Thracian Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 In trying to back my case for Elvis Hammond I notice that virtually all of Leicester's best football over the last 12 months hascome when he's been in the team. And they've tended to score goals. Sheffield United at home, which ended 4-2 was unquestionably our best performance of that period. But he also played and scored a disgracefully disallowed goal in the 2-2 draw against Crewe when we played them off the park apart from winning, there was the 2-0 hammering of Sheffield Wednesday, the unlikely 2-1 win at Watford, the entertaining 1-1 draw at Derby where again he was harshly denied goals if I recall and this season, of course, the 3-1 win over Ipswich. He even played in the win over Spurs. The big thing is we virtually always score goals when he plays and that's what we need right now. I would play him on the right where I'll be sure he'll not displace anyone vital but I'd have no hesitation in allowing him to swop wings with Porter because, while he's no left footer he is especially dangerous coming in onto his right foot and Levi's as capable on the right as anywhere else. With Hume inside the options would be so fluid as to make it a nightmare for the opposition. To re-emphasise the suggested team: Logan; Stearman, McCarthy, McAuley, Kenton/Tiatto; Hume, Wesolowski, Porter; Hammond, O'Grady, Fryatt. And not for one game. Birmingham won't be easy and the team would need to gel. But that team pretty well accomodates our best available players and has no notable weak links. Furthermore I believe it would be a co-operative team with everyone keen to help everyone else and that's important. It's got pace, strength, balance and enthusiasm. I wish RK would pick it. Not bits of it. All of it.And sendem out with one instruction... Playwith your heart, play with your head and play for each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 In trying to back my case for Elvis Hammond I notice that virtually all of Leicester's best football over the last 12 months hascome when he's been in the team. And they've tended to score goals. Sheffield United at home, which ended 4-2 was unquestionably our best performance of that period. But he also played and scored a disgracefully disallowed goal in the 2-2 draw against Crewe when we played them off the park apart from winning, there was the 2-0 hammering of Sheffield Wednesday, the unlikely 2-1 win at Watford, the entertaining 1-1 draw at Derby where again he was harshly denied goals if I recall and this season, of course, the 3-1 win over Ipswich. He even played in the win over Spurs. The big thing is we virtually always score goals when he plays and that's what we need right now. I would play him on the right where I'll be sure he'll not displace anyone vital but I'd have no hesitation in allowing him to swop wings with Porter because, while he's no left footer he is especially dangerous coming in onto his right foot and Levi's as capable on the right as anywhere else. With Hume inside the options would be so fluid as to make it a nightmare for the opposition. To re-emphasise the suggested team: Logan; Stearman, McCarthy, McAuley, Kenton/Tiatto; Hume, Wesolowski, Porter; Hammond, O'Grady, Fryatt. And not for one game. Birmingham won't be easy and the team would need to gel. But that team pretty well accomodates our best available players and has no notable weak links. Furthermore I believe it would be a co-operative team with everyone keen to help everyone else and that's important. It's got pace, strength, balance and enthusiasm. I wish RK would pick it. Not bits of it. All of it.And sendem out with one instruction... Playwith your heart, play with your head and play for each other. Hammon has never been convincing in my eye's but in a forward 3 he might provide abit of pace to give space for the other strikers. But the biggest fault of Hammond is that he is a poor footballer, his technique and ability have alot to be desired!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 I wish RK would pick it. Not bits of it. All of it.And sendem out with one instruction... Playwith your heart, play with your head and play for each other. That's three instructions. And of course everyone wishes that RK would pick the team they want to see. It's a fantasy world. In a fantasy world, our good players would play well and make the notion of picking a footballing cretin like Elvis Hammond seem like the most ridiculous idea on earth. Seems to me you are just going through all of the options that RK hasn't tried and hailing them as miraculous because you know they won't happen. In an ideal world, I'd like to see 3-5-2 but I know it's not going to happen and I'm not going to barrack RK for not trying it because it shouldn't take 3-5-2 with some of the players we have, it just takes a simple approach, playing your best players (your actual best players, not youth teamers or donkeys like Hammond) and motivating them to play at their best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Fox Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 Elvis isn't very good but he's probably a better option to Josh Bloody Low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 26 September 2006 Author Share Posted 26 September 2006 That's three instructions. And of course everyone wishes that RK would pick the team they want to see. It's a fantasy world. In a fantasy world, our good players would play well and make the notion of picking a footballing cretin like Elvis Hammond seem like the most ridiculous idea on earth. Seems to me you are just going through all of the options that RK hasn't tried and hailing them as miraculous because you know they won't happen. In an ideal world, I'd like to see 3-5-2 but I know it's not going to happen and I'm not going to barrack RK for not trying it because it shouldn't take 3-5-2 with some of the players we have, it just takes a simple approach, playing your best players (your actual best players, not youth teamers or donkeys like Hammond) and motivating them to play at their best. My attacking approach never changes. The personnel does and will always change according to injuries, suspensions, who's available, where the problems are. You make lots of good points at times even the ones I disagree with, but you can be so blinkered. If you favour 3-5-2 and have a different set of "best players" by all means enlighten me. There are indeed any number of plausible options depending on your perception of the basic approach...attacking/defensive/neutrally opportunist. But to achieve my ends I want as many players as possible to be able to pass and support, as much speed as I can muster, as much energy to recover when we've lost the ball, as many people who can put the ball in the net as possible, as many as possible who can supply the telling pass and, most of all, the right spirit. That's the basis of my thinking. It has nothing to do with what Kelly may feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe. Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 I agree with the fact that despite Elvis being crap usually, he should be in the team but on the right wing. It would hopefully give a fresh approach and add some goals. I would stick with 4-4-2 with this team: Logan Stearman, McCarthy, McAuley, Possibly Sheehan/Tiatto Hammond, Hughes, Williams (when he's fit), Porter O'Grady (for the big man approach), Hume/ Fryatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 26 September 2006 Author Share Posted 26 September 2006 I agree with the fact that despite Elvis being crap usually, he should be in the team but on the right wing. It would hopefully give a fresh approach and add some goals. I would stick with 4-4-2 with this team: Logan Stearman, McCarthy, McAuley, Possibly Sheehan/Tiatto Hammond, Hughes, Williams (when he's fit), Porter O'Grady (for the big man approach), Hume/ Fryatt I hadn't thought of that one -12 players! But if you're sure we can get away with it .....I still wouldn't want Hughes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 Ack. No Kenton or Wesolowski?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 26 September 2006 Author Share Posted 26 September 2006 That's three instructions. And of course everyone wishes that RK would pick the team they want to see. It's a fantasy world. In a fantasy world, our good players would play well and make the notion of picking a footballing cretin like Elvis Hammond seem like the most ridiculous idea on earth. Seems to me you are just going through all of the options that RK hasn't tried and hailing them as miraculous because you know they won't happen. In an ideal world, I'd like to see 3-5-2 but I know it's not going to happen and I'm not going to barrack RK for not trying it because it shouldn't take 3-5-2 with some of the players we have, it just takes a simple approach, playing your best players (your actual best players, not youth teamers or donkeys like Hammond) and motivating them to play at their best. One instruction .... in three parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 Ack. No Kenton or Wesolowski?? Is Darren Kenton a teenager from New Parks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 26 September 2006 Author Share Posted 26 September 2006 I tell you what, why don't you play ten up front, but allow no one in the team above the age of 12, you would have youth and enthusiasm. You might account a few problems though, they would have to be back by 5 for tea. Do you have a job? Can you not do anything else except think up craps anecdotes to our poor situation. I gather you disagree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamite foxes Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 Well done, you disagreed twice. Really enforced your point that way. Not only do you disagree, I quite honestly disagree with everything you have ever said and as my signature points out, you said some valid and informed things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 26 September 2006 Author Share Posted 26 September 2006 Hammon has never been convincing in my eye's but in a forward 3 he might provide abit of pace to give space for the other strikers. But the biggest fault of Hammond is that he is a poor footballer, his technique and ability have alot to be desired!!! Hughes and Johnson are poor footballers and their technique is fine. Hammond, like Large is probably a good footballer with lousy technique in certain areas. Steve Heighway was like that too. He didn't do too bad yet the ball was forever cannoning off his shins or getting stuck under his feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dynamite foxes Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 Don't tell me Hammond is worth 20 million. Pace, finishing, big knob, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatesheadfox Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 does anyone else think that porter could be a very effective link up player behind the front two? if we used him there and had wingbacks it could prove an interesting set up IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 does anyone else think that porter could be a very effective link up player behind the front two? if we used him there and had wingbacks it could prove an interesting set up IMO There's something in this. Either him or Hume or both need to be given free licence to attack from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 26 September 2006 Author Share Posted 26 September 2006 Don't tell me Hammond is worth 20 million. Pace, finishing, big knob, etc... If he were worth £2m he probably be the most expensive player in our squad right now! Pace and strength I mentioned - the big knob I'll concede to your greater knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Fox Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 Don't tell me Hammond is worth 20 million. Pace, finishing, big knob, etc... Didn't Levein pay £25m for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OBO Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 I still quite like Elvis, no matter how frustrating it is to watch him try and perform in front of goal, he puts in more effort than almost anyone else, he's fast and he's always making a nuisance of himself and trying to break through on goal. If he was a bit more careful about getting offside and could actually strike a ball, then he'd be a pretty decent player! As it is he couldn't finish his dinner and consequently his scoring record is absolutely terrible Interesting how we've gotten a few decent results with him in the side though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxhateram Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 Elvis isn't very good but he's probably a better option to Josh Bloody Low Hasnt low be the provider of most our width weve had when hes played, hasnt low been the provider of decent crosses that fryatt and o'grady should be scoring, isnt low the pacey one on the right that actualy runs at the defence. sorry but i think dising low would be wrong! if you had actually seen/heard him without biasty because of what uv heard about him before he came. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatesheadfox Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 Interesting how we've gotten a few decent results with him in the side though. i think its quite simple, he troubles the defence. something we arent doing at the moment, colchester had a very easy job keeping us out on saturday and a bit of pace and enthusiasm may have scraped us through it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teblin Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 Hammond is rubbish! Only thing he has got going for him is that he is fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lildave3 Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 Hasnt low be the provider of most our width weve had when hes played, hasnt low been the provider of decent crosses that fryatt and o'grady should be scoring, isnt low the pacey one on the right that actualy runs at the defence. sorry but i think dising low would be wrong! if you had actually seen/heard him without biasty because of what uv heard about him before he came. I can't remember one occasion where he has run at the defence and tried to take them on, let alone succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Honcho Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 It doesn't really matter what team we put out they're all a much of a muchness with our current style of play! Until we change our approach to games we'll never improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 26 September 2006 Share Posted 26 September 2006 I wonder what the Foxes Trust's official take on Elvis Hammond is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.