Andy King

[Dickov22]

Just for the record, as I posted that I thought he might get more game time:

It's not my view that any player will find the Premier League easier to play in than the Championship. That's daft, as you rightly say. However, we may well end up playing a different system next year, and that might suit him. He's a good player, strikes the ball well and picks clever passes. He's not going to be signing for Man City, but I can well imagine him being a good player at the fringe of our squad, assuming we go up.

There is definitely sentiment involved in that I'd like to see him do well, but I also think he's a plausible contributer next year in a stronger league.

Good post- I like King and I agree he's a good finisher, makes clever runs and does a lot of work that often goes un noticed. I haven't said he's not good enough for the Premiership. I said we can't really tell until he's given the opportunity. Same goes for the rest of the players.

I just read some posts suggesting he's better suited to the Premiership than the championship. How can that be?!

I definitely agree with the sentiment point. A lot of supporters (myself included) would love to see King do well here as he's a Leicester lad. I think the same applies to Liam Moore actually. I don't think Moore's quite as outstanding as a lot of supporters make him out to be. Yet. He does sometimes look shaky on the ball. People have a higher opinion of him than he perhaps merits, because he's Leicester born and bred. Nothing wrong with that but I think the same thing perhaps happens with Kingy.

[Jace]

He's not going anywhere he's enjoying Jamie Vardys parties at the moment

[inckley fox]

For the record, this season King has played in 21 league matches for us this season, from which we have accrued 47 points, at an average of 2.24 ppg. This compares to our season average of 2.22 ppg.

 

You're entitled to your opinion but your logic is absolutely bat shit mental. We get it, you don't like King in the side. You've made that perfectly clear, claiming here, there and everywhere that we get "overrun" with him in the team when that is evidently not true.

 

 

I'm not sure these facts strengthen your argument. King has started 18 league games from which we've earned 38 points (2.1 per game). Without him in the side we've played a further 14 games, from which we average 2.4 points per game.

 

In fact, if you want facts, we've only won one league game with King in the starting line-up since November. Yes, this is largely because he's been out of the side, but that in itself speaks volumes.

[inckley fox]

David Nugent plays deeper this season but he's not playing in midfield is he? You've answered that yourself; he was an attacking midfielder, then he dropped into a more conventional central midfield role.

 

A favourite of mine. Let's ignore the fact that he was on the edge of the area and probably the first player to get back and got done on the wing by a player who had more pace than him. It was hardly like the guy was running straight into him. No arguments that it was a tired tackle but at least he bothered to get back unlike some.

 

Well, he's not very quick, he's not that strong (although not as weak as some make out), he's quite one footed and he possibly keeps things too simple at times because he's got the technical ability to pull off some magic. He certainly has limitations and at the moment, there are 2 others in better form than him who deserve to wear the shirt.

 

He's not in our team because we freshened it up with a midfield pairing that have played together from a young age so have a great understanding not to mention that they have both been excellent. You do realise that sometimes in football, its possible for good players to be out of the side.

 

There were enquiries in the past from Villa and Everton and I know that both Palace and Cardiff made contact at the start of the season.

 

Oh and you mention that he's been dropped, yet, he's always got his way back into the team and even captained the side. I personally think its been his worst season with us yet he'd still get into any other midfield in the league.

 

Amazing that you're allow to say for definite that we can't be successful with him in the side but yet others are not allowed to suggest the possibility that he may be important next year. Are you a clairvoyant then? You might as well sign out and get down to the bookies because you could make yourself very rich with that skill!

 

Well, we can get drawn into hammering out the differences between a 'defensive midfielder' and a 'midfielder who plays a defensive role' if you wish, the fact is that he has been our deeper midfielder under Pearson and is not as strong as James in that role. He struggles to track his man, is weak in the tackle, vanishes from games for weeks on end and allows too many shots from distance. He does, it's true, also have a lot going for him - a decent shot, tidy distribution - but very little to suggest he will be a force in the Premier League.

 

No I'm not trying to be a clairvoyant here. I remember people arguing that Izzet, Lennon and Parker wouldn't hack it in the Premier League, but then again I also remember people arguing that Agnew, Thompson, Blake, Taylor, Philpott, even Oldfield would be good enough. What I'm saying is that Andy King has often been a weak link for Leicester (no, this isn't his worst season for us - you'll find plenty of threads from the past two seasons asking where the 'Andy King of old' has gone); he's very unlikely to suddenly transform into a top flight player who has the edge of our current midfielders.

 

That isn't a wild supposition. It's a logical deduction.

 

When was the last time we got promoted and a player in his mid-20s, out of the first team at the time of promotion, suddenly emerged as a key player? Maybe there are a few precedents - Poole and Willis in 94? Probably best not dwell on that season too much. Parker in 96? Well, he had a spell on the sidelines but only due to a falling out with the manager. And he had played nearly all of his career at the highest level. The trend, of course, is for players to go in precisely the opposite direction: good second tier players, players who make the first team and look the part on a regular basis - the likes of James and Drinkwater, rather than King - come up short in the top flight.

 

On the other hand there is very little reason to believe that a 25 year old midfielder who has disappointed for the past three seasons, never played in the Premier League before, never been the subject of a publicly acknowledged bid by a Premier League side, and failed to hold down a first team place this season in the second tier is going to make that step up. This isn't clairvoyancy, it's what any football fan who has seen a side go up would tell you.

 

As Col said, the loyalty to King is admirable and yes, he can be very decent at this level. But some people are getting well, well ahead of themselves here, with very little to support their argument.

[Guest ttfn]

I'm not sure these facts strengthen your argument. King has started 18 league games from which we've earned 38 points (2.1 per game). Without him in the side we've played a further 14 games, from which we average 2.4 points per game.

In fact, if you want facts, we've only won one league game with King in the starting line-up since November. Yes, this is largely because he's been out of the side, but that in itself speaks volumes.

It was 0-0 when he came on against Leeds. We won 1-0.

It was 0-0 when he came on against Bournemouth. We won 1-0.

Just using starts is just as flawed as including everything.

The facts speak for themselves - a City side with Andy King in the team accrues points at a rate sufficient to be top of the league whether you just count starts or not.

[Guest Col city fan]

It was 0-0 when he came on against Leeds. We won 1-0.

It was 0-0 when he came on against Bournemouth. We won 1-0.

Just using starts is just as flawed as including everything.

The facts speak for themselves - a City side with Andy King in the team accrues points at a rate sufficient to be top of the league whether you just count starts or not.

Again, and not to be awkward the team that appears to be finally propelling itself into the Prem, is one in which Andy King is not currently featuring. The teams in which Andy King has featured more in, have fallen short. That's not to lay the blame squarely at King's door. Of course its not. But its clear as day that we now have a stronger midfield. A physically stronger midfield. A better midfield...

Now its my opinion that that better midfield will have to strengthen even more should we get promoted. The first choice two of James and Drinkwater (assuming they will be the first choice two) will need to be of better overall quality than King, should they need to be brought in.

Why I say thisis because, if you are really suggesting King is as good as he is, it would be obvious. He would be playing now. He would be keeping James or Drinkwater out of the team. Pearson will play what he thinks is his best side (surely?) and if he believed Andy King was his best midfielder, he'd play him.

If King is considered, by his manager, to not be good enough to feature in the Championship, why should he then be good enough to feature in the Premiership?

I'm not going to resort to 'horse-shit' and the such like, I simply do not get the logic of your argument. I usually do, but you've lost me on this one.

[inckley fox]

It was 0-0 when he came on against Leeds. We won 1-0.

It was 0-0 when he came on against Bournemouth. We won 1-0.

Just using starts is just as flawed as including everything.

The facts speak for themselves - a City side with Andy King in the team accrues points at a rate sufficient to be top of the league whether you just count starts or not.

 

Starts is a fairly standard way of looking at a points / team selection correlation. In fact it's THE standard way. And that fact points towards us being significantly better when we select a side which doesn't have King in it. Does it tell the whole picture? Does any statistic?

 

The problem with your alternative is that you are taking into account when King comes on and we secure results. What about all of those games where we saw out narrow leads after taking King off? What about games like Ipswich, when we were losing until we took King off at half time, then ended up winning 2-1?

 

I'd say that you have tried to use statistics to strengthen your impassioned defence of King, but you've used them in a totally one-sided fashion. These are the most important facts: King was one of the first names on the team sheet in 10-11, 11-12 and 12-13, when we disappointed and failed to achieve our objectives. Now we can argue about which of those he played well in (10-11 yes, 11-12 and 12-13 no, perhaps) but let's stick to the facts - and above all, let's stick to this one: Right now, on the back of our biggest ever winning run (which he hardly featured in), we are clear favourites for promotion - and he isn't in the team.

 

So if you want a black-and-white facts-based approach to it, I'd look at those facts, rather than the ones which suggest to you that we're better off with King in the side, and that he'll suddenly be good enough in the Premier League, after years of not quite being good enough in the Championship.

[Guest ttfn]

But Colin whatever way you look at it the stats show that with King in the team we get enough points to be top of the league.

It's not that Pearson doesn't think him good enough for the Championship, it's that James and Drinkwater are playing brilliantly and keeping him out of the side AT THE MOMENT.

Earlier in the season King was in the team and James wasn't. Did that mean James wasn't considered good enough for the Championship then?

[Guest ttfn]

Starts is a fairly standard way of looking at a points / team selection correlation. In fact it's THE standard way. And that fact points towards us being significantly better when we select a side which doesn't have King in it. Does it tell the whole picture? Does any statistic?

The problem with your alternative is that you are taking into account when King comes on and we secure results. What about all of those games where we saw out narrow leads after taking King off? What about games like Ipswich, when we were losing until we took King off at half time, then ended up winning 2-1?

I'd say that you have tried to use statistics to strengthen your impassioned defence of King, but you've used them in a totally one-sided fashion. These are the most important facts: King was one of the first names on the team sheet in 10-11, 11-12 and 12-13, when we disappointed and failed to achieve our objectives. Now we can argue about which of those he played well in (10-11 yes, 11-12 and 12-13 no, perhaps) but let's stick to the facts - and above all, let's stick to this one: Right now, on the back of our biggest ever winning run (which he hardly featured in), we are clear favourites for promotion - and he isn't in the team.

So if you want a black-and-white facts-based approach to it, I'd look at those facts, rather than the ones which suggest to you that we're better off with King in the side, and that he'll suddenly be good enough in the Premier League, after years of not quite being good enough in the Championship.

As you say, I picked my stats accordingly. You've highlighted above the weaknesses in any such selection.

What is absolutely indisputable is that with or without King in the side we get enough points per game to be top of the league.

With that in mind it is self-evident that the fact that he can't get in the team is not a slight on him - it's full credit to James and Drinkwater for keeping him out.

All I have been trying to say all along is that the comment that because King isn't currently starting for us he can't be good enough for the Premier League is rubbish.

[inckley fox]

But Colin whatever way you look at it the stats show that with King in the team we get enough points to be top of the league.

It's not that Pearson doesn't think him good enough for the Championship, it's that James and Drinkwater are playing brilliantly and keeping him out of the side AT THE MOMENT.

Earlier in the season King was in the team and James wasn't. Did that mean James wasn't considered good enough for the Championship then?

 

You are assuming that we would have continued to average 2.1 points per game had he remained in the side for the past three months.

 

We were averaging around 2 points per game at the same time last season, before our form collapsed in February - with King in the side. And, if you want to trace our history further back, we similarly collapsed in December 2011, in February-March 2011... all with King in the side. No he wasn't wholly to blame, of course not, but he was partly to blame. And it's worth noting that his personal form collapsed on all three occasions.

 

You have assumed that we would continue to average a high points per game average with King in the side, when that hasn't been the case over the past three seasons running.

 

Thankfully this time he was dropped and we actually improved on that points per game average. Was that due to King being dropped alone? Of course not. But it was a part of what worked. Later in the season our form may collapse again without him in the side, he might be recalled and we could win another ten games on the bounce... but you have claimed to have facts on your side and that the opposite argument is 'horse shit' and 'bat shit mental', when in actuality it has a lot of substance to it.

[inckley fox]

As you say, I picked my stats accordingly. You've highlighted above the weaknesses in any such selection.

What is absolutely indisputable is that with or without King in the side we get enough points per game to be top of the league.

With that in mind it is self-evident that the fact that he can't get in the team is not a slight on him - it's full credit to James and Drinkwater for keeping him out.

All I have been trying to say all along is that the comment that because King isn't currently starting for us he can't be good enough for the Premier League is rubbish.

 

Personally if we did win promotion I'd be happy to have him in the squad. To be good enough to be a first choice player for a lower-mid table side, however, he will have to raise his game significantly. And his game has gone backwards over the past three years.

 

So it could happen. But it's fair to say it's very unlikely.

[Guest Col city fan]

But Colin whatever way you look at it the stats show that with King in the team we get enough points to be top of the league.

It's not that Pearson doesn't think him good enough for the Championship, it's that James and Drinkwater are playing brilliantly and keeping him out of the side AT THE MOMENT.

Earlier in the season King was in the team and James wasn't. Did that mean James wasn't considered good enough for the Championship then?

Its 'Col' mate.. only mother calls me Colin..

I wonder if you are falling into the trap of not differentiating between loyalty towards a player and being able to judge a player.

I've watched King now for many seasons being totally over-run by quick midfielders (especially in some away games) or muscled-out by big lads.

The slower paced games, in which King has the time to look up and ping the ball about, he's looked good.

Having seen this, I'm far more reassured by the presence of King and James. It's they who control the game in the centre, rather than vice-verca. Its of no coincidence that our exemplary form has pretty much coincided with Pearson continually playing them together.

I feel King would be even more over-run and muscled out in the Prem. The pace is yet quicker, the game more physical.

Of course, as always, I'm happy to be proven wrong. If King stays and has a great season in the Prem (if we go up), its happy days.

However, I suggest your loyalty, however commendable, is misguided.

[dmayne7]

Well, we can get drawn into hammering out the differences between a 'defensive midfielder' and a 'midfielder who plays a defensive role' if you wish, the fact is that he has been our deeper midfielder under Pearson and is not as strong as James in that role. He struggles to track his man, is weak in the tackle, vanishes from games for weeks on end and allows too many shots from distance. He does, it's true, also have a lot going for him - a decent shot, tidy distribution - but very little to suggest he will be a force in the Premier League.

 

No I'm not trying to be a clairvoyant here. I remember people arguing that Izzet, Lennon and Parker wouldn't hack it in the Premier League, but then again I also remember people arguing that Agnew, Thompson, Blake, Taylor, Philpott, even Oldfield would be good enough. What I'm saying is that Andy King has often been a weak link for Leicester (no, this isn't his worst season for us - you'll find plenty of threads from the past two seasons asking where the 'Andy King of old' has gone); he's very unlikely to suddenly transform into a top flight player who has the edge of our current midfielders.

 

That isn't a wild supposition. It's a logical deduction.

 

When was the last time we got promoted and a player in his mid-20s, out of the first team at the time of promotion, suddenly emerged as a key player? Maybe there are a few precedents - Poole and Willis in 94? Probably best not dwell on that season too much. Parker in 96? Well, he had a spell on the sidelines but only due to a falling out with the manager. And he had played nearly all of his career at the highest level. The trend, of course, is for players to go in precisely the opposite direction: good second tier players, players who make the first team and look the part on a regular basis - the likes of James and Drinkwater, rather than King - come up short in the top flight.

 

On the other hand there is very little reason to believe that a 25 year old midfielder who has disappointed for the past three seasons, never played in the Premier League before, never been the subject of a publicly acknowledged bid by a Premier League side, and failed to hold down a first team place this season in the second tier is going to make that step up. This isn't clairvoyancy, it's what any football fan who has seen a side go up would tell you.

 

As Col said, the loyalty to King is admirable and yes, he can be very decent at this level. But some people are getting well, well ahead of themselves here, with very little to support their argument.

 

Well he was still playing more advanced than either Drinkwater or James last season.

 

Opinion.

 

Again, that's your opinion; Just because people have said that he's not been very good does not make it fact. I would have personally said he was our best midfielder throughout the season last year (James had a great end to it but he wasn't in the team for long periods)

 

But its not a case of him being able to hold down a first-team place. We changed the side and have since picked up 32 points from a possible 36 so its hardly surprising the team hasn't changed. As I said, good players can be out of the team then come back in to be key players even in the division above. I'm not saying that with King but look back at the start of this season; Drinkwater and Vardy certainly wouldn't have been in the side of a team at the top of the table, let alone so far clear. Oh and whilst you're talking about players being over a certain age and not improving, there's plenty of those. Vardy has shown that with a jump up in standard you can improve massively if you rise to the challenge.

 

Well you are saying that you are factually right and everybody against your view is wrong. You said we CANNOT have success with King in the team next year, yet none of your view is based on fact. How is it that you can say who WILL or WON'T do things but other people are not allowed to suggest the possibility that things can change. Clearly you've been a football fan longer than I have so I thought you'd have had some appreciation that its an unpredictable game where things change often.

 

The Facts are:

 

King was chosen in the PFA team of the year (albeit 3 seasons ago)

 

In his time as first team player he has accrued 1 promotion, 2 play-off places (Unsuccessful campaigns)  1 relegation (Although he barely featured) and looks set for a title win/automatic promotion.

 

Under every manager he has played for he has been deemed good enough to be a part of their squad's.

 

He's never been made available for transfer.

 

When he has lost his place in the team, he has fought his way back into the side.

 

Several Premier League team's have made enquiries for him in the past.

 

When fit, he has almost always been a part of the matchday squad.

 

He is not in the starting 11 at the moment because there are 2 players playing better than him.

 

Now, I'm not saying that he WILL be a great player next year and he may be out of his depth but I believe there is a possibility that he COULD be an important team maybe next season.

 

Objectivity based on facts with lots to support my viewpoint. Why do people think that degrading the evidence to support others' views mean that they become gospel for what is right or wrong? I appreciate you have a different opinion and its well constructed (even if I disagree with the foundations of it) but I've now provided the facts so you can't argue against them. I'm not trying to sway you because you're clearly set on how you view King just providing the facts to support my argument 

[Corky]

People wrote Drinkwater off last season, look how he has responded. James is in fantastic, undroppable form but I think the point that ttfn is trying to make is that King playing would not hinder us to a degree where we would fall apart, he's still a very capable player who would be in most other sides starting line-ups.

 

It's a great testament to the form they are in and Pearson's dealings that we can afford to leave out a fine player.

[dmayne7]

You are assuming that we would have continued to average 2.1 points per game had he remained in the side for the past three months.

 

We were averaging around 2 points per game at the same time last season, before our form collapsed in February - with King in the side. And, if you want to trace our history further back, we similarly collapsed in December 2011, in February-March 2011... all with King in the side. No he wasn't wholly to blame, of course not, but he was partly to blame. And it's worth noting that his personal form collapsed on all three occasions.

 

You have assumed that we would continue to average a high points per game average with King in the side, when that hasn't been the case over the past three seasons running.

 

Thankfully this time he was dropped and we actually improved on that points per game average. Was that due to King being dropped alone? Of course not. But it was a part of what worked. Later in the season our form may collapse again without him in the side, he might be recalled and we could win another ten games on the bounce... but you have claimed to have facts on your side and that the opposite argument is 'horse shit' and 'bat shit mental', when in actuality it has a lot of substance to it.

 

Ah, but you're assuming the complete opposite. Why do we all waste our time in threads like these 

[Guest Col city fan]

People wrote Drinkwater off last season, look how he has responded. James is in fantastic, undroppable form but I think the point that ttfn is trying to make is that King playing would not hinder us to a degree where we would fall apart, he's still a very capable player who would be in most other sides starting line-ups.

It's a great testament to the form they are in and Pearson's dealings that we can afford to leave out a fine player.

It doesn't matter now so much. Sure, one of Drinky or James could get injured and King could come in and do a job. IMO not as good a job, but a job nonetheless. In the Prem, I believe we'd require better. But its only a belief of mine, don't make it fact.

[inckley fox]

Well he was still playing more advanced than either Drinkwater or James last season.

 

Opinion.

 

Again, that's your opinion; Just because people have said that he's not been very good does not make it fact. I would have personally said he was our best midfielder throughout the season last year (James had a great end to it but he wasn't in the team for long periods)

 

But its not a case of him being able to hold down a first-team place. We changed the side and have since picked up 32 points from a possible 36 so its hardly surprising the team hasn't changed. As I said, good players can be out of the team then come back in to be key players even in the division above. I'm not saying that with King but look back at the start of this season; Drinkwater and Vardy certainly wouldn't have been in the side of a team at the top of the table, let alone so far clear. Oh and whilst you're talking about players being over a certain age and not improving, there's plenty of those. Vardy has shown that with a jump up in standard you can improve massively if you rise to the challenge.

 

Well you are saying that you are factually right and everybody against your view is wrong. You said we CANNOT have success with King in the team next year, yet none of your view is based on fact. How is it that you can say who WILL or WON'T do things but other people are not allowed to suggest the possibility that things can change. Clearly you've been a football fan longer than I have so I thought you'd have had some appreciation that its an unpredictable game where things change often.

 

The Facts are:

 

King was chosen in the PFA team of the year (albeit 3 seasons ago)

 

In his time as first team player he has accrued 1 promotion, 2 play-off places (Unsuccessful campaigns)  1 relegation (Although he barely featured) and looks set for a title win/automatic promotion.

 

Under every manager he has played for he has been deemed good enough to be a part of their squad's.

 

He's never been made available for transfer.

 

When he has lost his place in the team, he has fought his way back into the side.

 

Several Premier League team's have made enquiries for him in the past.

 

When fit, he has almost always been a part of the matchday squad.

 

He is not in the starting 11 at the moment because there are 2 players playing better than him.

 

Now, I'm not saying that he WILL be a great player next year and he may be out of his depth but I believe there is a possibility that he COULD be an important team maybe next season.

 

Objectivity based on facts with lots to support my viewpoint. Why do people think that degrading the evidence to support others' views mean that they become gospel for what is right or wrong? I appreciate you have a different opinion and its well constructed (even if I disagree with the foundations of it) but I've now provided the facts so you can't argue against them. I'm not trying to sway you because you're clearly set on how you view King just providing the facts to support my argument 

 

But none of these facts make you a competent Premier League player, do they? In fairness, I've given you quite a few facts. That we average more points when we start without him in the side; that our form had collapsed for three seasons running with him in the team, that he's not in a second tier side's first team, that we've just gone on a record-breaking run without him in the line-up... And yes, my opinion is that he was poor during all three of those previous collapses, that he hasn't delivered on his early promise as a player and that it's unlikely, at 25, that a player will suddenly rediscover his finest form (and let's not compare a player who has featured in four of five campaigns at this level, with Jamie Vardy - who hadn't featured in a single one by the time he turned 25.)

 

He's not a poor player, not at this level, but it would appear unlikely that he will go from being a second choice Championship player who has been instrumental in his side's critical collapses in form for three seasons running, to being a major player at a higher level. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but fans of sides that have gone up, only to see their heroes turn to mush in the top flight would be sadly shaking their heads if they saw some of the arguments on here. There are exceptions to the rule, true, but it is very, very rare for a player who struggles to establish himself in a promotion-winning side to go on and be a regular in a successful Premiership team, especially when he's not a youngster anymore and has been struggling to progress for many years.

 

As Leicester fans maybe we were spoilt by going up with Izzet, Parker and Lennon in midfield, Walsh at the back, Claridge and Heskey up front - all players who would make the grade at a higher level. But just a couple of years before that we'd also gone up with Oldfield, Philpott, Thompson, Agnew, Blake and Gibson in our midfield. So we should really know better than to think that our fringe players will suddenly take the top flight by storm.

[inckley fox]

Ah, but you're assuming the complete opposite. Why do we all waste our time in threads like these 

 

I'm not assuming the opposite at all. I'm pointing out what HAS happened - we HAVE gone on to average 2.4 points per game without King in the side, we have gone on a record-breaking run of wins. All of these things actually DID happen.

 

On the other hand for three years running, and with King in the side, our form did collapse after getting into promising positions. That also happened.

 

So it was right to say that the 2.1 points per game we averaged with King in the side, based on past evidence, might not have continued. And, in the event, it didn't need to continue because we dropped him instead, and went on to do better without him in the side.

 

But this isn't about whether or not I like Andy King. He's a decent Championship player - if we have an injury and he comes in I'll remain fairly confident - I just don't see any reason to believe he'll go from being 'not quite good enough for a second tier side' to suddenly 'good enough for a Premier League side'. The weight of history backs me up on this one!

[inckley fox]

It doesn't matter now so much. Sure, one of Drinky or James could get injured and King could come in and do a job. IMO not as good a job, but a job nonetheless. In the Prem, I believe we'd require better. But its only a belief of mine, don't make it fact.

 

It's a belief, yes, but it's a fact that throughout the history of football this has more often than not turned out to be the case. First team and fringe players in the Premier League are almost always better than bench warmers in the Championship. And, with regard to players in the same age bracket as King, when bench warmers in the Championship cease to be bench warmers in the Championship and become first choice players in the Premier League their teams tend not to do very well.

[Guest ttfn]

You are assuming that we would have continued to average 2.1 points per game had he remained in the side for the past three months.

We were averaging around 2 points per game at the same time last season, before our form collapsed in February - with King in the side. And, if you want to trace our history further back, we similarly collapsed in December 2011, in February-March 2011... all with King in the side. No he wasn't wholly to blame, of course not, but he was partly to blame. And it's worth noting that his personal form collapsed on all three occasions.

You have assumed that we would continue to average a high points per game average with King in the side, when that hasn't been the case over the past three seasons running.

Thankfully this time he was dropped and we actually improved on that points per game average. Was that due to King being dropped alone? Of course not. But it was a part of what worked. Later in the season our form may collapse again without him in the side, he might be recalled and we could win another ten games on the bounce... but you have claimed to have facts on your side and that the opposite argument is 'horse shit' and 'bat shit mental', when in actuality it has a lot of substance to it.

Col's point was:

If King can't get in a team in the Championship he can't be good enough for the premier league.

If you think, given what we know about James and Drinkwater's form, that is reasonable logic then there is little point in having a sensible debate on this. It is argument by mis-direction.

There is plenty to suggest that King isn't good enough for the Premier League. The ONLY point I have tried to make is that not getting in ahead of Drinkwater and James is not definitive proof of him not being good enough. That logic has no substance to it, you're arguing with a point I'm not trying to make.

As for the second half if the post, comparisons to last season are completely misleading. Last year everyone got tired and form plummeted due to a lack of rotation and experience. This is why we have a squad. Even if we are to take the huge assumption that King is going to drop off every year (and do so to the detriment of the team), why can't he be of value at the times when he is playing well enough to be in a side which averages 2.1 ppg in the Championship (using your less favourable stats)?

Nobody is claiming he is going to boss games in the Premier League, but the rationale that because he is not in the team right now and that because he has been part of previous Leicester sides who have come up short, he definitely can't be of value to us in a higher division doesn't hold water.

[artursteppe]

I'm going to get my old record out again, the one I've been playing for four or five years now.

Andy King has never been good enough or strong enough to play in a two man central midfield role on a consistent basis, whether it be with Wellens, or James, or Drinkwater or anybody else.

He is quite good going forward, so I would be quite happy to have him in a three man central midfield set up or coming on as a sub from time to time.

He has always been that sort of player for us. He would be OK in a 4-2-3-1 role as the central player in the forward three behind a lone striker, but then so would Nugent or Taylor-Fletcher, or Knocky.

That is just the way it is!

[Guest Col city fan]

Col's point was:

If King can't get in a team in the Championship he can't be good enough for the premier league.

If you think, given what we know about James and Drinkwater's form, that is reasonable logic then there is little point in having a sensible debate on this. It is argument by mis-direction.

There is plenty to suggest that King isn't good enough for the Premier League. The ONLY point I have tried to make is that not getting in ahead of Drinkwater and James is not definitive proof of him not being good enough. That logic has no substance to it, you're arguing with a point I'm not trying to make.

As for the second half if the post, comparisons to last season are completely misleading. Last year everyone got tired and form plummeted due to a lack of rotation and experience. This is why we have a squad. Even if we are to take the huge assumption that King is going to drop off every year (and do so to the detriment of the team), why can't he be of value at the times when he is playing well enough to be in a side which averages 2.1 ppg in the Championship (using your less favourable stats)?

Nobody is claiming he is going to boss games in the Premier League, but the rationale that because he is not in the team right now and that because he has been part of previous Leicester sides who have come up short, he definitely can't be of value to us in a higher division doesn't hold water.

Why focus on just one argument? I've made others, as have others. Try to look at the bigger picture rather than become fixated on one point. Yes, you didn't agree and said so in no uncertain terms! But the debate has moved on.

To be honest, none of what you've said has made me think any differently. It's like you almost feel compelled to defend the player at all costs? Is that the case?

[inckley fox]

Col's point was:

If King can't get in a team in the Championship he can't be good enough for the premier league.

If you think, given what we know about James and Drinkwater's form, that is reasonable logic then there is little point in having a sensible debate on this. It is argument by mis-direction.

There is plenty to suggest that King isn't good enough for the Premier League. The ONLY point I have tried to make is that not getting in ahead of Drinkwater and James is not definitive proof of him not being good enough. That logic has no substance to it, you're arguing with a point I'm not trying to make.

As for the second half if the post, comparisons to last season are completely misleading. Last year everyone got tired and form plummeted due to a lack of rotation and experience. This is why we have a squad. Even if we are to take the huge assumption that King is going to drop off every year (and do so to the detriment of the team), why can't he be of value at the times when he is playing well enough to be in a side which averages 2.1 ppg in the Championship (using your less favourable stats)?

Nobody is claiming he is going to boss games in the Premier League, but the rationale that because he is not in the team right now and that because he has been part of previous Leicester sides who have come up short, he definitely can't be of value to us in a higher division doesn't hold water.

 

I agree with most of this. However there can be little question that it is very rare for any fringe player to become an established regular upon promotion, and the past few seasons should be taken into account.

 

However I have to take you up on your point about why we didn't go up last season. You say it's because we were 'tired' and couldn't rotate - but we did rotate for that pivotal cup tie with Huddersfield, didn't we? And we've done little to rest the likes of Dyer, Konchesky, Nugent et. al in the past 5 or 6 weeks.

 

I think this was one of many reasons. I tend to think that other factors - complacency, lack of experience among the players, perhaps even a lack of experience in the management - may have contributed. If you look at the size of our squad it's not significantly bigger than it was last season, when we had the likes of Waghorn, Kane, Keane etc. at our disposal. I genuinely believe that everyone has learnt a lesson or two this time around (fingers crossed it doesn't all go tits up now I've said that...)

 

Whether King has become a better player, and has learnt to cope with these pressures (after failing to cope, if we're honest, for the past few years) we don't yet know. And there are those who feel that it might be a good thing not to investigate further.

[Guest ttfn]

Why focus on just one argument? I've made others, as have others. Try to look at the bigger picture rather than become fixated on one point. Yes, you didn't agree and said so in no uncertain terms! But the debate has moved on.

Inckley has been making some good points about my response to your point. I am merely addressing those.

I think you're a good poster (albeit I disagree with a lot of what you say) because you've almost always got a fair point to make- I just disagreed with the logic what I read as a fairly smug put down of somebody else's praise of King with odd rationale.

I'm sorry I even started this now. Friends?

[inckley fox]

I'm going to get my old record out again, the one I've been playing for four or five years now.

Andy King has never been good enough or strong enough to play in a two man central midfield role on a consistent basis, whether it be with Wellens, or James, or Drinkwater or anybody else.

He is quite good going forward, so I would be quite happy to have him in a three man central midfield set up or coming on as a sub from time to time.

He has always been that sort of player for us. He would be OK in a 4-2-3-1 role as the central player in the forward three behind a lone striker, but then so would Nugent or Taylor-Fletcher, or Knocky.

That is just the way it is!

 

I can see why you say he would be better off in a three man midfield (although this hasn't always looked the case when we've played 4-3-3 or 3-5-2), but I'm not sure when we're likely to give any good amount of time over to testing this system. And in the Premier League? I don't know.

 

And I'm fairly positive that GTF would be well and truly out of the picture by then (if we're to see the job through)!