Simmo86 Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 King has not played well since Sousa took over IMO - I make this two seasons. The year he scored 15 league goals?
Happy Fox Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 King has not played well since Sousa took over IMO - I make this two seasons. What are you smoking bro in the 2010/2011 season he scored 15 goals and 7 assists The 2009/2010 season.He scored 13 goals and 1 assist Only last season where he mustered 4 goals and 3 assists.
MGLCFC Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I accept he scored lots of goals, but we were over run in midfield in many games - partly due to the fact that King went missing. If we want to improve on our League position over the last 2 seasons, the midfield has to be far more effective defensively and creatively. Far too often in tight games Andy King goes missing.
Mark_w Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 You could have gotten away with it if you said you meant last season. But you're insane if you think the year he was our top scorer and was in the Championship team of the year he played poorly.
tomtom Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I accept he scored lots of goals, but we were over run in midfield in many games - partly due to the fact that King went missing. If we want to improve on our League position over the last 2 seasons, the midfield has to be far more effective defensively and creatively. Far too often in tight games Andy King goes missing. oh dear , come on mate stop digging a bigger hole for yourself, yes Kings got his weaknesses but he's only had one poor season!! I accept he scored lots of goals, but we were over run in midfield in many games - partly due to the fact that King went missing. If we want to improve on our League position over the last 2 seasons, the midfield has to be far more effective defensively and creatively. Far too often in tight games Andy King goes missing. oh dear , come on mate stop digging a bigger hole for yourself, yes Kings got his weaknesses but he's only had one poor season!!
MGLCFC Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Firstly I'm not insane. Secondly, I'm not disputing he contributed with lots of goals. What I am saying the signs were there that in tight games our midfield was overrun and King went missing. The signs were there that teams were beginning to work him out. It's not the games you win, but those that you loose you need to look at. This is where our seasons have gone wrong - our midfield being muscled off the ball. For me, and it is only my opinion., and I know that others quite clearly disagree, King's regression started 2 season's ago when teams began to understand how to play him. That's not to say he didn't contribute, he quite obviously did, but I feel that was the beginning of his demise. I may well be wrong.
Mark_w Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I think there is room for King in the side, and that we can take advantage of the obvious skills he has if we have the right players surrounding him. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a 4-4-1-1 with King being allowed to operate behind the striker, but not being so involved in the defensive aspect. That said I do think there is room for him in a 4-4-2 and I think you're being very, very harsh.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 It don't matter what I think mate, it's what Pearson does. 442 I would imagine, both at home and away. Exactly, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
MGLCFC Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 OK - time to move on. I have my opinions on King, most disagree - I accept that my opinions may well be incorrect, therefore.
indierich06 Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Firstly I'm not insane. Secondly, I'm not disputing he contributed with lots of goals. What I am saying the signs were there that in tight games our midfield was overrun and King went missing. The signs were there that teams were beginning to work him out. It's not the games you win, but those that you loose you need to look at. This is where our seasons have gone wrong - our midfield being muscled off the ball. For me, and it is only my opinion., and I know that others quite clearly disagree, King's regression started 2 season's ago when teams began to understand how to play him. That's not to say he didn't contribute, he quite obviously did, but I feel that was the beginning of his demise. I may well be wrong. You're wrong IMO. The season before last was his best as a player. In fact, since he made his debut he's gotten better and better and the stats show that. He had a bad time last season - but the same can be said for the vast majority of our players, bar a couple. Injuries haven't helped him either. I just can't understand why people want to sell him, he's been one of the bright spots for me over the past few seasons - the academy lad who broke into the first team and came good. I personally hope he stays here for the best years of his career because we've got a real player on our hands. He's still rough around the edges but I'm confident he'll continue to improve. His weaknesses are well documented, like Col says, he has a tendancy to get knocked off the ball quite easily and we've got to be realistic - if he was the complete midfielder, he'd be attracting interest from a lot of clubs. If we had a ball winning midfielder who could mix it up when things get a bit physical then that would take the pressure off and allow him to play his natural game, making those runs, ghosting into the box, scoring goals.
Finnegan Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 This debate is dull. Koren is a creative playmaker, King is not. He is a tidy goal scorer if the team play to his strengths but he plays a very basic passing game that won't ever cut defenses apart, even Thracian knows that. We have many central midfielders but it's a very mixed position, Koren is something we do not currently have. The closest really is maybe Drinkwater but even he's more of a box to box dynamo.
deep blue Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 What concerns me about King, is that he should be approaching his peak years, but to me he has regressed over the last two seasons. Whether this is down to the role he is being asked to play, other teams being able to counter his game, the quality of our own midfield or just a huge dip in form and confidence, aligned with a serious injury, remains open to debate. I honestly thought after our return to the Championship and King's pivotal role in our play off season that we had truly found a Premiership standard midfielder. Things have gone awfully wrong. What happened 2 season's ago is that we edged out Pearson and everything's gone belly-up since then. How many of the players at that time have played consistently well since? Almost to a man they were destabilised and went backwards.
Brown Fox Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Firstly I'm not insane. Secondly, I'm not disputing he contributed with lots of goals. What I am saying the signs were there that in tight games our midfield was overrun and King went missing. The signs were there that teams were beginning to work him out. It's not the games you win, but those that you loose you need to look at. This is where our seasons have gone wrong - our midfield being muscled off the ball. For me, and it is only my opinion., and I know that others quite clearly disagree, King's regression started 2 season's ago when teams began to understand how to play him. That's not to say he didn't contribute, he quite obviously did, but I feel that was the beginning of his demise. I may well be wrong. I dont understand. Teams didn't find out how to play him because he scored 15 goals and got 7 assists. They obviously couldn't properly handle him. It was a great season for him
MGLCFC Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I dont understand. Teams didn't find out how to play him because he scored 15 goals and got 7 assists. They obviously couldn't properly handle him. It was a great season for him I wanted to move on, however, you've not read the thread properly - I'm saying it's the game we lost that is the problem, when King goes missing. You could look at Gallagher and point to the fact that he generally scores around 10 goals per season which is decent for a midfielder, but his overall impact on the team is not good enough, particularly in tight games. This is exactly true of King.
indierich06 Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I wanted to move on, however, you've not read the thread properly - I'm saying it's the game we lost that is the problem, when King goes missing. You could look at Gallagher and point to the fact that he generally scores around 10 goals per season which is decent for a midfielder, but his overall impact on the team is not good enough, particularly in tight games. This is exactly true of King. So you'd happily sell two midfielders who between the two of them are probably capable of 20 goals a season and replace them with who? Neil Danns the 5 goal wonder? People say Gallagher and King go missing too often and don't impact games - I'd love to see our adjusted points total for the past three or four seasons if you take away the goals and assists by those two players.
Jollie Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I'd love to see how mant tackles gallagher makes in a season and how many times he leaves the full back on his own with two men running at him. As for king nearly all of last season a part from the west ham game at upton park he hardly had a touch.
The Quick Brown Fox Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 So you'd happily sell two midfielders who between the two of them are probably capable of 20 goals a season and replace them with who? Neil Danns the 5 goal wonder? People say Gallagher and King go missing too often and don't impact games - I'd love to see our adjusted points total for the past three or four seasons if you take away the goals and assists by those two players. Not saying this is wrong, but if you take out the goals and assists these two got, you don't get to see what the two players in there place would have done. So that can't be a argument as we will never know. Personally I like king and gally but feel we could do with a "Hardman" in midfield.
marbelladave Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 When Richie Wellens and Matt Oakley were a couple of years younger, it gave King the freedom to play as an attacking midfielder and make those runs behind the front two which led to so many goals. Last season he had to play a much more defensive role which maybe didn't suit him and did not allow him to shine. It would be great to have the personnel at the club to be able to play King to his strengths. We might forget about Robert Koren then. When Matt Oakley and Richie Wellens were a couple of years younger we were in League 1. But I agree King is effective as an attacking midfielder and has not been allowed to solely play that role over the past 2 years and therefore he's not developed his game. What concerns me about King, is that he should be approaching his peak years, but to me he has regressed over the last two seasons. Whether this is down to the role he is being asked to play, other teams being able to counter his game, the quality of our own midfield or just a huge dip in form and confidence, aligned with a serious injury, remains open to debate. I honestly thought after our return to the Championship and King's pivotal role in our play off season that we had truly found a Premiership standard midfielder. Things have gone awfully wrong. I simply cannot understand how people come to hold the views quoted above, yet so many do....... Andy King is primarily a holding midfield player. His defensive play in and around our box is excellent and when he is not doing that job our defence suffers a lot. He is tidy, closes down players, makes interceptions and regularly makes goal saving tackles and blocks. He was an integral part of our good defensive record in the playoff season yet, for one reason or another, has hardly played there since. What he does not do is catch the eye chasing around midfield making tackles and giving away needless free kicks, yes he can be a bit 'lightweight' at times but that is mainly when he plays in a more advanced role, a role that really does not suit him. His goalscoring ability is actually helped by him setting up deep, it means that his runs are timed late, making him much harder to pick up, so he arrives at pace and his finishing is deadly. What has to be understood is that, just because he scores goals, he is not an attacking midfield player. He is not 'creative' in any sense, he does not play in his strikers and does not run at the defence with the ball, what he does, and does brilliantly, is arrive late, at pace and score goals.
MGLCFC Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I simply cannot understand how people come to hold the views quoted above, yet so many do....... Andy King is primarily a holding midfield player. His defensive play in and around our box is excellent and when he is not doing that job our defence suffers a lot. He is tidy, closes down players, makes interceptions and regularly makes goal saving tackles and blocks. He was an integral part of our good defensive record in the playoff season yet, for one reason or another, has hardly played there since. What he does not do is catch the eye chasing around midfield making tackles and giving away needless free kicks, yes he can be a bit 'lightweight' at times but that is mainly when he plays in a more advanced role, a role that really does not suit him. His goalscoring ability is actually helped by him setting up deep, it means that his runs are timed late, making him much harder to pick up, so he arrives at pace and his finishing is deadly. What has to be understood is that, just because he scores goals, he is not an attacking midfield player. He is not 'creative' in any sense, he does not play in his strikers and does not run at the defence with the ball, what he does, and does brilliantly, is arrive late, at pace and score goals. Can't disagree more - his defensive play is awful. His biggest asset to the team is scoring goals - if this dries up he adds nothing IMO. As for the goals Gallagher scores, these are nullified by his total lack of cover for Peltier and the goals we concede from his inability to defend properly.
Corky Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 You saw how King controlled the game against Derby this season and that's the standard he can set. He has his qualities and his limitations but Koren is a better player and if you had to choose between the two Koren would be in. Koren could play further forward allowing King to do his defensive work and make his late runs. It's a shame that King has regressed in the last year, because his style could be useful in that he moves the ball around quickly. With Drinkwater, Danns, James and no doubt Wellens when he's fit we've got plenty of options, but Koren gives a creaitivity the others don't (although James might prove to be similar).
Micky Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 You saw how King controlled the game against Derby this season and that's the standard he can set. He has his qualities and his limitations but Koren is a better player and if you had to choose between the two Koren would be in. Koren could play further forward allowing King to do his defensive work and make his late runs. It's a shame that King has regressed in the last year, because his style could be useful in that he moves the ball around quickly. With Drinkwater, Danns, James and no doubt Wellens when he's fit we've got plenty of options, but Koren gives a creaitivity the others don't (although James might prove to be similar). Just a small point, Derby were completely woeful.
Corky Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Just a small point, Derby were completely woeful. King being good that day had nothing to do with it?
okie fox Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 I simply cannot understand how people come to hold the views quoted above, yet so many do....... Andy King is primarily a holding midfield player. His defensive play in and around our box is excellent and when he is not doing that job our defence suffers a lot. He is tidy, closes down players, makes interceptions and regularly makes goal saving tackles and blocks. He was an integral part of our good defensive record in the playoff season yet, for one reason or another, has hardly played there since. What he does not do is catch the eye chasing around midfield making tackles and giving away needless free kicks, yes he can be a bit 'lightweight' at times but that is mainly when he plays in a more advanced role, a role that really does not suit him. His goalscoring ability is actually helped by him setting up deep, it means that his runs are timed late, making him much harder to pick up, so he arrives at pace and his finishing is deadly. What has to be understood is that, just because he scores goals, he is not an attacking midfield player. He is not 'creative' in any sense, he does not play in his strikers and does not run at the defence with the ball, what he does, and does brilliantly, is arrive late, at pace and score goals. Just curious. When did King ever play as a holding midfield player? When we played the diamond, I don't remember him playing at the base of the diamond. He does get back to make vital clearances at times, but as a regular centre midfielder.
Dan Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Some people need to realise you don't have to be some skinhead beast making tackle after tackle to be a holding midfielder. King's way of defending is far more technical and mental.
marbelladave Posted 30 July 2012 Posted 30 July 2012 Hi MGLCFC and okiefox. I do not know how long you have been watching City, but Kings best season for us was the 2010-11 playoff season when he played the holding role as I described in my post. Under Sousa he barely got a game and under Sven he was played well forward. This tactic may have got him a few extra goals (though personally I don't think so) but it also highlighted the weakest parts of his game, ie his lack of creativity and his inability to chase back and effectively hustle the opposition when we lost possession. King is a player who does all his best work in and around the penalty box, ours and theirs. He contributes little defensively in the middle third but deployed correctly, just in front of the back 4, is a huge asset. His attacking play is totally one dimensional but deadly, he makes a run, arrives late and scores goals. Playing him further forward simply shows up his faults and deprives the team of creativity.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.