Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Russ112112

Hammond took his chance

By Russ112112, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

65RosesFox

65RosesFox

Posted
Posted

Why wait? Why wait until someone plays badly before making a change. Especially when we have players on the bench that could be an improvement on him.

 

This is not a criticism of Hammond, but of this philosophy, there will be games that don't suit him (or any other player) and they will play badly. Why should we wait until then to make a change.

 

We have a large squad with a number of options and abilities, particularly in midfield and up front. I was disappointed to see the same side against Stoke, and not surprised we started badly, what works for Arsenal at home doesn't mean it will work for Stoke away. With Hammond and King in the side we have a good screen in front of the back four but we lose a lot of creativity and drive. Hammond and King could continue to play really well, but it won't change the fact that Drinkwater offers a lot more going forwards and creating chances. 

 

For your last point I think the current approach sends out the wrong message, Moore and Dyer lost their place last season through injury and Konchesky lost his place to Schlupp because of suspension. I would be very frustrated if I wasn't the current first choice at Leicester, because I would have no idea when I would get my chance and have to wait for someone in the team to play badly or get injured, I don't think it is healthy to be wanting that to happen.

 

before the start of the season, once the fixture list came out, the majority of Leicester fans would've been happy with 4 points from the first five games. that was with everyone thinking that it would be a similar team to last season with some new signings, with two or all three of DD, James Cambiasso in the middle for those games.

 

this obviously hasn't been the case due to injuries and Hammond has stepped in, been consistent, not looked out of depth, hassled world class players, and broke play down against the some of the best teams in the Prem and we have 5 points after 4 games.

 

give him the credit he deserves and trust Nigel, rather than moan when you see him in the starting XI on Sunday, which he thoroughly deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted

before the start of the season, once the fixture list came out, the majority of Leicester fans would've been happy with 4 points from the first five games. that was with everyone thinking that it would be a similar team to last season with some new signings, with two or all three of DD, James Cambiasso in the middle for those games.

 

this obviously hasn't been the case due to injuries and Hammond has stepped in, been consistent, not looked out of depth, hassled world class players, and broke play down against the some of the best teams in the Prem and we have 5 points after 4 games.

 

give him the credit he deserves and trust Nigel, rather than moan when you see him in the starting XI on Sunday, which he thoroughly deserves.

 

Maybe you should read my post again, as at no point did I criticise Hammond, or even say he should be dropped, I just questioned why we should wait for him to have a stinker before being dropped?

 

Hammond has been fantastic so far this season, as I said it is not a criticism of the player, but that philosophy, and I have never once moaned that he was in the side. I also agree that if we did want a 451 or 4231 formation to protect the back 4 I would have Hammond and Cambiasso in the side.

 

I just don't understand why you wait until it goes wrong before you make a change.

 

Lets use Andy King as an example, we all know that when we come up against physical sides he struggles to impose himself on the game, Millwall away a couple of seasons ago springs to mind, well Stoke are the Millwall of the Premiership, they have 2 very strong midfielders sitting in front of the back four, they aren't going to try and take on King or Hammond with skill or trickery, they are going to win the ball and pass it out wide.

 

Hammond and King have both done well against the better teams because they do the same job, break up the play and pass the ball to a more creative player in a more advanced position. Against Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton this was key to stopping them pouring forwards in numbers and setting up our counter attacks, Stoke don't play that way, they have a more cultured front line than in previous years, but they still have the same philosophy at the back. Which is similar to how King and Hammond play. Break up the play and move it on to someone else to take responsibility for setting up the attack.

 

It is no surprise King and Hammond struggled to impose themselves on the game and it wasn't an entertaining affair as the midfields largely cancelled each other out and there wasn't that creativity or drive in there until Cambiasso and Drinkwater came on.

 

My point is not that Cambiasso and Drinkwater should always start ahead of Hammond, but we that we should be proactive in picking the team for the game, against Arsenal Hammond and King were brilliant at breaking up their attacks higher up the pitch as Arsenal tried to work it through the centre, this also allowed them to get forwards more as we started our attacks further forward. This is shown by the fact that they had a lot more involvement in the final third, against Arsenal 20% of King's events were in the final third, and 14% of Hammonds, whereas against Stoke a team that play down the flanks and have 2 sitting midfielders Hammond had 10% of his events in the final third and King only 7%. 

 

Whereas Cambiasso after coming had 26% of his events in the final third, Drinky 19% as they looked to get forwards and impose themselves on the game.

 

Against United Hammond and King will probably be as effective as they were against Arsenal, and I wouldn't be disappointed to see either start, although I suspect it will be alongside Cambiasso.

 

This is my problem with waiting until someone plays badly until they are dropped, I think Hammond and King are more suited to playing against teams like United, Chelsea, Arsenal, but not against Stoke, if they play badly at Stoke, they could end up being dropped for a game they are more suitable for in favour of a more attacking player/less suitable player like Drinkwater, instrumental in beating Stoke, but it could leave us exposed against United.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oxfordfox83

Oxfordfox83

Posted
Posted

Maybe you should read my post again, as at no point did I criticise Hammond, or even say he should be dropped, I just questioned why we should wait for him to have a stinker before being dropped?

Hammond has been fantastic so far this season, as I said it is not a criticism of the player, but that philosophy, and I have never once moaned that he was in the side. I also agree that if we did want a 451 or 4231 formation to protect the back 4 I would have Hammond and Cambiasso in the side.

I just don't understand why you wait until it goes wrong before you make a change.

Lets use Andy King as an example, we all know that when we come up against physical sides he struggles to impose himself on the game, Millwall away a couple of seasons ago springs to mind, well Stoke are the Millwall of the Premiership, they have 2 very strong midfielders sitting in front of the back four, they aren't going to try and take on King or Hammond with skill or trickery, they are going to win the ball and pass it out wide.

Hammond and King have both done well against the better teams because they do the same job, break up the play and pass the ball to a more creative player in a more advanced position. Against Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton this was key to stopping them pouring forwards in numbers and setting up our counter attacks, Stoke don't play that way, they have a more cultured front line than in previous years, but they still have the same philosophy at the back. Which is similar to how King and Hammond play. Break up the play and move it on to someone else to take responsibility for setting up the attack.

It is no surprise King and Hammond struggled to impose themselves on the game and it wasn't an entertaining affair as the midfields largely cancelled each other out and there wasn't that creativity or drive in there until Cambiasso and Drinkwater came on.

My point is not that Cambiasso and Drinkwater should always start ahead of Hammond, but we that we should be proactive in picking the team for the game, against Arsenal Hammond and King were brilliant at breaking up their attacks higher up the pitch as Arsenal tried to work it through the centre, this also allowed them to get forwards more as we started our attacks further forward. This is shown by the fact that they had a lot more involvement in the final third, against Arsenal 20% of King's events were in the final third, and 14% of Hammonds, whereas against Stoke a team that play down the flanks and have 2 sitting midfielders Hammond had 10% of his events in the final third and King only 7%.

Whereas Cambiasso after coming had 26% of his events in the final third, Drinky 19% as they looked to get forwards and impose themselves on the game.

Against United Hammond and King will probably be as effective as they were against Arsenal, and I wouldn't be disappointed to see either start, although I suspect it will be alongside Cambiasso.

This is my problem with waiting until someone plays badly until they are dropped, I think Hammond and King are more suited to playing against teams like United, Chelsea, Arsenal, but not against Stoke, if they play badly at Stoke, they could end up being dropped for a game they are more suitable for in favour of a more attacking player/less suitable player like Drinkwater, instrumental in beating Stoke, but it could leave us exposed against United.

Yes, I think this is spot on. I'm not sure it's exactly Nigel's way, but think it perhaps should be. Mostly in my post I was laughing at the suggestion that the change in second half at Stoke showed the class difference to Deano's detriment, when he was still well involved.

However, I do think there is validity if you're making a like-for-like swap (which James/Hammond sort of is, DishCM for DishCM) in waiting until one doesn't deliver. Or at least, until a substitution can be made to change the game with some chance of success. It means the incumbent doesn't feel hoicked with no chance to justify themselves, and it also means the incomer has a chance to build their fitness back up against a slightly tiring team, and prove they really are ready to return. The other option (bring James in to start straight away) might mean Hammond still gets his half or thereabouts once James tires, and if he plays better, what then? Why didn't we stick with him to begin with?

It's semantics essentially, and luckily there are brilliant people watching the players train to make these decisions rather than us. I don't think it's quite as clear cut as you suggest when the players are doing the same jobs-if it's a tactical switch then of course things are different. No one should get precious about being a horse for a course.

The great thing is we now have a player, fit and in form, who is a possible tactical alternative for some opponents to DD, which is a hell of a luxury. That it's Dean Hammond is as surprising as it is brilliant, and yet another testament to NP and his staff of magicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
65RosesFox

65RosesFox

Posted
Posted

Maybe you should read my post again, as at no point did I criticise Hammond, or even say he should be dropped, I just questioned why we should wait for him to have a stinker before being dropped?

 

Hammond has been fantastic so far this season, as I said it is not a criticism of the player, but that philosophy, and I have never once moaned that he was in the side. I also agree that if we did want a 451 or 4231 formation to protect the back 4 I would have Hammond and Cambiasso in the side.

 

I just don't understand why you wait until it goes wrong before you make a change.

 

Lets use Andy King as an example, we all know that when we come up against physical sides he struggles to impose himself on the game, Millwall away a couple of seasons ago springs to mind, well Stoke are the Millwall of the Premiership, they have 2 very strong midfielders sitting in front of the back four, they aren't going to try and take on King or Hammond with skill or trickery, they are going to win the ball and pass it out wide.

 

Hammond and King have both done well against the better teams because they do the same job, break up the play and pass the ball to a more creative player in a more advanced position. Against Arsenal, Chelsea and Everton this was key to stopping them pouring forwards in numbers and setting up our counter attacks, Stoke don't play that way, they have a more cultured front line than in previous years, but they still have the same philosophy at the back. Which is similar to how King and Hammond play. Break up the play and move it on to someone else to take responsibility for setting up the attack.

 

It is no surprise King and Hammond struggled to impose themselves on the game and it wasn't an entertaining affair as the midfields largely cancelled each other out and there wasn't that creativity or drive in there until Cambiasso and Drinkwater came on.

 

My point is not that Cambiasso and Drinkwater should always start ahead of Hammond, but we that we should be proactive in picking the team for the game, against Arsenal Hammond and King were brilliant at breaking up their attacks higher up the pitch as Arsenal tried to work it through the centre, this also allowed them to get forwards more as we started our attacks further forward. This is shown by the fact that they had a lot more involvement in the final third, against Arsenal 20% of King's events were in the final third, and 14% of Hammonds, whereas against Stoke a team that play down the flanks and have 2 sitting midfielders Hammond had 10% of his events in the final third and King only 7%. 

 

Whereas Cambiasso after coming had 26% of his events in the final third, Drinky 19% as they looked to get forwards and impose themselves on the game.

 

Against United Hammond and King will probably be as effective as they were against Arsenal, and I wouldn't be disappointed to see either start, although I suspect it will be alongside Cambiasso.

 

This is my problem with waiting until someone plays badly until they are dropped, I think Hammond and King are more suited to playing against teams like United, Chelsea, Arsenal, but not against Stoke, if they play badly at Stoke, they could end up being dropped for a game they are more suitable for in favour of a more attacking player/less suitable player like Drinkwater, instrumental in beating Stoke, but it could leave us exposed against United.

Fair comment. I clearly misinterpreted your post. And I agree we should set ourselves up depending on the opposition.

For all we know Pearson could be doing that, as Hammond was forced to play first game due to injuries, he played well so he kept in the side for Chelsea. Pearson seen how good he is defensively and breaking up the play so kept him in for the Arsenal game as it was always going to be the case that Arsenal would see more of the ball. After the success of Arsenal, with Stoke being a tough place to go it would makes sense to have a similar set up and have a defensive midfielder starting, and with hammond playing so well he wouldn't have deserved to have been dropped. And i think similar to Arsenal with Man U next they will have a lot more of the ball so Hammond for me should start. Whether it be with in a two or three man midfield.

But for games where we expect to see most of the ball, then hammond would be less effective.

If pearson plays players depending on our opposition then all our cm's could get a lot of game time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LanguedocFox

LanguedocFox

Posted
Posted

I've a mate down here who is a Southampton fan, and he said last season that he thought Hammond would turn out to be one of our best signings, knowing what kind of players Pearson likes. He saw a lot of Hammond and reckons he was one of their key players in getting from the third tier to the Premier League - he's skilful, honest and a real team player - and although he didn't play for Saints in the Prem, my mate reckons he would have no problem making it. I'd say on current showing, he's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Littletoe

Littletoe

Posted
Posted

The more I watch and understand his game, the more I appreciate him. Sure, he is not our most technical midfielder, but he offers a good balance and dynamic in the midfield. He does a lot of scrappy work which goes kinda unnoticed. He does make the occasional clumsy tackle, but I am being a little more open minded as to what Nigel see's in him. I have no issue with Hammond starting nowadays, he should be immensely proud of himself so far! Good lad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted

Again instrumental in victory today. In games where we don't dominate possession he is crucial, breaks up play fantastically and all over Rooney for most of the game. Currently undropable despite James' tidy 10 minute cameo, all be it against 10 men who had virtually given up.

 

But do we play him in games where we are looking to dominate possession?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxfanazer

foxfanazer

Posted
Posted

But do we play him in games where we are looking to dominate possession?

I'd probably say no although he's earned his chance to be given a go in those sort of games. I'd start him against palace if we play 3 in the middle, if we only play 2 then it's Drinkwater and Cambiasso for me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MattGamble92

MattGamble92

Posted
Posted

What a player he has been so far. However I think King is a better footballer and I expect him to become part of our main 4-3-3 with drinky and cambiasso.

But for me Hammond has gone from someone I thought was an average championship player to a solid player to break down any Premier League side.

Just goes to show how bollocks the theory "premier league class" is.

Its about how you apply yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dickov22

Dickov22

Posted
Posted

What a player he has been so far. However I think King is a better footballer and I expect him to become part of our main 4-3-3 with drinky and cambiasso.

But for me Hammond has gone from someone I thought was an average championship player to a solid player to break down any Premier League side.

Just goes to show how bollocks the theory "premier league class" is.

Its about how you apply yourself

Matty James?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crisp monster

crisp monster

Posted
Posted

What a player he has been so far. However I think King is a better footballer and I expect him to become part of our main 4-3-3 with drinky and cambiasso.

But for me Hammond has gone from someone I thought was an average championship player to a solid player to break down any Premier League side.

Just goes to show how bollocks the theory "premier league class" is.

Its about how you apply yourself

This - how many players that we had written off have played superbly so far this season.

Hammond,King,konchesky and even Nugent were considered by so many (myself included) as surplus to requirement for our premiership campaign.

Lets not forget how many thought we'd be less of an attacking force when our beloved Lloyd left ( myself included again)

We know shit

In Nige we trust ( and his backroom team)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...