Leicester-Fox Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 King & Oakley have been average at best most this season, we got away with it when Lloyd and Max were on form, however even they have gone off the boil recently and it has exposed how poor our centre mids are. Oakley and King should be good enough for League 1 however I'm not convinced either of them are creative or battle enough for us to push for promotion. I would consider Levi, kishishev and Clem when fit, however there aren't much better than the players who are currently starting. With two new quality centre mids and and new striker to replace Howard (who at this level should be scoring 25+ goals he'll be lucky if he gets 10!) we would finish in the top two.
RowlattsFox Posted 5 November 2008 Posted 5 November 2008 Frustrating is a word I'd use to describe King, the boy has some talent and a decent technical ability and he's always good for the odd goal. However when he is rushed he is poor, I don't think I've ever seen him go past a player with a bit of skill, he bottles challenges, never dictates a game (ok, i'm probably asking too much of him now).
Thracian Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 There's no need for me to restate Andy King's qualities and contributions to our club. In terms of his potential his main problems are that he's rather one-paced and that pace ain't quick. Otherwise he has a string of attributes but one of them isn 't being superhuman. I have rarely known a still-novice footballer play so many matches and so many 90 minutes during a congested part of the season. The lad's already helped us to the top of the League in recent weeks but he's drained. And it won't help his energy levels to see defenders hoofing the ball over his head to Howard so he has to lumber two thirds the length of the field to support time and again. Adams would be the same had the workload fallen on him. Or Kishishev, or Porter. The skill of modern management is to use all your genuine first teamers in such a way as to keep them all fresh.
carterfox90 Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 Frustrating is a word I'd use to describe King, the boy has some talent and a decent technical ability and he's always good for the odd goal. However when he is rushed he is poor, I don't think I've ever seen him go past a player with a bit of skill, he bottles challenges, never dictates a game (ok, i'm probably asking too much of him now). spot on
Ric Flair Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 I'm still undecided on whether King is a quality footballer or not. He's going along steadily and for that reason, I don't think he deserves to be dropped. He's scored 3 goals, played a part in a few other goals and does give provide us with the most danger from centre midfield in attack. But there are also parts to his game where I can't work out whether he's poor at or there's something else behind it. I think he'll get better and better, but i'm unsure on how far he'll go in the game with us.
The People's Hero Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 He needs to grow a pair and learn to tackle.
Rocky Dennis Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 i just cant wait till Clemence comes back...IF he comes back. <_< Clemence was apalling last season when fully fit, I dont think he'll come back as strong as he was (which is a frightening thought!!)
Sir Fynwy Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 The fact that King has played so many games this season highlights to lack of any backup in the squad, if we had a few options he'd have been used more sparingly and probably be looking a good option at the moment, he isn't ready to play 90 minutes in every game. The priority should be to get get cover in but it seems we are more likely to sign a retired right back instead of a midfield player.
The People's Hero Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 He needs to grow a pair and learn to tackle. Spot on. You're my hero!
carterfox90 Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 Clemence was apalling last season when fully fit, I dont think he'll come back as strong as he was (which is a frightening thought!!) so very true
Anish Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 The number of games we've been overrun and outmuscled in midfield is very worrying - and that's down in no small part to King and Oakley and their lack of aggression and tackling. We need one of the two to get stuck in and win the ball back, and then keep possession. However, neither player is doing any of these things.
Corky Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 King needs to tackle more and have a few more shots. He IS good enough, but he's too similar to Oakley for my liking.
Thracian Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 King needs to tackle more and have a few more shots. He IS good enough, but he's too similar to Oakley for my liking. The midfield players are similar but, for whatever strange reason, Pearson won't play Porter, a genuinely creative passer, in midfield, Kishishev became the forgotten man about two weeks into the season as usual and, extraordinarily, we don't have other options because it was always written that Oakley, like Howard and Kisnorbo (as mentioned by Fez), have their team place etched in stone. The more I consider our situation, with opponents crowding midfield and denying us time and space, the more I'd be inclined to go for a mobile 4-5-1 and hit people with some fast passing and lots of support for our speedy wingers. Howard hasn't done badly. He's just been himself. But if he comes deep to lay the ball off he can't hit the six yard box seconds later. I'd much rather see us using pace and movement going forward. All these long balls to Howard are so predictable and easily defended. Howard as an option with 30 minutes to go? Fine. But by then, if we're struggling, we might well be justified in going 3-4-3, or 3-5-2 so Howard could focus simply on being in and around the box where he's most wanted.
marbelladave Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 Thrac 4-5-1 would be fine by me. Let Oakley and King sit whilst 3 of our quicker players get forward and support the striker. Virtually a 4-2-4 when we attack! If we can get our back 4 to hold a slightly higher line as they did earlier in the season and our attacking mids to press in forward positions this will ease the defensive load on Oakley and King making us more solid when the opposition have the ball. None of this is exactly complex but it does require some coaching effort from Pearson and his team, something that has not been apparent yet this season! I would not go to 3 at the back unless we are unable to re-create the solid back 4 we had earlier in the season.
Lovejoy Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 Why doesn't Clemence ever pass forwards? It's always sideways or backwards, like rugby ?
Ric Flair Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 Why doesn't Clemence ever pass forwards? It's always sideways or backwards, like rugby ? I take it you mean King?
Koke Posted 6 November 2008 Author Posted 6 November 2008 He needs to grow a pair and learn to tackle. Have you seen how skinny he is? He probably weighs about 45kg, whereas Big Steve weighs 90kg or so. He needs to get some fat on those bones.
The People's Hero Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 Yeah but also, like I said, he needs to grow a pair of boll ocks and stop swanning around like he's made it and he's playing in the Italian leagues as an untouchable playmaker extraordinaire.
Guest Chocolate Teapot Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 Yeah but also, like I said, he needs to grow a pair of boll ocks and stop swanning around like he's made it and he's playing in the Italian leagues as an untouchable playmaker extraordinaire. His major problem is he's thinks he's the next glen hoddle.
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 My one worry with the likes of King, and Gradel, is that all they've virtually ever known is winning football maches in a decent side. They acheived so much with the Academy that they are not used to the fans getting restless and aggrovated, and when they do get on their backs, it really tears their confidence to shreds, and they get stuck in a rut. From looking at King, it seems like he needs to become a tad stronger, a touch more psyhical in the centre, he really needs to stamp his authority on a game, like he can. He has a fantastic range of passing and can score some magnificent goals, but I doubt any poster on here, or indeed, any City fan, would list King's tackling abilities as one of his major qualities. He also needs to build some kind of partnership with Oakley. Although I don't get to Saturday home games, it seems like the verdict by many on here after many matches is that the two of them are sometimes too anonymous in midfield. They need to build up an understanding and contribute more to the attacking play, instead of reyling on wingers throughout the course of the season. In all King clearly has talent, but there are chinks in the armour that need smoothing out. Just basics, really, like working on enforcing himself in games to make himself stand out.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 6 November 2008 Posted 6 November 2008 There's no need for me to restate Andy King's qualities and contributions to our club. First we have the first-ever black President and now this. Truly these are revolutionary times. As for King, I reckon he's been better than Oakley by quite a distance this season but his lack of pace is criminal. Needs a more competent version of Wesolowski alongside him.
lildave3 Posted 7 November 2008 Posted 7 November 2008 Andrew King is due a goal. I'd say that Gradel is double due.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.