What's new

Tom Huddlestone

StanSpur

Ronny Rosenthal
Jul 15, 2004
2,436
2,042
All this praise for a player that has been slated for the past 2 years, fickle - surely not!

Honestly though i am not convinced that had he played all game we would have won. A couple of cameo performances does not mean that he should play the full 90 each week. I think the introduction of him and Holtby against City changed the game and one of the reasons they were so affective was because city didn't react. Had they both started then city would possibly have setup differently or made changes to nulify them. I think the injection of precision and hussle (Holtby) in the last 20 of a game is a great strategy against a team that is tiring, personally i would try and do something similar against Chelsea. Wigan, we should beat them with any midfield we put out, will we.........thats a different question.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,100
47,055
Just a quick point - I don't think Huddlestone is at all limited to only playing the 'deep-lying playmaker' role in a 4-3-3 - he's perfectly capable of playing in one of the other two positions as well.

The point about him is that he's not very good at pressing (not 'incapable' as some have suggested), so he needs to busy guys in there with him (Dembele, Sandro, Holtby, Parker etc) to do that job. But just because he can pass the ball and occassionally looks like he likes lots of time on it, doesn't limit him to the deep role. He's got the physicality to play in any of the three (and I would suggest would do better alongside Dembele with Sandro operating behind them both).

I don't think he's limited to playing there but that seems to be his preferred position and certainly where most people say his qualities can be best used.

He could arguably play alongside Sandro/Parker with a more energetic player just in front (Holtby/Sigurdsson etc) but that puts a lot of pressure on that more attacking player as they'll have to get into the box to offer a goal threat (which Hudd doesn't really do) and also cover the gaps left by the fact that, with the best will in the world, Hudd isn't particularly mobile.

I've noticed a few people on here saying things like 'if the two players alongside him do xyz then Hudd will have time to pass/won't have to tackle etc'. That may be true, but that almost seems like sacrificing two players just to get Hudd into the team.

It would be different if he was like Carrick and was defensively and positonally good, but he doesn't have that in his locker.

All of this being said, he's a great player to have in the squad if we really do need to chase a game and the oppositon are on the back foot. In games where we don't think we need a defensive midfielder, he'll always be a good option, but that's quite rare.
 

parklane1

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2012
4,390
4,053
A few good sub appearances against teams who are winning and sitting back to keep the lead, meaning they are not in his face and giving him room and time on the ball does not change the fact that he is not good enough.

Once teams are in his face he fades from the game, he can not tackle, he can not head a ball and he defiantly does not track opposing players, i said at the beginning of the season he will be gone in the summer and i still believe that.
 

stevenqoz

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2006
2,776
553
AVB's job is to look at the squad, assess the form of the players before him and make the call. It may be that Huddlestone Holtby and Defoe get starts against Wigan...maybe not. However AVB will probably be glad to have a couple more alternatives at hand....as has been stated already if we can't take the points off a teetering Wigan we are dreaming anyway. Back goals in this one.....
 

Spurs_Bear

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2009
17,094
22,286
A few good sub appearances against teams who are winning and sitting back to keep the lead, meaning they are not in his face and giving him room and time on the ball does not change the fact that he is not good enough.

Once teams are in his face he fades from the game, he can not tackle, he can not head a ball and he defiantly does not track opposing players, i said at the beginning of the season he will be gone in the summer and i still believe that.

This is the harsh reality of the situation but it's the truth.
 

Krafty

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2004
4,768
2,099
Tom has always had ability, if he was Spanish he would be lauded to the ends of the earth, but he got that ankle injury at exactly the wrong time, and when he came back he still didn't look right, and didn't perform well as a result.

More time out, and now he has slowly been reintroduced and looks, albeit only over 20-40 minute periods, back to around his best.

Two things really impressed me about Tom on sunday - firstly, he wasn't afraid to order Dembele and Holtby around, which given City's midfield was not linear some direction/leadership was needed in our midfield, and secondly he looked as agile and mobile as he has ever (and probably will ever) be. When Tevez broke down the left Tom was the nearest player and wasn't left miles behind, while he moved quickly enough forward to get into a position to set up Bale's goal.

I think there is a role for Tom, especially if we move to a 3 man central midfield more often. Sandro, Dembele, Holtby, Huddlestone, Sigurdsson, Carroll, I think there are plenty of quality options that cover most areas (goalscoring, tacking, passing, movement, energy) for any match situation
 

Damian99

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2005
7,687
4,771
Fucking baffles me why people can't just accept he had a good game and a big influence on the result and just leave it at that, why people feel the need to go on and on about his deficiencies or how the opposition were the reason Huddlestone looked good, is beyond me.

I am sure if he plays against Wigan and we lose it will be all his fault and if we win all somebody elses.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,100
47,055
Fucking baffles me why people can't just accept he had a good game and a big influence on the result and just leave it at that, why people feel the need to go on and on about his deficiencies or how the opposition were the reason Huddlestone looked good, is beyond me.

I am sure if he plays against Wigan and we lose it will be all his fault and if we win all somebody elses.

If we're talking about who should play in the next game, surely discussing Huddlestone's deficiencies is as reasonable a topic for discussion as his good points?
 

Damian99

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2005
7,687
4,771
If we're talking about who should play in the next game, surely discussing Huddlestone's deficiencies is as reasonable a topic for discussion as his good points?

Not really we all know what they are, my point is/was, he played well at the weekend and had a major influence no need(not you?)to have to keep reminding everyone how bad he has been at times. Seems a lot of people can't just give praise and leave it at that, without chucking in some negatives at the same time, must make them feel dirty otherwise.

And i believe the OP wasn't wanting to discuss his deficiencies to be honest.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,100
47,055
Not really we all know what they are, my point is/was, he played well at the weekend and had a major influence no need(not you?)to have to keep reminding everyone how bad he has been at times. Seems a lot of people can't just give praise and leave it at that, without chucking in some negatives at the same time, must make them feel dirty otherwise.

And i believe the OP wasn't wanting to discuss his deficiencies to be honest.

I think it's always worth being realistic about players all round performance rather than just focusing on the good or bad points. If Adebayor had scored a 25 yarder on Sunday then we'd still have been justified in saying the rest of his performance was poor.

Hudd did very well and he deserves credit for that, but it's certainly justified looking at the bigger picture.
 

Damian99

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2005
7,687
4,771
Hudd did very well and he deserves credit for that, but it's certainly justified looking at the bigger picture.

We all(most) all ready know the bigger picture. Don't misunderstand what my point really was about, i think you are doing. It's not that players bad points can't be talked about of course they can and should be. But too many people can't seem to accept he played well for a change at the weekend and have to refer to previous performances instead or blame the opposition.
 

talkshowhost86

Mod-Moose
Staff
Oct 2, 2004
48,100
47,055
We all(most) all ready know the bigger picture. Don't misunderstand what my point really was about, i think you are doing. It's not that players bad points can't be talked about of course they can and should be. But too many people can't seem to accept he played well for a change at the weekend and have to refer to previous performances instead or blame the opposition.

Okay I accept that first off we should be happy that Hudd had a good game. He helped the team massively and was a big part of getting us a win.

But I think it's more than fair enough to look at that performance in the context of his other performances and how the game was set up on Sunday.

If this thread was called 'wasn't Tom Huddlestone quite good on Sunday' then only the most argumentative of his critics could disagree. But in a thread that is about him generally and his place within the team I think it's fine to discuss both his positives and negatives both from the last game and previously.
 

Damian99

Well-Known Member
Mar 17, 2005
7,687
4,771
Okay I accept that first off we should be happy that Hudd had a good game. He helped the team massively and was a big part of getting us a win.

But I think it's more than fair enough to look at that performance in the context of his other performances and how the game was set up on Sunday.

That's fair enough, for me he came on had a big influence and played well, did what was asked of him and probably more.

My opinion of him is, i don't think he's good enough and it's obvious to most what those reasons are. But i am happy with how he played against City regardless and he deserves his moment of praise imo without throwing in the negatives.
 

Harry_Snatch

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2009
1,532
1,099
Why do some people on this thread fail to understand that a central midfielder coming on and excelling in a high pressure situation where his team are losing at home to a superior team (containing one of the best midfielders of the past decade) and not playing particularly well is impressive, even with the caveat that the other teams poor little selves are all tuckered out after a mere hour's worth of football.

Thank you.

Some of the excuses people use to refuse credit where its due to a player they don't like....
 

EQP

EQP
Sep 1, 2013
7,958
29,657
Just listening to "Last Word On Spurs" podcast with Hudd on it. Still think back to our first Champions league campaign and watching Tom bossing the Bremen, Inter and Twente games with his passing. Hearing how those back to back ankle injuries impacted him giving how things were going for really brought back how much his performances dropped due to those injuries.

 
Last edited:

nferno

Waiting for England to finally win the Euros-2024?
Jan 7, 2007
7,014
10,012
Top tekkers, would have thrived in the era where superhuman fitness wasn’t a necessity.
1588663971289.jpeg
 

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,115
46,080
I don't think I've seen many footballers hit a ball as cleanly as Huddlestone did. Amazing technique.


As you say, I’ve been going to Spurs for over 30 years and there aren’t many better passers of the ball I’ve seen than Huddlestone. It’s just a shame he was so immobile and such a pussy in 50/50 situations for a man of his size.

I always thought he would have done well in Italy and in international football where the pace is slower.
 
Top