What's new

Huddle

ultimateloner

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2004
4,600
2,254
He had an excellent game yesterday and is steadily improving.

No reason why the England side cant be built around him because he undoubtedly can become that good but still has a long way to go and has many areas of his game to improve.
He's certainly heading in the right direction.

You are having a laugh.

Hudd is a good replacement for Carrick. He has more potential because he could score, but he's nowhere near the sort of rigour required of big teams.

As most ppl on this site realize - Hudd is useless in tight games and the only reason he prevailed against Pompey is because they set back for 90 mins letting Hudd do what he does best.
 

southlondonyiddo

My eyes have seen some of the glory..
Nov 8, 2004
12,656
15,222
You are having a laugh.

Hudd is a good replacement for Carrick. He has more potential because he could score, but he's nowhere near the sort of rigour required of big teams.

As most ppl on this site realize - Hudd is useless in tight games and the only reason he prevailed against Pompey is because they set back for 90 mins letting Hudd do what he does best.

:shake:

What exactly am I having a laugh about??

One day he could be good enough to have an England team built around him If he becomes as good as we all dream he might!
 

Kyras

Tom Huddlestone's one man fan club
Feb 2, 2005
3,272
4
What has age got to do with? At 21 he is a big assed man so stop pampering him. Ronaldo, Rooney, Lennon, Walcott, Bale and lmore who play in the EPL were already playing for their country when they were teenagers so the point about his age is a bit redundant, dont you think?

And its not doubting his potential, its about being realistic about his abilities and perfomances without putting him on that pedestial.

Age has got more to do with it than size.

He's got a hell of a lot of potential, the players you have mentioned have all obviously peaked young, or are different types of players, all of them, bar Bale have loads of pace, which is a big aspect of all their games, which is down to their youth.

Carrick was shit at 21, Pirlo was awful and never looked like he'd become as good as he is. playmaker type players develop later, and as he doesn't rely on hsi pace, his career might last 5 or 6 years longer at the top level comparing pacy players.

in five years, he will be a much better player than he is today, allowing for his youth is not pampering him.
 

sloth

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2005
9,018
6,900
What has age got to do with? At 21 he is a big assed man so stop pampering him. Ronaldo, Rooney, Lennon, Walcott, Bale and lmore who play in the EPL were already playing for their country when they were teenagers so the point about his age is a bit redundant, dont you think?

And its not doubting his potential, its about being realistic about his abilities and perfomances without putting him on that pedestial.
Not the cleverest argument I've ever seen you make Bullet. Leave aside the Huddlestone question for now, it's your logic which lets you down.

By your reasoning Singh or Faldo should have been written off in their early 20s because Tiger Woods was winning Majors at 21.

Kelly Holmes shouldn't have bothered with those Olympics because Carl Lewis was doing it before he was 25.

Federer should have quit because at the same age as Nadal was winning ATP tennis comps he was a callow, skinny guy getting swept aside by the other pros.

Anyway, I could go on but I won't. The point is some players in any sport develop faster than others, it's where they end up which matters and the time to judge that is in the prime of their careers and not in the infancy.
 

Bulletspur

The Reasonable Advocate
Match Thread Admin
Oct 17, 2006
10,708
25,296
Not the cleverest argument I've ever seen you make Bullet. Leave aside the Huddlestone question for now, it's your logic which lets you down.

By your reasoning Singh or Faldo should have been written off in their early 20s because Tiger Woods was winning Majors at 21.

Kelly Holmes shouldn't have bothered with those Olympics because Carl Lewis was doing it before he was 25.

Federer should have quit because at the same age as Nadal was winning ATP tennis comps he was a callow, skinny guy getting swept aside by the other pros.

Anyway, I could go on but I won't. The point is some players in any sport develop faster than others, it's where they end up which matters and the time to judge that is in the prime of their careers and not in the infancy.

I hear what you have said and am only willing to retract my statement based on your reasoning.

In my defence it was a knee jerked reaction to Kyras' argument, where I thought it was another case of someone making an excuse for a person's inability based on his youth.

I will agree that the Hudd might still need time to develop. However, I still maintain that IMO other than his passing and shots, he is still very slow and "Lumbers", where people at his age usually are as quick as they will ever be. In other words, you cannot usually develop speed and mobility, you are born with it, again my opinion.
 

Gilzeanking

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2005
6,137
5,080
Oh Lordy the guns are out... BM's back :)

Anyway ,I'm a game behind but for me , the Chelski match was the best I've ever seen Hudd .

Not been his biggest fan but that match has changed me .What we are seeing is improvement and who knows where it will stop.
 

Davey-O

is your hero
Mar 16, 2005
4,223
7
I think given another season then we know what we have in the Hudd.

Hes only 21 and Carrick wasn't anything amazing at 21. Here's hoping Hudd can devolop into a World Class CM. He's at the right club and couldn't hope for better mentors than Ramos and Poyet.
 
Top