Background: Graham Smyth, Leeds coverage, and player‑rating culture
Before getting into the match in question, it’s worth setting context on who Graham Smyth is and what significance his ratings carry (or should carry) in local football journalism.
Graham Smyth is the chief football writer for the Yorkshire Evening Post, a leading regional paper that covers Leeds United in depth. His match reports often include player-by-player ratings, typically on a 1–10 scale, and are closely followed by local fans, especially because they carry a certain “insider” resonance (versus national journalists who may have less closeness to Leeds).
Player ratings are inherently subjective, but they serve as a shorthand for communicating how well someone judged a player performed relative to expectations. In the context of Leeds, where fans are intensely passionate and the gap between hero and scapegoat is often narrow, Smyth’s ratings tend to provoke debate, reflection, and sometimes internal tension.
In a recent published article titled “Graham Smyth’s Leeds United player ratings v Tottenham as six score 3/10 and one 2”, he delivered stinging assessments of the majority of the Leeds side in a poor performance. Yorkshire Evening Post
In that same piece, he gave one player a much more generous mark — 6 — in fact, no 8/10 in that particular match. But the scenario you refer to (an 8/10 vs Spurs amid several 3s) is a compelling narrative — a microcosm of how a single bright spot can shine in an otherwise dismal team performance.
Because the published article in question is from May 2023 (when Leeds lost 1‑4 to Tottenham) and in that case many players scored 3/10 or lower with one 6/10, the precise “8/10 amid 3s” scenario may come from either a different match or be a narrative exaggeration. But the pattern — a standout individual against a backdrop of weak teammates — is real and recurring. Yorkshire Evening Post
What follows is a reconstruction of that narrative pattern, using Smyth’s style and the example match, to illuminate what it means when one player is rated 8/10 while multiple teammates get 3.
The May 2023 match: Leeds 1‑4 Tottenham and Smyth’s ratings
Let’s recap the match which Smyth covered in that article:
-
The match was Leeds vs Tottenham on 28 May 2023, the final match of the season. Leeds were already in deep trouble in the league. Smyth wrote of an “awful season” culminating in a 4–1 defeat and relegation. Yorkshire Evening Post
-
In his ratings, Smyth awarded:
-
Joel Robles (goalkeeper) — 6 (he “made some stops, generally let down by his defence”) Yorkshire Evening Post
-
Luke Ayling — 3
-
Liam Cooper — 3
-
Max Wöber — 3
-
Pascal Struijk — 2 (a “horrible day at left wing-back … struggled”)
-
Rasmus Kristensen — 3
-
The rest of the team (midfield / attack) are implied to have similarly poor marks (six players got 3, one got 2). Yorkshire Evening Post
-
Thus, in that particular match, Smyth’s ratings show a pattern of broad team underperformance: six players at 3/10, one at 2/10, and only the keeper (Robles) with a more moderate 6/10. There was no 8/10 in that match; so the precise “8 vs 3s” scenario may belong to another fixture, or be a misremembered detail. But for our analysis, the dynamic is instructive.
In a 4‑1 defeat, to have six players graded 3/10 signals that, in Smyth’s view, the structural and individual breakdowns were severe: tactical mis-positioning, poor defending, negligible attacking threat, underwhelming work rates. Meanwhile, the keeper scoring 6/10 suggests that, in his view, the only partly “redeemable” performances were from those isolated in disadvantageous positions.
In contrast, in other matches Smyth has awarded 8/10 to players who stood out — for example, when a Leeds wide attacker or defender produced a match‑defining performance (e.g. in another match Smyth gave Gnonto 8/10 for a strong outing vs Plymouth) The72 – Football League News
Thus the contrast — 8/10 for one player, 3/10 for many teammates — typifies the lopsided performance narrative: one shining light in a sea of struggle.
Interpreting the 8/10 vs 3/10 dichotomy: what it says about that individual and the team
When a player earns an 8/10 in the context of a broadly poor team performance, and teammates are marked 3/10, several interlocking interpretations emerge. Below are key observations and what they tell us.
1. Outstanding performance in adverse circumstances
An 8/10 in the heat of a heavy defeat suggests that the player was not only technically solid, but also resilient, affecting the game positively despite surrounding chaos. The high grade may reflect:
-
Defensive or offensive actions that kept the team from sliding deeper
-
A sense of leadership, influence, or defensive composure
-
Deeds that prevented the scoreline from being even more catastrophic
-
Moments of tactical intelligence, positioning, or effort that distinguished them
Crucially, the 8/10 is not a “good match in a good team” grade, but a relative “best of a bad batch” praise.
2. The 3/10 marks as stark indictment of teammates
When six players score 3/10 (and one 2) in Smyth’s system, it indicates an overall collapse of functionality. It implies:
-
Defensive failures at multiple levels (individual marking, positioning, communication)
-
Attacking impotence or lack of cutting edge
-
Poor transitional play, lack of coordination, lost duels
-
Perhaps tactical incoherence, fatigue, lack of cohesion
In the 2023 example, Smyth’s comments (e.g. “couldn’t make a tackle for the fourth,” “struggled in possession”) reinforce that many players failed in basic tasks. Yorkshire Evening Post
The stark contrast magnifies the exceptional nature of the higher-rated player: in a team that mostly collapsed, his performance is highlighted by contrast.
3. Psychological and motivational implications
From a narrative and morale angle, such rating contrasts do two things:
-
They isolate a hero — the 8/10 player becomes a reference point, someone fans rally to praise in an otherwise bleak report.
-
They spotlight culpability — the players awarded 3/10 or 2/10 become focal points for criticism, fan ire, or internal reflection.
This pattern can galvanize debate: was the underperforming majority to blame? Did the manager fail to organize or motivate? Is the star player carrying too much burden?
4. Tactical signal: one strong fulcrum vs structural collapse
The dichotomy suggests that the team’s structure was not functional as a unit. The standout may have had to compensate (covering gaps, chasing lost balls, making salvage plays). But even a strong individual cannot reverse systemic decay—especially not in a 4‑1 defeat.
Thus, the match becomes a cautionary tale: no matter how brilliant one player is, success requires collective coherence.
Be the first to comment