Todays Star - Hammond

[zablade]

Mistakes like signing Higdon and giving Cresswell an extension... We never learn from them do we?

Ah well at least this is one more thing to dampen down expectations of a promotion challenge next season, its probably what the club wants.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Good effort considering we haven't even reached the cut-off for 10 bookings yet !

He tends to get stupid bookings from what I've seen, pulling players back etc which is probably down to his lack of pace. Doesn't look like it's been a problem in recent seasons.

Partly down to his lack of pace but partly down to know-how. He often ‘takes one for the team’. He also ‘let’s the opposition know he’s there’. Reed tends to play with a bit more freedom when he has Hammond there as a minder. A bit like what Whitehurst did for Deane and Agana. Only problem is you don’t get away with much these days.

 

[Latters]

...'if you talk about doing the basics well how well does Hammond do them'...

Considering the basics are controlling the ball, passing and moving into space, I'd have to say not very well at all.

It doesn't come down to wages for me. He could be paying us to sign him and I'd still be disappointed.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Depends what kind of deal he may be on but he's been OK in recent weeks and the problem is as much the players around him. How much better did Doyle look when he had Coady, McDonald, Williamson etc around him ?

Irrelevant what you pay him if he can't do the job.

Even paying him nowt is a waste of a shirt.

Doyle did was piss take walk.

Get shut of the lot.

 

[derryblade]

Hammond will secure the best deal for Dean Hammond whether it's at the Blades or elsewhere, we have had player after player spouting we love it here, yeah right. Hopefully the "powers that" be have actually learned lessons and don't award another stupid inflated contract to a 33 year old player. KM actually commented on this scenario at the AGM, make him look a tad stupid if the club did it again, but when did that ever stop them.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

The club either backs the manager or they don't.
Who do people want to be deciding which players to sign? McCabe? The Prince? David Green?
Or the football manager the club appointed on the basis of his track record of previous success?

Presumably Adkins knows his probable budget for next season and what portion of signing that Hammond will account for.
If he still takes the managerial decision that signing Hammond gives him his best chance of success, then the club must back him.

Alternatively, you sack the manager and appoint a new one who will be willing to accept the "transfer committee" overriding his wishes.

 

[Ricky]

We need to hope a daft Championship club like Forest, Leeds or Fulham take a punt on him based on his reputation without watching him at all while he's been on loan here.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

Think the 2 games when he was suspended showed his worth.

Came back at Fleetwood, and we looked stronger in the middle.

Incidentally, he is 4 bookings off a 3 game ban

Think he's aiming at some sort of all-time bookings record.

Just hope that, if we do sign him, he's not guaranteed a starting spot. Wade Elliott was excellent for Bristol City a couple of seasons back as that "model professional" type - great influence on the younger players, etc - but, as the season progressed, he took more & more of a back-seat role, playing-wise.

In saying that, I'd be happy if we did sign him (so long as he's not on stupid wages) - given that ill-discipline & cliqueishness has been such a problem here, he's the sort of exemplar around the place that's vitally needed, going forward.

 

[TonyAgana]

We do look less beatable when Hammond plays.

We might look less beatable, but we aren't.

We conceded the same amount of goals and lost the same number of games in the same time-frame before and after he joined. I haven't worked it out since those first 24(?) games but I'll guess it's similar.

 

[Jostein's Bandage]

Doesn't really matter anyway. We should be able to find someone better and younger to fill that position. But as ever, we're club bodge-it.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

We might look less beatable, but we aren't.

We conceded the same amount of goals and lost the same number of games in the same time-frame before and after he joined. I haven't worked it out since those first 24(?) games but I'll guess it's similar.

A lot has changed since then though. The more recent sample (the 2 games he was banned v the gameshe's played in recently) suggest he's missed when not there in the current set- up. At the start of the season we had Baxter playing CM, JCR and Adams on the wing and Sammon and Sharp up front. We were attacking teams more and playing in a very different way. I spent much of the season wanting us to get back that but it seems we have a new way now and that Baxter, JCR and Sammon are pretty much finished and that Adams will be used as a striker. In this system, I think we are better with Hammond than without.

 

[Revolution]

If you have Hammond you end up with the creative black hole midfield 4 of Woolford-Basham/Reed-Hammond-Coutts.

And that is not a midfield that's going to get us promoted.

 

[blackydog]

Oh dear Adkins can't honestly be thinking signing him on a contract is a good idea. Wages are one of the factors we do have to look out for when it comes to ffp. Surely he has to be on a high wage coming from a premier league club, so why are we thinking of blowing our budget on him? Is he going to be taking a paycut to join us?
It would also mean that we have two high wages with him and Brayford in the team and tbh they are not game changing players that are going to win you games.

I thought Brayford did help change the game against oldham, despite a couple of blips.

 

[Trigger Blade]

That might be so, but it's about the result of that hard work and how effective it is. And it's definitely questionable.

When Adkins started talking about Hammond's unseen work, it used to annoy me, because I really couldn't see what he brought to the team. However, more recently, I think he's played well (MOM for me at Fleetwood) and he makes things happen around him. He's also come close to scoring a couple of times, one with a header (Vale at home?) and one near the end at Fleetwood when he was our furthest forward attacker.

He still looks knackered after about five minutes and he walks like a man my age (which is considerably older), but I think he puts a shift in and I wouldn't be critical of his workrate.

Think he's aiming at some sort of all-time bookings record.

I was sure it was him that clattered an Oldham player on Saturday, being conditioned to a Hammond yellow every game and it wasn't, it was young Whiteman, who's obviously a quick learner

 

[Woodwardfan]

What I can never come to terms with is while I accept there has to be at least one player who does the dirty bits, the 'un-noticed bits' why does he have to be such a limited footballer skills-wise. Why can't the player who does the mucky stuff be capable of passing a ball more than ten yards with the right weight on the pass. Strikes me that more players who can play a bit should focus on specialising in doing the mucky bits and they'll earn themselves a fortune.

Hammond has presence in the middle of the park but it's mostly a physical presence through a tendency to foul most times he makes a tackle. His touch is OK but his brain does not seem to work quickly enough when he is in possession of the ball. He lacks imagination and confidence on the ball and looks awkward in possession. I was hoping for a real leader on the pitch but can't say I notice him organising,encouraging or bollocking his team mates that much. He misses whatever chances he gets to score.

I'm disappointed in him. If we do want to return to 4-4-2 I don't think he's good enough.

 

[TonyAgana]

A lot has changed since then though. The more recent sample (the 2 games he was banned v the gameshe's played in recently) suggest he's missed when not there in the current set- up. At the start of the season we had Baxter playing CM, JCR and Adams on the wing and Sammon and Sharp up front. We were attacking teams more and playing in a very different way. I spent much of the season wanting us to get back that but it seems we have a new way now and that Baxter, JCR and Sammon are pretty much finished and that Adams will be used as a striker. In this system, I think we are better with Hammond than without.

Good point well made. It suggests though that Adkins is almost building his squad around Hammond who moves like this:

 

[Sean Thornton]

Good point well made. It suggests though that Adkins is almost building his squad around Hammond who moves like this:

To be honest Hammond looks quicker than I thought in that video.

 

[String]

What I can never come to terms with is while I accept there has to be at least one player who does the dirty bits, the 'un-noticed bits' why does he have to be such a limited footballer skills-wise. Why can't the player who does the mucky stuff be capable of passing a ball more than ten yards with the right weight on the pass. Strikes me that more players who can play a bit should focus on specialising in doing the mucky bits and they'll earn themselves a fortune.

Hammond has presence in the middle of the park but it's mostly a physical presence through a tendency to foul most times he makes a tackle. His touch is OK but his brain does not seem to work quickly enough when he is in possession of the ball. He lacks imagination and confidence on the ball and looks awkward in possession. I was hoping for a real leader on the pitch but can't say I notice him organising,encouraging or bollocking his team mates that much. He misses whatever chances he gets to score.

I'm disappointed in him. If we do want to return to 4-4-2 I don't think he's good enough.

Disagree partially Woodward, Id agree 442 doesn't best suit Hammond, but i thought on saturday he was pretty good, not perfect (there were the customary couple of slide rule backward type passes) but having not seen too much of United 'live' recently I was pleasantly surprised. Hammond did some very solid things on Saturday. Decent positive passing, including a couple of long range attacking passes cross field, a couple of terrific intercept tackles in the first half, seem to remember one on the south stand side corner of our box. Does seem to gee people up and spent a not insignificant amount of time talking to Whiteman (who i thought looked a bit of a mini Hammond himself). In a 352 the wing backs take the pressure off the midfield a little so therefore I can see Hammond contributing in that formation, hopefully even more so with a few better players around him next year. On balance i think the pro's outweigh the cons, plus how he managed to talk the referee out of a booking that time in the second half I've no idea…

extra mention for Baptiste, solid game despite not fit yet….saw him a couple of times absolutely screaming at his other defenders for sitting too deep…and guess what we moved out a bit faster. well a bit faster…no Collins... no more sitting deep please blades.

 

[TonyAgana]

To be honest Hammond looks quicker than I thought in that video.

*hums Benny Hill theme*

 

[Bergen Blade]

I was sure it was him that clattered an Oldham player on Saturday, being conditioned to a Hammond yellow every game and it wasn't, it was young Whiteman, who's obviously a quick learner

Yes, it'll save us a lot of money if we can get Whiteman to make late and clums

It's all about the right balance, if you look at Prem teams, Barry at Everton, Carrick at ManU, Noble at WHam, Fletcher at WBA etc with the younger players around them. I know League 1 is a different matter and you're right about resources but would Brown have had such a great season without McCall for example.

I think the ones you mention are better ball players though, so even when their physique is deteriorating, they still have a lot to offer. McCall was a busy terrier as a younger player and it was a relevant concern that he'd be less effective having lost most of that when he joined us. It turned out his know how and ability on the ball was also very good, so he coped well, for one season more. Hammond seems very limited in terms of ability on the ball. I would be surprised if his agent wouldn't try to get him a two year deal. Would we insist on just giving him one year?

 

[blade too long]

un fortunately signing a 33 year old who if my calculations are right will be 34 , an open invitation for pete blade to call me a liar I know but hey ho, next season on big money is one of the reasons I am not impressed with Adkins work these days
We need some one with teeth a bit of bite with as the saying goes with a good engine, a 6 litre bmw , not hammonds qualcast mower motor

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

un fortunately signing a 33 year old who if my calculations are right will be 34 next season

Blimey, nothing gets past you btl

 

[blade too long]

Blimey, nothing gets past you btl

lemon entry my dear watson

 

[Sean Thornton]

I'd imagine Pete will be too shocked that you've got something right for a change, and will have a lie down rather than post.

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

What I can never come to terms with is while I accept there has to be at least one player who does the dirty bits, the 'un-noticed bits' why does he have to be such a limited footballer skills-wise. Why can't the player who does the mucky stuff be capable of passing a ball more than ten yards with the right weight on the pass. Strikes me that more players who can play a bit should focus on specialising in doing the mucky bits and they'll earn themselves a fortune.

Hammond has presence in the middle of the park but it's mostly a physical presence through a tendency to foul most times he makes a tackle. His touch is OK but his brain does not seem to work quickly enough when he is in possession of the ball. He lacks imagination and confidence on the ball and looks awkward in possession. I was hoping for a real leader on the pitch but can't say I notice him organising,encouraging or bollocking his team mates that much. He misses whatever chances he gets to score.

I'm disappointed in him. If we do want to return to 4-4-2 I don't think he's good enough.

Woody. See were you are coming from with Hammond . Also I must be one of the fans , who Adkins says , doesnt see the work Hammond does off the ball never mind on it .

Hammond I think is here to stay , and Adkins will sort out a contract with coaching possibilities as the carrot to sign.

The side next season will be a mixture of experience and youth . Billy , Hammond and that Baps fella ( if he signs from Boro ) will be the catalyst of the side .

Brayford could bein the mix , if he stays .

We have to believe that Adkins knows what he is doing with player recruitment , with the mix of dirty bits , skill , quality and hard work. Jury may be still out , but Hammond no doubt will be the first name on the team sheet with Billy.


UTB

 

[BushBlade]

What I can never come to terms with is while I accept there has to be at least one player who does the dirty bits, the 'un-noticed bits' why does he have to be such a limited footballer skills-wise. Why can't the player who does the mucky stuff be capable of passing a ball more than ten yards with the right weight on the pass. Strikes me that more players who can play a bit should focus on specialising in doing the mucky bits and they'll earn themselves a fortune.

Hammond has presence in the middle of the park but it's mostly a physical presence through a tendency to foul most times he makes a tackle. His touch is OK but his brain does not seem to work quickly enough when he is in possession of the ball. He lacks imagination and confidence on the ball and looks awkward in possession. I was hoping for a real leader on the pitch but can't say I notice him organising,encouraging or bollocking his team mates that much. He misses whatever chances he gets to score.

I'm disappointed in him. If we do want to return to 4-4-2 I don't think he's good enough.

Players that do the unnoticed stuff are usually poorer ball players because if you were great on the ball, you wouldn't want to do the shit stuff and be the player that gets booed a lot. Most players who are 'dogs' do the shit stuff because they know that otherwise they'd be playing at a lower level.
I was a dog because otherwise I wouldn't have got a game.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Hammond is not receiving the wages some think he is, and has facilitated the move by taking a pay cut (Leicester wouldn't pay 75% of his wages). It wouldn't surprise me if a deal has already been verbally agreed to sign him on league one wages. Sharp also took a massive pay cut to join united. We do have a striker on championship wages.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Hammond is not receiving the wages some think he is, and has facilitated the move by taking a pay cut (Leicester wouldn't pay 75% of his wages). It wouldn't surprise me if a deal has already been verbally agreed to sign him on league one wages. Sharp also took a massive pay cut to join united. We do have a striker on championship wages.

My heart bleeds for these players who take a cut down to £10K plus a week

 

[Woodwardfan]

Players that do the unnoticed stuff are usually poorer ball players because if you were great on the ball, you wouldn't want to do the shit stuff and be the player that gets booed a lot. Most players who are 'dogs' do the shit stuff because they know that otherwise they'd be playing at a lower level.
I was a dog because otherwise I wouldn't have got a game.

What an easy career for someone who can do both but plays within himself all the time. Seems a clever move to me!

 

[BushBlade]

What an easy career for someone who can do both but plays within himself all the time. Seems a clever move to me!

If you can do both you're probably Roy Keane or Patrick Vierra.