FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Really Thracian how can you honestly believe that Hammond is a better footballer than Fryatt. Fryatt made a massive difference to us at the end of last season and has had a stop start season this year. Hammond is plain awful who's only ability is pace, Fryatt has composure and the ability to finish, which is far more important than being a headless chicken. I would rather play MDV than Hammond. I would rather have HIV that Elvis Hammond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Really Thracian how can you honestly believe that Hammond is a better footballer than Fryatt. Fryatt made a massive difference to us at the end of last season and has had a stop start season this year. Hammond is plain awful who's only ability is pace, Fryatt has composure and the ability to finish, which is far more important than being a headless chicken. I would rather play MDV than Hammond. Fryatt's composure and ability to finish brought him four goals in 22 outings! It is nothing to do with who's the best footballer, it's which of the two makes the more relevent contribution and for me, this season, that's been Hammond by some distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Fryatt's composure and ability to finish brought him four goals in 22 outings! It is nothing to do with who's the best footballer, it's which of the two makes the more relevent contribution and for me, this season, that's been Hammond by some distance. By your own (admittedly flawed) logic, Dodds is appalling then because his contribution to the first team was been non-existant. You can't use one rule for one and one for another Thracian. You should know that at your age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 By your own (admittedly flawed) logic, Dodds is appalling then because his contribution to the first team was been non-existant. You can't use one rule for one and one for another Thracian. You should know that at your age. What nonsense. Even by your standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 What nonsense. Even by your standards. Explain to me how it is nonsence. The basis of your argument was the simplistic view that measurable contribution (ie goals/assists/appearances) are the important way to assess any player. You've chosen to use first team games for Leicester City. Neither Fryatt or Hammond have been impressive this year. But Dodd's contribution has been nil. It's your logic. I don't endorse it. But you came up with it. So disregarding it just enforces your reputation on here as blowing with the wind and employing different judgement criteria for those you like... and those you don't like. The master of contradiction.....! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Thracian, do you say these things just to be controversial or are you actually just that poor a judge of footballing talent? Because I was actually fairly looking forward to the next generation of City youngsters, to be honest, largely as a result of your hyperventilating. But if your seal of approval goes to a player with no touch, grace, footballing intelligence, vision, ability to shoot and sense of timing over Matty Fryatt then you've got to be retarded. Fryatt has looked lazy and unfit at times this season, but so have a lot of players in the side. Fryatt has excellent touch, a much better finish, he looks around to get people into the game and he shows a wisdom on the ball that Hammond will never have. I'm very excited about a Matty Fryatt that's properly nurtured by a professional and experienced coaching staff next year. While Elvis Hammond has no future at this level. At all. Even if he does have a commendable work ethic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MBK Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 What nonsense. Even by your standards. You're right about Fryatt underperforming and justifying Hammond's usefulness in an uninspiring team, but don't get over analytical because you get lost. Fryatt has been mismanaged too much and lost a year of potential development. And that is difference between Fryatt and Hammond, because the latter we know his limits whilst Fryatt can and must improve. He needs games and patience, to hopefully give back a decent return on our investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Thracian, do you say these things just to be controversial or are you actually just that poor a judge of footballing talent? Because I was actually fairly looking forward to the next generation of City youngsters, to be honest, largely as a result of your hyperventilating. But if your seal of approval goes to a player with no touch, grace, footballing intelligence, vision, ability to shoot and sense of timing over Matty Fryatt then you've got to be retarded. Fryatt has looked lazy and unfit at times this season, but so have a lot of players in the side. Fryatt has excellent touch, a much better finish, he looks around to get people into the game and he shows a wisdom on the ball that Hammond will never have. I'm very excited about a Matty Fryatt that's properly nurtured by a professional and experienced coaching staff next year.While Elvis Hammond has no future at this level. At all. Even if he does have a commendable work ethic. I have never given Hammond my "seal of approval". I have said several times that I doubt I'd have ever signed the guy. But then I wouldn't have signed Fryatt or borrowed Horsfield either. I have simply said that Hammond has made a greater contribution than Fryatt this season, and that I wouldn't wish to see us lose Hammond's pace as an option until we replace him, because we need pace in the side. I've conceded that Fryatt starts with a clean sheet next season - and the best of luck to him - but if it were my choice, he'd be gone tomorrow. Even if he gets his fitness and attitude right I think he's too limited to be the striker we need. He does have good touch most of the time (though he hid it well at Barnsley) but I don't think he brings people into the game very well at all. Far too ofen if he sees a run he ignores it and goes down his own cul-de-sac. As I've mentioned, he's got no great aerial strength, no great pace, no great strength, his lack of speed limits the outcome of his ability to beat people and he doesn't have a wide enough range of shots. Considering all that he's simply not threatening enough at Championship level and too easy to mark. Injuries won't have helped. I still hope I'm wrong, and if you think I'm a poor judge of a player then there's a good chance of that, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Strength, speed and aerial ability are all attributes of merit in a striker but they're not essentials. I agree with the need for speed in the side, I love faster, attacking football and would happily watch a team of Olympic sprinters - if they could play the game. But if you look at the Van Nistelrooys, the Gary Linekers and even the Tony Cottees of this world, there's a whole other breed of striker that's frequently over-looked. A sense of instinct and positioning and a hunger for goals, that's something Hammond just does not have. If you look at Fryatt's goals at the end of last season, he doesn't score spectacular screamers or round the keeper after some blindingly speedy run, he scores striker's goals. And that's exactly what we've missed this season without a fit Fryatt. Someone who's there on the end of opportunities, scrambling in those loose chances and slowly clocking up the goals. Like I said, I'm excited about the lad. Maybe you'll be right and he won't be good enough, but I'm not going to condemn him now for not being Thierry Henry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolate Teapot Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 I have never given Hammond my "seal of approval". I have said several times that I doubt I'd have ever signed the guy.But then I wouldn't have signed Fryatt or borrowed Horsfield either. I have simply said that Hammond has made a greater contribution than Fryatt this season, and that I wouldn't wish to see us lose Hammond's pace as an option until we replace him, because we need pace in the side. I've conceded that Fryatt starts with a clean sheet next season - and the best of luck to him - but if it were my choice, he'd be gone tomorrow. Even if he gets his fitness and attitude right I think he's too limited to be the striker we need. He does have good touch most of the time (though he hid it well at Barnsley) but I don't think he brings people into the game very well at all. Far too ofen if he sees a run he ignores it and goes down his own cul-de-sac. As I've mentioned, he's got no great aerial strength, no great pace, no great strength, his lack of speed limits the outcome of his ability to beat people and he doesn't have a wide enough range of shots. Considering all that he's simply not threatening enough at Championship level and too easy to mark. Injuries won't have helped. I still hope I'm wrong, and if you think I'm a poor judge of a player then there's a good chance of that, I suppose. Didn't you say the same about Dodds, just that he has a nack of scoring goals. Again, your logic appears to have gone out the window.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dames Posted 2 May 2007 Author Share Posted 2 May 2007 Thracian is just a WUM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Thracian is just a WUM. As I said, just being controversial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Didn't you say the same about Dodds, just that he has a nack of scoring goals. Again, your logic appears to have gone out the window.......... You'll spot this as a recurring thing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 You'll spot this as a recurring thing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Didn't you say the same about Dodds, just that he has a nack of scoring goals. Again, your logic appears to have gone out the window.......... Not true at all. Dodds has a very wide range of shots and curls a damn good free-kick too. Dodds also brings others into play quite naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 One day someone is actually going to have the time available and the inclination to trawl through your guff and pull out examples of a number of glaring contradictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolate Teapot Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Not true at all. Dodds has a very wide range of shots and curls a damn good free-kick too.Dodds also brings others into play quite naturally. so does Fryatt, except he doesn't take free kciks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 so does Fryatt, except he doesn't take free kciks. That would explain why I've never noticed them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 That would explain why I've never noticed them. And why Dodds was leading scorer for Rochdale and Northwich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 One day someone is actually going to have the time available and the inclination to trawl through your guff and pull out examples of a number of glaring contradictions. I don't think there's any contradiction in my views about players strengths/weaknesses. But are you somehow suggesting football is static - and that players are always the same at one time as another? They're not. Sometimes they are dramatically different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Fox Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 I feel an Elvis & Thracian themed song coming on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Not true at all. Dodds has a very wide range of shots and curls a damn good free-kick too.Dodds also brings others into play quite naturally. Thats a exaggeratetion if ever I saw one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolate Teapot Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Not true at all. Dodds has a very wide range of shots and curls a damn good free-kick too.Dodds also brings others into play quite naturally. on the bench at rochdale? does he bring others into play by not playing and thereby giving others a chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolate Teapot Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 I wrote a song but I don't think it would really be allowed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted 2 May 2007 Share Posted 2 May 2007 Fryatt is 21, Hammond is 26. When Fryatt gets to 26 there is no way he'll be as awful as hammond. despite his many years, hammond still plays like a raw, undeveloped teenager. To me this shows a clear inability to learn, and just a general lack of ability. he will never get better. Fryatt on the other hand has potential, he clearly already has some ability, let's hope he can push on and learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.