undey Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 ...will hopefully be back soon from injury and in the starting XI. The pattern between his injury/absence from our team and our poor run of form is not just a coincidence surely? Merry Christmas!
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 He's performed better than what we've been playing like lately, could he really do worse than Matty James did yesterday, or in the last few games? Mattys confidence looks absolutely shot, you can see it in him. We picked up results when Hammond was in the team and he was a big part of that, think he can feel very hard done by losing his place, and everything that's happened on the pitch and the return of points since he was dropped highlights that maybe he's not as bad as people on here think he is. Not by any means saying he's a savior or he should play every game, but we picked up points and played well when he was playing, can't hurt to give the bloke another go, or maybe King, if not King then Drinkwater, I think Matty needs a little time away from the 11, for his own benefit as much as anything else.
Sampson Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 Andy King is the player we've been missing after his excellent early season form more than Hammond.
Livid Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 This thought crossed my mind last night but as I had no actual logic to back it up I instantly dismissed it.
Bayfox Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 well results with him and king in the side were better. however if hammond is the answer. then what is the question.
Focks Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 Looking at the passes completed stats that were posted a couple of days ago it makes a case to stick Hammond and King back in the middle at the expense of Camby and James. We seem incapable of keeping the ball !!
Hirsty The Blue 94 Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 He is incapable of playing in a midfield 2 though in my opinion as he isn't dynamic enough, and Nige seems hellbent on playing that formation. Our 2 wins have came with him playing the holding role in a midfield 3, allowing the other midfielders to play with more freedom. I think you could easily buy a better player to do that role in January however, but up until then get him in with Cambiasso and King/James/Drinkwater.
NotTheMarketLeader Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 ...will hopefully be back soon from injury and in the starting XI. The pattern between his injury/absence from our team and our poor run of form is not just a coincidence surely? Merry Christmas!Yes it is a coincidence.
yorksfox Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 Have said all along that Hammond should never have been dropped. His tracking and tackling enabled King to flourish (Kingy has over 50 goals for our club and, given a run of games can score at this level) The midfield yesterday was insipid and Villa could have had 4 or 5 by the end. Cambiasso offers no energy or solidity and is fast becoming a liability. Yes, a few nice passes, but nothing Drinky or King couldn't do. Unfortunately, Cambiasso and Schmeichel (near post again yesterday!) appear undroppable and this shows that Nigel is clearly not the tough, no-nonsense guy that he likes to think he is. We need a manager who will select the strongest team and dispense with any favouritism. I hope that person is Nigel himself, but time is running out. We have been promoted into the top tier 7 times in my city supporting days and in 1980, 1994 and 2003 we have managed one season before being relegated again. Only in 1971 (Bloomfield after heavy investment), 1983 ( Milne with Smith and Lineker taking their chances) and 1996 (MON, with canny additions such as Ian Marshall, Kasey Keller) have we stayed up. I fear already that we are only here for the one season.
Fox Ulike Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 well results with him and king in the side were better. however if hammond is the answer. then what is the question. Well, the question is how can we get hold of the ball for significant periods to allow us to win more games. The last FOUR games we have played 442, and in each of them we have had less possession than the opposition (according to BBC), including home to Sunderland. Yesterday we had 35% of possession. You don't win games without the ball. The answer is not Dean Hammond. The answer is to play players in the area of the pitch where most of the game is likely to take place. Why play 2 strikers and 2 wingers if we are starved of possession? How often did Vardy actually touch the ball yesterday? How much more use would his place have been had we played another midfielder instead? Vardy did OK yesterday, but unless he's scoring regularly he is just a wasted shirt...
cc_star Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 All down to tactics. Our midfield is being asked to be box-to-box players and they're giving everything, all the time. And it isn't working Not only are the opposition generally better players but they're also being outnumbered I'd quite like Hammond and King sitting in front of our defence and not venturing up the pitch Hammond is a not bad CDM & King reads a game very well and can not only pressure opposition midfielders but can start the attacks off with a pass to RDL/Schlupp attacking FBs Having dedicated CDMs who don't tire themselves out playing box to box enables not only fullbacks to get forward.... But a THIRD midfielder to play higher up the pitch and not have to tire himself tracking back all the time... This can be Cambiasso, subbed later in games for Drinkwater who was excellent on edge of opposition box last season. So for me, yes to Hammond... But only if our tactics change and he's dedicated CDM with someone alongside him freeing up someone else to be a dedicated CAM
marbelladave Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 So far this season Hammond has been the only player prepared to sit and hold in front of the back 4, with the current performance of our defence I think, despite his limitations, he has to play when fit. I would partner him with James, who will get forward and support the front men, I would be tempted to give Cambiasso a go in the hole with Mahrez free to go either side and Vardy and Ulloa up front. The fullbacks should be De Laet and Schlupp, both given licence to press onto their man and break forward, cover comes from the centerbacks, Waselewski already does this, just make sure whoever plays alongside him does the same for Schlupp. Hammond with some help from James have to cover the gaps. For what it is worth, I think King would make a better holding player than Hammond, he has the intelligence and discipline to play that role, is good in the air and blocks and tackles without giving away free kicks. He would need a few games to get used to that role but it is not that big an adjustment for him.
cc_star Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 I don't buy this Cambiasso is 5 steps ahead of other players bullshit, he's a liability. His flicks go to the opposition and his passes aren't always all that. I've not seen anything from him King can't offer and King offers a hell of a lot more defensively and in the air. We were never going to walk the league, so we need steel & discipline allowing other players to shine. With the right tactics Hammond is one such player. Yes, there's obvious limitations.... But there is with many players who play that rather anonymous role. There's a reason we were never this shocking with him & King in the side and we are with Cambiasso and Co
marbelladave Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 All down to tactics. Our midfield is being asked to be box-to-box players and they're giving everything, all the time. And it isn't working Not only are the opposition generally better players but they're also being outnumbered I'd quite like Hammond and King sitting in front of our defence and not venturing up the pitch Hammond is a not bad CDM & King reads a game very well and can not only pressure opposition midfielders but can start the attacks off with a pass to RDL/Schlupp attacking FBs Having dedicated CDMs who don't tire themselves out playing box to box enables not only fullbacks to get forward.... But a this midfielder to play higher up the pit H and not have to tire himself tracking back all the time... This can be Cambiasso, subbed later in games for Drinkwater who was excellent on edge of opposition box last season. So for me, yes to Hammond... But only if our tactics change and he's dedicated CDM with someone alongside him freeing up someone else to be a dedicated CAM Mmmmmm, great minds eh...... We really need to make big changes, but with a degree of optimism, not desperation, not sure if the management can do that.
marbelladave Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 I don't buy this Cambiasso is 5 steps ahead of other players bullshit, he's a liability. His flicks go to the opposition and his passes are hit & miss. We were never going to walk the league, so we need steel & discipline allowing other players to shine. With the right tactics Hammond is one such player. Yes, there's obvious limitations.... But there is with many players who play that rather anonymous role. There's a reason we were never this shocking with him & King in the side and we are with Cambiasso and Co Not totally agreed about Cambiasso, in this league you need players who can pick a pass and open up a defence, he has already shown that he can do that, given a more attacking role he just might be what we need. Though I agree he does not have the physicality to compete 'box to box'.
Manwell Pablo Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 Well, the question is how can we get hold of the ball for significant periods to allow us to win more games. The last FOUR games we have played 442, and in each of them we have had less possession than the opposition (according to BBC), including home to Sunderland. Yesterday we had 35% of possession. You don't win games without the ball. The answer is not Dean Hammond. The answer is to play players in the area of the pitch where most of the game is likely to take place. Why play 2 strikers and 2 wingers if we are starved of possession? How often did Vardy actually touch the ball yesterday? How much more use would his place have been had we played another midfielder instead? Vardy did OK yesterday, but unless he's scoring regularly he is just a wasted shirt... I think we've had less possession in about every game we've picked up points in. Think we had about 40% against Stoke.
Guest Col city fan Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 Ah..the opinion, of some, is finally shifting.
cc_star Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 Possession is nonsense, unless your style requires it like Arsenal, Southampton, Barcelona Pre-Guardiola Bayern, Chelsea & Utd's greatest successes came from countering with purpose No, we're not comparable to any of those teams... But theres more than one way to skin a cat and possession is often overrated
Corky Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 He is incapable of playing in a midfield 2 though in my opinion as he isn't dynamic enough, and Nige seems hellbent on playing that formation. Our 2 wins have came with him playing the holding role in a midfield 3, allowing the other midfielders to play with more freedom. I think you could easily buy a better player to do that role in January however, but up until then get him in with Cambiasso and King/James/Drinkwater. In the first three King and Hammond worked well together, but didn't at Stoke. Hammond does offer some protection of the back four but, if played in a two, is required to get forward as well. We'd look better with a three now, the start of the season has gone and we are a different side. Cambiasso can play the key passes, James/ Drinkwater around him one side and King the other. I'd say King is the most disciplined and comfortable so far so he should come in, James or Drinkwater- well, so similar it won't make too much of a difference. King Drinkwater/James Cambiasso Vardy Ulloa is how I'd set up for Man City because our two will be overrun against Toure and Fernando/ Fernandinho with Milner, Nasri, Navas ahead of them. Two won't be enough to cope as the wingers offer so little protection and cover. Although looking again we wouldn't play with much width, so drop a striker and have Mahrez and Albrighton out wide in a 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1.
cityfanlee23 Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 Well, the question is how can we get hold of the ball for significant periods to allow us to win more games. The last FOUR games we have played 442, and in each of them we have had less possession than the opposition (according to BBC), including home to Sunderland. Yesterday we had 35% of possession. You don't win games without the ball. The answer is not Dean Hammond. The answer is to play players in the area of the pitch where most of the game is likely to take place. Why play 2 strikers and 2 wingers if we are starved of possession? How often did Vardy actually touch the ball yesterday? How much more use would his place have been had we played another midfielder instead? Vardy did OK yesterday, but unless he's scoring regularly he is just a wasted shirt... I posted the possession stats the other day, it's not the 4-4-2, We have only had more possession this season in 1 game against burnley if memory serves me correct. This shows me a complete lack of team quality.
marbelladave Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 As I said above, you have to play with a plan that is effective. Just running about a lot is not the answer. In the Prem forward players are very skilful and creative and you need to counter that in midfield, this was rarely a problem in the championship but it is every week this season. The modern way is to use central midfielders in primarily defensive roles with them dropping into the back 4 as required. This allows the central defenders to cover behind the fullbacks who push forward onto the opposition wide players. That is how it is done. We on the other hand let our central midfielders run free but support our centre backs by playing our fullbacks deep and narrow, thus relying on what should be our attacking wide players, Schlupp, Albrighton and particularly Mahrez to play as auxiliary full backs. There is a reason other teams do not play like that.
Manwell Pablo Posted 8 December 2014 Posted 8 December 2014 Ah..the opinion, of some, is finally shifting. There's plenty of people who agree with you your probably in a majority not a minority, is a simplistic pov and unfortunately a lot of our fans are very simplistic.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.