Geo V Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 I have to agree that RK needs to start playing some more of the kids and not manage the club to secure his long term future. IMO he signed players on loan to keep us up and they have achieved what we asked, now we should send them back and play the kids (or at least one or two of them) instead of adding more donkeys like Newton. I`d put the mortage on the fact that had RK been giving a new 3 year contract when MM came on board he would be managing the club differently. At the moment he is opting for short term solutions which for me isnt what we need. Keegan in now!
Wezleylowski Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 Ermmm yes quite a few players get into various youth teams and never make the grade in proffesional football nevermind Championship level please see Stuart Wilson, Martin Fox, Jay Smedley, from our academys as perfect examples of this. Bringing players through from youth level to the first team is notoriously difficult. And...... what ? TRIBUNAL do you know what that means? that is when Chelsea offer one of our 17 year olds a contract he accepts and they pay us compensation (Chambers and Mattock can be offered proffesional contracts by other clubs now I believe) So it wouldn't be down to MM what price we got it would be down to the court. This is exactly what happened with Scott Sinclair who is currently on loan at Plymouth from Chelsea, he was nicked from Bristol Rovers I think it was? 300,000 the courts awarded them. Wait a minute i said that player dont get into academys if they dont have talent and you have twisted it into something completely different. And course i know what a TRIBUNAL is and you have point , why would a young player want to stay at city when they can sit on the bench at a much bigger club for twice the salary. but i believe that academy players born and raised as leicester fans have alot more pride and heart than to do that.
Thracian Posted 10 March 2007 Author Posted 10 March 2007 I agree 100% Why the hell would RK not play a player who he thinks would improve the team? If anyone can think of a good reason I will listen to it (not that chosen men bullshit please), but I think the fact is he does not think the young players we have are quite there yet But Johnson, Jarrett, Yeates, Sylla, Low, Hughes (on the right wing) and Horsfield are!! I wish I'd seen some evidence to convince me. Oh, and I can think of various reasons why Kelly might not choose an Academy player over a senior professional, none of which necessarily have anything to do with ability. Indeed I've listed them in the past so I don't intend to do so again.
dandannieldanok Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 But Johnson, Jarrett, Yeates, Sylla, Low, Hughes (on the right wing) and Horsfield are!! I wish I'd seen some evidence to convince me. Oh, and I can think of various reasons for Kelly not to choose an Academy player over a senior professional, none of which necessarily have anything to do with ability. Indeed I've listed them in the past so I don't intend to do so again. It's ridiculous that AJ is till even thought of never mind played at this club. RK is so weak and I agree it is the chosen man, experience factor. Johnson and Jarrett are poor players, Hughes can partition some blame on the boss but still is below par anyway, Horsfield is the stereotypical old carthorse who is no more useful than de Vries who is terribly ridiculed on here and Sylla and Low have rightfully departed. The time has come to rotate.
Simon Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 People like King and Gradel will make mistakes. But they'll have to go some to make the mistakes Johnson, Jarrett and Yeates make. And their attacking impact is bound to be greater because those players don't really have one, any more than Hughes or Tiatto do. Whilst I agree with your sentiments and I trust what you have to say about the youngsters as, by and large (although see my post in the match ratings thread) you have been right about Porter, to say Yeates has created nothing is at best blinkered and at worst plain erroneous.
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 March 2007 Posted 10 March 2007 Wait a minute i said that player dont get into academys if they dont have talent and you have twisted it into something completely different. And course i know what a TRIBUNAL is and you have point , why would a young player want to stay at city when they can sit on the bench at a much bigger club for twice the salary. but i believe that academy players born and raised as leicester fans have alot more pride and heart than to do that. No I haven't I've given you examples of players that have made it into our academy and have gone onto not make the grade at proffesional level, thus meaning you don't need to have massive amounts of talent to get into our academy, potential maybe but potential isn't always relised.
Thracian Posted 11 March 2007 Author Posted 11 March 2007 I find it funny how Thracian can write that post about all the performances today when he even wasn't there. Radio Leicester isn't a reliable source when it comes to commentary. Levi was just as bad as the others - it's got nothing to do with players not feeding him the ball. And who is disagreeing that he was as bad as the others?. It is obvious he was bad from everyone's ratings and from the radio commentary. I was simply wondering why?. Porter is a quality footballer but, like everyone else he needs supply, support and a system that gives him options. I've watched almost all home games and a good proportion of away games this season so am well aware of the players capabilities and predicted yesterday's approach well before the off because that performance was inevitable with the team selection, likening it to another Burnley on the cards. The commentary only confirmed as much. And Porter's performance might have nothing to do with the amount of passes he got (it was against Southend) but I damn sure there's a reason why a good footballer suddenly makes indifferent passes and decisions. But there's little point arguing with you. I've come across your opinion of our young players before - and your enduring faith in our demonstrably questionable manager. Even thouth you suggest Kelly has to be responsible for the performance of his team you know deep down that it will grate on you to have to admit he's not mentally clever enough to take us forward. And it will grate even more knowing that I am now firmly in the other camp unless there are some really dramatic changes.
Thracian Posted 11 March 2007 Author Posted 11 March 2007 Whilst I agree with your sentiments and I trust what you have to say about the youngsters as, by and large (although see my post in the match ratings thread) you have been right about Porter, to say Yeates has created nothing is at best blinkered and at worst plain erroneous. To be honest Yeates has had little chance to create things. His control on the left at Southend looked woeful but I fail to understand the logic of signing such a player and then using a central midfield player in his place. And not one like King who is fairly comfortable and effective out wide but Hughes who has demonstrated time and again that he poses virtually no threat from that position except very briefly against Burnley.
Flynny Posted 11 March 2007 Posted 11 March 2007 To be honest Yeates has had little chance to create things. His control on the left at Southend looked woeful but I fail to understand the logic of signing such a player and then using a midfield player in his place. And not one like King who is fairly comfortable and effective out wide but Hughes who has demonstrated time and again that he poses virtually no threat from that position except very briefly against Burnley. Maybe he just needs supply, support, and a system that gives him options?
Ric Flair Posted 12 March 2007 Posted 12 March 2007 I can't fathom out why Kelly hasn't addressed the centre of midfield all season. He's got an obsession with mediocre wingers and if he had his own way he'd have 2 right wingers and 2 right backs on the bench for every game. We don't have a central midfielder on the bench to change a game. I'm not entirely convinced that King would come in and improve us, but he deserves a chance to show whether he can or not. Come the summer it's likely Kelly will be gone and there will be a manager who will come in and see the midfield as a priority to get right. The youth players are unlikely to be get a chance if we strengthen significantly in areas. So it would be great to find out now if 1 or 2 of them are good enough to improve us. If they aren't then fair enough, bring in plenty of players in the summer. If they do show ability at this level, then they stake a claim for next season. Quite simple. King and Gradel have been superb this season for the youth team, as have others. I'm not one to get over-excited about expolits at youth level, i've done that in the past and the players have gone on to acheive **** all at professional level. But at this stage of the season and being part of a team that's been very successful, I think it's right that a couple of them should be rewarded with some first team action. Gradel and King are both about 19 now and are at an age where they should be pushing for a first team place. The likes of Mattock, McKay and Odihambo are still only 16/17 and it won't harm them to have another good season at youth level.
Steven Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 All I can say is the sooner we get Andy King in the team the better. Gary Megson has granted your wish. Good luck to the lad. :D
Wycombe Fox Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 Yep - all the very best to Andy King. Thrac's big moment too!
Lets Be having You Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 yes and he sems to be doing ok,good luck to him
Jimmy Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 thought he had a solid game, good base on which to build on for future performances
Wezleylowski Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 I thought King was immpressive in that absoloutely dier midfield. He played some lovely passes even though he was very nervous. He did'nt take anyone on though apart from at the end when he came out of his shell a little bit. Kingy seems abit lightweight aswell, perhaps he needs to bulk up a little. And he seems to win alot of headers aswell which is good. I think we should send him out on loan for some experience and see what we have when he comes back, i think we will have another quality youngster on our hands.
Simi Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 Nothing special, he seemed absent from times, don't think Megson gave him much freedom. He was steady.
syston_fox Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 He was ok but as soon as Clemence and Weso are back, he'll disappear back into the reserves for the time being. He needs to go out on loan I think because he was shattered after about 70 minutes and needs to get some first team experience.
Shroomjuice Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 He was ok but as soon as Clemence and Weso are back, he'll disappear back into the reserves for the time being. He needs to go out on loan I think because he was shattered after about 70 minutes and needs to get some first team experience. agreed
Joe. Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 He was ok but as soon as Clemence and Weso are back, he'll disappear back into the reserves for the time being. He needs to go out on loan I think because he was shattered after about 70 minutes and needs to get some first team experience. Wouldn't argue with that. He was thrown in at the deep end tonight. Some first team lower league experience should do him good.
Jimmy Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 He was ok but as soon as Clemence and Weso are back, he'll disappear back into the reserves for the time being. He needs to go out on loan I think because he was shattered after about 70 minutes and needs to get some first team experience. i'd like to see him alongside clem and weso so he can actually get forward, at times he was the deepest of the 3
Milky Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 He did pretty well really all things considered. He certainly didn't discrace himself at all.
Thracian Posted 2 October 2007 Author Posted 2 October 2007 He was ok but as soon as Clemence and Weso are back, he'll disappear back into the reserves for the time being. He needs to go out on loan I think because he was shattered after about 70 minutes and needs to get some first team experience. If you prefer to play Chambers or Kishishev with those two in a midfield three the best of luck pal.
AyewJoking Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 I thought nerves got the better of him. This is the first time I've seen him play but I've read somewhere that he is supposed to be good.
Geo V Posted 2 October 2007 Posted 2 October 2007 I don't think we should judge the kid on this game and I must admit to not wanting to give him a rating on performance tonight for a number of reasons, including playing in a lopsided home formation and being surrounded by under-performing second choice players and players playing out of position. He did OK but nothing special and showed some neat passes but for now, I`ll hold fire on a proper judgment until I have seen the lad at least a handful of times.
Ultra Posted 3 October 2007 Posted 3 October 2007 Indeed. Most players have trouble with the step from academy/reserve level to the first team and King was no exception. But he did show signs of creativity in a lacklustre midfield and certainly deserves a place ahead of Kishishev or Chambers. Whether he'll get it is another matter..
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.