Midfield Workhorses. A Love Hate Relationship

[sheffielder]

The problem with Hammond is that he needs legs around him. With Coutts, they both just end up looking bad.

 

[wizadry]

Whilst I'm not in any way a massive fan of Hammond, can I point out that he went off when we were winning vs. Crewe. Ten minutes later, it was 2-2. The game changed notably when he went off though I cannot explain why!

Can I also point out that we also won when he went off. There is nothing to suggest that we would have won had he stayed on, we could've easily lost that game had he stayed on, he was shocking in the second half yesterday.

 

[Elsecar_Blade]

Can I also point out that we also won when he went off. There is nothing to suggest that we would have won had he stayed on, we could've easily lost that game had he stayed on, he was shocking in the second half yesterday.

I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm just making the point that it all went to pot after he went off. I can't explain what changed when Whiteman came on - maybe the kid was even worse - but Crewe took over once Hammond went off. I'm not a fan of his, I'm just saying that maybe we really are missing something. Adkins rates him for some reason that I cannot fathom.

 

[wizadry]

I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm just making the point that it all went to pot after he went off. I can't explain what changed when Whiteman came on - maybe the kid was even worse - but Crewe took over once Hammond went off. I'm not a fan of his, I'm just saying that maybe we really are missing something. Adkins rates him for some reason that I cannot fathom.

Crewe took over before Hammond came off, there really is no need to stick up for the crock of shit, he was shite before the man who rates him took him off.

 

[Elsecar_Blade]

Crewe took over before Hammond came off, there really is no need to stick up for the crock of shit, he was shite before the man who rates him took him off.

Yes but the facts are we were 2-0 up when he went off and then we ended up lucky not to throw it away. It's not sticking up for him, it's just the facts. There's been many a player pull on an SUFC shirt before who the fans didn't particularly rate but the manager played regardless so sometimes you have to let facts speak for themselves.

Having said that, it was the bottom of the league so it's not exactly a glowing compliment for him either.

 

[wizadry]

Yes but the facts are we were 2-0 up when he went off and then we ended up lucky not to throw it away. It's not sticking up for him, it's just the facts. There's been many a player pull on an SUFC shirt before who the fans didn't particularly rate but the manager played regardless so sometimes you have to let facts speak for themselves.

Having said that, it was the bottom of the league so it's not exactly a glowing compliment for him either.

Would you not say it was fact that Crewe took over before Hammond came off?

 

[Bergen Blade]

Although Hammond used to be a work horse I think he should fall into the category of midfielders that joined us from a higher league to provide us with leadership qualities and a wise old head pulling the strings in midfield. Other players like this include Gordan Cowans, Nicky Marker, Ian Hamilton, Stuart McCall, Garry Flitcroft, James Harper, Gary Speed.

Some of these, like Cowans, Marker and McCall (1st season) had something to offer as their class stood out and they played in well balanced teams and they sort of held their own physically still. Others like Speed and McCall (2nd season) struggled as their legs were going. Then players like Hamilton, Flitcroft and Harper just never had any sort of superior ability that meant they were really effective as holding playmakers and with physique (upon which their game was based) on the decline they were rather poor players for us. Unfortunately I think Hammond also falls into this last category.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Yes but the facts are we were 2-0 up when he went off and then we ended up lucky not to throw it away. It's not sticking up for him, it's just the facts. There's been many a player pull on an SUFC shirt before who the fans didn't particularly rate but the manager played regardless so sometimes you have to let facts speak for themselves.

Having said that, it was the bottom of the league so it's not exactly a glowing compliment for him either.

I'm with you on this. I'm prepared to give Hammond a chance, trust Adkins judgement, and eg trust that we are being told the truth about the data.

A couple of posts from a while ago:

I bet all the ground he all overs frustrates the opposition: a midfielder will look up for a pass, Hammond will be there, and he'll have to try something else.

I wonder if his best work is not even destructive - it's preventative: and that really is a thankless task.

Just wish he showed better quality on the ball sometimes.

And another one from a while ago when we conceded after he went off (yesterday for me it was a totally different game without him on the pitch)

I disagree with our tactics yesterday, but did Long have save to make when Hammond was on? And they scored after he went off. It might genuinely be that all his good work is unseen: in particular closing down options - at one point he came racing across the pitch towards us when they had space in midfield, and the end result was they had nowhere to go. I suspect this happens a lot: they can't find a way through because Hammond is there organised and organising.

The thing is his seen work yesterday was extremely poor: for instance he lost possession to younger, faster, hungrier players several times.

Sometimes if you are extremely good at your job you disappear from the situation and no-one notices: they all think everything is running smoothly, automatically, and everything is taking care of itself - and it's not. In the workplace I'm thinking about a really good administrator in a complex organisation for instance quietly working miracles and then when something goes wrong they get it in the neck.

Utterly thankless - unless you're tuned in to the organisation and you've seen it run in desperately reactive crisis management mode.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Although Hammond used to be a work horse I think he should fall into the category of midfielders that joined us from a higher league to provide us with leadership qualities and a wise old head pulling the strings in midfield. Other players like this include Gordan Cowans, Nicky Marker, Ian Hamilton, Stuart McCall, Garry Flitcroft, James Harper, Gary Speed.

Some of these, like Cowans, Marker and McCall (1st season) had something to offer as their class stood out and they played in well balanced teams and they sort of held their own physically still. Others like Speed and McCall (2nd season) struggled as their legs were going. Then players like Hamilton, Flitcroft and Harper just never had any sort of superior ability that meant they were really effective as holding playmakers and with physique (upon which their game was based) on the decline they were rather poor players for us. Unfortunately I think Hammond also falls into this last category.

I'm with Wombwell_Blade: I'm not sure what he does but when he's not there...

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

(Well it is Easter )

Did you notice a significant change in our defensive capability when he went off?

I thought it was a different game: they had been on the front foot but after he went off they were just getting through us at will. I remember at one point their keeper had the ball and it just seemed obvious they would play through us directly and get a shot on target - and that's exactly what happened.

3-2 with 6' added time I didn't think 3-4 was impossible. There were a couple of the senior pros holding it together.

Another really important asset as far as Adkins is concerned is his influence in training, in the dressing room which could really advance the careers of the young players - though of course he doesn't have to be on the pitch to do this. If Whiteman, Reed, DCL (fingers crossed) and the rest have a role model to follow it really could make their careers.

I'm undecided - but not dismissive.

W B Yeats considers Dean Hammond

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Although Hammond used to be a work horse I think he should fall into the category of midfielders that joined us from a higher league to provide us with leadership qualities and a wise old head pulling the strings in midfield. Other players like this include Gordan Cowans, Nicky Marker, Ian Hamilton, Stuart McCall, Garry Flitcroft, James Harper, Gary Speed.

Some of these, like Cowans, Marker and McCall (1st season) had something to offer as their class stood out and they played in well balanced teams and they sort of held their own physically still. Others like Speed and McCall (2nd season) struggled as their legs were going. Then players like Hamilton, Flitcroft and Harper just never had any sort of superior ability that meant they were really effective as holding playmakers and with physique (upon which their game was based) on the decline they were rather poor players for us. Unfortunately I think Hammond also falls into this last category.

I personally thought Marker looked average till he moved to centre-half, where he was excellent. As for Speed, he started terribly under Robson and then gradually improved for us. Can remember him doing well at the big win in Charlton, with him scoring too. The injury ending his career came at a time he was doing the role we intended him to do.

 

[Sean Thornton]

So just to recap, everything was going well while Hammond was on even though our second goal was against the run of play. Then it all went to pieces when he was subbed and we went on to score the winning third goal which involved his replacement.

Have I got those facts right?

 

[Jehovah]

I think this ongoing debate about his effect on the Crewe game and the various scorelines throughout the game is daft. If you're going to look at performances then surely it should be throughout the season, of which he has been mostly poor, just like Coutts.

 

[Ginger Gnome]

Yes but the facts are we were 2-0 up when he went off .

As facts go, that's not a very good one. It was 2-1. They scored immediately before he went off, he was just about to be subbed because even Adkins recognised that he needed removing.

 

[Elsecar_Blade]

Would you not say it was fact that Crewe took over before Hammond came off?

The first Crewe goal had been coming, I grant you that. Again, I'm not particularly defending Hammond but I just saw it as Crewe got right on top, i.e. goals, just after he went off. Whether it would have happened regardless, we don't know, I just thought it worth pointing out. It doesn't mean - take note WHF - that I believe Hammond was responsible for holding Crewe at bay, I am just speculating that maybe it could have been given what happened next. For me, the jury is well and truly out on Hammond and I haven't seen enough from him to justify the money but I don't think he is the complete anti-Christ either.

For the record, I thought Whiteman was poor when he came on yesterday - one great pass apart - and I don't think for a second that he will end up being a holding/defensive midfielder. We need to get a player in to play there over the summer - cheaper than Hammond preferably - as well as two centre halves (at least). If we get that, I suspect our dodgy backline may improve significantly because it will give the likes of Brayford and the midfield more confidence. We keep getting done down our right and I feel Brayford gets sucked infield a little to easily. A commanding, steady defensive midfielder wouldn't need the right full back helping with that.

As facts go, that's not a very good one. It was 2-1. They scored immediately before he went off, he was just about to be subbed because even Adkins recognised that he needed removing.

EDIT: If so, I stand corrected. I don't think he can be blamed for the first anyway if he was on. He's given a marking responsibility from corners, it'd be somebody else's job to close down their goalscorer.

 

[wizadry]

So just to recap, everything was going well while Hammond was on even though our second goal was against the run of play. Then it all went to pieces when he was subbed and we went on to score the winning third goal which involved his replacement.

Have I got those facts right?

That's some game!

 

[wizadry]

The first Crewe goal had been coming, I grant you that. Again, I'm not particularly defending Hammond but I just saw it as Crewe got right on top, i.e. goals, just after he went off. Whether it would have happened regardless, we don't know, I just thought it worth pointing out. It doesn't mean - take note WHF - that I believe Hammond was responsible for holding Crewe at bay, I am just speculating that maybe it could have been given what happened next. For me, the jury is well and truly out on Hammond and I haven't seen enough from him to justify the money but I don't think he is the complete anti-Christ either.

For the record, I thought Whiteman was poor when he came on yesterday - one great pass apart - and I don't think for a second that he will end up being a holding/defensive midfielder. We need to get a player in to play there over the summer - cheaper than Hammond preferably - as well as two centre halves (at least). If we get that, I suspect our dodgy backline may improve significantly because it will give the likes of Brayford and the midfield more confidence. We keep getting done down our right and I feel Brayford gets sucked infield a little to easily. A commanding, steady defensive midfielder wouldn't need the right full back helping with that.



EDIT: If so, I stand corrected. I don't think he can be blamed for the first anyway if he was on. He's given a marking responsibility from corners, it'd be somebody else's job to close down their goalscorer.

No probs! This is mostly guess work but I think we could've easily lost that game had Hammond stayed on, his legs had fully gone way before he came off and he needed bringing off, Whiteman was the replacement due to lack of options for that position. He might not be the answer for next season but one things for sure, another 6 months on Hammonds legs makes him an even more redundant player. It's getting more obvious week after week, all imho of course.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

It doesn't mean - take note WHF - that I believe Hammond was responsible for holding Crewe at bay

Eh?

You mean he wasn't the one with his finger in the dyke...

 

[Champagneblade]

Are workhorses being confused with cart horses?

If the aim is for the role to do a lot of running, then have a young fit guy.

If the aim is to have an experience guy who dictates play, then have one of those.

It seems Hammond has the age profile of the latter, without the vision or ability or class of a McCall, Cowans or Speed yet he is being put forward for the role of the former.

There's no future in it. At this level you need to be able to run. And he can't. Not for more than an hour anyway. We can't keep allocating 2 subs because Hammond gets knackered and Coutts 'cramps' up.

 

[sheffielder]

EDIT: If so, I stand corrected. I don't think he can be blamed for the first anyway if he was on. He's given a marking responsibility from corners, it'd be somebody else's job to close down their goalscorer.

COUTTS was doing nothing... I think this is the major point. Hammond (legs gone) and Coutts(lazy twat) doesn't work

 

[Champagneblade]

For all the stick both Hammond and Brayford got for the OT goal Coutts was nowhere to be seen on our right.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Are workhorses being confused with cart horses?

If the aim is for the role to do a lot of running, then have a young fit guy.

If the aim is to have an experience guy who dictates play, then have one of those.

It seems Hammond has the age profile of the latter, without the vision or ability or class of a McCall, Cowans or Speed yet he is being put forward for the role of the former.

There's no future in it. At this level you need to be able to run. And he can't. Not for more than an hour anyway. We can't keep allocating 2 subs because Hammond gets knackered and Coutts 'cramps' up.

At least we are playing him in a midfield 5 these days so there is a role for one ( please not two) deep lying player . Remember we played him in 4-4-2 a lot and that is simply crazy.

 

[robbiez666]

For all the stick both Hammond and Brayford got for the OT goal Coutts was nowhere to be seen on our right.

Coutts is never anywhere to be found when it comes to defensive duties.

 

[Been there done that]

I'm with you on this. I'm prepared to give Hammond a chance, trust Adkins judgement, and eg trust that we are being told the truth about the data.

A couple of posts from a while ago:

I bet all the ground he all overs frustrates the opposition: a midfielder will look up for a pass, Hammond will be there, and he'll have to try something else.

I wonder if his best work is not even destructive - it's preventative: and that really is a thankless task.

Just wish he showed better quality on the ball sometimes.

And another one from a while ago when we conceded after he went off (yesterday for me it was a totally different game without him on the pitch)

I disagree with our tactics yesterday, but did Long have save to make when Hammond was on? And they scored after he went off. It might genuinely be that all his good work is unseen: in particular closing down options - at one point he came racing across the pitch towards us when they had space in midfield, and the end result was they had nowhere to go. I suspect this happens a lot: they can't find a way through because Hammond is there organised and organising.

The thing is his seen work yesterday was extremely poor: for instance he lost possession to younger, faster, hungrier players several times.

Sometimes if you are extremely good at your job you disappear from the situation and no-one notices: they all think everything is running smoothly, automatically, and everything is taking care of itself - and it's not. In the workplace I'm thinking about a really good administrator in a complex organisation for instance quietly working miracles and then when something goes wrong they get it in the neck.

Utterly thankless - unless you're tuned in to the organisation and you've seen it run in desperately reactive crisis management mode.

I'm with you on this. I'm prepared to give Hammond a chance, trust Adkins judgement, and eg trust that we are being told the truth about the data.

A couple of posts from a while ago:

I bet all the ground he all overs frustrates the opposition: a midfielder will look up for a pass, Hammond will be there, and he'll have to try something else.

I wonder if his best work is not even destructive - it's preventative: and that really is a thankless task.

Just wish he showed better quality on the ball sometimes.

And another one from a while ago when we conceded after he went off (yesterday for me it was a totally different game without him on the pitch)

I disagree with our tactics yesterday, but did Long have save to make when Hammond was on? And they scored after he went off. It might genuinely be that all his good work is unseen: in particular closing down options - at one point he came racing across the pitch towards us when they had space in midfield, and the end result was they had nowhere to go. I suspect this happens a lot: they can't find a way through because Hammond is there organised and organising.

The thing is his seen work yesterday was extremely poor: for instance he lost possession to younger, faster, hungrier players several times.

Sometimes if you are extremely good at your job you disappear from the situation and no-one notices: they all think everything is running smoothly, automatically, and everything is taking care of itself - and it's not. In the workplace I'm thinking about a really good administrator in a complex organisation for instance quietly working miracles and then when something goes wrong they get it in the neck.

Utterly thankless - unless you're tuned in to the organisation and you've seen it run in desperately reactive crisis management mode.

Hammond is past his 'use by' date. It happens to all athletes, it's happening to him in front of 20,000 eyes....& SUFC are paying the price, on the pitch & financially, off it.

He doesn't look like a player who was ever very quick, but he now only has one gear, and that's too slow to play in centre-mid. He shuffles around & apparently covers a lot of ground (we are told). I'm sure that's correct according to the data. But its NOT the amount of ground you cover during a game, its the effectiveness of your running. A short sharp burst of speed to intercept or tackle will save you the 50/60 yard run back towards your own goal chasing the guy who got past you! He does next to zero shutting down & real close pressing as he's not sharp enough in close quarters to get near the ball carrier, let alone win it. Due to his lack od speed, the tackles he does make are lunges, off his feet & its 50/50 if he wins them, or misses them & is out the game, or fouls & gets booked. After he's picked up his usual booking, he's then usually subbed of course, cos Adkins knows his effectiveness is now zero & hes on a knife-edge re getting sent off.

All the above would be justifiable IF he dictated play or was a great passer, etc....I think we all know he's not.....far from it. Sideways, easy, short passes are the norm, and those aren't even very accurate.

Adkins seems hell-bent on singing him, despite the almost universal disapproval of every Blade I know, and the 20,000 I don't know who watch him every home game. Something is very very wrong indeed if we are seriously even considering signing him next season.

PS just a point from another post: CREWE WERE DOMINATING 2ND HALF FROM FIRST WHISTLE, NOT COS HAMMOND WAS TAKEN OFF !

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Hammond is past his 'use by' date. It happens to all athletes, it's happening to him in front of 20,000 eyes....& SUFC are paying the price, on the pitch & financially, off it.

He doesn't look like a player who was ever very quick, but he now only has one gear, and that's too slow to play in centre-mid. He shuffles around & apparently covers a lot of ground (we are told). I'm sure that's correct according to the data. But its NOT the amount of ground you cover during a game, its the effectiveness of your running. A short sharp burst of speed to intercept or tackle will save you the 50/60 yard run back towards your own goal chasing the guy who got past you! He does next to zero shutting down & real close pressing as he's not sharp enough in close quarters to get near the ball carrier, let alone win it. Due to his lack od speed, the tackles he does make are lunges, off his feet & its 50/50 if he wins them, or misses them & is out the game, or fouls & gets booked. After he's picked up his usual booking, he's then usually subbed of course, cos Adkins knows his effectiveness is now zero & hes on a knife-edge re getting sent off.

All the above would be justifiable IF he dictated play or was a great passer, etc....I think we all know he's not.....far from it. Sideways, easy, short passes are the norm, and those aren't even very accurate.

Adkins seems hell-bent on singing him, despite the almost universal disapproval of every Blade I know, and the 20,000 I don't know who watch him every home game. Something is very very wrong indeed if we are seriously even considering signing him next season.

PS just a point from another post: CREWE WERE DOMINATING 2ND HALF FROM FIRST WHISTLE, NOT COS HAMMOND WAS TAKEN OFF !

Is there anything that a player does, or that anything that happens, in a game that you think fans don't see?

Should whether fans get worked up about something be what decides whether they're right or wrong?

At the moment I'm undecided but I'm prepared to consider that Adkins knows what he's talking about.

CREWE WERE DOMINATING DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE WALKING THROUGH US AT WILL. WHEN HAMMOND WENT OFF THEY PRETTY MUCH WERE: THE BALL WENT FROM THEIR KEEPER UP THE PITCH THROUGH MIDFIELD TO SHOT ON TARGET. WITH OUR REMAINING SENIOR PLAYERS DESPERATELY TRYING TO HOLD IT TOGETHER - DOES SHOUTING IN COLOUR MAKE MY POINT MORE VALID?

 

[Woodwardfan]

Is there anything that a player does, or that anything that happens, in a game that you think fans don't see?

Should whether fans get worked up about something be what decides whether they're right or wrong?

At the moment I'm undecided but I'm prepared to consider that Adkins knows what he's talking about.

CREWE WERE DOMINATING DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE WALKING THROUGH US AT WILL. WHEN HAMMOND WENT OFF THEY PRETTY MUCH WERE: THE BALL WENT FROM THEIR KEEPER UP THE PITCH THROUGH MIDFIELD TO SHOT ON TARGET. WITH OUR REMAINING SENIOR PLAYERS DESPERATELY TRYING TO HOLD IT TOGETHER - DOES SHOUTING IN COLOUR MAKE MY POINT MORE VALID?

No because it just is not true.

Hammond went off after 69 minutes immediately after Crewe had scored on 68 minutes. We had been under the cosh all the second half but somehow had managed to go two up totally against the run of play. The substitutions didn't affect the game much but Coutts should have gone off long before also. We did manage to score one of the goals of the season though and it involved two of the subs, both young lads.

 

[JasonEllis]

Yes but the facts are we were 2-0 up when he went off and then we ended up lucky not to throw it away. It's not sticking up for him, it's just the facts. There's been many a player pull on an SUFC shirt before who the fans didn't particularly rate but the manager played regardless so sometimes you have to let facts speak for themselves.

Having said that, it was the bottom of the league so it's not exactly a glowing compliment for him either.

Are the facts not actually that we were 2-1 up when he went off, and 3-2 up when the match ended?

 

[Gordon cowans]

Sorry mate,those players mentioned are simply better than hammond,each and every one!

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

No because it just is not true.

Hammond went off after 69 minutes immediately after Crewe had scored on 68 minutes. We had been under the cosh all the second half but somehow had managed to go two up totally against the run of play. The substitutions didn't affect the game much but Coutts should have gone off long before also. We did manage to score one of the goals of the season though and it involved two of the subs, both young lads.

And we conceded a very poor goal in large part bc one of the nippers left the goalscorer unmarked 8 yards out etc etc ad nauseam.

This sort of cherry-picking, tit-for-tat "reasoning" isn't evidence of anything much.

 

[sheffielder]

Someone ask this tool if he thought their 1st goal was a good goal for us to concede, considering both Coutts and Hammond both didn't react to the short corner..

 

[super_pig]

Many players used to try and rile Trevor Hockey up or foul him. He was an unfashionable ball winner who just worked in a certain area of the pitch,scrapped for everything foul or no foul and was fearless. Players like Tc and the like wouldnt have been able to perform like they did without them.
Can you imagine TC running box to box for 90 mins.
Its horses for courses. Let people do the job that suits them for the team.
Or should we play Reed and Flynn etc as our ball winners.
They wouldnt last five minutes.... Then we could really Boo them.
Do youngsters like Reed the power of good...........Just saying thats all........Hopefully a good post.

no explanation required. we all know what these type of players are 'supposed' to do.. it's just that we haven't had anyone good at it for years..flynn as a ball winner.. made me laugh that.. nice one