Ozwin Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 He always seems to be in the DM position whenever I notice him, which is rarely. But then again people are saying Wellens is playing the deep role. It says it all really when the fans can't even tell who's playing where.
jonthefox Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 i voted yes too. ive always rated him and yes, he does go off the boil sometimes, but tell me one player that doesnt.
Legend_in_blue Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 He's good enough to play at this level but he's not influential enough to stand out and make an impression in it. In fact, none of our midfielders do. We're not exactly spectacular in the midfield department and haven't been for years. It's the weak link in the team and continues to infuriate me even more so in our current run of poor form. We need a leader in there, at the moment we don't have one.
Koke Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 When was the last time he had a decent game at Championship level? He was thrown into the deep end in our relegation season. I hope you weren't expecting a then 19 year old debutant to work miracles in an utterly worthless side.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 Yes.He's better than Wellens as well. I think since when King has appeared in the team with Wellens, he has played just as well if not better, with Wellens being poor since October.
Legend_in_blue Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 Wellens hasn't done anything of note since coming back from injury. Oakley is following suit.
PAULCFC Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 The midfield has been a problem for us for a few seasons i think.....i sit in the kop so don't really see that bit of the game properly.But this season i saw enough of Wellens and King /Oakley to think we might have got something sorted.(I remember jason jarred and stephen hughes!)But to make our midfield work properly we have to give them an outlet......basically we need more width.Which would be wingers.Adams is still stuck on the bench if he gets there and i've not seen him have a bad game yet and max is out on loan,but we really need some more width.it'll give the defenders a better outlet too instead of HOOF.This is not ment to be a moan because if anyone told me we'd be 7th coming into christmas i'd have taken that.
marbelladave Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 Well with 3 CMs and two proper wingers there shouldn't be any need to hoof it, they need to be made to play the ball through a 5 man midfield. Dream on!......
Daggers Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 I'm really bored of people thrashing around to find "the problem" with the club after just two fucking defeats. Just a minute ago Kingy was equal best player at the club. Some of you limp-brained people need to get a grip, a pizza or a porn movie & box of kleenex.
marbelladave Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 Sorry Davie. But the idea of us playing a passing game in a formation that suits the players we actually have, is, frankly, ludicrous. Our current awful form is largely a result of our players being asked to play unfamiliar roles in unfamiliar positions in an attempt to play the direct, long ball style football that has been the norm under Pearson. The long ball game does not work without a player up front to win it and hold it up, since the demise of Howard, sometime around the beginning of this year, we have not had such a player. Most of our long balls are picked off by the defense, so we are just giving the opposition a chance to attack us again and again. This puts our midfield and the defense under intense pressure and we are now finding out what happens when they crack. Good luck sorting this out Nigel, you're going to need it!
Bert Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 Good enough? Not totally convinced, but if he's good enough for Pearson than that's good enough for me. Good qualities, of course, but right now his bad qualities outweigh the good ones. He goes missing in nearly every single game, if others aren't playing well he won't have a good game himself and he does have the ability to take games by the scruff of the neck, but never seems to do so. He lacks the pace for the box to box midfielder that he is and looks completely tired after about 10 minutes. But, he has a habit of popping up at crucial times for us, and always seems to make space for himself and others and is generally a good passer of the ball. In time I think he'll be a fantastic midfielder and as his career goes on, his good qualities will outweigh the bad ones. People have to remember that he's still a young lad trying to make a name for himself. He's only had one full season of football under his belt. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Daggers Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 Good enough? Not too sure myself, but if he's good enough for Pearson then he's good enough for me. Good qualities, of course, but right now his bad qualities outweigh the good ones. He goes missing in nearly every single game, if others aren't playing well he won't have a good game himself and he does have the ability to take games by the scruff of the neck, but never seems to do so. He lacks the pace for the box to box midfielder that he is and looks completely tired after about 10 minutes. But, he has a habit of popping up at crucial times for us, and always seems to make space for himself and others and is generally a good passer of the ball. In time I think he'll be a fantastic midfielder and as his career goes on, his good qualities will outweigh the bad ones. People have to remember that he's still a young lad trying to make a name for himself. He's only had one full season of football under his belt. Rome wasn't built in a day. Championship's Frank Lampard
Bert Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 Championship's Frank Lampard I get what you mean there Hopefully in a few years, he'll be just as prolific and prolific for us.
marbelladave Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 Championship's Frank Lampard Being serious for a moment....... More like the championship Gareth Barry for me! However being the Championship Frank Lampard does get you more women....
Bert Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 Being serious for a moment.......More like the championship Gareth Barry for me! However being the Championship Frank Lampard does get you more women.... I think Daggers was referring to this specific point - He goes missing in nearly every single game, if others aren't playing well he won't have a good game himself and he does have the ability to take games by the scruff of the neck, but never seems to do so. He lacks the pace for the box to box midfielder that he is and looks completely tired after about 10 minutes. But, he has a habit of popping up at crucial times for us, and always seems to make space for himself and others and is generally a good passer of the ball. .
Daggers Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 I wish we had the Championship's Jimmy Bullard (with working legs).
Bert Posted 11 December 2009 Posted 11 December 2009 I wish we had the Championship's Jimmy Bullard (with working legs). Craig Mackail Smith?
THE MAGICIAN Posted 12 December 2009 Posted 12 December 2009 Decent player in League 1 but no where near good enough for the Championship, most games he has played this season I have come away from the game thinking what did he do, I mainly answered my self with bugger all again, Get rid. Put Oakley back in the middle with Wellens with two out and out wingers like we started off the season with. That will get us back on track SORTED
marbelladave Posted 12 December 2009 Posted 12 December 2009 I think Daggers was referring to this specific point - Sorry, must try and keep up!.... Still the Barry comparison is valid. Defensively he does an awful lot by just being in the right place at the right time. He denies the opposition space, cuts out passes and generally breaks up play without ever doing anything spectacular. Going forward, which he seems to be doing less and less, he is our best passer and best threat for a goal from midfield. Or at least he did until recently! For a month or two our entire midfield have had a slightly confused, distracted look, rather like someone trying to play football and read an Ikea instruction manual at the same time. All three of them look to be playing to instructions that they just don't quite understand, so they all seem to be in bad form at the same time. Somehow I do not think that is a coincidence.
Two_Pints_of_Lager Posted 12 December 2009 Posted 12 December 2009 A) He dos'nt tackle b) Easily barged off the ball c) Too negative always plays across nearly always back, hardly ever forward d)Offers nothing in midfield at all Basically a nothing player, Play Adams instead he use to play centre midfield he can't be any worse surely
Fox92 Posted 12 December 2009 Posted 12 December 2009 Yes he can be, but he seems to lack energy and rarely sticks his foot in. I'd agree with that. Thats why I'd like us to sign a real hard midfielder who will get stuck in and dominate midfield, someone like Paul Hartley or Paul McKenna. I do like Andy King, but he just doesn't get stuck in enough. If he got stronger, then he would perhaps be a complete midfielder for this level. He has showed me though, that he can track back and win the ball back. He was great at Derby, Coventry, QPR in my opinion. Will be interesting to see how he goes on today if Tommy Miller plays, although I think Miller may be struggling for todays game, with a knock or something. I don't think that playing Adams instead is an option. If you are going to critisize King then Adams is a squad player at best.
Daggers Posted 12 December 2009 Posted 12 December 2009 In case anyone has missed this thread - go back and laugh at each and every one of the dimwits who said 'no'.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.