Webbo Posted 29 May 2007 Posted 29 May 2007 I felt the same about at least three players almost every time the teams were announced last season. Hammond, Porter & Stearman?
dandannieldanok Posted 29 May 2007 Posted 29 May 2007 I felt the same about ALL THE BASTARD at least three players almost every time the teams were announced last season.
Thracian Posted 29 May 2007 Posted 29 May 2007 For the most part I can sympathise with that ... especially when the loanees arrived.
Hullfox Posted 29 May 2007 Posted 29 May 2007 various guff What you really meant to say probably looks like this...... You don't detail the number of games he's played. But what you've said so far[perhaps does more to prove my other point - that's he's not really a specialist striker at all - much rather than indicating that he cannot shoot. footballer. Hammond would seem to have had few sustained opportunities and, while different managers clearly did see something in him I suspect his being not easy to place" is his main problem. Hence his bitty career. absolutely shit Hammond is not a specialist centre-forward, nor a midfield attacker who could play in the hole nor, alas, is he a winger. Nor is he a defender or even a goalkeeper, he's even shit in the warm up His best position - as I've said for some months would be as the outside of a front three but teams don't often play like that - even when they are consistently doing badly as we have done for so long. In L1 There is no doubt sense in my mind we would have benefitted from 4-3-3 because a) we had no real wingers, b) our strikers were never good enough in two's and c) Our midfield wasn't strong enough or creative enough with just two in the centre. But we persisted with a limp-wristed 4-4-2 which successive managers liked to make 4-5-1 if they got half a chance. The result has been two years of broadly dour/defensive rubbish with an often unbalanced, partly fit side which was playing the wrong system for the personnel. ****wit of a shit forward No wonder we scored so few goals. Not one of our strikers attacks crosses. So making efforts to deliver crosses was always likely to be fruitless as was clearly demonstrated, apart from set plays converted by centre-backs. We'd have done better with Porter, Weso and Tiatto in the centre, playing ball to feet, give-and-go football, and trying to provide Hammond with balls into space behind people so he could use his pace to cause problems. Wordsearches for his time on the bench It is not my fault if we waste people's ability. Hume and Fryatt might well have benefitted from this approach too although I would never have chosen Fryatt for anywhere but the bench last season - apart from in exceptional circumstances.
filbertboy Posted 29 May 2007 Posted 29 May 2007 What you really meant to say probably looks like this......You don't detail the number of games he's played. But what you've said so far[perhaps does more to prove my other point - that's he's not really a specialist striker at all - much rather than indicating that he cannot shoot. footballer. Hammond would seem to have had few sustained opportunities and, while different managers clearly did see something in him I suspect his being not easy to place" is his main problem. Hence his bitty career. absolutely shit Hammond is not a specialist centre-forward, nor a midfield attacker who could play in the hole nor, alas, is he a winger. Nor is he a defender or even a goalkeeper, he's even shit in the warm up His best position - as I've said for some months would be as the outside of a front three but teams don't often play like that - even when they are consistently doing badly as we have done for so long. In L1 There is no doubt sense in my mind we would have benefitted from 4-3-3 because a) we had no real wingers, b) our strikers were never good enough in two's and c) Our midfield wasn't strong enough or creative enough with just two in the centre. But we persisted with a limp-wristed 4-4-2 which successive managers liked to make 4-5-1 if they got half a chance. The result has been two years of broadly dour/defensive rubbish with an often unbalanced, partly fit side which was playing the wrong system for the personnel. ****wit of a shit forward No wonder we scored so few goals. Not one of our strikers attacks crosses. So making efforts to deliver crosses was always likely to be fruitless as was clearly demonstrated, apart from set plays converted by centre-backs. We'd have done better with Porter, Weso and Tiatto in the centre, playing ball to feet, give-and-go football, and trying to provide Hammond with balls into space behind people so he could use his pace to cause problems. Wordsearches for his time on the bench It is not my fault if we waste people's ability. Hume and Fryatt might well have benefitted from this approach too although I would never have chosen Fryatt for anywhere but the bench last season - apart from in exceptional circumstances. that was brilliant !!
teblin Posted 29 May 2007 Posted 29 May 2007 Not read all the thread, but hoping everyone has come to the conclusion that elvis is crap.
Dames Posted 29 May 2007 Posted 29 May 2007 When you look at players like Hammond. You just wanna kick yourself and say 'How the fook could he do it and i couldn't'
AyewJoking Posted 29 May 2007 Posted 29 May 2007 If football is a game where anything can happen, why are statistics important? Like when I hear on the TV, so and so havent beaten so and so at arse end street for 25 years. Does that mean statistics decide the result?
Asha Posted 30 May 2007 Posted 30 May 2007 IMO he's alright - when has he ever been given the chance? 12 goals in 59 starts? = Goals per game ratio of 1:5 or 1 goal every 5 games... not too bad if you think about it, especially as in nearly all of them he was brought off some distance from the end....IMO we should keep Elvis Hammond, he still offers something just needs more of a chance and a longer stint starting in the first team
Ric Flair Posted 30 May 2007 Posted 30 May 2007 I see that Elvis's reserve goal stats still haven't been proved. The man is an enigma.
The People's Hero Posted 30 May 2007 Posted 30 May 2007 IMO he's alright - when has he ever been given the chance? 12 goals in 59 starts? = Goals per game ratio of 1:5 or 1 goal every 5 games... not too bad if you think about it, especially as in nearly all of them he was brought off some distance from the end....IMO we should keep Elvis Hammond, he still offers something just needs more of a chance and a longer stint starting in the first team Hello Elvis. Shouldn't you be looking for a new club mate? Braaaaaaaaaap.
Ric Flair Posted 30 May 2007 Posted 30 May 2007 Hello Elvis.Shouldn't you be looking for a new club mate? Braaaaaaaaaap. He's currently out injured with an Itchy Trigger Finger.
The People's Hero Posted 30 May 2007 Posted 30 May 2007 Last I heard he was out bustin' a cap in some mofo's ass, for his brothers like, 'spec.
Ric Flair Posted 30 May 2007 Posted 30 May 2007 Last I heard he was out bustin' a cap in some mofo's ass, for his brothers like, 'spec. I wonder if he's the only ever G'ee to do a drive by shooting and miss in a Bentley Continental. There can't be many who have.
Bluefoxtim Posted 31 May 2007 Posted 31 May 2007 IMO he's alright - when has he ever been given the chance?12 goals in 59 starts? = Goals per game ratio of 1:5 or 1 goal every 5 games... not too bad if you think about it, especially as in nearly all of them he was brought off some distance from the end....IMO we should keep Elvis Hammond, he still offers something just needs more of a chance and a longer stint starting in the first team **** me. #We are going up# Though tbh, I think we have been harsh on Hughes. You can see he works hard, he's a lovely lad and an honest pro - give him another season.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.