Hayden

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

When he signed I seem to recall people being quite impressed - he had a good playing record for Newcastle at a decent level, but were (rightly) concerned about his injuries. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, his previous decent playing record should have counted for nought.  It was an educated gamble that didn’t come off. He was horribly unlucky, never ever really got match-sharp and was never able to show what he was about.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

The idea was fine, the pedigree was fine, he was the destructive sort we needed - just didn't work out in hindsight. The beauty of sport is that something untoward may happen, and he was an unfortunate case.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

8 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

There were reports that we were only paying a part of his wages.

Isaac Hayden - £50,000-a-week

Hayden was handed a six-year contract by Newcastle in the summer of 2020 but was sent out on loan to Championship side Norwich in June after playing just 14 Premier League games last season. The Canaries are reportedly paying just two fifths of his salary.

Furthering my point then. Hayden loan cost just £1m so about 5% of what Naismith cost us overall

[Tetteys Jig 830]

2 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

I'm of the opinion that we were probably Haydens knees away from the playoffs; to borrow a phrase I've heard from Parma, the right defensive asset in midfield would have 'lifted all ships'. If you look at our other signings in midfield- Nunez, Sara, Ramsey, and we even saw Dowell + Cantwell in the 3- it's fairly obvious that anchorman role was vital.

I also believe he was the right signing, just desperately unlucky. The question I suppose is which could have been of more benefit- a higher level player who has a risk of continuing injury, or a lower standard player but could have played 40+ games? In hindsight, the latter... but hindsight.

That being said, I think it's a thought pattern that we as a fanbase need to get away from- the single defensive midfielder. There doesn't necessarily need to be just the one chap sat in front of the defence kicking shins.

Solid points tbf. Only thing is Hayden did actually play a decent few games at points and only looked Convincing in about 2 of them.

perhaps we need players that are more flexible that can cover elsewhere to a high level when required so we’re not so over reliant on particular guys fitness. McLean actually stepped up to the mark tbf so not sure Hayden was missed all that much. McLean was though. Perhaps if Hayden had been back sooner to take the load off an injured McLean things might have been different?

[Danke bitte 965]

6 hours ago, Tetteys Jig said:

Solid points tbf. Only thing is Hayden did actually play a decent few games at points and only looked Convincing in about 2 of them.

perhaps we need players that are more flexible that can cover elsewhere to a high level when required so we’re not so over reliant on particular guys fitness. McLean actually stepped up to the mark tbf so not sure Hayden was missed all that much. McLean was though. Perhaps if Hayden had been back sooner to take the load off an injured McLean things might have been different?

I think this comes back to the theory of having more “leaders” in the team and not just ethereal defensive mid we’ve needed for seasons. Hence the signing of Barnes; if we “defend” from the top and nullify opponents attacking from its source then we don’t need this over reliance on a DM unicorn. I do think, and I appreciate it was beyond our control, losing Tettey to retirement and Skipp to loan end was a perfect storm. People have forgotten about Tettey leaving, he was more just a part time DM, he was a leader too. And again, we haven’t had that player in centre mid for 2 seasons. No wonder we look so wet in the middle. 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

21 hours ago, Samwam27 said:

Read on a Norwichhub instagram post this morning stats about Hayden

Played 14 games

0 goals, 0 assists

Weekly wage - £41k

If that's true he's had a great year, but would go down as one of our worst signings?

He wasn't signed to score goals, or provide assists, we weren't paying him £41,000 a week, and far from thinking he has had a great season he almost certainly is genuinely upset he couldn't fulfil the job he was brought in to do.

Edited May 24, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[Indy 3,298]

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

He wasn't signed to score goals, or provide assists, we weren't paying him £41,000 a week, and far from thinking he has had a great season he almost certainly is genuinely upset he couldn't do the job he was brought in to do.

You’re definitely MWJ as you know too much which isn’t common open knowledge!😂😂

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

11 minutes ago, Indy said:

You’re definitely MWJ as you know too much which isn’t common open knowledge!😂😂

Oh you don't know even the half of it, Indy!😍

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

He wasn't signed to score goals, or provide assists, we weren't paying him £41,000 a week, and far from thinking he has had a great season he almost certainly is genuinely upset he couldn't fulfil the job he was brought in to do.

But hey, aside from that the OP was spot on !

[Samwam27 527]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

He wasn't signed to score goals, or provide assists, we weren't paying him £41,000 a week, and far from thinking he has had a great season he almost certainly is genuinely upset he couldn't fulfil the job he was brought in to do.

I know. I didnt say or infer any of those things, purely quoted what was on norwichhub

We know he was signed as a cdm, and to be fair to Hayden, i suspect he was eager to play for us, but was just very unlucky with his injuries

[Petriix 2,835]

22 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Looked to be a decent player when he played,

I guess you don't actually watch the games, or maybe you have a very different interpretation of the word 'decent' to me. He looked glacial and lethargic whenever I saw him as well as having minimal ability on the ball.

[BroadstairsR 2,163]

Nothing special player, a bit of a sick note now off the wages bill.

He came, and he went. Hardly ever made a dent on our fortunes.

Good luck Rangers, you might need it.

[The Bristol Nest 513]

2 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Nothing special player, a bit of a sick note now off the wages bill.

He came, and he went. Hardly ever made a dent on our fortunes.

Good luck Rangers, you might need it.

Erm. Dowell?

[BroadstairsR 2,163]

22 minutes ago, The Bristol Nest said:

Erm. Dowell?

Oh, yes! Wondered what had happened to it 😊

[king canary 7,605]

On 23/05/2023 at 23:45, TheGunnShow said:

The idea was fine, the pedigree was fine, he was the destructive sort we needed - just didn't work out in hindsight. The beauty of sport is that something untoward may happen, and he was an unfortunate case.

In general I think people are more willing to accept 'we took a gamble and it didn't work out' if it is a one off miss. Hayden looks so much worse because Webber has been missing all over the shop and didn't learn his lessons.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

In general I think people are more willing to accept 'we took a gamble and it didn't work out' if it is a one off miss. Hayden looks so much worse because Webber has been missing all over the shop and didn't learn his lessons.

Arguably the only lesson that he missed, that I think that would stick is a fact that Hayden was coming off a heavy-duty injury and by definition that is unfortunately something of a lottery. In terms of the style of midfielder he is, he was definitely a clear attempt to provide more defensive heft compared to a Normann or even a Lees-Melou (who was more of a Stiepermann replacement but then we went 4-3-3), was far more proven in the Championship and even the Premier League so in theory, no need to acclimatise to it either.

In short, I think Webber had learned most lessons. And if there were any others of similar pedigree available, we might not have had the budget.

[king canary 7,605]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Arguably the only lesson that he missed, that I think that would stick is a fact that Hayden was coming off a heavy-duty injury and by definition that is unfortunately something of a lottery. In terms of the style of midfielder he is, he was definitely a clear attempt to provide more defensive heft compared to a Normann or even a Lees-Melou (who was more of a Stiepermann replacement but then we went 4-3-3), was far more proven in the Championship and even the Premier League so in theory, no need to acclimatise to it either.

In short, I think Webber had learned most lessons. And if there were any others of similar pedigree available, we might not have had the budget.

Hard disagree.

He seemingly didn't learn how important a proper DM is because if he had, he wouldn't have signed one who hadn't kicked a ball for 6 months.

He took a double gamble with Hayden- both in terms of fitness and how key the position he played was.

We could have risked a player who hadn't played for 6 months almost anywhere else on the pitch. Doing it in a position that had been our most glaring weakness wasn't a risk we could afford and yet he still went ahead with it.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Just now, king canary said:

Hard disagree.

He seemingly didn't learn how important a proper DM is because if he had, he wouldn't have signed one who hadn't kicked a ball for 6 months.

He took a double gamble with Hayden- both in terms of fitness and how key the position he played was.

We could have risked a player who hadn't played for 6 months almost anywhere else on the pitch. Doing it in a position that had been our most glaring weakness wasn't a risk we could afford and yet he still went ahead with it.

Yet he got a DM with Hayden's pedigree in the top flight at an ostensibly prime age, and put the deal together so it was performance-related and we could buy him if things worked out - and most importantly, we could walk away if it didn't. We're walking away as it didn't. And if Hayden has undergone medicals beforehand then you'd think they would pick up underlying issues or maybe even compare performance levels on tests over time.

Most of us thought if Hayden was near that PL level, he was going to be the guy we needed. None of us predicted he'd be so hamstrung and what I think you're seeing here is the frustration kicking in.

It was one of those gambles where if it came off, we'd all be saying Webber played an absolute blinder.

[Robert N. LiM 4,338]

I've said already on this thread that I understand why we gamble - if it comes off, we get a better player than we would otherwise. Does seem odd that we didn't negotiate a break clause in the January window so that we could have sent him back if he continued to be injured. And equally odd that we didn't try to fill that position with another loan in January.

[king canary 7,605]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yet he got a DM with Hayden's pedigree in the top flight at an ostensibly prime age, and put the deal together so it was performance-related and we could buy him if things worked out - and most importantly, we could walk away if it didn't. We're walking away as it didn't. And if Hayden has undergone medicals beforehand then you'd think they would pick up underlying issues or maybe even compare performance levels on tests over time.

Most of us thought if Hayden was near that PL level, he was going to be the guy we needed. None of us predicted he'd be so hamstrung and what I think you're seeing here is the frustration kicking in.

It was one of those gambles where if it came off, we'd all be saying Webber played an absolute blinder.

His 'pedigree' is irrelevant if he's never fit. There is a phrase that 'availability is the most important ability.' We'd have been much better off signing a 7/10 type DM who was fit rather than gambling on an 8/9 out of 10 with this injury history.

I'm not anti taking a gamble, but he took a gamble in the position we could least afford it. Yes if it had worked out everyone would be happy but it didn't and Webber is paid to get these things right.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

12 minutes ago, king canary said:

His 'pedigree' is irrelevant if he's never fit. There is a phrase that 'availability is the most important ability.' We'd have been much better off signing a 7/10 type DM who was fit rather than gambling on an 8/9 out of 10 with this injury history.

I'm not anti taking a gamble, but he took a gamble in the position we could least afford it. Yes if it had worked out everyone would be happy but it didn't and Webber is paid to get these things right.

Agree that availability is the most important ability but that just happened to be his first major injury though. If you look at his past until then there's nothing that indicated he was particularly injury-prone. He was just coming back off a serious one.

Isaac Hayden - Injury history (Detailed view) | Transfermarkt

It was worth a go, he definitely had the pedigree, he was definitely a physical upgrade if fully firing on all cylinders and he was a classical destructive sort. We'll see what Webber looks for this time. But this notion that he hadn't learned lessons doesn't quite fit. 

[king canary 7,605]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agree that availability is the most important ability but that just happened to be his first major injury though. If you look at his past until then there's nothing that indicated he was particularly injury-prone. He was just coming back off a serious one.

Isaac Hayden - Injury history (Detailed view) | Transfermarkt

It was worth a go, he definitely had the pedigree, he was definitely a physical upgrade if fully firing on all cylinders and he was a classical destructive sort. We'll see what Webber looks for this time. But this notion that he hadn't learned lessons doesn't quite fit. 

We're not going to agree on this I guess- it wasn't worth a go in my view. I'm aware he wasn't historically injury prone but I'll keep repeating- the man had not kicked ball since December. There was always a sizable risk he'd have setbacks after such a long injury- they are pretty common for players coming back from long spells on the sideline.

Literally any other position on the pitch I'd agree, give it a go. But not the biggest glaring weakness in the squad. 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agree that availability is the most important ability but that just happened to be his first major injury though. If you look at his past until then there's nothing that indicated he was particularly injury-prone. He was just coming back off a serious one.

Isaac Hayden - Injury history (Detailed view) | Transfermarkt

It was worth a go, he definitely had the pedigree, he was definitely a physical upgrade if fully firing on all cylinders and he was a classical destructive sort. We'll see what Webber looks for this time. But this notion that he hadn't learned lessons doesn't quite fit. 

The question for me is about the injury when he joined us, was it cleared by a medical then ?  Was he any higher risk than a player with no injury history ?  To a degree there's a gamble with any player they can be hit by an injury just after they arrive.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

9 minutes ago, king canary said:

We're not going to agree on this I guess- it wasn't worth a go in my view. I'm aware he wasn't historically injury prone but I'll keep repeating- the man had not kicked ball since December. There was always a sizable risk he'd have setbacks after such a long injury- they are pretty common for players coming back from long spells on the sideline.

Literally any other position on the pitch I'd agree, give it a go. But not the biggest glaring weakness in the squad. 

Am inclined to agree, particularly based on the previous season with Normann - it’s effectively been the same issue in the same key role two seasons running.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

We're not going to agree on this I guess- it wasn't worth a go in my view. I'm aware he wasn't historically injury prone but I'll keep repeating- the man had not kicked ball since December. There was always a sizable risk he'd have setbacks after such a long injury- they are pretty common for players coming back from long spells on the sideline.

Literally any other position on the pitch I'd agree, give it a go. But not the biggest glaring weakness in the squad. 

We're not, which is fine. 

I just think when we consider some of the complaints about recruitment, such as players needing time to get used to the Championship, not really defensive midfielders in the purely destructive sense of the word or were not physically imposing enough, that Hayden was definitely an attempt at remedying all of these whilst having had a pedigree of competing at a higher level than we were at. So I can't agree with this notion that he's not learned lessons. Hayden's returning injuries just hid the lessons that were learned.

The only commonality was that he was coming off a serious injury. Whilst it is true that setbacks after injuries are likely, that's why you have a medical department and indeed why you have medicals. If Webber's trusted them and they've carried out everything needed, then what else can he do? 

[king canary 7,605]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

whilst having had a pedigree of competing at a higher level than we were at.

I can't understand this. We needed a player able to compete at the top of the Championship. It was only a season long loan, whether he could play at a higher level is very much 'cart before the horse.' 

12 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If Webber's trusted them and they've carried out everything needed, then what else can he do

He can say 'thanks but I'm not sure it's worth the risk' and sign someone who has played football in the last 6 months.

He gambled, he lost. As discussed it happens. But if you keep gambling and you keep losing then questions will be asked. 

[Rottingdean canary 117]

Another thing about the Hayden loan is that he wasn't the only CDM we were after last summer.  We agreed a fee for Ismael Kone from CF Montreal last July but couldn't agree terms with the player.  It seemed we immediately went in for Nunez who of course is a very different player.  I saw a bit of Kone in the World Cup when he came on as a sub for Canada - he looked okay but nothing special (as is often the way with CDMs!).  He then moved to Watford in the January window and I see he played 16 times for them but I can't remember noticing him in any games I watched.  Anybody know more about how he's done and whether he would have been a good fit for us?

I presume the idea was that Hayden would be the main man in CDM with Kone learning from him and developing last season - and filling in for him if Hayden was injured!!!  I wonder if Webber now wishes he'd have gone after another young CDM (they must have a list of them) instead of Nunez.  Nunez may well turn into an important player for us but wasn't what was needed last season.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

27 minutes ago, king canary said:

I can't understand this. We needed a player able to compete at the top of the Championship. It was only a season long loan, whether he could play at a higher level is very much 'cart before the horse.' 

He can say 'thanks but I'm not sure it's worth the risk' and sign someone who has played football in the last 6 months.

He gambled, he lost. As discussed it happens. But if you keep gambling and you keep losing then questions will be asked. 

His PL experience was a bonus. Ultimately, he was as battle-proven and shown to be excellent at our level as you were likely to find. And if he had done well and we'd gone up, we'd basically have killed two birds with one stone as then we'd have brought him in and filled that hole for some time, and possibly at a level which would have given us a fighting chance in the Premier.

Which brings us to another lesson he'd clearly learned, namely re. Skipp and succession planning. We didn't have an option on him and he was a key reason why we went up in that second Farke title-winning season. We then had a whole damn summer of hoping he'd come, then he didn't, and we were scratching around. Hence the misplaced Normann and Gilmour.

[king canary 7,605]

29 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Hence the misplaced Normann and Gilmour.

Normann yes, Gilmour no. Gilmour came in very early in the window, don't think Skipp returning or not played a role.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

We're not, which is fine. 

I just think when we consider some of the complaints about recruitment, such as players needing time to get used to the Championship, not really defensive midfielders in the purely destructive sense of the word or were not physically imposing enough, that Hayden was definitely an attempt at remedying all of these whilst having had a pedigree of competing at a higher level than we were at. So I can't agree with this notion that he's not learned lessons. Hayden's returning injuries just hid the lessons that were learned.

The only commonality was that he was coming off a serious injury. Whilst it is true that setbacks after injuries are likely, that's why you have a medical department and indeed why you have medicals. If Webber's trusted them and they've carried out everything needed, then what else can he do? 

He can put in clauses if the injury reoccurs or had not healed? Pay on appears or send back if he can't play?

£41k a week....