Andy fooking King

[Haydos]

Sick to death of the scapegoating that seems to be on rotation within our team.

Andy King 'goes missing' is all I ever fooking here from everyone on here when he doesn't score.

He covered the defence well again tonight and there are no complaints about his distribution. What do people want from him?

Hurray for bandwagons

[funkyrobot]

Kingy's probably our best finisher but he does almost play like a deep sitting striker, he only comes alive when there's a sniff of a chance and you have to accept that he doesn't stand out as a midfielder as a tackler, runner, passer or dribbler. He's like a modern day David platt. Like platty he's a great finisher and times his runs into the box with perfection, like platty he doesn't do much else to any amazing standard and doesnt take a grip of a game but you can live with these deficits when he's banging in the goals.

[North-LondonFox]

I think King's a class act. Fantastic ability to break from MF and doesn't give the ball away. Please don't start getting on his back or we'll lose another player that goes on to do well somewhere else.

[Kitchandro]

Don't think he's being made a scapegoat, he's usually the last person everyone blames.

Think it's fair to say he had an average game last night.

You can't deny he does go missing a lot of the time, though I don't think that would be a fair comment about his performance last night. He just didn't play very well.

No scapegoats will be made by me though, it's a team game, and he wasn't even the worst player last night.

[Babylon]

Andy King 'goes missing' is all I ever fooking here

It's not a bandwagon, it's true.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Andy King has come on leaps and bounds since his debut against Wolves a few seasons ago, he isnt going to be the finished article though is he yet? That will come over the next few seasons as he gains more experience and maturity. Super player though in general (even if he does "go missing" in games ). King Power

[Haydos]

It's not a bandwagon, it's true.

It's like the Gallagher is technically good thing all over. People say it too often without considering what it means. Anonymous doesn't mean he was lightweight. Or wasn't very creative. It means he didn't put himself about defensively and didn't have many touches of the ball, neither of which happened last night.

Why not say he had a poor game? Like I said, I thought against City his passing was generally good (apart from the howler that lead the penalty) when he kept it simple and he defended well. I certainly didn't feel he was anonymous. It was just a game where he was restricted with chances again.

[ajthefox]

Kings role is such that unless he plays really well and gets into the box loads you don't notice that much, that's the problem I think.

Same with Abe in that his role isn't one that when played well it looks glamorous, in fact, the better he plays the less sparkling he will look in all likeliness.

He is still young and if he stays here for a while, I don't have any doubts he will be the Izzet of late "naughties" and whatever this decade shall be known as.

[marbelladave]

king does little in the middle third that is noticeable, when we are in possession he mostly just moves the ball on and keeps moving, his more ambitious passes can go horribly wrong, as we saw last night. In defence he closes people down and cuts off angles, useful but neither decisive nor really noticeable. He is however excellent in both penalty areas, that is his real strength.

Last season Pearson used him virtually as a defensive midfield player, his aerial ability and knack for a last ditch tackle was an integral part of our defence. Being deployed deep did not stop him putting in his late runs and getting a good few goals, very good return actually considering our generally cautious play.

This season he has been deployed well forward so we have pretty much lost his contribution defensively, furthermore the further forward he plays the easier it is for the defenders to pick him up and nullify the threat. Goals are proving harder and harder for him to find as his reputation grows and teams take more notice of him.

In my view he would be better reverting to last years style, positionally at least, he can still make his runs into the box but he would naturally arrive later and be much harder to track, this would be much to his benifit.

[Ric Flair]

king does little in the middle third that is noticeable, when we are in possession he mostly just moves the ball on and keeps moving, his more ambitious passes can go horribly wrong, as we saw last night. In defence he closes people down and cuts off angles, useful but neither decisive nor really noticeable. He is however excellent in both penalty areas, that is his real strength.

Last season Pearson used him virtually as a defensive midfield player, his aerial ability and knack for a last ditch tackle was an integral part of our defence. Being deployed deep did not stop him putting in his late runs and getting a good few goals, very good return actually considering our generally cautious play.

This season he has been deployed well forward so we have pretty much lost his contribution defensively, furthermore the further forward he plays the easier it is for the defenders to pick him up and nullify the threat. Goals are proving harder and harder for him to find as his reputation grows and teams take more notice of him.

In my view he would be better reverting to last years style, positionally at least, he can still make his runs into the box but he would naturally arrive later and be much harder to track, this would be much to his benifit.

Some good points, however a lot of King's recent goals have come from him being in the box like a poacher. Forest and Man City being examples. I much prefer his contributions this season than under Pearson as I believe his all round game is improving under Eriksson and in an attacking role. He was fairly poor in both games against Man City, but he's been equally exceptional at times against Derby, Forest and others.

The fact is, he can play and role in central midfield and that's why he's one of few real top quality players we have.

[chesterfox]

All fans of a certain age will remember Andy Peake and we used to sing it's not God it's only Andy Peake and i think we should sing this for Kingy

he is awesome

It's not God it's only Andy King!!!!!

probably not PC these days though!!! u'd have to sing no offensive intended to anyone who doesnt believe in God haha

[marbelladave]

Some good points, however a lot of King's recent goals have come from him being in the box like a poacher. Forest and Man City being examples. I much prefer his contributions this season than under Pearson as I believe his all round game is improving under Eriksson and in an attacking role. He was fairly poor in both games against Man City, but he's been equally exceptional at times against Derby, Forest and others.

The fact is, he can play and role in central midfield and that's why he's one of few real top quality players we have.

Personally I do not see his game improving under Sven, certainly not compared to the improvements we have seen from Wellens and Gallagher, however the whole team is getting better so in that sense it is fair comment.

He now spends more time in the box than he ever did last season, so naturally more chances fall his way, the point I was making is that not being a natural striker he does not really have the knack of losing his marker for the second or two needed to score so some good chances go begging. Playing well forward does mean that he will easier to mark and I think that is already having an effect on his scoring rate.

I still feel he needs to play much deeper, we are now far more attacking than we were under Pearson, so the opportunities to score will come more often than last season. Pushed on as an auxiliary striker, balls into the box often find him tightly marked and stationary, hence his recent 'misses'.

[Corky]

He's not a flashy player, doesn't dive into tackles and make spell-binding passes, he generally keeps it simple and tries to block the opponent (in a fair way).

Naturally, when a player isn't that type, they tend not to be noticed as much as others. You can tell when Wellens, for example, is not doing what he's known for.

Yes, he can tend to go missing, but his trademark is arriving late, unnoticed, and notching a goal. We don't have another player like it.

[Haydos]

Naturally, when a player isn't that type, they tend not to be noticed as much as others. You can tell when Wellens, for example, is not doing what he's known for.

This is my original point. He keeps things simple. A lot of people won't be able to appreciate the subliminal work he does defensively and his basic but effective passing.

He may be weak in the tackle, but say that, don't continue with this 'anonymous' garbage.

I'm quite happy with him sticking to this as his complex passing is not a strong point and the way he goes about his game he is often a threat in the final third, not with penetrating passes (We have Wellens for that) but with his ability to pick up the ball in the box.

[m00nie]

Sick to death of the scapegoating that seems to be on rotation within our team.

Andy King 'goes missing' is all I ever fooking here from everyone on here when he doesn't score.

He covered the defence well again tonight and there are no complaints about his distribution. What do people want from him?

Hurray for bandwagons

hes a professional footballer getting paid thousands of pounds in the spotlight week in week out..

things will always be discussed and people will always disagree with each other.

how boring would it be if no one talked about the games,or how good would a player have to be to be constantly perfect in everything they do.

[Haydos]

hes a professional footballer getting paid thousands of pounds in the spotlight week in week out..

things will always be discussed and people will always disagree with each other.

how boring would it be if no one talked about the games,or how good would a player have to be to be constantly perfect in everything they do.

That's not my point, I've said I can accept bad performances and i feel the same about people thinking that players are performing badly.

Maybe I could have been clearer. Anyhoo, I find it horribly irritating when people post in the post-match threads/player ratings 'Andy King - 6 - Anonymous'.

Occasionally this has been the case. I've not seen all the games this season but of the one's I have, I don't think i'd describe him as anonymous. IMO it just reeks of moron when people post that and are too lazy/thick/can'tthinkforthemselves to say 'his passing was shit' or 'he wasn't physical enough in midfield' or 'he didn't get forward enough'.

[lcfc_jme]

This is my original point. He keeps things simple. A lot of people won't be able to appreciate the subliminal work he does defensively and his basic but effective passing.

He may be weak in the tackle, but say that, don't continue with this 'anonymous' garbage.

I'm quite happy with him sticking to this as his complex passing is not a strong point and the way he goes about his game he is often a threat in the final third, not with penetrating passes (We have Wellens for that) but with his ability to pick up the ball in the box.

No. I fully appreciate a lot of the simple stuff seeing as when I play myself (other than when I'm being a cvnt) it's a lot of what I end up doing. It's good that he does the simple things, 'cos, well, somebody has to and it's vital to the overall performance.

However, if I also feel that his "subliminal work" is below par and less effective than usual (as it was in both games against Man City despite his goal at home), I certainly will not hesitate to say the guy was anonymous throughout. That's not to say I think he's automatically shit and should be dropped because that's ludicrous, it's just calling it as I see it.

[Haydos]

However, if I also feel that his "subliminal work" is below par and less effective than usual (as it was in both games against Man City despite his goal at home), I certainly will not hesitate to say the guy was anonymous throughout. That's not to say I think he's automatically shit and should be dropped because that's ludicrous, it's just calling it as I see it.

Fair play, at least you've justified why he appeared anonymous. There are enough people that seem to form an opinion on that phrase though.

Considering his age and experience I though he performed alright, especially for a player who's played as many minutes as he has and up against the likes of Toure, Vieira, Milner and Barry.

(Also think a couple of games rest for him at some stage soon wouldn't do him any harm)

[Houdini Logic]

Never understand it when we play poor and people slag off players like Gallagher for being shit - I'd rather the player was showing and giving it all he has - even he messes up, loses the ball, etc - than hide in the shadows like King.

I do think King is a great player and doesn't hide half as much as he used to, but the above still stands.

[Ric Flair]

Personally I do not see his game improving under Sven, certainly not compared to the improvements we have seen from Wellens and Gallagher, however the whole team is getting better so in that sense it is fair comment.

He now spends more time in the box than he ever did last season, so naturally more chances fall his way, the point I was making is that not being a natural striker he does not really have the knack of losing his marker for the second or two needed to score so some good chances go begging. Playing well forward does mean that he will easier to mark and I think that is already having an effect on his scoring rate.

I still feel he needs to play much deeper, we are now far more attacking than we were under Pearson, so the opportunities to score will come more often than last season. Pushed on as an auxiliary striker, balls into the box often find him tightly marked and stationary, hence his recent 'misses'.

He would never, ever run with the ball under Pearson and from what I recall in the brief time under Sousa, but since Sven has come in King now on a fairly regular occasion will collect the ball and run at defenders. This is something he's added to his game and I think has made him more of a complete player.

[Guest BlueBrett]

Andy King is quality and we are lucky to have him.

[Haydos]

Never understand it when we play poor and people slag off players like Gallagher for being shit - I'd rather the player was showing and giving it all he has - even he messes up, loses the ball, etc - than hide in the shadows like King.

So he's not physical enough for you? Or he's shit defensively? Or he doesn't like being on the ball?

This is what I mean, what the fvck does a stupid, ambiguous phrase like 'hiding in the shadows' mean?

[Houdini Logic]

Andy King is quality and we are lucky to have him.

I pray that Sven can provide constructive criticism better than you can

[Houdini Logic]

So he's not physical enough for you? Or he's shit defensively? Or he doesn't like being on the ball?

This is what I mean, what the fvck does a stupid, ambiguous phrase like 'hiding in the shadows' mean?

Not get involved in the game, seems to drift out of the game, is always in a position where the ball isnt....

Have you ever watched a football match you tool?

[Haydos]

Not get involved in the game, seems to drift out of the game, is always in a position where the ball isnt....

Have you ever watched a football match you tool?

<_< Have you ever discussed something without insulting the other person.

What you're saying suggests he shouldn't be in the team? Always in a position the ball isn't? Fair enough there's time's where he isn't as involved both in defence and attack but it's not always or even close to that. His form has dropped recently and he has been less influential but it sounds like you don't rate him at all.

I can't agree with that last point. We have Abe to 'be where the ball is', King's strength in the past has been his positioning but like a few others have said, he is often pushed too high up the pitch to be effective. Unless you were talking about when we're in possession