Andy King

[Tom17LCFC]

The irony of his name as well!!

This thread is ridiculous.

[ScouseFox]

Robbed off Foxblogger's Twitter (which if you don't follow, you really should). Just an interesting point to all those who think any team will only win at Millwall if they sign 4 Papa Bouba Diops...

Foxblogger â€@foxblogger

Weekend theme: 'City need to be tougher in midfield to win at Millwall'. Last #lcfc midfield to win there - Oakley, King, Cleverly, Dyer.

[Captain...]

Robbed off Foxblogger's Twitter (which if you don't follow, you really should). Just an interesting point to all those who think any team will only win at Millwall if they sign 4 Papa Bouba Diops...

Foxblogger â€@foxblogger

Weekend theme: 'City need to be tougher in midfield to win at Millwall'. Last #lcfc midfield to win there - Oakley, King, Cleverly, Dyer.

Perhaps we should recall Cleverly...

Incidentally last midfield to lose there:

Marshall, King, Wellens (Drinkwater 69), Gallagher (Dyer 58).

[ScouseFox]

Perhaps we should recall Cleverly...

His technique's nowhere near as good as King's

[indierich06]

One of the most over rated players in the championship, gave the ball away so many times yesterday, can't tackle and the last person you want the ball to fall to in front of goal in this team, I know everyone on here thinks he can't do nothing wrong but its time to cash in, everyone slates Dyer for his end product but his final ball is no worse than King.

Are you one of the idiots you mention in your user name? Sounds like it.

[Gubbins]

Robbed off Foxblogger's Twitter (which if you don't follow, you really should). Just an interesting point to all those who think any team will only win at Millwall if they sign 4 Papa Bouba Diops...

Foxblogger â€@foxblogger

Weekend theme: 'City need to be tougher in midfield to win at Millwall'. Last #lcfc midfield to win there - Oakley, King, Cleverly, Dyer.

I presume that Millwall havent changed their midfield at all in the seasons since then

Our limited options in central midfield means we have little choice but to play King against Millwall but unless we go with 3 in the centre we will likely struggle to get a result. In the last few games the limitations of King and Drinkwater in a 442 have been exposed with a combination of being outnumbered, physically overpowered or closed down too often for large parts of the games by the Leeds, Derby and Barnsley midfields. King DOES go missing in these instances (regardless of all the amazing 'off the ball work' a priveliged few seem to see) and the extra man in the middle to cover for him is absolutely essential in these sorts of games.

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

Saying that I think James makes good use of the ball too, we've got 3 cracking players. One of the reasons I'd like to see 3 in the middle in tough away games.

Didn't we try that against Watford?

[marbelladave]

The big problem for me is that we do not seem comfortable playing anything but a straightforward 4-4-2, it is all well and good saying we should set up this way or that way but if the manager and the team don't know what it takes to play a different system then we are in trouble.

I am a big fan of 4-2-3-1 but I am coming round to the view that we simply do not know how to play that way, it is very different from the way we play now.

Similarly with 4-3-3, it looked horrible against Watford as we really did not have a clue, much as I hate to say it we need to play 4-4-2 but with players in slightly different roles.

For example, try Waghorn wide right with Knockaert playing off the frontman, Waggy gets up and down well enough and Knockaert will naturally drop off and link up play. Make sure the wide men get into the box and you are playing 4-4-2 with a difference.....

[The Doctor]

the last person you want the ball to fall to in front of goal in this team,

[artursteppe]

I said it before the season started, I have said it since, so I'll say it again now.

Nothing wrong with King as a player. He is not strong enough in a 4-4-2 system with Anthony and Lloyd wide.

Derby played 5 in midfield against us and for 15 minutes either side of half time they made it difficult for us. Then the manager,in his wisdom played a 4-2-3-1 with James next to Drinky, King in the middle of the forward three with Waggy and Marshall wide and Nuge up front on his own. Derby did not get a kick in the last half hour!

Then Barnsley come along with 5 in midfield - King is poor again, and we struggle to overcome the deficit we created with two defensive errors.

The manager is the problem. Whenever we play with any system other than 4-4-2 we are successful, with total control, because our players are better than any others in our league. Most of our opponents play with 5 in midfield. If we did, we would win more matches and probably never lose. It is so bloody simple I do not understand why Pearson refuses to accept the truth.

King could play next to Drinky, if we had three further midfield players in front of them, however my preference would be Drinky and James with three form King, Knockaert, Marshall, Waghorn, Dyer and Vardy in front of them. Then Nugent or even Futacs up front. ( Nugent could even play in the forward midfield three at times with Futacs on his own up front ). We'd piss it every week.

King is the focus of attention because he is not strong enough in a midfield 4.

[marbelladave]

I said it before the season started, I have said it since, so I'll say it again now.

Nothing wrong with King as a player. He is not strong enough in a 4-4-2 system with Anthony and Lloyd wide.

Derby played 5 in midfield against us and for 15 minutes either side of half time they made it difficult for us. Then the manager,in his wisdom played a 4-2-3-1 with James next to Drinky, King in the middle of the forward three with Waggy and Marshall wide and Nuge up front on his own. Derby did not get a kick in the last half hour!

Then Barnsley come along with 5 in midfield - King is poor again, and we struggle to overcome the deficit we created with two defensive errors.

The manager is the problem. Whenever we play with any system other than 4-4-2 we are successful, with total control, because our players are better than any others in our league. Most of our opponents play with 5 in midfield. If we did, we would win more matches and probably never lose. It is so bloody simple I do not understand why Pearson refuses to accept the truth.

King could play next to Drinky, if we had three further midfield players in front of them, however my preference would be Drinky and James with three form King, Knockaert, Marshall, Waghorn, Dyer and Vardy in front of them. Then Nugent or even Futacs up front. ( Nugent could even play in the forward midfield three at times with Futacs on his own up front ). We'd piss it every week.

King is the focus of attention because he is not strong enough in a midfield 4.

Playing 4-4-2 with 2 men up and 2 wide is a liability, it puts everything onto the central midfield paring and if the opposition finds a way to get after them they can close us down.

For the last couple of months we have tried to fix this by various means, Dyer played narrow and deep, Knockaert allowed to roam, Waghorn dropping deep to link up play, but none of these tactics seem to work consistently.

The reason we do not play 4-2-3-1 is obvious, we have no idea how to play that system, Morgan is not mobile enough, our holding players do not errr, hold and our wide men are require to track back rather than playing well forward and supporting the striker.

When we try to play this or 4-3-3 we quickly revert to a stodgy 4-5-1 that is quite ineffective.

[artursteppe]

Playing 4-4-2 with 2 men up and 2 wide is a liability, it puts everything onto the central midfield paring and if the opposition finds a way to get after them they can close us down.

For the last couple of months we have tried to fix this by various means, Dyer played narrow and deep, Knockaert allowed to roam, Waghorn dropping deep to link up play, but none of these tactics seem to work consistently.

The reason we do not play 4-2-3-1 is obvious, we have no idea how to play that system, Morgan is not mobile enough, our holding players do not errr, hold and our wide men are require to track back rather than playing well forward and supporting the striker.

When we try to play this or 4-3-3 we quickly revert to a stodgy 4-5-1 that is quite ineffective.

We've been watching different games then Dave. You should have been at the home match against Derby for a start.

[coolhandfox]

I said it before the season started, I have said it since, so I'll say it again now.

Nothing wrong with King as a player. He is not strong enough in a 4-4-2 system with Anthony and Lloyd wide.

Derby played 5 in midfield against us and for 15 minutes either side of half time they made it difficult for us. Then the manager,in his wisdom played a 4-2-3-1 with James next to Drinky, King in the middle of the forward three with Waggy and Marshall wide and Nuge up front on his own. Derby did not get a kick in the last half hour!

Then Barnsley come along with 5 in midfield - King is poor again, and we struggle to overcome the deficit we created with two defensive errors.

The manager is the problem. Whenever we play with any system other than 4-4-2 we are successful, with total control, because our players are better than any others in our league. Most of our opponents play with 5 in midfield. If we did, we would win more matches and probably never lose. It is so bloody simple I do not understand why Pearson refuses to accept the truth.

King could play next to Drinky, if we had three further midfield players in front of them, however my preference would be Drinky and James with three form King, Knockaert, Marshall, Waghorn, Dyer and Vardy in front of them. Then Nugent or even Futacs up front. ( Nugent could even play in the forward midfield three at times with Futacs on his own up front ). We'd piss it every week.

King is the focus of attention because he is not strong enough in a midfield 4.

Better email NP, who do you manage at the moment?

[marbelladave]

We've been watching different games then Dave. You should have been at the home match against Derby for a start.

Been moving home and it has been a life changing experience, and not in a good way.......

I have been unable to go to games recently (since Watford) so only watched the Derby game on TV, I thought we played a pretty standard 4-4-2 for an hour or more, if you saw things differently being at the game I would much appreciate your views.

I hate not going to games and few people on here actually discuss how we actually played so I would genuinely appreciate your comments.......

[artursteppe]

Dave, in the last half hour against Derby Waggy played wide right, Marshall on the left, King in the middle with James and Drinky holding. Nuge up front on his own. It was however quite fluid with the midfield five, where all were swopping roles to an extent. James and Drinky were prompting the forward players, but still at times going forward. What was good to see was that King, Waggy and Marshall were still covering defensively when required, which as you well know is probably the most important aspect of this type of formation.

Derby did not get a kick during this time, we scored two and were in total control. Derby had probably edged us during the middle half hour of the match.

I believe the reasons why we are ideally suited to such a formation is because the players we have are adaptable, most can play wide or in the middle, can go forward and are prepared to share holding or defensive duties. There is no doubt that the management team place great 'store' by developing our players into 'all-rounders' ( Jeff Schlupp being the most obvious example ), it just needs the manager to shake off his rather pedantic attitude to 4-4-2 and move on with the right formation for the players he is developing.

I do have a feeling that he may be moving toward this style, but is only doing it in a reactive way rather than a proactive way. Go for it Nigel, you know it makes sense.

[_Fatboyslow_]

It worries me when King takes the blame for Dryer.

[marbelladave]

Artur.....

Don't want to nitpick but in the game you mention, James only played the last 10 minutes or so by which time we were well in control.

It was Nugent and Marshall that made the difference when they came on after an hour and as far as I could see from the TV we continued to play, more or less, 4-4-2. If it looked different 'in the flesh', I would be happy to be corrected.

Don,t take the above as a 'dig', like you I want to see City play in the flexible, modern style that you describe and there have been times this season when we have done exactly that, though usually from an initial 4-4-2.

Overall I think the Derby game was a great example of how 4-4-2 does not work for us, having gone to 2-0 our wide men 'tucked in' and stopped showing for the ball out of defence, our full backs stopped getting forward leaving Waghorn as the only option. As we allowed ourselves to get pressed back, the balls up to Waghorn got longer and longer and Derby were back in it.

Something similar happened against Barnsley from what I can gather, foot off the pedal, the opposition start to press but this time we gift them 2 goals and then take far too long to generate enough pressure to get us back into the game.

I know some will say that we are both being over critical but I strongly behave if we can iron out the inconsistances, whether by changing our attitude or formation, than we could easily by challenging for an automatic spot.......

[wakeyfox01]

Artur.....

Don't want to nitpick but in the game you mention, James only played the last 10 minutes or so by which time we were well in control.

It was Nugent and Marshall that made the difference when they came on after an hour and as far as I could see from the TV we continued to play, more or less, 4-4-2. If it looked different 'in the flesh', I would be happy to be corrected.

Don,t take the above as a 'dig', like you I want to see City play in the flexible, modern style that you describe and there have been times this season when we have done exactly that, though usually from an initial 4-4-2.

Overall I think the Derby game was a great example of how 4-4-2 does not work for us, having gone to 2-0 our wide men 'tucked in' and stopped showing for the ball out of defence, our full backs stopped getting forward leaving Waghorn as the only option. As we allowed ourselves to get pressed back, the balls up to Waghorn got longer and longer and Derby were back in it.

Something similar happened against Barnsley from what I can gather, foot off the pedal, the opposition start to press but this time we gift them 2 goals and then take far too long to generate enough pressure to get us back into the game.

I know some will say that we are both being over critical but I strongly behave if we can iron out the inconsistances, whether by changing our attitude or formation, than we could easily by challenging for an automatic spot.......

When Nuge and Marshall came on against Derby Knocky was moved into the middle and Waghorn on the right then when James came on for Knocky, King was moved further forward

[marbelladave]

When Nuge and Marshall came on against Derby Knocky was moved into the middle and Waghorn on the right then when James came on for Knocky, King was moved further forward

Thank you, not that obvious from the TV at the time........

It is encouraging that we are trying different things though we always seem to start 4-4-2.......

The bigest difference this formation makes is the load it takes off our central pairing, having three players in front of them helps defensively but more importantly gives them options when moving the ball out of defence.

If the '3' all show for the ball it allows the play to move forward quickly giving the opposition no time to close us down in our own half, it is maintaining this pace that is the key, without it we get put under pressure which often results in us losing possession.

If we don't give the ball away then we really do not need the defensive midfielder so many on here seem to be calling for, King and Drinkwater have little trouble winning the ball, it is what happens next that is the issue...... :xmasangry:

[davieG]

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/story-17558864-detail/story.html?

[indierich06]

I bloody love Andy King.

[StanSP]

24 years old and already amassed over 200 appearances. That is really impressive.

He breaks forward into the box and is capable of doing that. We do have a lot of attacking options now and he recognises when he is the player who has to sit

His appreciation of what the other players bring to the team is very important, as it is for all the players to recognise

I think these 2 points are key though - it's all well and good knowing you can score from in and around the box, but at the same time, the player needs to be wise and intelligent enough to know when to go in to the box. Communicate with other players about who to cover for you and when you'll be charging up. That's why I think that King and Drinkwater are one of the best midfield pairings we've had in a while. They are on the same wavelength and sometimes seamlessly interchange between sitting back and going forward. The fact that they are both still very young and still performing to a high standard is very encouraging for us.

As said above, I bloody love Andy King.

[marbelladave]

http://www.thisislei...ail/story.html?

First 'No shit Sherlock' moment of the day.......

King is a very strange player, a midfielder who does not do very much in midfield....... :xmasblink:

Defensively he is not particularly combative and can, on occasions be 'out muscled', particularly in the middle third, similarly going forward his passing is neither expansive nor creative though he does usually move the ball quite quickly.

However, he does come to life in and around both penalty areas, defensively he is outstanding, good in the air, composed on the floor and rarely fouls his man. He is particularly adept at the last second block or tackle and is an important part of our defence.

Going forward he is at his best when arriving in the box late and at pace, though his normally clinical finishing seems to have deserted him for the moment. Personally I feel he is, for the moment, arriving a little bit too early, perhaps trying too hard.......

NFP is absolutely right to play King as he does, if anything he needs him to hold his position just a little more, too far forward and the opposition find him easier to pick up and mark.......

[Corky]

First 'No shit Sherlock' moment of the day.......

King is a very strange player, a midfielder who does not do very much in midfield....... :xmasblink:

Defensively he is not particularly combative and can, on occasions be 'out muscled', particularly in the middle third, similarly going forward his passing is neither expansive nor creative though he does usually move the ball quite quickly.

However, he does come to life in and around both penalty areas, defensively he is outstanding, good in the air, composed on the floor and rarely fouls his man. He is particularly adept at the last second block or tackle and is an important part of our defence.

Going forward he is at his best when arriving in the box late and at pace, though his normally clinical finishing seems to have deserted him for the moment. Personally I feel he is, for the moment, arriving a little bit too early, perhaps trying too hard.......

NFP is absolutely right to play King as he does, if anything he needs him to hold his position just a little more, too far forward and the opposition find him easier to pick up and mark.......

Certainly seemed to rush his finishes towards the end on Saturday. You would normally want him to have those opportunities (despite the ridiculous comment previously) although a couple of chances saw him fouled as he was taking the shot.

[marbelladave]

Certainly seemed to rush his finishes towards the end on Saturday. You would normally want him to have those opportunities (despite the ridiculous comment previously) although a couple of chances saw him fouled as he was taking the shot.

Maybe Barnsley defended well against King but in general King's finishing has not been at his clinical best in recent weeks.

In general I like to see him arrive late and take his shot early, the worst thing is for him to get forward too early. Similarly when played in a more attacking role he is easier to mark and lacks the skills on the ball to be a real creative presence.

As I said earlier, in some ways quite an odd player but what he does well, he does very well indeed and we need to make sure we make the best of his skills.