Machiavelli
Well-known member
I think I was trying to put it in the context of last night's results. 1-0s are rarely deserving of eights because to only score one we either didn't attack enough, or attacked ineffectively, so attacking players don't deserve high marks, about our defence kept a clean sheet either because our opponents didn't attack enough or effectively, if it's the former the defence haven't done enough for 8s, if it's the latter it's either inept opposition, or a stout 8s-worthy performance from the defence.
Since the defence is usually the only part of the team that can get an 8 in a 1-0 victory, I don't think it does put the responsibility on high marks on the attack. A great defensive display would get 8s, but Leeds didn't really test us. Upson is a great player, but was not really tested last not, IMO.
As for Ince, he was good, but he did give the ball away a fair bit, when he got the ball in the box seemed to lose composure/struggled with what to do and ended up running out of the box and passing the ball back, his tackling was a bit untidy at times.
8 just seems really generous to me, and there were too many (albeit small) flaws in each players' performance to warrant such generosity, again, IMO.
... looks like I've been too generous in my previous post