Kent Kingsley: Unlucky?

[PhatBoy]

Was thinking about this a few days ago.
When he was cut by Geelong, Kingsley was just shy of 28. That was the end of 2006.
Cats fans often talk about Riccardi being unlucky because he retired a year before the flag but he was a spent force by then.

Kingsley was ridiculously maligned by our fans. After seeing his stats and that he actually averaged 2 goals a game in a side that generally didn't have that good a midfield, I started to wonder how he would have gone if he was around one more year when we just started to destroy everyone.

I imagine he would look back and be fairly bitter that he didn't get a bit more leeway from the list management team.

Apologies if this has been done before. I'm still relatively unfamiliar with old ground in these parts.

 

[bulletproof]

Did we improve because we jettisoned the likes of Kingsley or did he miss out?

I actually thought Kingsley was unfairly maligned but fans quite rightly get pretty upset when you spray the ball like he could.

The game changed and forwards like Kingsley struggled to adapt. You needed to be more than Lead and Mark. Kersten would have kicked more goals in another era for example.

 

[catempire]

There's no doubting he was a limited player but I agree he was unfairly maligned to an extent given he kicked over 200 goals for the club.

He only kicked 10 goals in his last season at the club (2006). It wasn't his fault it was a disaster of a year but he was never going to survive that.

 

[year of the cat]

Not sure about unlucky. I think he unfortunately had a game that was unlikely to stand up in finals. He was just a lead, mark, kick type - if you are going to be that limited then you'd better be bloody good at the few features you have. His kicking was far too unreliable for a player with such a limited game.

I reckon that 2004 Prelim against Brisbane was the beginning of the end for him. He had an opportunity that night to effectively win the game for us but failed. Ottens was recruited that offseason with the initial intention of playing key forward as a result.

He did play some useful games though. One against Essendon at Colonial when he kicked 7 from memory and tore Dustin Fletcher a new one springs immediately to mind.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Had to be moved on for us to improve IMO. Would we have won the 2007 premiership if Kingsley was still our main target up forward?

2006 was a disaster, changes had to be made, honest sessions done, and everything worked out for the better. Was he unlucky? Maybe, but he was never upto it.

 

[vinum coupe]

The guy wa an opportunist. Not a full forward.
I used to know him pretty well. And he started AFL with Carey always telling him to 'get the F out of my way'.

So he had to be a seagull
And I actually think it suited him. Because in a straight line he had a bit of speed, and he loved a goal.

 

[Baudolino]

There's no doubting he was a limited player but I agree he was unfairly maligned to an extent given he kicked over 200 goals for the club.

A strange phenomenon I've observed - and this applies across nearly all sports, not just AFL - is that players who are almost good enough to compete at the highest level, but have certain recurring limitations or flaws in their game that preclude them from ever really "making it", are generally more harshly maligned than players who never get anywhere near the required level and, as a result, fail immediately. Almost every supporter base has their own example of this. I remember Melbourne supporters circa the Mark Neeld era, even the highly-informed ones who saw VFL games and were familiar with their entire list, were far more disparaging towards Colin Sylvia than they were towards Lucas Cook, a high draft pick who failed to play a single game for their club and was so bad he got delisted almost immediately. I suppose on some level it has to do with how long fans are exposed to the deficiencies in each players game, but still, it does throw light upon the lack of perspective fans have when it comes to rating players.

I've noticed this in the EPL too: look at how Arsenal and Premier League fans rate Nicklas Bendtner, for instance. Bendtner is considered a laughing stock now, and while there are dozens of non-football reasons why that "comic figure" reputation is justified, he's also used in conversations between soccer fans as a shorthand for "failed" talent and considered one of the Arsenal Academy's biggest flops, which is ridiculous really, since in relative terms he is actually one of the biggest successes the Arsenal Academy has had over the last twenty years. There are literally hundreds of kids who have been through the Academy in that time, and only a handful ever even played for the Arsenal first team - most of the kids who come through football academies don't even come close to making it - so technically, playing 100+ games and scoring 40+ goals puts Bendtner well above his peers, and yet he's considered more synonymous with incompetence than the kids of came through the U18 team with him who are now playing non-league football.

 

[Lana]

A strange phenomenon I've observed - and this applies across nearly all sports, not just AFL - is that players who are almost good enough to compete at the highest level, but have certain recurring limitations or flaws in their game that preclude them from ever really "making it", are generally more harshly maligned than players who never get anywhere near the required level and, as a result, fail immediately. Almost every supporter base has their own example of this. I remember Melbourne supporters circa the Mark Neeld era, even the highly-informed ones who saw VFL games and were familiar with their entire list, were far more disparaging towards Colin Sylvia than they were towards Lucas Cook, a high draft pick who failed to play a single game for their club and was so bad he got delisted almost immediately. I suppose on some level it has to do with how long fans are exposed to the deficiencies in each players game, but still, it does throw light upon the lack of perspective fans have when it comes to rating players.

I've noticed this in the EPL too: look at how Arsenal and Premier League fans rate Nicklas Bendtner, for instance. Bendtner is considered a laughing stock now, and while there are dozens of non-football reasons why that "comic figure" reputation is justified, he's also used in conversations between soccer fans as a shorthand for "failed" talent and considered one of the Arsenal Academy's biggest flops, which is ridiculous really, since in relative terms he is actually one of the biggest successes the Arsenal Academy has had over the last twenty years. There are literally hundreds of kids who have been through the Academy in that time, and only a handful ever even played for the Arsenal first team - most of the kids who come through football Academy's don't even come close to making it - so technically, playing 100+ games and scoring 40+ goals puts Bendtner well above his peers, and yet he's considered more synonymous with incompetence than the kids of came through the U18 team with him who are now playing non-league football.

All of the kids that failed without firing a shot are nameless, 10 years from now very few Melbourne supporters will remember Cook while most will remember the underachieving 150 gamer Sylvia.

 

[Partridge]

There's no doubting he was a limited player but I agree he was unfairly maligned to an extent given he kicked over 200 goals for the club.

He only kicked 10 goals in his last season at the club (2006). It wasn't his fault it was a disaster of a year but he was never going to survive that.

Problem was eight of them came in one game. Then followed eight more games with no less than six of them being goalless. That's beyond terrible for any kind of focal point.

 

[MisterMarcus]

I always thought Kingsley was a bit unfairly maligned. He was really a "third tall" type, but was forced to play as a key forward because we didn't really have anyone else to consistently hold down a KPF spot at the time. Yes he had some flaws, but he was also being forced to play as basically our sole key forward at 193cm. I think he did pretty well.

 

[year of the cat]

I always thought Kingsley was a bit unfairly maligned. He was really a "third tall" type, but was forced to play as a key forward because we didn't really have anyone else to consistently hold down a KPF spot at the time. Yes he had some flaws, but he was also being forced to play as basically our sole key forward at 193cm. I think he did pretty well.

193cm isn't exactly short.

 

[LifeSpan-Void]

Fevola went OK at 191cm. The problem with Kingsley was his inconsistency in both getting any goals per game, or when he was getting a lot of it he would frequently end up with 2.4 or 1.3, figures that really did sum up Geelong's predicament during that period. As with the club's form, Kingsley's best was actually very good but when he was off the boil he was utterly putrid.

 

[canny30]

Was thinking about this a few days ago.
When he was cut by Geelong, Kingsley was just shy of 28. That was the end of 2006.
Cats fans often talk about Riccardi being unlucky because he retired a year before the flag but he was a spent force by then.

Kingsley was ridiculously maligned by our fans. After seeing his stats and that he actually averaged 2 goals a game in a side that generally didn't have that good a midfield, I started to wonder how he would have gone if he was around one more year when we just started to destroy everyone.

I imagine he would look back and be fairly bitter that he didn't get a bit more leeway from the list management team.

Apologies if this has been done before. I'm still relatively unfamiliar with old ground in these parts.

No.

He was a MAJOR part of the reason the club underachieved prior to 2007. The guy was useless, missing simple set shots over and over.

There's a reason he went to Richmond and was rubbish

 

[PhatBoy]

No.

He was a MAJOR part of the reason the club underachieved prior to 2007. The guy was useless, missing simple set shots over and over.

There's a reason he went to Richmond and was rubbish

He played 3 games there, with teammates who lost to us by what, 190 points in round 6?

If you want to bag him one what he did for us, by all means. But his effort at Richmond should have little if any reflection on his abilities as a player.

 

[cats2rise]

Why has nobody mentioned the Kent Kingsley Krew yet?

I was thinking about him today, funnily enough.

 

[Cosmic Energy]

While Cam Mooney wasn't a Rolls Royce, I always thought that moving him forward and moving Kent out all together was one of the keys to our transformation to a side with a harder edge. The old 'straightening up' of the team.

Kent seemed to lack that ultra competitive spirit which can make such a difference (I thought the same of Ben Graham). So he'd kick his couple but I can't recall him seizing any big moments. My early suspicion was that Kersten might be in the same mould. Maybe it's a personal thing - there was something about the way Mooney would kick goals and send a spark through the team that I loved. Caddy does it now. It's like not all goals are created equal.

 

[Goggin Our Best]

I read in the weekend paper that Geelongs other key forward at that time David Haynes - Geelong used - it was either pick 16 or pick 20 - and the Eagles used that pick to get Sam Butler - no superstar but played a hell of alot more games than Haynes

The Lions won 3 flags and had alot of top players - but they took allnight to beat Geel in that PF - and Geelongs 2 key forwards were Kingsley and Haynes - that puts the slows on the Lions when rating them i reckon

 

[manboob]

Dude ruined all of our forward 50 entries was too demanding of the ball and the our movement forward broke down where he got the ball. Best moe ever moving him on.

 

[jezza1435]

I remember thinking he was the luckiest bloke ever whenever he got a game

 

[you pick one]

Anybody who just thinks of Kent Kingsley out of the blue needs some serious help.

 

[Live in hope]

Had more talent than many would credit him but iMHO was more a third tall. Always thought should have been groomed as a half forward.

I think he kicked a bag in a game in 2006, was dropped soon after and then spat the dummy a bit, Mark Blake style. A recall he married this very glamorous lady and appeared to be involved in some sort of boutique business. I suspect his heart went out of it.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

While Cam Mooney wasn't a Rolls Royce, I always thought that moving him forward and moving Kent out all together was one of the keys to our transformation to a side with a harder edge. The old 'straightening up' of the team.

Kent seemed to lack that ultra competitive spirit which can make such a difference (I thought the same of Ben Graham). So he'd kick his couple but I can't recall him seizing any big moments. My early suspicion was that Kersten might be in the same mould. Maybe it's a personal thing - there was something about the way Mooney would kick goals and send a spark through the team that I loved. Caddy does it now. It's like not all goals are created equal.

^That.

When Chappy went to Essendon, a supporter asked me what I thought his best upside was for Essendon. I said "Chapman kicks the goals that are meant to got. He'll put one right through the centre after 10 minutes of tight football in the third. He straightens up the forward line."

That isn't Kent.

 

[cats2rise]

Anybody who just thinks of Kent Kingsley out of the blue needs some serious help.

Any suggestions?

 

[Zane Taylor]

Yeah Kent probably did get more than his fair share of criticism, but unfortunately for him it was still the era before the breakthrough premiership, and anxiety levels were high, and reason along with tolerance for failure was at a premium.

He wasn't known as Kant Kicksley for no reason at all though.

 

[cats2rise]

He did have a magnificent shuffle run when he led under the flight of the ball.