is perfectly capable of playing the disciplined DM role; he regularly does it for Norway. It's not what DF brought him in for though. The impression I got from the games Normann has played since DS took over is that, in contrast, that's very much the role Smith wants him to play.
Basically agree with that -- though I'd maybe substitute "good" for "really good". Re. tiredness and our fitness, I'm pretty sure both DF and DS have said fitness levels in the squad are comparable with the best in the league. It's just that the better teams in this league are doing to us what we have regularly done to the competition in the Championship -- made them run themselves into the ground.
Humm I'm still here, we won our last home PL game against Man City and this time we have defenders not injured.... I watched extended highlights and think we were somewhat fortunate to get a draw. It was another point though, I think it shows the value of Sargent (who thought we would be saying that a few weeks ago). I wasn't enthused my McLean playing (I thought Sorenson and Lees-Melou looked a better pairing and would like to try Normann and Lees-Melou), but perhaps Normann is still working his way back to fitness? Anyway another point 20 more and we'll be safe :S
These figures highlight the difference that often exists between Whoscored ratings and the 'eye test'. I suspect most people would have made Rashica our MOTM or at least had him close, and yet in Whoscored he is basically average. I guess supporters of quantitative methods of assessing players would point out that their method is more objective, based on real figures rather than vague impressions, and doesn't overvalue either the 'wow' or the 'yuk' moments (although Pukki's high score of 7 is presumably largely due to the fact that he scored our goal and ignores the big chance he missed). People on the technophobic side (have to admit to my bias here!) will say any quantitative method will always be a clunky way of trying to capture a reality that is too elusive to be reduced to a number.
The difference for me is that the WhoScored ratings are built up incrementally during the match - you can see where each player is and what they get points for. This is very different from Paddy Davitt giving his gut feeling rating of each player some time later. It's a compilation of technical factors though, so may not reflect how a player might influence others - Hanley or Krul organising the defence for example. It isn't the be all and end all by any means, but it's the most accurate assessment I know.
