Argus: Hammond wants to play in Championship

[ATFC Seagull]

remembering what Steve Claridge had to say

Dean Hammond, Brighton & Hove Albion


Steve Claridge
Tuesday September 25, 2007
The Guardian


The thing about Dean Hammond that surprised me most was just how much he had changed physically since I last saw him during my time at Brighton on loan two years ago. I am not sure if he has filled out too much but he has filled out more than I would have liked, which means his mobility wasn't quite as sharp as I remembered, but there were extenuating circumstances for that and he is the type of player a team should be built around - that is how highly I rate him.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He is Albion's club captain and has scored in every home game this season, but when I went to see him one or two things happened that probably were responsible for the fact that he didn't get into areas best suited to his play. A defence that sat back too far meant he was too deep at times to support his forward or get into goalscoring positions and his fellow central midfielder was much too similar, which left them playing far too close together.
Of the two, Hammond should have the licence to get forward at every opportunity to use his strength and ability in the air because he was definitely the more dangerous half of the partnership.

His team-mates trust him with the ball even in tight areas and so they should because he has got a fantastic first touch and his retention of the ball is excellent. Defensively, too, he is spot-on, which is a real plus, and in fact when defending at corners he marked one of Yeovil Town's biggest players, Scott Guyett, matched him then mastered his aerial ability. He was just as impressive defending at free-kicks - when the ball was cleared he did not rush out before the danger had passed, like I used to do, but stayed with his man. During this game his patience and concentration were rewarded when the ball was lobbed back in and his challenge on the player he had been marking saved a certain goal.

His 20 goals in 118 league starts is a fair return but with the attributes he has he could improve on that. There are no worries about him flinching out of tackles either because he threw himself into challenges with relish. He marks in front for throws, which is another example of how his enthusiasm sometimes leads him to get caught up not only doing his own job but that of other players as well.

I would like to see him play at different paces, preferably in fits and bursts, particularly when making runs into the opposition's box, because he tended to do everything at the same tempo.He does not always communicate as strongly as he might and twice he and another player went for the same ball, which on one occasion meant they denied each other a great opportunity to score.

He is a player who has matured tremendously over the past two years as the team has evolved and he has taken the responsibility of captaincy in his stride. But he has to be aware that it is hard enough to play for yourself and he should focus on looking after his own game before selflessly looking after his team-mates. If he does that and realises his potential, Brighton have a player with a fantastic future.

Age 24

Born Hastings

Position Midfield

Height 6ft

Weight 11st 9lb

From Trainee

Heading 9/10

Passing 9/10

Tackling 8/10

Pace 8/10

Team responsibility 9/10

Valuation £750,000

I don't want to seem negative because i DO like Hammond, and of cousre I am no expert on football, but in all honesty, reading that absolutely baffles me.

 

[Mendoza]

I don't want to seem negative because i DO like Hammond, and of cousre I am no expert on football, but in all honesty, reading that absolutely baffles me.

He was probably drunk or needed money for a bet at the time, but its still quite accurate.

I believe we fall to pieces without him in the middle, as he is good at winning the ball back and giving the ball to a team mate

He also has a better goals per game ratio than Jake Robinson

Just because he doesnt do anything outstanding, it doesnt make him a bad player. I believe him and Thomson are perfect for each other in the middle as Hammond has a creative outlet in him somewhere, but never gets to show it sitting deep.

Captain material is dubious, but definatley essential to the team, if we lose him I think it will be a great shame, but in Thomson we do have a replacement, we just need a replacement for Hammond or Paul Reid to get match fit as he was brilliant before he got injured

 

[ATFC Seagull]

He was probably drunk or needed money for a bet at the time, but its still quite accurate.

I believe we fall to pieces without him in the middle, as he is good at winning the ball back and giving the ball to a team mate

He also has a better goals per game ratio than Jake Robinson

Just because he doesnt do anything outstanding, it doesnt make him a bad player. I believe him and Thomson are perfect for each other in the middle as Hammond has a creative outlet in him somewhere, but never gets to show it sitting deep.

Captain material is dubious, but definatley essential to the team, if we lose him I think it will be a great shame, but in Thomson we do have a replacement, we just need a replacement for Hammond or Paul Reid to get match fit as he was brilliant before he got injured

I agree with all of what you've said there, as I said earlier on this thread we are absolutely dire without him. But I think thats the role he plays at THIS football club, and he's not necessarily a raw player thats worth 750k on the market.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Incidentally, the Argus headline, "Hammond Wants To Play In Championship":

well that's hardly a shock, is it. A footballer? Wanting to play at a higher level?

In other news:

-"Ronaldo Wants To Play In Champions League Final"
-"Beckham Wants To Play In Capello Wembley Debut"
-"Mayo Wants To Play"

 

[Silent Bob]

I agree with all of what you've said there, as I said earlier on this thread we are absolutely dire without him. But I think thats the role he plays at THIS football club, and he's not necessarily a raw player thats worth 750k on the market.

I agree that the value (especially when he's on a free at the end of the season) and marks out of ten are a bit high, but other than that I agree with the article mostly, and I don't think it should be underestimated how important he is to us.

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

I believe him and Thomson are perfect for each other in the middle as Hammond has a creative outlet in him somewhere, but never gets to show it sitting deep.

I completely agree with that. Hammond always makes more of a contribution when he doesn't have to carry the midfield responsibility on his own. I'm looking forward to seeing how they work together.

 

[BigGully]

The point about Hammond, O'Callaghan and others was could the deals of been done.

Agents and players have options, we as a club need to work with them.

Its no good the Chairman having as many hissy fits as players do !!

 

[Storer68]

I'd say the club were quite right to set a deadline. The last thing we need is to get to the end of the month without a response - and then find out that he won't sign. We had all that with Harding.

We are a selling club and Hammond is one of our key assets. We can't afford to let him go for nothing.

so that means we take a fee for him NOW.

Because he can go for nothing from 1 Februalry. Andt if he has agreed an option with another club he can go on a Bosman then

 

[Storer68]

Bit that I laughed at in Claridge's assessment was the 8/10 he gave Hammond for pace

 

[Easy 10]

so that means we take a fee for him NOW.

Because he can go for nothing from 1 Februalry.

No he can't. He's under contract till June, he can go for nothing from June onwards. If he doesn't move in January then we will "have his services" till the end of this season.

Whether we'd want that from a player who has engineered himself a bozzie is a moot point, but I guess we wouldn't cut off our noses to spite our face by not playingt him.

I agree though - if we're offered a fee for him now, then its a bit of a no-brainer, we'd have to accept it.

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

The point about Hammond, O'Callaghan and others was could the deals of been done.

Agents and players have options, we as a club need to work with them.

Its no good the Chairman having as many hissy fits as players do !!

Deals that we could AFFORD were done the players simply chose not to accept them, that is their right. If players think they can get a better deal than we can offer them then they are free to go.

We have to stay within our budget, I really cannot see what is so difficult to understand about that. That O'C and Bas have yet to land lucrative deals elsewhere suggest to me that they valued themselves too highly and that DK got it right.

 

[BigGully]

Deals that we could AFFORD were done the players simply chose not to accept them, that is their right. If players think they can get a better deal than we can offer them then they are free to go.

We have to stay within our budget, I really cannot see what is so difficult to understand about that. That O'C and Bas have yet to land lucrative deals elsewhere suggest to me that they valued themselves too highly and that DK got it right.

I agree with your second point that maybe they were overpricing themselves a bit as it seems similar deals are not forthcoming.

But I would argue that there should always be movement when in negotiation, I do not think for one moment the players said give us this or I am off. I also suspect that the clubs starting offers may of been quite low too.

Now how do you interpret these beginning of negotiations ?

DK seems to react to the players 'demands' as no way get out and dont darken door again, whilst the agents might see the starting offer as derisory to their player, either way I am sure with a little work and reasonable communications the deals may of been done.

Its history now ......... but I hope that we dont get a reputation as a bit of 'pain' to work with as far as players and agents are concerned as we either never get players or we have to overpay to get them.

 

[Knotty]

Deals that we could AFFORD were done the players simply chose not to accept them, that is their right. If players think they can get a better deal than we can offer them then they are free to go.

We have to stay within our budget, I really cannot see what is so difficult to understand about that. That O'C and Bas have yet to land lucrative deals elsewhere suggest to me that they valued themselves too highly and that DK got it right.

I agree 100%.

If the club think a player is worth it AND they can afford it, why would they not want to sign that player?

But the decision has to be based on BOTH those criteria. Plenty of clubs have got themselves in deep financial trouble by throwing money at players they couldn't afford in the hope that they would bring them promotion or save them from relegation. It is a very dangerous and irresponsible game to play and I am glad we are not doing that.

If the player doesn't like the deal that is offered, fair enough, goodbye and good luck.

 

[Knotty]

I agree with your second point that maybe they were overpricing themselves a bit as it seems similar deals are not forthcoming.

But I would argue that there should always be movement when in negotiation, I do not think for one moment the players said give us this or I am off. I also suspect that the clubs starting offers may of been quite low too.

Now how do you interpret these beginning of negotiations ?

DK seems to react to the players 'demands' as no way get out and dont darken door again, whilst the agents might see the starting offer as derisory to their player, either way I am sure with a little work and reasonable communications the deals may of been done.

Its history now ......... but I hope that we dont get a reputation as a bit of 'pain' to work with as far as players and agents are concerned as we either never get players or we have to overpay to get them.

You say you are 'sure'. How can you be when you don't know the details of the negotiations? It is the same point I was making earlier. It might be your opinion, but you can't possibly be 'sure', unless you have sitting in on the negotiations, can you?

 

[BigGully]

You say you are 'sure'. How can you be when you don't know the details of the negotiations? It is the same point I was making earlier. It might be your opinion, but you can't possibly be 'sure', unless you have sitting in on the negotiations, can you?

My 'i am sure' comment was a figure of speech and not said within the context of 'i know' that you seem to be inferring.

We have 2 sides to our opinions:

Mine is that I think a deal could of been brokered and within any budget that the club might work within and Wilkins seemed to want it.

Yours is the players were demanding too much without any likelihood of movement on their part and anyway the club did not have the funds to broker this deal anyway.

Either might be right, but as you said unless I was in the negotiations then how could I know, I suspect you were also not there so your opinion is no more valid than any others on here.

 

[Munchkin]

We want people that are 100% committed to the club.

With every chance Hammond could walk away for nothing in the summer, I sympathise with Dick Knight and can understand why he want's answers.

If Hammond has ambitions to play in the Championship, the f***ing knuckle down, prove to the club and us supporters that he is dedicated, sign a contract and make it happen with the Albion.

Remember who gave him his chance, respect that and be proud to wear the shirt.

The likes of Marlot and Reid, may not have Hammonds ability, but at least they want to play for the club and I would pick attitude and desire above a player who's not committed any day of the week.

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

I agree with your second point that maybe they were overpricing themselves a bit as it seems similar deals are not forthcoming.

But I would argue that there should always be movement when in negotiation, I do not think for one moment the players said give us this or I am off. I also suspect that the clubs starting offers may of been quite low too.

Now how do you interpret these beginning of negotiations ?

DK seems to react to the players 'demands' as no way get out and dont darken door again, whilst the agents might see the starting offer as derisory to their player, either way I am sure with a little work and reasonable communications the deals may of been done.

Its history now ......... but I hope that we dont get a reputation as a bit of 'pain' to work with as far as players and agents are concerned as we either never get players or we have to overpay to get them.

Well this is the big unknown area, we do not know what the starting point was for any of these negotiations were. I think in the case of Bas we went back to him with an increase on the orginal offer, yet this was still not enough (I stand to be corrected on this point btw).

However I would be pretty sure that DK will have a figure beyond which he will not go for each and every player, at which stage I am afraid it does become like it or lump it for the player concerned. The room for negotation given our limited budget unfortunately means that our final offer does tend to be our final offer. This is the world that BHA are living in and players have to understand that. If they can do better elsewhere then they are more than welcome to do so.

We have made offers to all of the recent controversial departures. Unfortunately the offers were not high enough to meet their expectations and they have chosen to leave. They, and indeed we, may not like it, but by acting in this manner BHA is nowhere near going into administration and becoming the financial basketcase that so many other clubs find themselves turning into.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

Hammond's agent's comment sounds like the PR dept. of the Peoples Front of Judea;

"We point out that they bear full responsibility when we chop her up, and we won't submit to blackmail...."

The idea that somebody can have no desire to leave, but be holding out on signing a contract at the time of the season when that tactic is most likely to result in a sale, is slightly paradoxical I think.

His value to the team is obvious but nobody is bigger than the club - of he goes, he goes. So be it - it won't kill us.

 

[Jim D]

The other piece in the article that I find quite ominous is the way the agent is going over and over about Hammond not wanting to leave and not asking for to leave. This is obviously an attempt to position Hammond to collect on whatever options will be available should a transfer take place (ie a percentage of the money). I believe that if he asks for a transfer then he forfeits these things.

 

[Lethargic]

Is it just me that thinks some people are living in some kind of dream world or fairytale. Football is now 100% business no loyality, no best friends, no love of the game, etc those days are gone. This situation is about a contractual agreement between 2 business entities and both sides are using everything in their arsenal to get the best deal from their point of view that's it, simple. I hate the way football is going but we are no different to all the other professional clubs in this country.

And please will people stop with the "I think Dick Knight should sell up to big time investors" its not going to happen at the moment we are not a valued proposition until the stadium comes. Otherwise get your wallet out and offer to invest.