Hammond.....again

[TonyAgana]

Looks pretty robust to me...

 

[Ricky]

Typically this will be one deal the board won't interfere with and block.

I'd be much more confident about next season if I wasn't so certain Hammond will be signed, and will start most games.

The signs are already there with him getting subbed every week. Should we really saddle ourselves with a midfielder who can only play 75 minutes? Your defensive midfielder is one player you want on the pitch for 90 minutes.

 

[BushBlade]

Applies equally to someone totally deluded.

You could apply this to both Napoleon and Hitler matching into Russia as winter beset.

How did those two work out?

To think that I recently got criticised for shit analogies.

 

[blade too long]

What are we missing ? surely a complete buffoon wouldn't achieve 3 promotions from League 1 ......would he ???

I used to get massive erections 5 years ago
some things just fade away

 

[Dec]

Surely to have 'unsung heroes', you have to have 'sung heroes'?

Surely to have 'heroes' full stop, you have to actually achieve something?

 

[cooperblade]

We aren't privy to what goes on behind the scenes ,he may be a fantastic role model for the rest of the team ,and certainly takes some pressure off them. You do need that kind of person at the club ,didn't Howard Kendall bring John Bailey to do the same thing ? Warnock and Basset also wanted those type of characters. He has to improve ON the pitch though to win over the fans.

Might well be a load of bollocks but I've heard talk that we're paying £10,000 a week towards his wages with an extra £9,000 added to that every time he plays. Even if that's double what we're really paying, he's a very, very expensive role model (and we're forced to play 3-5-2 to accommodate him).

Like a lot of others, my confidence for next season will be hugely impacted by whether or not we sign him. Don't buy this player-coach thing either - how many coaches do we need?

 

[sitwell]

Might well be a load of bollocks but I've heard talk that we're paying £10,000 a week towards his wages with an extra £9,000 added to that every time he plays. Even if that's double what we're really paying, he's a very, very expensive role model (and we're forced to play 3-5-2 to accommodate him).

Like a lot of others, my confidence for next season will be hugely impacted by whether or not we sign him. Don't buy this player-coach thing either - how many coaches do we need?

I do know I promise that he was on 22k at Leicester so your figures would make sense ,with Leicester or him taking a small cut. Agree with you on everything there. People used to say Warnock was taking a cut of Allisons money didn't they ?

 

[Ricky]

God knows how he even got that 22k from Leicester. He must have an amazing agent.

 

[cooperblade]

I do know I promise that he was on 22k at Leicester so your figures would make sense ,with Leicester or him taking a small cut. Agree with you on everything there. People used to say Warnock was taking a cut of Allisons money didn't they ?

The Chief and Warnock cropped up in conversation about 30 seconds after we heard about the £9,000 a week appearance money!

 

[sitwell]

God knows how he even got that 22k from Leicester. He must have an amazing agent.

I must admit I had never heard of him before this year and doubt I have seen him play or I would have noticed

 

[Clarkey87]

The thing is , I cannot work out who Adkins is trying to convince , - us , board , McCabe or himself .

UTB

All of the above......and maybe Hammond himself (? In a way of saying - you've still got it......whatever it is!)

 

[Gordon cowans]

The player simply cant boss a midfield in the 3rd teir,we've seen it this season wots going to miraculously change next term?.
Surely other better,younger & cheaper options exist?

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I'm glad Adkins is doing exactly what he thinks is right to get us promoted whether we like it or not. That's the sort of single minded approach I'd expect from someone who is confident in his abilities.

Yes.

I'm scratching my head at Hammond's contribution but I respect Adkins' judgement and a couple of times we have strung together a sequence of clean sheets with Hammond in there.

If we do sign "Nigel Adkins' man//He's better than Zidane" the big issue will be who plays alongside him, because it's likely to be a 4-4-2, isn't it?

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

At the end of the day if we are to resign him - do it as a coach. Not as a player. If his 'abilities' now are demonstrated behind the scenes. Keep him there.

Adkins is going to sign him in any case - and that article of him blindly bigging him up pretty much indicates this is going to happen.

Adkins is not doing anything "blindly".

He's worked with Hammond for several years, and sees his overall contribution - something pretty much any fan is "blind" to.

How do you account for our four clean sheets in five, and our (short) sequence of 1-0s earlier in the season - all with Hammond on the team?

 

[Revolution]

Adkins is not doing anything "blindly".

He's worked with Hammond for several years, and sees his overall contribution - something pretty much any fan is "blind" to.

How do you account for our four clean sheets in five, and our (short) sequence of 1-0s earlier in the season - all with Hammond on the team?

Recently? Baptiste
Earlier? Poor quality of opposition/small sample size fluke

 

[BushBlade]

Yes.

I'm scratching my head at Hammond's contribution but I respect Adkins' judgement and a couple of times we have strung together a sequence of clean sheets with Hammond in there.

If we do sign "Nigel Adkins' man//He's better than Zidane" the big issue will be who plays alongside him, because it's likely to be a 4-4-2, isn't it?

I hope it's not 442 as I don't think he can play in a traditional 442. He'd need a very athletic partner who can play box to box, with attacking full backs IMO but there are multiple ways you can utilise any formation these days so I'll be honest and say I haven't a clue really who Adkins will sign, how we're going to play next season and whether or not it will be successful.
My take on this season is;
Adkins came in with an idea of how he wanted to play. He then found out that the players weren't suitable, whichever combination he tried.
He then tried to find a formation that suited what we had, as it was clear we weren't bringing in many more. That took time as each time he thought he'd got it right it went wrong in the next game.
He got the board to accept that we needed to strengthen our defence however we played and managed to bring Baptiste in, who made 352 workable. It's worked. But too late.

All this against a backdrop of players who signed to play for their mate, t'other Nige, players who'd already pissed t'other Nige off and thought football was just a good way of funding a lifestyle, Baxter and Collins and yet another boardroom upheaval.

Next season he should, if properly backed, be able to set up a team to play in the way he thinks is most likely to get us up, without boring us to death with turgid football.

But we'll see. Better managers than him have failed in certain jobs and far worse have succeeded. That's football and that's why predictions can never be more than educated guesses. Even with Matthew Benham's algorithms.

 

[TonyAgana]

He's worked with Hammond for several years, and sees his overall contribution - something pretty much any fan is "blind" to.

He is human, as are we, WHF. It's entirely possible that Adkins too is "blinded" by a combination of his own preconceptions (based on previous successful spells with Hammond) and an unwillingness to accept his own judgement was and continues to be wrong about his potential contribution to a game of football. Every technology-based measure available will highlight with devastating accuracy that it is negligible, so Adkins is clearly allowing his personal perspective of Hammond to rule his opinions.

How do you account for our four clean sheets in five, and our (short) sequence of 1-0s earlier in the season - all with Hammond on the team?

I did a bit of a breakdown a couple of games prior to our latest "run" and his impact on goals conceded / points won was, statistically speaking, non-existent.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

He is human, as are we, WHF. It's entirely possible that Adkins too is "blinded" by a combination of his own preconceptions (based on previous successful spells with Hammond) and an unwillingness to accept his own judgement was and continues to be wrong about his potential contribution to a game of football. Every technology-based measure available will highlight with devastating accuracy that it is negligible, so Adkins is clearly allowing his personal perspective of Hammond to rule his opinions.

I did a bit of a breakdown a couple of games prior to our latest "run" and his impact on goals conceded / points won was, statistically speaking, non-existent.

Adkins mentioned very early on that the stats backed up what Hammond was doing. Is he blind to the extent that he's lying to himself and us and anyone else who sees the stats?

We've gone on two mini-runs where we've kept clean sheets. Both times with Hammond in the team.

Recently his central midfield partners have been Flynn and Coutts. How much are they contributing to our defending?

Hang on.

Come to think of it is there anyone else in World Football who could keep four clean sheets in five alongside Flynn and Coutts?

 

[derryblade]

I will certainly be intrigued to discover what length of contract he might be offered and certainly how his wage demands might fit in with KM comment at the AGM of paying wage's not in line with our 3rd tier position. If it's a player/coach position how many helpers does NA need?

 

[Woodwardfan]

I'm 68 years old, when I look at photos of my best mates I sometimes don't recognise them. That's because the blokes I see when I meet them are not what a camera sees. The camera doesn't lie though.

When I watch Hammond as closely as I do, sat right behind Adkins, when Hammond falls short, my gaze turns always towards Adkins for any sign of emotion and there is not a glimmer. When certain other players fall short Adkins does not show disgust, throw a tantrum of the like that Garner and Clough so often did, he slowly turns away and talks to his coaches and the bench with an understated and controlled 'what the f***'.

Adkins sees it all I'm sure but he's like a husband of a wife who was so marvellous in those hey-day years and yet doesn't quite push the buttons anymore, through no fault of her own, just age and nobody can blame her for that can they? That's not to say Adkins should be married to Hammond and not turn to the footballing equivalent of a sprightly, sensual, dirty nymphomaniac about 10 years younger.

I'll give myself a 'like' for that post actually

 

[Grappler]

I'm 68 years old, when I look at photos of my best mates I sometimes don't recognise them. That's because the blokes I see when I meet them are not what a camera sees. The camera doesn't lie though.

When I watch Hammond as closely as I do, sat right behind Adkins, when Hammond falls short, my gaze turns always towards Adkins for any sign of emotion and there is not a glimmer. When certain other players fall short Adkins does not show disgust, throw a tantrum of the like that Garner and Clough so often did, he slowly turns away and talks to his coaches and the bench with an understated and controlled 'what the f***'.

Adkins sees it all I'm sure but he's like a husband of a wife who was so marvellous in those hey-day years and yet doesn't quite push the buttons anymore, through no fault of her own, just age and nobody can blame her for that can they? That's not to say Adkins should be married to Hammond and not turn to the footballing equivalent of a sprightly, sensual, dirty nymphomaniac about 10 years younger.

I'll give myself a 'like' for that post actually

"....That's not to say Adkins should be married to Hammond and not turn to the footballing equivalent of a sprightly, sensual, dirty nymphomaniac about 10 years younger......"

yeah.......you sort of last me at that point pal?

 

[Barney]

That's not to say Adkins should be married to Hammond and not turn to the footballing equivalent of a sprightly, sensual, dirty nymphomaniac about 10 years younger.

Doctor!

 

[Woodwardfan]

"....That's not to say Adkins should be married to Hammond and not turn to the footballing equivalent of a sprightly, sensual, dirty nymphomaniac about 10 years younger......"

yeah.......you sort of last me at that point pal?

"Sort of last" you? Is that dirty talking.

Seriously, my analogy has some cross-overs if you'd forgive the pun.

In relation to Hammond and the wife -- Sprightly- obvious and easy to replace/ Sensual -no./ Dirty - well Hammond is dirty but easy to replace./ Nymphomaniac - hungry, eager, energetic and enthusiastic, can't run around enough, all day if that's what's called for.

 

[Clarkey87]

Adkins is not doing anything "blindly".

He's worked with Hammond for several years, and sees his overall contribution - something pretty much any fan is "blind" to.

How do you account for our four clean sheets in five, and our (short) sequence of 1-0s earlier in the season - all with Hammond on the team?

Yes he is. He is blindly oblivious to the fact the fans (majority) don't want Hammond back, or being made a conerstone to the team next season.
He seems blinded by his loyalty to who clearly appears to be a 'mate in the game'.

He's worked with Hammond over several years yes. Any fan knows a manager has his favourites that follow him to a variety of clubs. The 'old pals act' - a la Paddy Kenny/Neil Warnock.

What fans are NOT blind to is the limited contribution he, Hammond, has had on the pitch this season. You cannot come on here and defend his regularly poor performances. These coming from a player who had played, until recently, at the top levels (league) in the game.

He isn't going to get any stronger, he isn't going to get quicker, in fact he will continue to become the opposite as he ages yet another year.
Wouldn't mind if he had a range of passes in his locker, where he can just stand there and spray the ball about, but he hasn't.

In response to your last point 'Revolution' quite rightly pointed out a reason for our recent clean sheets - Baptiste
Earlier in the season - poor opposition/flukey few results it hasn't been consistent in all/majority of games he has played.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

I'm scratching my head at Hammond's contribution

He's worked with Hammond for several years, and sees his overall contribution - something pretty much any fan is "blind" to.

How do you account for our four clean sheets in five, and our (short) sequence of 1-0s earlier in the season - all with Hammond on the team?

Make thi mind up William.

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

Adkins is not doing anything "blindly".

He's worked with Hammond for several years, and sees his overall contribution - something pretty much any fan is "blind" to.

How do you account for our four clean sheets in five, and our (short) sequence of 1-0s earlier in the season - all with Hammond on the team?

WHF . I would agree with you that Adkins is not doing anything blindly intentionally , but do feel at some point he has winged it , and looked like a rabbit in the headlights.

His main issue to sort out is the formation we are to play , and a more active midfield .

Hammond will be a signing , but may have a bench role than first eleven . After the debacle and unprofessional actions of certain players , the more discipline , leadership , and mentors we have the better.

It's about getting the blend right , young , experienced , which we do have to trust Adkins he knows what's what.

Whilst we're at it , I would also look at that Kelvin Davies ? ( goally ex Southampton )


You never know we may have room for one of theses Mavericks talked about elsewhere . It's either going to be a great season or another damp squid next season.

UTB

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

He is blindly oblivious to the fact the fans (majority) don't want Hammond back, or being made a conerstone to the team next season.

He's clearly not blindly oblivious to the fact - otherwise he wouldn't keep mentioning it - so this is a non-starter.

the fans (majority) don't want Hammond back, or being made a conerstone to the team next season.

Should "the fans" pick the team? Which ones? The loudest? The ones that swear the most ? Who? Maybe we should vote on the team. Maybe not. Given the choice I'd go with Adkins' judgement - while still slightly mystified.

Any fan knows a manager has his favourites that follow him to a variety of clubs. The 'old pals act' - a la Paddy Kenny/Neil Warnock.

"He's the manager's favourite" (even if it's true) does not imply "He is crap".

Sharp is also an Adkins favourite - that hasn't turned out too bad.

What fans are NOT blind to is the limited contribution he, Hammond, has had on the pitch this season.

So these "fans" - whoever they are - see everything that goes on? (And woe betide anyone who dare question their omniscience.)

In response to your last point 'Revolution' quite rightly pointed out a reason for our recent clean sheets - Baptiste

Pretty good for a right centre back. Mind you he is behind the defensive powerhouses of Paul Coutts and Ryan Flynn.

Still leaves the clean sheets and 1-0s around December time.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

another damp squid

That's probably even worse than a damp squib. I really hope it doesn't get that bad.

 

[Sheffsteel]

In response to
I'm also assuming the club have learnt a lesson with Clough and put a pay structure in place (I know, I know

That's the irony.

Many fans accuse us of lacking ambition but paying out BIG salaries, having a massive squad and paying over 1 million for a right back is showing ambition.

If we want to get out this division then we need to be flexible regards pay structures to bring in the best available

 

[Clarkey87]

He's clearly not blindly oblivious to the fact - otherwise he wouldn't keep mentioning it - so this is a non-starter.

He is otherwise he wouldn't keep forcing him into our faces. He should know by now that fans are tired of hearing the cheerleading for this player who, it is quite clear to see, don't want him to be signed.

Should "the fans" pick the team? Which ones? The loudest? The ones that swear the most ? Who? Maybe we should vote on the team. Maybe not. Given the choice I'd go with Adkins' judgement - while still slightly mystified.

Ridiculous notion. I shouldn't even dignify with an answer but I will.
The fans don't pick the team but the fans can voice their discontent at the continuous selection and cheerleading of certain players (player in this case) if the fans can see he isn't any good.
You say about fans picking the team......how many times have you seen a manager react to the fans demands. It happens whether you like it or not (I do recall times where the Kop has chanted for a sub or a particular player to be brought on in the past......low and behold the manager relented!).
Managers know - lose the fans, lose the job. It's how the game is.

Yes, fans have no choice but to go with the managers selection because that's what he is paid to do.

Bringing this back to the Hammond thing - he isn't our player (at the minute) he belongs to Leicester, so the fans have every right to voice concern about bringing in a player they have seen doesn't offer us much on the pitch and making him a permanent signing.

"He's the manager's favourite" (even if it's true) does not imply "He is crap".
Sharp is also an Adkins favourite - that hasn't turned out too bad.

What do you mean "even if it's true"? The whole saga and cheerleading points to that he is clearly an Adkins favourite.
You're right - it doesn't imply he is crap. His performances this season for us does that perfectly fine.

Sharp is a favourite of Adkins and has worked out. However I argue that he is a completely different player, playing a different role, he is younger and plays like the fan he is 99% of the time. Sharp has more invested because of his ties to the club.

You present Sharp - I present Woolford. Etc etc

So these "fans" - whoever they are - see everything that goes on? (And woe betide anyone who dare question their omniscience.)

These fans (sorry.....'fans') see what goes on where it matters quite a lot - on the pitch.
Are they (we) not entitled to an opinion on a player based on his continuous woeful performances.
If you care to read through the start of this, I do say I would have him back if his role is limited to a back room one where Adkins highlights he does a lot of behind the scenes work. We need professionalism behind the scene for the younger players coming through. If he offers that, great but keep him off of the pitch and bring in (or bring through) a player who is better (for better, read quicker, younger, more alert) in the role he (Hammond) is supposed to play on the pitch for us at the minute.

Again another non issue you raise.

Still leaves the clean sheets and 1-0s around December time.

Whilst we are at it then, why not look at the little 3/4 game winning streak after getting turned over by Gillingham at the start of the season when Hammond wasn't even here?

Or let's look at some of the terrible results we have had whilst he has been here? (Or does that not fit in with your Hammond defence? Quietly sweep it under the carpet whilst making noise about the odd clean sheet and 1-0s in December). We can go on and on about results and performances but it'll just keep going around in circles.


The key point is, you clearly have the opinion Hammond is a Demi-God, I clearly have the opinion he isn't any good for our starting eleven.