Ric Flair Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 Well you should know, you produce enough of them. If you'd been there on Saturday, you'd have seen Elvis set up BOTH of Hume's goals. Hammond may not be Thierry Henry mark 2 but only a complete imbecile would put him in the same bracket as Nathan Blake! I thought he was dreadful on saturday. Yes he was involved in both goals, but you can hardly call them assists. The first one was all Hume's making and the second again was down to Hume's sublime finishing. Hammond was yet again beaten in the air for the second it was just lucky that the ball fell to Hume on a day where everything he did was quality. Hammond's heading, finishing and work rate wasn't anywhere near what's expected at this this level. Usually his work rate is his best attribute but he gave up on lots of challenges during the game.
Ric Flair Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 Get your pointed hood off and try watching the game for a change. The standing ovation Elvis got when he went off suggested the majority of fans appreciated his contribution, as did Hume. To read you and TPH anyone would have thought we'd LOST on Saturday. In fact I suspect you'd both have preferred that result! I must have been mistaken because the clapping and cheering in the section that I was sitting in was more of relief than of appreciation at Elvis being replaced. I'll hold my hands up and admit when i've been wrong or harshly criticised players but Hammond isn't good enough. And saturday proved it. That 6 yard miss was embarrassing and could have cost us the 3 points.
gatesheadfox Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 That 6 yard miss was embarrassing and could have cost us the 3 points. i agree it could have cost us but it was right in front of me and i thought he just looked astounded that their defender missed it, he should have bagged it though. overall i thought his work rate made up for the cock up
Bert Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 Perhaps i'm being unfair on Elvis but he isn't good enough and hasn't even got age or in-experience to blame. He's never going to be good enough. That 6 yard volley he put wide sums him up. That could have cost us the game, it's a good job Hume was on fire. I think that Elvis didn't expect the ball to come past the defender in front of him which could be why he missed. But then again that would backup your point of not being experienced as most top strikers would expect everything to come their way.
Ultra Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 I must have been mistaken because the clapping and cheering in the section that I was sitting in was more of relief than of appreciation at Elvis being replaced. I'll hold my hands up and admit when i've been wrong or harshly criticised players but Hammond isn't good enough. And saturday proved it. That 6 yard miss was embarrassing and could have cost us the 3 points. Perhaps you'd better re-read the title of this thread, then.. And perhaps it's not a coincidence that our three best results this season have come in games where Hammond has started!
Manwell Pablo Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 Perhaps you'd better re-read the title of this thread, then.. And perhaps it's not a coincidence that our three best results this season have come in games where Hammond has started! .....Tiatto has started every time we have won and yet I don't see you give him special praise. Hammond worked hard and did ok, but he still looks like he lacks of the core attributes of a decent footballer. I though he was average on Saturday, he did set up both goals, but lets face it, both of them were all about the finish. That miss was terrible and with Nisse's ball watching at the other end we could of been 3-1 down at half time.
teblin Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 Hammond is not good enough. He works hard is is quick, Did alright when he didn't have the ball, doesn't know what to do when he has it.
Ric Flair Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 Perhaps you'd better re-read the title of this thread, then.. And perhaps it's not a coincidence that our three best results this season have come in games where Hammond has started! Yes it is!
Thracian Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 .....Tiatto has started every time we have won and yet I don't see you give him special praise. Hammond worked hard and did ok, but he still looks like he lacks of the core attributes of a decent footballer. I though he was average on Saturday, he did set up both goals, but lets face it, both of them were all about the finish. That miss was terrible and with Nisse's ball watching at the other end we could of been 3-1 down at half time. He hasn't finished many - 73 minutes is the longest he's lasted. He's been injured half the time. He doesn't deserve praise because he's hardly done anything worth mentioning (in a praiseworth sense) for weeks. Danny's no stranger to missing chances but it's not what you miss but what you get that counts. We got three Saturday and Elvis played his part and, while Hume's finishing was brilliant, Hammond put everything into winning the header for Hume's second. There wouldn't have been a finish but for Hammond's contribution.
Manwell Pablo Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 He hasn't finished many - 73 minutes is the longest he's lasted. He's been injured half the time. He doesn't deserve praise because he's hardly done anything worth mentioning (in a praiseworth sense) for weeks. Danny's no stranger to missing chances but it's not what you miss but what you get that counts. We got three Saturday and Elvis played his part and, while Hume's finishing was brilliant, Hammond put everything into winning the header for Hume's second. There wouldn't have been a finish but for Hammond's contribution. Oh come on, he jumped around like a jack in the box and managed to head it up in the air before Hume smacked it home from 25 yards . If you think im going to say he played well because of that you have another thing coming, he was average....at best.
Thracian Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 Oh come on, he jumped around like a jack in the box and managed to head it up in the air before Hume smacked it home from 25 yards . If you think im going to say he played well because of that you have another thing coming, he was average....at best. He was a country mile ahead of Tiatto for effect.
Manwell Pablo Posted 16 October 2006 Posted 16 October 2006 He was a country mile ahead of Tiatto for effect. Of course he was, going forward, they're different type's of players who play in different positions, it's a bit stupid to compare them, bordering juvenile in this case, you've been reaching for straws since Saturday and it's wearing a bit thin. You claim to call it as you see it but it's the same players who get under rated and some ones that get over rated every week, Hammond was no better than Johnson or Tiatto. I don't even know why you keep bringing Tiatto up I have no preference towards him I think he should play because the team is getting results when he is in it at the moment. I could pull up 100's of posts of mine slating him when he's deserved it, a few posts when he signed his contract spring to mind as well.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.