Who would be an acceptable replacement for Berba?

Bus-Conductor said:

But Yanno, composure isn't necessarily the most important ingredient for a CM in a CM 2. Energy, versatility and efficiency are probably more important.

There are times when if Huddlestone was any more "composed" you'd have to wheel out a chaise longue and light a Montecristo No5.

If you watch Huddlestone does need time to play his passes and doesn't have that Riquelme ability to play clever short/medium passes quickly along the deck. Invariably when Huddlestone tries this he gives the ball away.

He's young, he should improve, but I don't think he'll ever be that kind of player. As I have said for quite a while, for me it's not just his physical mobility that is his problem, I think his biggest problem is that his thought process is not quick.

Technique ad passing range are superb, no question. But his thought process isn't.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with any of that I'm afraid, leaving aside my Riquelme comparison (which I fully accept is open to mis-interpretation. I'm not making a direct comparison ability:ability, but slowcreativeAM:slowcreativeAM, that said I'm not sure either that Riquelme is quite the player others seem to think he is/was (a lot seemed to be on the back of one good World Cup, if you'd watched him before or since you might have a different view), or that Thudd can't grow into a better player than Riquelme is/was. So much for leaving aside Riquelme, lol, but... leaving aside Riquelme comparisons), your implication that Thudd lacks versatility, efficiency and energy is not correct imo.

He is not as energetic as DZ and JJ, nor as athletic or mobile, once passed he's much slower than the other two to recover and his size makes it easier to wrong-foot him. But he is energetic.

He's very efficient in his use of the ball playing very many short, quick passes and little one touch one-twos.

And he's very versatile able to play a variety of positions. I suspect that he may have just landed his ideal one however.

What he has in abundance however and what you haven't balanced against your perceived lacks, is vision, creativity and the skill to utilise it.

I note your point about a midfield three and before the last couple of matches would have agreed with you, but playing Huddlestone as the forward of the two CMs with DZ behind him opens up a host of previously unconsidered (at least by me) possibilities.

He's almost Yin to Carricks Yang if you get my drift. Carrick was a conventional creative CM which Jol converted into a deep-lying quarter-back style DM, it was almost counter-intuitive to play a player like Carrick there, it turned out to be the making of him though. Thudd is your more typical DM/CB and that's where he's always played, but because he's a bit cumbersome when/if he's bypassed he becomes a liability, played at the front of a CM two however his tackling skills honed at DM and CB, his defensive brain and all the work he's put into reading the game comes into it's own. He becomes the first line of defence in the way your traditional AM never would be. He's not all fluff and no grit. His game's not all about the glory ball or the stupendous shot, he's not a fantastic luxury when we're attacking but an expensive one once we're on the back foot, he can get stuck in the best of them, is used to doing so and will think nothing of doing so. But he can also do the things you'd want your creative CM to do as well.

Finally the point I most disagree with is what you say about his footballing brain. I think he's very sharp and other than Berbatov probably the quickest thinker in the side. I've no idea why our perceptions differ on this.

Luis Fabiano

I don't believe there is a "replacement" per se for Berbatov. His playing style is entirely unique, from his opportunistic attacks, to his creative vision as a passer when not attacking, and even his lackadaisical attempts at tackling, you won't find another striker like him.

Having said that, I can't think of a replacement that would even come close to maintaining the swagger that Berbatov has brought to the Spurs... Ultimately, and I believe I speak for many of us, I'd like to see Berbatov transform into a more complete player, a real bulldog of sorts. He needs to leave it all on the field which, despite his brilliance and frequent goal scoring, I am still not convinced that at the end of the day he gave 110%. He makes essentially zero effort at open field tackles, only the occasional come-from-behind steal when the other team possesses at the top of our box, and he complains incessantly when a lousy ball is played into him.

I want Berbatov to stay with Spurs, and show that aggression in his play that stars like David Villa and Tevez show, that endless wanting to just absolutely bury the opposition.

Don't get me wrong, he is absolutely amazing, but that doesn't excuse his inability to improve the areas where he is lacking.

Berb, stay with Spurs, give us everything you've got

there is only one player who can replace Berba and this is Georgi Ivanov - Gonzo

rymert19 said:

I want Berbatov to stay with Spurs, and show that aggression in his play that stars like David Villa and Tevez show, that endless wanting to just absolutely bury the opposition.

Don't get me wrong, he is absolutely amazing, but that doesn't excuse his inability to improve the areas where he is lacking.

Berb, stay with Spurs, give us everything you've got

Click to expand...

I totally agree, Berby lacks this area to his game, and is a reason I see some big clubs not willing to take the gamble.

SOmething just makes me believe he wil stay becauses our style of play compliments him, I think its the big fish small pond theory

hope he stays

sloth said:

I can't agree with any of that I'm afraid, leaving aside my Riquelme comparison (which I fully accept is open to mis-interpretation. I'm not making a direct comparison ability:ability, but slowcreativeAM:slowcreativeAM, that said I'm not sure either that Riquelme is quite the player others seem to think he is/was (a lot seemed to be on the back of one good World Cup, if you'd watched him before or since you might have a different view), or that Thudd can't grow into a better player than Riquelme is/was. So much for leaving aside Riquelme, lol, but... leaving aside Riquelme comparisons), your implication that Thudd lacks versatility, efficiency and energy is not correct imo.

He is not as energetic as DZ and JJ, nor as athletic or mobile, once passed he's much slower than the other two to recover and his size makes it easier to wrong-foot him. But he is energetic.

He's very efficient in his use of the ball playing very many short, quick passes and little one touch one-twos.

And he's very versatile able to play a variety of positions. I suspect that he may have just landed his ideal one however.

What he has in abundance however and what you haven't balanced against your perceived lacks, is vision, creativity and the skill to utilise it.

I note your point about a midfield three and before the last couple of matches would have agreed with you, but playing Huddlestone as the forward of the two CMs with DZ behind him opens up a host of previously unconsidered (at least by me) possibilities.

He's almost Yin to Carricks Yang if you get my drift. Carrick was a conventional creative CM which Jol converted into a deep-lying quarter-back style DM, it was almost counter-intuitive to play a player like Carrick there, it turned out to be the making of him though. Thudd is your more typical DM/CB and that's where he's always played, but because he's a bit cumbersome when/if he's bypassed he becomes a liability, played at the front of a CM two however his tackling skills honed at DM and CB, his defensive brain and all the work he's put into reading the game comes into it's own. He becomes the first line of defence in the way your traditional AM never would be. He's not all fluff and no grit. His game's not all about the glory ball or the stupendous shot, he's not a fantastic luxury when we're attacking but an expensive one once we're on the back foot, he can get stuck in the best of them, is used to doing so and will think nothing of doing so. But he can also do the things you'd want your creative CM to do as well.

Finally the point I most disagree with is what you say about his footballing brain. I think he's very sharp and other than Berbatov probably the quickest thinker in the side. I've no idea why our perceptions differ on this.

Click to expand...

OK. Where to begin. At the beginning. I always maintained (again not view many agreed with) that Carrick was wasted in the role that Jol gave him. We had three perfect partners who could have played the holding role with Carrick playing the more forward/creative role further up the pitch where he could do more damage. What most seem to hail as "Jol's making of Carrick" was IMO just another one of Jol's mistakes.

So with regards to Huddlestone's best role I wouldn't argue that a more forward, creative role, with less responsibilty would suit him more, just like Carrick. I wouldn't argue.

As far as Riquelme goes, I actually didn't think he had a great world cup. I thought he was fantastic for Villareal with the superb Senna next to him. But Riquelme does need someone as top drawer (and Senna for me is very top dawer) next to him to get the best out of him. But I still think that Riquelme is a better footballer than Huddlestone.
Big games Riquelme excelled. Ran the gaff often. Constantly dictating the tempo. I don't think I have ever seen Huddlestone control a game this way. Even against poor opposition. And I hope I'm proved wrong but I really don't think his thought process is a quick as some may think.

None of this means I don't like Huddlestone, I do. But he has had a shitload of experience at various levels now and I still remain completely unconvinced that he has the attributes needed to play in a midfield four regularly . And as for his versatility, as far as I'm aware he can only play 2 positions - CB & CM - but that's no problem. If he's good at those.

You can see he has ability. Technique, vision. I would love to see him step up, and maybe if we found our "Senna" it would help. But I'm still not convinced he is a "Riquelme". Probably a "Carrick" at best - which isn't the worst thing in the world is it ?

Bus-Conductor said:

OK. Where to begin. At the beginning. I always maintained (again not view many agreed with) that Carrick was wasted in the role that Jol gave him. We had three perfect partners who could have played the holding role with Carrick playing the more forward/creative role further up the pitch where he could do more damage. What most seem to hail as "Jol's making of Carrick" was IMO just another one of Jol's mistakes.

So with regards to Huddlestone's best role I wouldn't argue that a more forward, creative role, with less responsibilty would suit him more, just like Carrick. I wouldn't argue.

As far as Riquelme goes, I actually didn't think he had a great world cup. I thought he was fantastic for Villareal with the superb Senna next to him. But Riquelme does need someone as top drawer (and Senna for me is very top dawer) next to him to get the best out of him. But I still think that Riquelme is a better footballer than Huddlestone.
Big games Riquelme excelled. Ran the gaff often. Constantly dictating the tempo. I don't think I have ever seen Huddlestone control a game this way. Even against poor opposition. And I hope I'm proved wrong but I really don't think his thought process is a quick as some may think.

None of this means I don't like Huddlestone, I do. But he has had a shitload of experience at various levels now and I still remain completely unconvinced that he has the attributes needed to play in a midfield four regularly . And as for his versatility, as far as I'm aware he can only play 2 positions - CB & CM - but that's no problem. If he's good at those.

You can see he has ability. Technique, vision. I would love to see him step up, and maybe if we found our "Senna" it would help. But I'm still not convinced he is a "Riquelme". Probably a "Carrick" at best - which isn't the worst thing in the world is it ?

Click to expand...

There's not a lot of point carrying on as I'm sure you know my stand-point by now, but seeing as the discussion is opening out into general midfield business (so much for the thread question, lol)...

Carrick, being played in DM was a stroke of genius if you ask me, as AM he'd have been simply another player with a bit of vision playing in that position. In the DM role though he could really pull the strings, but more than that his was a duel function, he could break things up and get them moving straight away, either with the simple pass or the fantasy one. He was the footballing equivalent of a Cricketing all-rounder and just as a genuine all rounder in cricket enables coaches to include an extra batsman or bowler at no detriment to the team so Carrick allowed us to play an extra attacker or defensive player as circumstances dictated at no detriment to the soundness of the team. In effect the Carrick in DM role was like having 10.5 outfield players on the pitch.

Huddlestone is a similar proposition a bit further forward a CB/DM by trade converted into a creative AM, a creative AM with the added bonus of all the size and grit of a CB.

You speak of CM as if it's just one position and so say that Huddlestone can play either CB or CM but CM is a variety of positions. Riquelme is a mile away from Hargreaves. Gerrard is nothing like Makalele. Gascoigne a world apart from Davids. With recent matches as a guide Huddlestone can now play three positions, CB, DM and AM. Where previously it was DZ or Thudd now it can be DZ and Thudd and for me, who was considering a thread on the new role for Thudd prior to the Portsmouth game, confirmation that Ramos was going to stick with it was really exciting. I hope Ramos stick with it for a few more now and I have to say that JJ's going to have to work hard to get back in the CM.

I know this is a Berbatov thread but on Huddlestone what most seem to be missing is that he does not get caught with the ball. His touch is good, he shields the ball well and is strong enough to withstand challenges. His range is 5 yards to 50 yards. On Saturday one ball he lifted toward the left side reminded me of Hoddle out to Tony Galvin. If we get a left sider who can 'arrive' we will be dangerous. At the moment one leg Chimbonda and drift in Steed do not want to receive a wide left ball from Tommy. Wait til Bale is back and Huddlestone will show another dimension to his passing game. Can Huddlestone get back? Probably as well as Glenn.

stevenqoz said:

If we get a left sider who can 'arrive' we will be dangerous. At the moment one leg Chimbonda and drift in Steed do not want to receive a wide left ball from Tommy. Wait til Bale is back and Huddlestone will show another dimension to his passing game. Can Huddlestone get back? Probably as well as Glenn.

Click to expand...

I agree. This is effectively the point I was making earlier when Huddlestone's "speed of thought" was being discussed.

If Ramos manages to recruit a squad that can play "Ramos football" next year - ie compact central midfield, attacking at pace down the flanks with both wingers and attack-minded FBs - then Huddlestone is a pretty good fit for a CM. When we win the ball, his job will be to show for it, and then quickly release our best attacking option. Huddlestone's vision and his range & accuracy of passing will be seen at their best because he will have more options.

At the moment, our left flank is toothless as an attacking weapon, and Lennon is seriously out of form. By next season, with Bale & Gilberto fit, and a new recruit such as Capel, we'll be a far more balanced and dangerous team. For some players, having too many passing options is a problem. My instinct is that lots of options won't be a problem for Huddlestone, and that he'll thrive in such a situation.

Zlatan Ibrahimovic (spelling ? ...meh)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But I call as my first SAFerguson, who I think bought Hargreaves with the idea of playing Carrick with more freedom - and often does. And if you think Huddlestone is more suited to the AM why not Carrick. They are very, very similar players.

Of course CM is not necessarily played in one way, but, and here is the crux of my argument concerning Huddlestone, when played in a midfield four there is far less scope for variation. Both need to have a certain level of dynamism and energy. They will invariably be up against five. Which will allow the opposition to dedicate a man just to stop your playmeaker from playing - which is often what teams did to Carrick very effectively.

This is why for me Riquleme was more the complete footballer than Huddlestone. He could pas it quickly short (often clever little passes), he could spray it long but he could also drop a shoulder and evade that marker long enough to get his pass off.
But I do also acknowledge that at Villareal he had the fantastic Senna (in his prime one of my favourite players - can't believe one of the giants didn't snatch him up)

This is why I have always defended (as have you I think) Zokora's contribution. Whilst he may not have the vision of Huddlestone, the tenacity of Davids, or the dribbling skills of Joe Cole, he does fulfill all those remits well enough to be a very useful member of a 4 man midfield when combined with his energy and economy with the ball. I really don't think many appreciate the difficulty in playing in a four man midfield - successfully - in the EPL. It is becoming a very rare thing and no thanks to dynamic, jack of all types like Zokora and Jenas that we have managed it.

I think on the Huddlestone issue only time will tell. But for me it needs to tell quickly for him. He's had good chance to establish himself in a side that lacks genuine top drawer creativity in midfield and has failed to do so. The EPL is so quick and so often played with 5 in midfield that I really fear we may never see the best of Huddlestone the way we play.

Just to complicate things. I don't always think he (or our other midfielders for that matter) gets the help or intelligent support from the strikers that he (they) should.
Keane is often so poor at giving the midfield an outlet or making an intelligent move into space - firstly he hates to receive the ball anywhere he might get challenged and secondly he is often making impossible to find runs or positions instead of varying his movement and offering himself as an outlet. He does, of course make good runs too but often he doesn't. Portsmouth was an example of Keane at his best, often showing for the ball. He can do it which is why he frustrates the hell out of me. But so many games he's anonymous.

But that is another debate.

Bus-Conductor said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. But I call as my first SAFerguson, who I think bought Hargreaves with the idea of playing Carrick with more freedom - and often does. And if you think Huddlestone is more suited to the AM why not Carrick. They are very, very similar players.

Of course CM is not necessarily played in one way, but, and here is the crux of my argument concerning Huddlestone, when played in a midfield four there is far less scope for variation. Both need to have a certain level of dynamism and energy. They will invariably be up against five. Which will allow the opposition to dedicate a man just to stop your playmeaker from playing - which is often what teams did to Carrick very effectively.

This is why for me Riquleme was more the complete footballer than Huddlestone. He could pas it quickly short (often clever little passes), he could spray it long but he could also drop a shoulder and evade that marker long enough to get his pass off.
But I do also acknowledge that at Villareal he had the fantastic Senna (in his prime one of my favourite players - can't believe one of the giants didn't snatch him up)

This is why I have always defended (as have you I think) Zokora's contribution. Whilst he may not have the vision of Huddlestone, the tenacity of Davids, or the dribbling skills of Joe Cole, he does fulfill all those remits well enough to be a very useful member of a 4 man midfield when combined with his energy and economy with the ball. I really don't think many appreciate the difficulty in playing in a four man midfield - successfully - in the EPL. It is becoming a very rare thing and no thanks to dynamic, jack of all types like Zokora and Jenas that we have managed it.

I think on the Huddlestone issue only time will tell. But for me it needs to tell quickly for him. He's had good chance to establish himself in a side that lacks genuine top drawer creativity in midfield and has failed to do so. The EPL is so quick and so often played with 5 in midfield that I really fear we may never see the best of Huddlestone the way we play.

Just to complicate things. I don't always think he (or our other midfielders for that matter) gets the help or intelligent support from the strikers that he (they) should.
Keane is often so poor at giving the midfield an outlet or making an intelligent move into space - firstly he hates to receive the ball anywhere he might get challenged and secondly he is often making impossible to find runs or positions instead of varying his movement and offering himself as an outlet. He does, of course make good runs too but often he doesn't. Portsmouth was an example of Keane at his best, often showing for the ball. He can do it which is why he frustrates the hell out of me. But so many games he's anonymous.

But that is another debate.

Click to expand...

Please dont tell me there are fans who would disagree.

no one can replace Berbatov I honestly dn't think. i'd love to sign Villa or Zlatan though. Gifted plyers.

Bus-Conductor said:

Of course CM is not necessarily played in one way, but, and here is the crux of my argument concerning Huddlestone, when played in a midfield four there is far less scope for variation. Both need to have a certain level of dynamism and energy. They will invariably be up against five. Which will allow the opposition to dedicate a man just to stop your playmeaker from playing - which is often what teams did to Carrick very effectively.

This is why for me Riquleme was more the complete footballer than Huddlestone. He could pas it quickly short (often clever little passes), he could spray it long but he could also drop a shoulder and evade that marker long enough to get his pass off.
But I do also acknowledge that at Villareal he had the fantastic Senna (in his prime one of my favourite players - can't believe one of the giants didn't snatch him up)

Click to expand...

B-C: interesting comments as always, and I think we all want to see if Huddlestone can become the creative CM we desperately need. One of the major disagreements in this thread (& the "Huddle" one) is whether he can become that player in the next season or so.

However, I do disagree with you about Riquelme. Riquelme has never been successful in a flat midfield four. At Villarreal, they either played with a diamond 4-1-2-1-2 with Riquelme at the tip, or a 4-2-3-1 which meant Riquelme had two DMs behind him. Argentina also usually play with a diamond midfield with Riquelme as a dedicated ACM. In all these formations, Riquelme has almost no defensive responsibility. His job is to show for the ball when Argentina win it, and then use it in one of two ways: i) to dictate the tempo; ii) to open up the opposing defence with a through ball.

The problem with the diamond is that your width comes from your FBs. Now, once Bale & Gilberto are fit, we will have very attacking FBs. But the one formation Juande has hardly ever played this season is a diamond. And his Sevilla team & comments from people like Balague & Alvarez suggest Ramos likes playing with wingers and attacking FBs.

If we had signed Riquelme (as the player himself suggested we nearly did in November), my suspicion is that we would have switched to a 4-2-3-1. In other words, 2 CMs behind Riquelme, two wingers/wide midfielders, and only one striker - usually Berba. In other words, Riquelme would have taken Keane's place, and would have taken the playmaker/fulcrum role from Berba.

Now I do think Huddlestone offers considerably more defensively than Riquelme. And we'll see over the next few months whether his style of play is appropriate for a "Ramos football" CM. My hunch is that he will play a lot of football in CM for us next season. (Depending on who we buy, and who the opposition is, I wouldn't be surprized to see him getting more games at CB as well.)

Perhaps it should be recalled that Huddlestone has only just turned 21, and has made relatively few first-team appearances over the past two seasons—the equivalent of just 16 full league games in each. Last season one of the ITKs claimed that Jol didn't see him fully starting to mature for another two seasons, and that he'd only got the playing time he had because of injuries, notably to Jenas. One has to take that with the normal pinch of salt, but it's highly credible.

What is scarcely credible is that some SCers apparently believe that he's already gone as far as is possible, and that there will be no further improvement. Sorry?

As for an 'acceptable' replacement for Berbatov, assuming he does leg it for pastures new (which is a pretty big assumption), I think it unlikely that we'll find someone with the same blend of skills. If we improve supply from both wings and central midfield, will it in any case be necessary to rely so heavily on a striker for assists?

Ibrahimovic

t79boy said:

Zlatan Ibrahimovic (spelling ? ...meh)

Click to expand...

Most over rated player in the world!

In answer to the question.

acceptable replacements for Berbs would be:

C Ronaldo
C Fabregas
W Rooney
Ronaldinho
Kaka
Gerrard
Torres

Don't think there's much chance of getting any of them, so we really need to keep Berbs.

Mattspur said:

Most over rated player in the world!

Click to expand...

A season or two ago Zlatan won the vote of his peers for the best player in Seria A ahead of Kaka which says it all. If you read interviews with players and managers in Italy about Zlatan you wouldn't come up with such a comment.

Berbati said:

A season or two ago Zlatan won the vote of his peers for the best player in Seria A ahead of Kaka which says it all. If you read interviews with players and managers in Italy about Zlatan you wouldn't come up with such a comment.

Click to expand...

I cant believe i am actually gonna agree with BERBATI....but
yeah.....what he said :-|