Andy King

[Corky]

Was there a special on cider & internet today or have I missed some International Day Of The Idiot?

Where the **** did this cretinous thread come from?

We are Leicester fans Daggers. Even after a victory we need something to moan about. It's in our (blue) blood.

[Daggers]

We are Leicester fans Daggers. Even after a victory we need something to moan about. It's in our (blue) blood.

[Corky]

I certainly am Nige. Keep up the good work

[Rich Fox]

You have to pick a team that gels and young king has jelled well with oakley. This is why nigel pearson had done well and i believe will be a decent manager because you have to put a team together that plays as a team not 11 individuals.

Last year we had ian hume running roung like a headless chicken and you all sodding loved him because he looked like he was doing a good job but there was no end product.

This weso or whatever his name is is just another young prospect like andy king and he has done ok but is no wonder kid. I thought king has done well this season and there has been an end product to his play so lay off him and give him some credit. Whilst hes doing the job asked by the manager and city are winning he should keep the shirt.

[Ultra]

The King-Oakley partnership needs time to gel. Once King has a few more first-team games under his belt his confidence and game will improve.

In any event, I've not seen anything from Kishishev or Weso to suggest they should replace King.

[Guest ttfn]

Was there a special on cider & internet today or have I missed some International Day Of The Idiot?

Where the **** did this cretinous thread come from?

Woah Woah Woah!

What is it about experienced users of this forum that makes them think that they can shout down others?

All I have suggested is that King is not worth his place. I never said that I haven't been impressed with the team performance - I think we've been doing fantastically. I just think that King is not the best choice for that central midfield role and that he has contributed little towards our early form.

Look at Manchester United - 2 years ago they won the league and then went and spent big money on Hargreaves, Nani, Anderson and Tevez. Just because we're playing well doesn't mean that everything is hunky dorey and can't be improved on. And I think that Andy King is the weak link in our side at the moment.

But of course this response will be downplayed by those who consider it to be 'cretinous' without even considering the arguments before them. We had an (obviously) young guy come on here the other day and ask about the Sappleton loan situation and whilst his questioning style was particularly irritating and pointless the responses to it from certain experienced board users presented the front of what appeared to be a 'clique' of frequent posters who were allowed to be as abusive to other users as they wanted whilst others are not allowed to write freely.

But going back to the point at hand - King should not be in this side. There is a reason he hardly played last season (cue predictable 'had King been playing we wouldn't have gone down' response - rubbish) and those who think that he would do better than Clemence (which some have suggested) are utterly delusional. Such is the nature of fans' interpretations of youngsters' performances that they are always given extra lenience. Had Clemence played like King in the first three games there'd be more than one thread suggesting he wasn't up to it.

So I challenge Daggers to produce an eloquent and appropriate response to the arguments I've laid out, as other, less experienced users of this forum have thus far.

[Nationwider]

Out of little A.Kings, mightly Oakleys grow.

[Lovejoy]

Best passer we've got by a country mile. Valuable imo.

[Daggers]

So I challenge Daggers to produce an eloquent and appropriate response to the arguments I've laid out, as other, less experienced users of this forum have thus far.

You appear to have confused the internet with a late 19th Century Gentlemans' club.

Sirrah! I refute your challenge to circumnavigate the globe by balloon and trust that you shall take your Handsome Cab home before I affront you thrice.

[Jonbluefox9]

I've been to both of the first two home games of the season and come out of each with one question - Does Andy King have something on Nigel Pearson?

I don't see anything to King's play which couldn't be offered by any bog standard professional footballer. He is not as strong as Weso in the tackle and not as energetic either. On the ball he looks composed but seems incapable of either passing the ball forwards or over 3 yards.

I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on this...

If you want to talk about players who seem incapable of passing the ball either forwards or over three yards then I'm afraid to say that Wesolowski should be the topic of conversation, not King. I like Wesolowski's enthusiasm and effort but I really can't remember him passing a ball forwards successfully ever. I've seen him receive the ball in acres of space and still choose to pass backwards or sideways before.

Andy King came on against Stockport in the cup and switched the play with a lovely cross field ball. That was a more creative pass than I've ever seen Wesolowski produce.

King gave away possession on Saturday just inside the Tranmere half but tracked back well and won the ball back just inside our half. Not sure whether he deserves the lack of energy tag.

King also adds a greater aerial threat and, in my opinion, a more dangerous shot than Wesolowski. Weso's effort's seem to more often than not rise and keep on rising over the bar.

I've nothing against Wesolowski, he's solid, but if you want to compare him with King, especially with regard to passing, then I'm afraid King has an edge over him.

[DB11]

this season i think king has been our weakest player. he offers youth and the faint glimmering hope that one day he might develop into a competent league 1 player, but not much else. i was right down by the corner flag at stockport, and all his corners were below schoolboy standard.

but he did score a cracking goal last season

:laugh:

[volpeazzurro]

Woah Woah Woah!

What is it about experienced users of this forum that makes them think that they can shout down others?

All I have suggested is that King is not worth his place. I never said that I haven't been impressed with the team performance - I think we've been doing fantastically. I just think that King is not the best choice for that central midfield role and that he has contributed little towards our early form.

Look at Manchester United - 2 years ago they won the league and then went and spent big money on Hargreaves, Nani, Anderson and Tevez. Just because we're playing well doesn't mean that everything is hunky dorey and can't be improved on. And I think that Andy King is the weak link in our side at the moment.

But of course this response will be downplayed by those who consider it to be 'cretinous' without even considering the arguments before them. We had an (obviously) young guy come on here the other day and ask about the Sappleton loan situation and whilst his questioning style was particularly irritating and pointless the responses to it from certain experienced board users presented the front of what appeared to be a 'clique' of frequent posters who were allowed to be as abusive to other users as they wanted whilst others are not allowed to write freely.

But going back to the point at hand - King should not be in this side. There is a reason he hardly played last season (cue predictable 'had King been playing we wouldn't have gone down' response - rubbish) and those who think that he would do better than Clemence (which some have suggested) are utterly delusional. Such is the nature of fans' interpretations of youngsters' performances that they are always given extra lenience. Had Clemence played like King in the first three games there'd be more than one thread suggesting he wasn't up to it.

So I challenge Daggers to produce an eloquent and appropriate response to the arguments I've laid out, as other, less experienced users of this forum have thus far.

Well said Sir re the verbal attack, you are entitled to your opinion whether a regular or infrequent user. 'Regular user' doesn't equal 'right all the time'. As it happens, I agree with you as well.

Cheers.

[Asha]

We had an (obviously) young guy come on here the other day and ask about the Sappleton loan situation and whilst his questioning style was particularly irritating and pointless the responses to it from certain experienced board users presented the front of what appeared to be a 'clique' of frequent posters who were allowed to be as abusive to other users as they wanted whilst others are not allowed to write freely.

What that 'bigsapps' guest?

Who called everyone a twat for no reason?

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am.

[Thracian]

I've been to both of the first two home games of the season and come out of each with one question - Does Andy King have something on Nigel Pearson?

I don't see anything to King's play which couldn't be offered by any bog standard professional footballer. He is not as strong as Weso in the tackle and not as energetic either. On the ball he looks composed but seems incapable of either passing the ball forwards or over 3 yards.

I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on this...

Pearson was rightly concerned with the number of goals and chances we were conceding to the opposition pre-season and drafted the moreaerially gifted King in to assist in that department.

Straight away, from failing to keep a single clean sheet, we managed three in a row and opposition chances dried up to a trickle.

By your comments I'd imagine I've seen a lot more of King because I doubt anyone closely connected with the club would

dream of suggesting that King is bog standard.

He is far more influential as an attacker than Weso. While Weso tends to be a sideways and backwards passer King is far more inclined to play the ball forward, and indeed, to drive himself forward as was amply demonstrated at Stockport.

He also has a far better shot and from all I've seen since I first watched the two of them I'd say King gets six shots in to every one of Weso's over any period of time. In fact, given licence, he probably has more shots than any central midfielder at the club and some of the strikers.

Even in this short season King has had three shots on target and is fifth in our shooting table compared with Weso who has had just one shot off target and is 12th.

Last season King hardly played at all (to Leicester's great cost) yet he finished with one Chamionship goal (a cracker) while Weso failed to score. Weso had just 10 shots for his entire season and I've seen King have more than that in a single game for the reserves and on several occasions.

To suggest King lacks energy is just insulting. When fit he's one of the hardest workers on the pitch.

For years we have needed a complimentary midfield pairing which operates naturally on a pully system an which has players equally capable of defending or attacking and King/Oakley seem to be as good as we've got.

Oakley has benefitted enomously from King's presence because, while not as dynamic going foward as he used to be, he's felt free to get forward more because he knows that King will cover. He can do the same for King and this helps explain why our goals difference so far reads 6-1 and is infinitely more impressive than any other start we've had for years.

Sorry pal, but your argument doesn't carry a crumb of justification. Jonbluefox summed up Weso perfectly. He's solid. But he doesn't and cannot offer all the things King offers.

[Guest ttfn]

Pearson was rightly concerned with the number of goals and chances we were conceding to the opposition pre-season and drafted the moreaerially gifted King in to assist in that department.

Straight away, from failing to keep a single clean sheet, we managed three in a row and opposition chances dried up to a trickle.

By your comments I'd imagine I've seen a lot more of King because I doubt anyone closely connected with the club would

dream of suggesting that King is bog standard.

He is far more influential as an attacker than Weso. While Weso tends to be a sideways and backwards passer King is far more inclined to play the ball forward, and indeed, to drive himself forward as was amply demonstrated at Stockport.

He also has a far better shot and from all I've seen since I first watched the two of them I'd say King gets six shots in to every one of Weso's over any period of time. In fact, given licence, he probably has more shots than any central midfielder at the club and some of the strikers.

Even in this short season King has had three shots on target and is fifth in our shooting table compared with Weso who has had just one shot off target and is 12th.

Last season King hardly played at all (to Leicester's great cost) yet he finished with one Chamionship goal (a cracker) while Weso failed to score. Weso had just 10 shots for his entire season and I've seen King have more than that in a single game for the reserves and on several occasions.

To suggest King lacks energy is just insulting. When fit he's one of the hardest workers on the pitch.

For years we have needed a complimentary midfield pairing which operates naturally on a pully system an which has players equally capable of defending or attacking and King/Oakley seem to be as good as we've got.

Oakley has benefitted enomously from King's presence because, while not as dynamic going foward as he used to be, he's felt free to get forward more because he knows that King will cover. He can do the same for King and this helps explain why our goals difference so far reads 6-1 and is infinitely more impressive than any other start we've had for years.

Sorry pal, but your argument doesn't carry a crumb of justification. Jonbluefox summed up Weso perfectly. He's solid. But he doesn't and cannot offer all the things King offers.

King's had about 5 times the amount of game time as Wesolowski so thats just not fair. As for the second bold point at no point did I say he was unenergetic, just that he was compared to Weso.

Wesolowski is all about defensive play whereas King is being asked to play that role. I'm not saying King's crap just that we have better options for that position.

[Joe.]

I'm quite happy to see King stay in the first team for now. At the moment Pearson would be foolish to change this team around that's bringing home the points and besides, it's not like he's playing poorly is it?

He's forming a good partnership with Oakley so far, and out of the two I would still say he's the more productive and creative naturally. I think King probably does more for the team than he maybe gets credit for.

[Ric Flair]

He's going along steadily, I am hoping he'll impose himself more as the season unfolds. He certainly has the ability to be more creative and attacking, I just hope he'll be allowed to show that.

I still think Oakley and King as a partnership isn't as good as some are making out. There's big room for improvement.

[Thracian]

King's had about 5 times the amount of game time as Wesolowski so thats just not fair. As for the second bold point at no point did I say he was unenergetic, just that he was compared to Weso.

Wesolowski is all about defensive play whereas King is being asked to play that role. I'm not saying King's crap just that we have better options for that position.

King has long been used as a defender or attacker as needs dictated. In fact he's been used as a centre-back in the reseves during emergencies. King is actually quite good in the air, forward or back, and that is a major factor in his elevation to the first team quite apart from his shooting ability and creative contributions.

Yes, King has had more match time than Weso but it's no argument. Were the two to play in the same team the gap would only widen. Given any sort of attacking freedom, King gets himself into far more shooting positions than Weso and has done at every level I've seen him play. He shoots for fun and from every position.

Weso is capable of attacking as our win at QPR a couple of seasons back showed. But he's evolved as a holding midfielder rather than a creative one. King offers more than that and it's exactly what we've been needing for years.

To me Weso is the obvious competitor for Oakley over time but, even then, I honestly believe Porter is a potentially more dangerous player in that role having seen both do the job.

Weso is quite an inspirational person - good captaincy material in many ways - but he really needs to be more adventurous if he's to be more than a bench alternative.

[Raj]

I've been to both of the first two home games of the season and come out of each with one question - Does Andy King have something on Nigel Pearson?

I don't see anything to King's play which couldn't be offered by any bog standard professional footballer. He is not as strong as Weso in the tackle and not as energetic either. On the ball he looks composed but seems incapable of either passing the ball forwards or over 3 yards.

I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on this...

He's a kid learning his trade right?

I HATE people who hammer our youngsters when they are just learning their trade.

I HATE IT!

Give the kid a chance.

We have hardly had any awe inspiring midfielders of late have we?

Even so called Premier League standard players have done fcuk all for us(Clem!!!)

"Leave the kids alone"....as someone would say to Gary Glitter!!!

[Daggers]

Well said Sir re the verbal attack, you are entitled to your opinion whether a regular or infrequent user. 'Regular user' doesn't equal 'right all the time'. As it happens, I agree with you as well.

Cheers.

What the piss has a post count got to do with the price of fish?

This is about being a negative idiot and trying to nit-pick faults in a team that has just had its best start for seasons. The sheer crass stupidity, the mindset of some of our fanbase beggars belief - a load of you aren't happy unless we are doing badly so you can scream "See? See? I was right - he is crap!"

Well tough tits, you got to have all of that fun over the last few seasons, your gravy train to misery has departed and I'm sick of your collective miserable attitude. This has nothing to do with whether you frequent the internet on an hourly, daily or weekly basis - it's to do with your collective desire to always pull the club to pieces.

It's moronic.

[James.]

What the piss has a post count got to do with the price of fish?

This is about being a negative idiot and trying to nit-pick faults in a team that has just had its best start for seasons. The sheer crass stupidity, the mindset of some of our fanbase beggars belief - a load of you aren't happy unless we are doing badly so you can scream "See? See? I was right - he is crap!"

Well tough tits, you got to have all of that fun over the last few seasons, your gravy train to misery has departed and I'm sick of your collective miserable attitude. This has nothing to do with whether you frequent the internet on an hourly, daily or weekly basis - it's to do with your collective desire to always pull the club to pieces.

It's moronic.

Bloody hell all the original poster said was that he didn't particularly rate King. Have you got your period or something?

[Corky]

What the piss has a post count got to do with the price of fish?

This is about being a negative idiot and trying to nit-pick faults in a team that has just had its best start for seasons. The sheer crass stupidity, the mindset of some of our fanbase beggars belief - a load of you aren't happy unless we are doing badly so you can scream "See? See? I was right - he is crap!"

Well tough tits, you got to have all of that fun over the last few seasons, your gravy train to misery has departed and I'm sick of your collective miserable attitude. This has nothing to do with whether you frequent the internet on an hourly, daily or weekly basis - it's to do with your collective desire to always pull the club to pieces.

It's moronic.

Spot on Daggers. I'm getting fed up already of people moaning. They were probably the same in the O'Neill era as well. It does the club no good at all.

[Raj]

Bloody hell all the original poster said was that he didn't particularly rate King. Have you got your period or something?

Leave it,Leave it!!

I love it when our Daggers goes off on one.

It makes my day(As long as you aint on the receiving end,although im sure most people have been,including me!!!)

To be fair the original poster shouldnt be questioning a young un like King should he?

Now Stevie Howard?

Thats another thread of its own!!!

[James.]

Leave it,Leave it!!

I love it when our Daggers goes off on one.

It makes my day(As long as you aint on the receiving end,although im sure most people have been,including me!!!)

To be fair the original poster shouldnt be questioning a young un like King should he?

Now Stevie Howard?

Thats another thread of its own!!!

I don't agree with the original poster and I'm also against the negativity that Daggers is alluding to. However I see nothing wrong with sensible debate about the benefits and drawbacks of any particular player, however old or young they are.

Daggers is blowing this out of proportion. As such this thread will probably descend into the very thing that he doesn't want.

[Daggers]

I don't agree with the original poster and I'm also against the negativity that Daggers is alluding to. However I see nothing wrong with sensible debate about the benefits and drawbacks of any particular player, however old or young they are.

Daggers is blowing this out of proportion. As such this thread will probably descend into the very thing that he doesn't want.

A cod-fight?

Shit. I never realised.

I am so humbly sorry to everyone offended by my posts - carry on y'all...moan away.

That King - can pass, can't shoot and doesn't defend well etc etc etc