Dean Hammond - new signing.

[tomtom]

Because we have no players, who can get the assists, Dyer and Knockaert are the main two, but he isn't playing them.

So we do have the players then?

We've got creativity in the likes of knocky and James, and box to box in king, but until now we've not had what I'd call your traditional ball winning, holding player

Now we've got all the components available for a good midfield it's obviously up to NP to use them correctly!

Personally I think Knocky is our potential match winner (although out of form and confidence) and I'd love to see us build our midfield around getting the best out of him

[Callabinho]

The signing of Hammond will benefit us massively! If he starts on Saturday you see how differently Drinkwater will play. I guarantee you will see a marked improvement!

And I think a diamond will work with him in the side!

[indierich06]

The signing of Hammond will benefit us massively! If he starts on Saturday you see how differently Drinkwater will play. I guarantee you will see a marked improvement!

And I think a diamond will work with him in the side!

 

Well he definitely won't be starting this Saturday.

[FoxLAD]

Well he definitely won't be starting this Saturday.

Surely he will cause of James red card?

[KFS]

Surely he will cause of James red card?

We don't have a game this Saturday, is the point he's making

[Callabinho]

Well he definitely won't be starting this Saturday.

.......

[FoxLAD]

We don't have a game this Saturday, is the point he's making

haha, well don't i just look silly 

[MrSpaM]

Do you think Pearson may even consider playing a diamond formation?

Hammond at the back, Knockaert at the front with James/Kingy or Drinkwater in the middle,then you still have your 2 full backs pushing on

Id like to see this tried tbh

[Dan]

People say 3-5-2 is too negative

We had to change from a 4-3-3 against Birmingham because it wasn't working

4-4-2 don't work either

 

4-4-2 worked against Birmingham and Carlisle.

 

I couldn't argue if 3-5-2 is negative or not as we haven't played it yet.

[Dickov22]

He decided following our dismal end to last season that we were losing games in the middle of the park and that he wanted to try 3-5-2. He isn't going to give that formation up until he's tried it a number of times. Hammond will be a straight swap for James

[Dan]

He decided following our dismal end to last season that we were losing games in the middle of the park and that he wanted to try 3-5-2. He isn't going to give that formation up until he's tried it a number of times. Hammond will be a straight swap for James

 

It's become 5-3-2. Someone (I think it was Father Ted) made a great post analysing our errors in the formation and it's born out of pure negativity, the two 'wide' centre halves ought to carry the ball forward more and the wing backs actually need to play as wing backs, rather than full backs. Get forward - there's enough cover and even more so now you've got Hammond.

 

With Hammond I believe we've got the players for both a 3-1-4-2 and a 3-4-1-2. Hammond sitting behind a midfield four would allow them all to get forward more, bit like Pirlo does for Juve (although I'm not expecting anything like that kind of standard from Hammond )

 

We could be a very good team now, we've got the players to play a lot of different formations.

 

I'm happy to turn last years defeats into draws but ultimately we ought to set up for 3 points in every game. It's not like we're playing the likes of Man Utd.

[hackneyfox]

 and box to box in king,

If only

[marbelladave]

Formations are totally irrelevent if we continue to play negatively.

 

Charlton was a case in point, play two attacking wingbacks, then get them to hold position instead of being released to get forward quickly, pick three essentially similar central midfielders and give all of them the job of covering the back 4.......

 

Most of the first half we played 8-0-2, and still couldn't keep them out.

[tomtom]

It doesn't always matter how attack minded your wing backs are, if you come up against a team with intelligent wingers or a team that's really done their homework they can pin you back hence making it more of a back 5 and turning it into a negative formation, well this is what I found playing that position for several years anyway

Saying all that though, I'd certainly prefer it to a diamond formation where the lack of width can be a problem whilst trying to create chances. .especially at home

[Bettsj2]

Pearson has played a diamond before a few times in our first play off season with him. From memory it was Kermorgant at the tip of the diamond, King and Oakley in the middle with Wellens at the base. We won a couple with it then got fvcked on away at Forest.

I think it would definitely be an option with Hammond at the base, 2 of King, James and Drinky and Knocky at the tip.

[Guest Col city fan]

Pearson has played a diamond before a few times in our first play off season with him. From memory it was Kermorgant at the tip of the diamond, King and Oakley in the middle with Wellens at the base. We won a couple with it then got fvcked on away at Forest.

I think it would definitely be an option with Hammond at the base, 2 of King, James and Drinky and Knocky at the tip.

I doubt it very much.

A diamond would undo the work Pearson appears to have done by making the central midfield more solid.

The diamond is ok if you are taking command of a game. If you are on the backfoot (I don't know how many times I've said this) then the key is to strengthen the midfield, try to get the ball back, slow it down, or speed it up at YOUR pace. i.e control the game better.

It would be a brave, or stupid person to go away to the likes of Blackburn, Wigan, QPR etc and start in a diamond formation. We'd get completely over-run in this division. This is one of the main reasons, I would suspect, why 'Arry let Tarrabt go. He just cannot fit him in. He's not a bad player, but Redknapp likes his central midfield controllers.

The same, I fear, is true of Pearson and Knocky. To accommodate him and build the team around him, you must forfeit one of your midfield all-rounders. I don't think Pearson will do this.

[Strokes]

I doubt it very much.

A diamond would undo the work Pearson appears to have done by making the central midfield more solid.

The diamond is ok if you are taking command of a game. If you are on the backfoot (I don't know how many times I've said this) then the key is to strengthen the midfield, try to get the ball back, slow it down, or speed it up at YOUR pace. i.e control the game better.

It would be a brave, or stupid person to go away to the likes of Blackburn, Wigan, QPR etc and start in a diamond formation. We'd get completely over-run in this division. This is one of the main reasons, I would suspect, why 'Arry let Tarrabt go. He just cannot fit him in. He's not a bad player, but Redknapp likes his central midfield controllers.

The same, I fear, is true of Pearson and Knocky. To accommodate him and build the team around him, you must forfeit one of your midfield all-rounders. I don't think Pearson will do this.

Dead right! The diamond midfield is very hard to pull off in this division, its just too physical. We have enough tricks up our sleeves now with 442, 433 and the 352, let's concentrate on perfecting them and not on trying to accomadate a formation around our players.

[Strokes]

I doubt it very much.

A diamond would undo the work Pearson appears to have done by making the central midfield more solid.

The diamond is ok if you are taking command of a game. If you are on the backfoot (I don't know how many times I've said this) then the key is to strengthen the midfield, try to get the ball back, slow it down, or speed it up at YOUR pace. i.e control the game better.

It would be a brave, or stupid person to go away to the likes of Blackburn, Wigan, QPR etc and start in a diamond formation. We'd get completely over-run in this division. This is one of the main reasons, I would suspect, why 'Arry let Tarrabt go. He just cannot fit him in. He's not a bad player, but Redknapp likes his central midfield controllers.

The same, I fear, is true of Pearson and Knocky. To accommodate him and build the team around him, you must forfeit one of your midfield all-rounders. I don't think Pearson will do this.

Dead right! The diamond midfield is very hard to pull off in this division, its just too physical. We have enough tricks up our sleeves now with 442, 433 and the 352, let's concentrate on perfecting them and not on trying to accomadate a formation around our players.

I doubt it very much.

A diamond would undo the work Pearson appears to have done by making the central midfield more solid.

The diamond is ok if you are taking command of a game. If you are on the backfoot (I don't know how many times I've said this) then the key is to strengthen the midfield, try to get the ball back, slow it down, or speed it up at YOUR pace. i.e control the game better.

It would be a brave, or stupid person to go away to the likes of Blackburn, Wigan, QPR etc and start in a diamond formation. We'd get completely over-run in this division. This is one of the main reasons, I would suspect, why 'Arry let Tarrabt go. He just cannot fit him in. He's not a bad player, but Redknapp likes his central midfield controllers.

The same, I fear, is true of Pearson and Knocky. To accommodate him and build the team around him, you must forfeit one of your midfield all-rounders. I don't think Pearson will do this.

Dead right! The diamond midfield is very hard to pull off in this division, its just too physical. We have enough tricks up our sleeves now with 442, 433 and the 352, let's concentrate on perfecting them and not on trying to accomadate a formation around our players.

[Strokes]

Can I just say 3g is great

[dayday]

I doubt it very much.

A diamond would undo the work Pearson appears to have done by making the central midfield more solid.

The diamond is ok if you are taking command of a game. If you are on the backfoot (I don't know how many times I've said this) then the key is to strengthen the midfield, try to get the ball back, slow it down, or speed it up at YOUR pace. i.e control the game better.

It would be a brave, or stupid person to go away to the likes of Blackburn, Wigan, QPR etc and start in a diamond formation. We'd get completely over-run in this division. This is one of the main reasons, I would suspect, why 'Arry let Tarrabt go. He just cannot fit him in. He's not a bad player, but Redknapp likes his central midfield controllers.

The same, I fear, is true of Pearson and Knocky. To accommodate him and build the team around him, you must forfeit one of your midfield all-rounders. I don't think Pearson will do this.

I agree to a certain point,its a bit like cat and mouse we could get over run then on the other hand we could be like the first part of the last season..have the balls to take the game to the opposition,I think most punters on here would agree we are more than capable.

If not whats the point in signing attacking midfielders like Knockaert when we are not going to play to there strengths?

If your good enough,your good enough.... I would like to see us be more adventurous, we can always revert to other formations if required depending on opposition.

[MrSpaM]

Looking forward to seeing him play, with James out for a game good chance he'll be starting at the weekend

[Kierzz]

He may play Hammond in a similar way that QPR played  Derry when they got promoted. 

 

Derry anchored the midfield, shielding the defence. This allowed Taarabt to push forward in front of the midfield and because of

Derry's constantly deep position, he didn't have to track back.

 

Knockaert may take up a similar role to Taarabt this year and because of this system, he will not be required to track back and defend as often. 

[Guest Col city fan]

He may play Hammond in a similar way that QPR played Derry when they got promoted.

Derry anchored the midfield, shielding the defence. This allowed Taarabt to push forward in front of the midfield and because of

Derry's constantly deep position, he didn't have to track back.

Knockaert may take up a similar role to Taarabt this year and because of this system, he will not be required to track back and defend as often.

You're quite right, that could well happen. Not in a diamond though.

I could see something like:

James Knocky

Hammond

With James staying put, Hammond sat in front of the back 4, with Knocky given licence to roam.

Like Lennon, Parker and Izzett did.

Lennon the DM

Parker the ball player

Izzett getting forward.

A similar situation could ensue, with King alternating.

[_Fatboyslow_]

There has been a lot said about the possible

Effect that Hammond's signing could have on the the team and in the main it is very positive. The thing about it that is bugging me, is why was he signed at the end of the window and not the start? Was it purely done to FFP and the clubs apparent policy of one out one in?

[XLM]

There has been a lot said about the possible

Effect that Hammond's signing could have on the the team and in the main it is very positive. The thing about it that is bugging me, is why was he signed at the end of the window and not the start? Was it purely done to FFP and the clubs apparent policy of one out one in?

 

Looks that way. Bare in mind it could also have been Pearson's judgement after the first few games; i.e. he felt we needed a solid DM after cementing that Danns is shite.