Northampton Player Ratings.

[Father Ted]

where abouts were you

In SK1 to the right of you a few rows up. Saw you standing up and then noticed that you had Heskey on the back of your shirt and remembered back to here

[Father Ted]

One day we'll agree on something. I won't lose heart

Worst player?

a) Only one to put a shot in the net that would have been a goal but for Howard's offside..

b) Pass of the game to Fryatt who should have scored.

c) Timely touch to prevent a close range shot that might well have been a goal.

d) Plenty of supplementary work in other places.

If the bloke wore a Fryatt mask there's some would have given him 7.

Those in bold are unnecessary. He did 'score' and nearly set Fryatt up but he lost too much possesion, and it was as if he had been clubbing all night! Not as physical as he usually is. But as every game goes on he gains more experience and he will be a key part of our side as the season goes on.

[Thracian]

Those in bold are unnecessary. He did 'score' and nearly set Fryatt up but he lost too much possesion, and it was as if he had been clubbing all night! Not as physical as he usually is. But as every game goes on he gains more experience and he will be a key part of our side as the season goes on.

Kisnorbo slides across the penalty area to make a last gasp block and he's a hero but Kingy just gets a quiet toe in to have exactly the same effect and it's conveniently ignored. I bet he'd have got the blame loudly enough had the bloke scored and replays showed that King had failed to mnake an effective challenge.

[Finnegan]

Kisnorbo slides across the penalty area to make a last gasp block and he's a hero but Kingy just gets a quiet toe in to have exactly the same effect and it's conveniently ignored. I bet he'd have got the blame loudly enough had the bloke scored and replays showed that King had failed to mnake an effective challenge.

If you try and pretend King's some sort of fanbase hate figure does it make you feel better about his low ratings? Nevermind the fact that the only reason anyone on here might be biased against him is your own ridiculous over-hyping in the first place.

I wasn't there against Norfampton, I can't comment on his performance, but in my experience on this forum it's very rare that a player gets blanket low ratings undeservedly. Pipe down.

[Thracian]

If you try and pretend King's some sort of fanbase hate figure does it make you feel better about his low ratings? Nevermind the fact that the only reason anyone on here might be biased against him is your own ridiculous over-hyping in the first place.

I wasn't there against Norfampton, I can't comment on his performance, but in my experience on this forum it's very rare that a player gets blanket low ratings undeservedly. Pipe down.

The facts speak for themselves. Alongside what I've said and after yesterday's game, King is second in number of appearances made this season, third in the shooting stats and fourth top goalscorer. So hype doesn't come into it. I just like to see some justice done for the hard work he put in yesterday despite what was his third full game in eight days.

On an individual basis I don't give a shit who plays where for Leicester. If we had a better central midield player than King (or Oakley) I'd want us to use him but we don't.

But it has always been the case that some are more favoured than others on here and that younger players always have it harder than imported internationals whether the latter play well or not. Kaebi and Nielsen, people who should never have got near our first team, offered plain enough examples of that.

I've stated my reasons for defending King's performance. Most of them have not been contested. And as you weren't there you're not likely to change my views either.

[James.]

Martin 6 - really didn't think he was as bad as a lot of people have made out. Maybe I missed something(s).

Hobbs 4 - watched him quite closely. Drifted out of position and lost his man far too many times. Surprise, surprise. He's not a right back.

Kisnorbo 6 - solidish. Pass back to Martin was slightly preferable to his usual hopeful punting.

Tunchev 7 - cold as ice.

Mattock 5 - started brightly and got forward plenty but lost his way like everyone else.

Gradel 5 - always willing to run which will cause defenders to make mistakes but far too often his dribbling fizzled out or was rounded off with a poor pass.

Oakley 4 - just dreadful. Really bloody awful. A captain with no desire is worrying.

King 5 - slightly less worse than Oakley. Great shot in the first half. Picked the spot between goal post and corner flag perfectly.

Dyer 6 - slightly more effective than Gradel and again, in my eyes, looked by far our most potent attacking threat.

Fryatt 4 - rubbish. Just didn't turn up.

Howard 6 - won a lot in the air but really needed some pace alongside him.

Berner 6 - couple of good things, couple of bad things.

Hayles 5 - blocked one of our shots. He's f**king massive.

[Cobbo]

One day we'll agree on something. I won't lose heart

Worst player?

a) Only one to put a shot in the net that would have been a goal but for Howard's offside..

b) Pass of the game to Fryatt who should have scored.

c) Timely touch to prevent a close range shot that might well have been a goal.

d) Plenty of supplementary work in other places.

If the bloke wore a Fryatt mask there's some would have given him 7.

So you have picked out 3 good points and generally said he had his general game for the rest of the 90 minutes.

He did plenty of bad passes Thracian, caught in possession several times and was missing for the most part. Doing 3 things of 'note' in one game does not mean you cannot have had a bad game.

I am not a King hater, however, he is not immune to a bad game.

[Sooper Steve's shin]

I don't have a problem with King as such, I just don't rate him from what I've seen this season. As for the four points put forward in support of his performance yesterday:

a) Only one to put a shot in the net that would have been a goal but for Howard's offside..

You can have that although (a) to describe it as a "shot" is pushing things, I would say it was bundled in and (b) I thought Howard played it through and Fryatt was ruled offside? Poor decision as King ran through from a clearly onside position.

b) Pass of the game to Fryatt who should have scored.

There wasn't much competition for "pass of the game" and if he can do this regularly then why does he not show it more than once a game? Anyone on the pitch could have played a lucky ball through that comes off, but a central midfielder should be doing that regularly. In any case, this "stat" conveniently disregards the multiple misplaced passes.

c) Timely touch to prevent a close range shot that might well have been a goal.

OK, but again he should be doing this more often - it shouldn't be a highlight. Time and again both King and Oakley backed away (or were nowhere near) as the opposing midfielders surged through. This was also a feature of the Walsall game. Neither of our current central midfield pair seem particularly prepared to put in a hard challenge in the Wesolowski vein.

d) Plenty of supplementary work in other places.

Please, this is getting silly. If supplementary work is (a) tapping the ball back to a defender after receiving it from them or (b) jogging away from the defenders and failing to offer himself up, then fine. I have watched King fairly closely in the last two games to try and see what he does that has made him a regular. I have concluded that he must be good in training. Or everyone else that could play there is injured/on loan.

[Thracian]

So you have picked out 3 good points and generally said he had his general game for the rest of the 90 minutes.

He did plenty of bad passes Thracian, caught in possession several times and was missing for the most part. Doing 3 things of 'note' in one game does not mean you cannot have had a bad game.

I am not a King hater, however, he is not immune to a bad game.

I didn't say you were a King hater. I've actually got lots of time for your opinion. We just disagree about things including this.

Your point about his mistakes is accepted and acknowledged. Mistakes were 10 a penny yesterday from everyone in our team.

I really shouldn't advance my defence of King but next time you think he's disappeared I'd like you to consider if that's the case or whether he's simply playing a disciplined role in the zonal marking system we employ.

Cos, for me, King and Oakley hardly ever get pulled out of position. When one goes forward, the other stays back. In some ways King would be better thought of if he clattered into tackles like Tiatto. He'd get noticed. But he doesn't and we do a lot better for that.

Mattock got noticed when he clattered their winger following that suicidal throw-out by Martin. But Mattock was booked, lasted part-time as a result, did nothing of consequence before his cop-out yet got a better mark than King and so did Martin who caused the problem and had a pretty forgettable game in other ways.

King though just maintained his discipline, covered the space, did his bit with Oakley to continually limit Northampton's attacking edge, completed his third full shift in eight days and got slated for his efforts.

[Thracian]

I don't have a problem with King as such, I just don't rate him from what I've seen this season. As for the four points put forward in support of his performance yesterday:

You can have that although (a) to describe it as a "shot" is pushing things, I would say it was bundled in and (b) I thought Howard played it through and Fryatt was ruled offside? Poor decision as King ran through from a clearly onside position.

There wasn't much competition for "pass of the game" and if he can do this regularly then why does he not show it more than once a game? Anyone on the pitch could have played a lucky ball through that comes off, but a central midfielder should be doing that regularly. In any case, this "stat" conveniently disregards the multiple misplaced passes.

OK, but again he should be doing this more often - it shouldn't be a highlight. Time and again both King and Oakley backed away (or were nowhere near) as the opposing midfielders surged through. This was also a feature of the Walsall game. Neither of our current central midfield pair seem particularly prepared to put in a hard challenge in the Wesolowski vein.

Please, this is getting silly. If supplementary work is (a) tapping the ball back to a defender after receiving it from them or (b) jogging away from the defenders and failing to offer himself up, then fine. I have watched King fairly closely in the last two games to try and see what he does that has made him a regular. I have concluded that he must be good in training. Or everyone else that could play there is injured/on loan.

When did Northampton "surge" through. Most of their threat came from set pieces where we were damned lucky to keep them out cos of our inadequate marking on the near post.

There was also a little spell in the middle of the first half when they put together a short flurry or moves but otherwise I didn't see them "surging" anywhere.

In fact their lack of threat made it even more disappointing that we didn't beat them.

As for the Weso approach, it didn't work and it hasn't worked for Weso either, has it? Pearson tried something else and it did work. We have lost one League game all season.

I'm happy that you think King's goal should have counted and honstly don't know if your explanation is right or wrong but had it been given four goals for a mostly defensively employed midfielder would be outstanding at this stage of the season.

King's pass to Fryatt wasn't lucky at all. He saw the run. The luck came in the way Fryatt controlled it. Neither of our midfielders are destructive tacklers and good job since we have no alternatives. But why would they need to be. Physical football gets people booked these days, the midfielders cover space and restrict opposition alternatives.

Our defence has rarely been exposed by outfield play this season and one look at our goals against column says more than a million words. It's no coincidence and it is certainly not just down to the supposed brilliance of our defenders.

[Corky]

Martin- 4: Sodding crap. Awful kicks, nervous, doesn't command his area. Henderson should be our number 1. That throw to Mattock was a joke, and nearly cost us a player.

Hobbs- 5: Not a right-back, hasn't got the pace to get forward.

Tunchev- 7: Good display, very confident.

Kisnorbo- 6: Did an adeqaute job.

Mattock- 5: Not his best display, still regaining fitness.

Gradel- 5: He tries, but it didn't come off for him yesterday.

Oakley- 5: Anonymous for most.

King- 5: Same as Oakley.

Dyer- 6: Got some decent crosses in, should have buried his chance.

Howard- 6: Won the ball well, no-one on the end of his knock-downs though.

Fryatt- 3.5: Appalling. A terrible miss, more like a backpass. Oh, and pass it more.

Berner- 6: Looked good when he came on.

Hayles- N/A

[Uncle Albert]

Martin - 6

Hobbs - 7 I thought he supported the play pretty well.

Tunchev - 8 He knows its a casual culture.

Kisnorbo - 7 Solid.

Mattock - 6 Lost it in the second half

Gradel - 6 Alright

Oakley - 6

King - 7

Dyer - 7 Up and down.

Howard - 7 Won the lot.

Fryatt - 5 Did nothing.

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

Has anyone read the ratings in today's Mercury?

Granted I wasn't at the game, but from what I've read on here they seem severely wrong.

And apparently, that should've been "Howard's last game in a City shirt" and this fan "didn't boo the players but did shout at Steve Howard."

What an idiot.

[Corky]

Has anyone read the ratings in today's Mercury?

Granted I wasn't at the game, but from what I've read on here they seem severely wrong.

And apparently, that should've been "Howard's last game in a City shirt" and this fan "didn't boo the players but did shout at Steve Howard."

What an idiot.

We really do have a lot of ignorant morons following this club. They were the same with Stephen Hughes.