Dean Hammond - new signing.

[Jimothy]

Nahhhhh.

You are suggesting and explaining basically the formation Essex put up. And as I've explained above, I agree that, that formation should be played, if Hammond is to play regularly. But you are basically saying, that is going to be the formation Pearson will play from now on, you don't know that, the whole Leicester City fanbase don't know that, until Hammond plays his first game, and if it is to be that formation, then jackpot, amazeballs!!!

But I'm trying to explain, with the formations we have played already, where does he fit in those, 4-3-3 is a useless formation, and we had to change that at half time against Birmingham, and we scrapped it in midweek in the cup, and went 4-4-2. But like I said lad, 4-4-2 has looked good in the last two games, but that means if we play that formation, two central midfielders will be left out, and in my opinion that doesn't look great, plus Dyer has been brilliant the past two games, does he deserve to be dropped just because we are changing formation again, because the only way to play him is in a 4-4-2.

You forgot 352, think he fits pretty well into that formation.

Why don't you leave commenting on tennis and football until you actually have a clue.

[PAULCFC]

At last.......someone to put their foot on the ball......which can realease Kingy and James to do what they are do best.

[Jimothy]

At last.......someone to put their foot on the ball......which can realease Kingy and James to do what they are do best.

Can you try and explain that to kingfox, I don't think he understands.

[GingerrrFox]

[Guest MattP]

 

That looks decent.

 

Though seeing Hammond on one of those again makes your heart stop for a second.

[kingfox]

You forgot 352, think he fits pretty well into that formation.

Why don't you leave commenting on tennis and football until you actually have a clue.

 

FFS. 

 

Think about it mate, before you keep calling me stupid. Sharpe can see where I'm coming from, but you again are not. 

 

3-5-2 like I said, will be good but only sometimes. Do the fans want to see a midfield three of James - Hammond - King week in week out, especially in home games. Because it will just be like playing Drinkwater, but slightly even more defensive, and people have commented on this, that a midfield three like that is a negative approach. 

 

I can see it working away from home, and in some home games, when we come up against physical teams. But do fans really want to see that formation played, with James - Hammond - King across midfield at home against teams like Yeovil, Barnsley etc...the weaker teams in the division, teams we should be going out and beating comfortably and attacking from the get go. 

 

I'm just explaining where he fits in the formations we have played so far. 

 

If we go 4-1-2-1-2, then that will be the correct and most positive formation for Hammond to play in. If we go 4-4-2 say, what's the point of one of Hammond & Drinkwater being here? And if we go 3-5-2 then that will be a good formation, to play, but not in every game.

[Captain...]

Seems like one of those under the radar Pearson signings that could turn out to be very useful.

 

Seems more like a Whitbread signing, but I'll admit I know nothing about him, in terms of Pearson signing older players from prem teams in their second year in the top flight, that their fans speak very highly of.

 

Just saying.

[Raw Dykes]

Nahhhhh.

You are suggesting and explaining basically the formation Essex put up. And as I've explained above, I agree that, that formation should be played, if Hammond is to play regularly. But you are basically saying, that is going to be the formation Pearson will play from now on, you don't know that, the whole Leicester City fanbase don't know that, until Hammond plays his first game, and if it is to be that formation, then jackpot, amazeballs!!!

But I'm trying to explain, with the formations we have played already, where does he fit in those, 4-3-3 is a useless formation, and we had to change that at half time against Birmingham, and we scrapped it in midweek in the cup, and went 4-4-2. But like I said lad, 4-4-2 has looked good in the last two games, but that means if we play that formation, two central midfielders will be left out, and in my opinion that doesn't look great, plus Dyer has been brilliant the past two games, does he deserve to be dropped just because we are changing formation again, because the only way to play him is in a 4-4-2.

I don't know what you're worried about, really. Four central midfielders in the squad should be the bare minimum (I'm not counting Danns, as I doubt he'll feature much if at all). Especially so for teams who even occasionally play three in the middle.

This signing gives us a specialist in a position where we had none, and also adds valuable experience to a young squad. If he's a natural leader as well, then we should be laughing. I really wasn't expecting any more signings in this window, especially permanents, so I'm happier than Lisa Riley at the buffet with this one.

[Jimothy]

FFS.

Think about it mate, before you keep calling me stupid. Sharpe can see where I'm coming from, but you again are not.

3-5-2 like I said, will be good but only sometimes. Do the fans want to see a midfield three of James - Hammond - King week in week out, especially in home games. Because it will just be like playing Drinkwater, but slightly even more defensive, and people have commented on this, that a midfield three like that is a negative approach.

I can see it working away from home, and in some home games, when we come up against physical teams. But do fans really want to see that formation played, with James - Hammond - King across midfield at home against teams like Yeovil, Barnsley etc...the weaker teams in the division, teams we should be going out and beating comfortably and attacking from the get go.

I'm just explaining where he fits in the formations we have played so far.

If we go 4-1-2-1-2, then that will be the correct and most positive formation for Hammond to play in. If we go 4-4-2 say, what's the point of one of Hammond & Drinkwater being here? And if we go 3-5-2 then that will be a good formation, to play, but not in every game.

It's called having options!

**** me you're hard work!

[Harry - LCFC]

I remember when Man City were drawing away at Newcastle and needed a goal. Mancini took Nasri off and brought on De Jong. Madness right? A defensive midfielder on for a creator? Lunacy!

 

Not so.

 

This allowed Toure to play further up the pitch and it was him who scored City's two goals late in the game. The point is of course that replacing Drinkwater with a more defensive midfielder does not necessarily make it a more defensive midfield. It's been pointed out already by others that this change could allow others to venture forward a bit more. Those who doubt it, give it a chance first.

[shade]

boring reading about formations. players and movement wins games, the formation is little more than a neutralising technicality.

[Jimothy]

I remember when Man City were drawing away at Newcastle and needed a goal. Mancini took Nasri off and brought on De Jong. Madness right? A defensive midfielder on for a creator? Lunacy!

Not so.

This allowed Toure to play further up the pitch and it was him who scored City's two goals late in the game. The point is of course that replacing Drinkwater with a more defensive midfielder does not necessarily make it a more defensive midfield. It's been pointed out already by others that this change could allow others to venture forward a bit more. Those who doubt it, give it a chance first.

Very similar to when Benitez replaced Kewell with Hamann in the Champions league final at 3-0 down. The rest as they say is history.

Now kingfox I'm saying just because the majority think something they are right, but when everyone else is saying the opposite to you and/or telling you you're wrong, just like in the tennis thread, isn't that a good indication you might not be as clued up as you think you are?

[kingfox]

It's called having options!

**** me you're hard work!

 

It all depends on which formation is played, you are basically saying Pearson will definitely go 4-1-2-1-2, or 3-5-2 but that might not be the case. He has signed, and he hasn't played yet, so I'm just discussing where he could fit and where he doesn't fit, in the formations we have played so far, what is so wrong with that?

 

People are excited that we have got a player in, and yes he will be a useful asset, but people aren't looking at the bigger picture. 

 

If we go 3-5-2, it is a good formation, but it shouldn't be played every game, where does that leave Dyer and Knockaert? 

 

4-4-2 Dyer has been playing well, does he deserved to be dropped, and if we go 4-4-2, having four midfielders is not necessarily a good thing, because two won't get played, and one of them will more than likely not even be included on the bench. Dyer has been great past two games, but if we go 4-4-2, it's unlikely Hammond will play. And if we go with a 3-5-2 say, that leaves Dyer out, as well as Knockaert, where does the pace from out wide come from, where does the creativity come from? We going to rely on Schlupp bombing up and down the wing, because honestly he works better in a 4-4-2 with Dyer, as they have very good understanding. 

 

Options are only good, if you play the right formation. 

[ronnup]

Useless player gone. Well needed defensively fielder in.

I dare you to complain.

[ADK]

Not sure what to make of this. It's not really very exciting and he's hardly one for the future. Then again that's exactly how I felt about us signing Wes Morgan.

 

Southampton have nothing but nice words to say about him. Hard working, great captain, determined, model pro etc.

 

I don't know if Pearson wants him to be our ever present midfield general or just a committed pro who can fill out the squad.

[BrightonFan]

Brighton fan here. Hammond is a good player. He normally played as a CM rather then a CDM for us last season due to us having Bridcutt but when Bridcutt was out he played very well as a defensive midfielder. He is slow though. His passing is good and he will win the ball in the air. He'll probably score a few goals as he is good at getting into attacking positions and heading the ball.

It's a shame we didn't sign him as it's nice to have another player who was born locally but he wouldn't have wanted to sit on our bench which would be inevitable as we now have a very good central midfield.

[Captain...]

The thing I like about this is he was a captain, and by all accounts a good captain, and one thing we have lacked for a while is leadership. Wes is the clear stand out to be captain, but I don't think he is a good captain in the Steve Walsh, Matt Elliott, mould. Having another leader on the pitch and in the squad can only be a good thing.

[kingfox]

I'm off bed. 

 

But think long and hard about this, instead of getting all excited just because we signed a player. 

 

3-5-2, leaves Dyer and Knockaert out. Think about the affects it could have on them two, especially Knockaert you know how agitated he can get, when he isn't playing and doesn't get game time. Plus if we play that formation, where does the creativity come from, people have moaned endless times in the past, and even this season, where is the creativity? If we play that formation, with James - Hammond - King, it will just be like playing Drinkwater, so where is the creativity there guys, because frankly I fail to see it.

 

4-4-2, allows Dyer and Knockaert to play from out wide, but then we will also play with just two central midfielders, meaning that both Hammond and Drinkwater will be left out. One probably won't even be in the squad, so what is the point of them both being here? Is selling Drinkwater an actual possibility if you look at it that way?

 

Finally Essex's formation is probably the most reasonable formation, it allows us to play Hammond, it allows us to play Knockaert who will add creativity. And if Pearson want's to change it up in the game, he can go 4-4-2, by bringing Dyer on and taking one of the central midfielders off, putting Knockaert out wide with Dyer, and James, King or Hammond in midfield together, if you look at it that way, it looks exciting to be honest, but will Pearson think of doing that?

 

Some of you probably won't see what the fuss is about, but as Sharpe alluded to he can see where I'm coming from, just think about it carefully, before getting excited. And if some of you are thinking I'm being controversial, then that's your opinion, I'm only explaining the positives and the negatives of this signing, and there is no harm in that. 

 

Ciao x

[Brauny Fox]

Nahhhhh.

 

You are suggesting and explaining basically the formation Essex put up. And as I've explained above, I agree that, that formation should be played, if Hammond is to play regularly. But you are basically saying, that is going to be the formation Pearson will play from now on, you don't know that, the whole Leicester City fanbase don't know that, until Hammond plays his first game, and if it is to be that formation, then jackpot, amazeballs!!!

 

But I'm trying to explain, with the formations we have played already, where does he fit in those, 4-3-3 is a useless formation, and we had to change that at half time against Birmingham, and we scrapped it in midweek in the cup, and went 4-4-2. But like I said lad, 4-4-2 has looked good in the last two games, but that means if we play that formation, two central midfielders will be left out, and in my opinion that doesn't look great, plus Dyer has been brilliant the past two games, does he deserve to be dropped just because we are changing formation again, because the only way to play him is in a 4-4-2.

 

[XLM]

Important to have a player who can stay solid in the middle, particularly while we're ahead in the closing stages. I'm sure his experience will prove vital this season, not least to the development of King, James and Drinky. 

[Aus Fox]

What everyone seems to be forgetting is we dot have to play the same formation every game, nor does every player have to play every game. This signing gives us options having dyer and Knocky gives us different options.

If we are going to finish top 6 this season we will need the whole squad to play there part Hammond I think is a better option than Danns therefore this has improved the squad also a leader in a squad with a lot of youngsters can only be a good thing. Can we ever have something happen at our club and al be happy about it?

[Scoobyrob]

Last season fell off the rails at Huddersfield in the cup, purely because our squad wasn't strong enough. Nigel rested too many key players which halted our fine run and started a slump.

Another huge problem was our inability to adapt or to have a plan B.

Then there was the constant problem of our midfield being over run against strong opposition when one or two players performances dropped.

I for one think that Nigel clearly is aware of all of these weaknesses! We have seen a midfield that can compete better due to more bodies in the centre of the pitch when required. We certainly have a plan B now, maybe even a C and now we have a squad taking shape which will allow us to rest key players and still be competitive.

All this whilst trimming the clubs costs to adhere to ffp. I for one think Nigel is doing ok.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Will reserve judgement until he starts playing for us but could be a good signing

[absolutelegend]

Good signing. Not sure he will walk into the team but a welcome addition to the squad nonetheless.

If he does play, I'm hoping this means he holds he whilst Lloyd and knocky get forward.

[fazzyfox]

I hear that we very nearly signed Joey Barton until Pearson stepped in. "I told the Director of football that I was desperate for us to sign an ANCHOR in midfield and I think he misheard me"