Unfortunately I think thats right, because he was a Kangaroo international and played Origin I think we thought we were getting someone like Hodges, Gasnier or Inglis, and we weren't.

About this time last year I was in a bar in Pretoria, I got chatting to an Aussie bloke from Townsville and the conversation turned to league. I said I was a Warrington fan and was excited at the signings of Monaghan and King, this fella rated Monaghan but straight from the off he was negative about King. He reckoned King and Tate were weak links in the Aussie defence, both had a tendency to be caught out of position and the Kiwis had exploited this especially in 2005. He also said that where Gasnier, Inglis and Hodges were freakishly talented athletes, King was pretty much a straight up and down player with a strong physique who would run in tries on the back of a dominant Melbourne side and had got himself in the representative reckoning because of that. I argued that you don't get to play for NSW or Australia without being a good player, his response was that might be true but he was unlikely to get rep calls again so he'd cashed in on a good deal in Super League at a time when his reputation was at its peak.

I didn't think too much of this at the time because it was just the view of an Aussie fan, I think we were all excited about King coming to Wire, but with hindsight they were interesting comments.

We dont use him right at all. At storm he was given the ball (as a wing man where he played) about 10 metres from the line and he crashed over the winger.

At the moment we ship the ball out so slow that my gran could do a good job at a covering defence against us.

It was a bit pointless him turning up on friday as we never seemed to get the ball to him.

There are some concerning aspects of his defensive positioning but the whole team seems a bit suspect at this!

I agree with Sally - that's pretty much what I'd heard too. We were all expecting a Gasnier and ended up with Reg rather than Mark.

Basically at the Storm he was used as a battering ram close to the line or by outjumping his opposite number off a high ball.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but to be honest he is an absolute donkey. I was watching the Saints match on holiday in the pub with no sound on and assumed he must have been injured as he was so slow and scrabbling around in the mud - to be honest I felt for him as it was just embarrassing to watch Gidley turn him inside out.

Hopefully Moran will bump into Inglis' agent at Lords and we might actually sign someone in there prime.

I still have hope for Monas.

JJJ, he didn't play winger at Melbourne. Steve Turner was his winger, King played virtually all his games at centre. His NSW and Australia games were pretty much all on the wing.

I think it is far too easy to say he isn't good enough, isn't it more of a case of not utilising him correctly.

Poor Service, simple as!

Speak for yourself, some of us pointed out what we were getting even before he had made his debut.

Mat King played in an excellent Melbourne side where he didn`t need to be a creative centre, the Storm had Inglis and Slater joining the line out wide to do the creating and making the overlap where more often than not it would just leave Matt King with a run in.

When he played rep RL for NSW and the Kangaroos it suited their system to have a big strong finisher out wide that could use his size to barge over from short range along with using his height to get on the end of kicks and generally finishing off moves, the Australian test team and NSW have always had an abundance of creative players in the backline which would compliment Kings size out wide.

His defence has always been poor which is another one of the reasons why he was out on the wing at rep level, he charges out of the line too much looking for the big hit and more often than not he will miss and leave his winger totally exposed with an overlap, he also likes to go walk about but when your surrounded by some of the worlds best players you can get away with that in the NRL and at rep level but you can`t get away with it when you have some inexperienced players around you along with some average ones like he`s got here.

At Warrington he is an average player in an average side, i would have Michael Shenton over Matt King any day of the week.

I wouldnt like to defend against either of King or Bridge but i would prefer to defend against King because Bridge would more than likely stand me up through pure footwork and make me look foolish(Which is what Jamie Lyon is very good at - This is not a comparison BTW). If you hold your ground or advance on king you have won because the footwork is not there to the same extent.
As somebody else has stated King is straighth up and down, a bit like Senior with the difference being Senior is often facing a retreating defence when he comes crashing through. Senior's Half backs and other runners create doubt in the defence. Our halfbacks are not carrying the ball so the defence does not have to worry about them. We are creating absolutely no doubt in the opposition.
If King were to play centre again it would have to be due to an injury / loss in the halves so Bridge could go to 6/7. Bridge carries the ball well and an opposition defence wouldn't know if he is gonna run or pass which would benefit King

People can say we don't use him that well, but I think that's a poor excuse for some of his form.

With a winger like Penny outside him, he should have been able to take advantage of uncertainty in the defence, and creating space. Unfortunately, the defence soon worked out that he didn't have the pace to beat them himself, and he didn't have the vision to put Penny away from distance, so he became easy to defend against.

From 15-20m out, I do think he is still an effective player, and FWIW I don't think he is as bad as many make out, he just isn't doing anything special for us.

To look at some of his stats for last year's contribution, he still scored 11 tries, and assisted 9 (although I think his assists were pretty standard rather than anything creative like Gleeson or Gidley). He made more metres than either of these other two centres though, maybe we use him too much like a battering ram.

His defence has been the biggest worry, but with Bridge as his centre he does look more settled, unfortunately Penny has had to take the fall for this to happen.

No. I meant to say precisely what I said. He is not as good as we thought he was.

He's been average at best in well over a year since he signed for us. Hardly 'overnight' well, unless we're talking around 360 odd nights.

He's slow, and doesn't have a step. He doesn't seem to have any attributes to his game that set him apart from the average players.

Average, is probably the right word to sum him up.

He was never world class either.

Some very good posts in this thread, and I agree with a lot of what's been said.
Just one point I'd add - last season King admitted that he was embarrassed by his own form, so whatever your thoughts on how we've been using him, he knows himself that he's been underperforming.
Question is, what's he going to do about it?

I remember early days last season Vinnie anderson would join the line late on the left hand side from time to time giving the half back options of passes to Numbers 5, 4, 11 and 13 or to go himself. You throw a fullback into that lot and you have a lot of options. I have not seen those sorts of numbers in attack for a while now.

Is it not there or am I just not seeing it.

No, these days we like to use numbers 8, 10, 15 and 16.

Some players only look good in a world class team, stick him in the manly team and he would be a world star again but in the wire team, no offence he does not have the quality he used to have around him.