Huddlestone Analysis

[yojambo]

Ok so i'll start by saying i thought we put in a great performance against Chelsea.
To take a point from Stamford Bridge isn't an easy thing to do, as we all know.
I thought that Ade and Hazard were the best players on the night, I don't think anyone
else particularly shone from either team but neither do i think anyone played that poorly.

Then i read through the posts on here, SC. I was pretty amazed at the reaction to Huddlestones
performance, cause i thought he had a decent game but then i saw comments like:

"Hudd was really poor tonight, especially second half."
"Agree with Hudd. To slow and ponderous, and was getting knocked off the ball and dispossessed at will"
"Huddlestone 3- Awful game, didn't hit one good pass. He is not the answer under pressure"
"Huddlestone was absolutely terrible. Played like he was in wellies."
"And when we just needed simple effective set piece delivery, his were fucking woeful"
"I really like this guy as arule but his distribution and ball retention was very poor tonight"

...and i thought to myself "Crikey, I should watch the game again to see how bad he was!"

Now i'am neither Pro-Hudd or Anti-Hudd, I'm pro Spurs. So I watched the game back watching Huddlestone
objectively.

Overall,
Negatives first,

He got skinned by Hazard.
He got caught in possession twice, although nothing came of this.
He inexplicably handballed.
Some passes didn't find their targets.
Some set pieces weren't good, the final FK at the end of the game.
Was he at fault for Chelsea's second goal? Torres passed him but its harsh to blame him entirely.

Positives,
He kept possession well most of the time.
Dropped into the space left by Jan whenever he went forward.
Dropped in to make 3 at the back when the full backs pushed wide.
Played some good balls over the top.
Had an important part to play in our second goal.
Some set pieces were good, notably the FK that Holtby should of scored from.

So all in all i still feel the same, I think he had a decent game. And i think the
criticism that he has got based on this performance is harsh. Anyway below are the videos
of his game , I've left nothing out. What does everyone think?

J

 

[C0YS]

Without watching the videos I want to mention that I thought he had a good game. Always gave us a dimension and put very good in. Was a problem defensively at times, but that is because of a lack of Dembele rather then Huddlestone himself.

 

[formlesswater]

I thought Huddlestone was our best passer today, out of our midfield 3. He looked to get tired as the game went on, and got slower and sloppier in possession. During some of Chelsea's fast counter attacks, he looked slow. Overall he wasn't good, but he wasn't bad either. I thought Holtby and maybe Parker had worse games today than Huddlestone.

I think Hudd is a good player, but should be used mostly as a substitute to launch through balls to our wingers when the opposition is tired, and he can get more time on the ball. One positive of Hudd getting a lot of game time is that it should improve his fitness and mobility.

 

[paige09]

a better sub. Crosses were poor.

From his performances earlier I thought he worked well with Carroll. Carroll just feeds him balls to cross in. Parker went on some attacks. I dunno if that's what AVB is trying to get out of Parker but I don't think it's a good option.

Think Siggy would work better in front of Holtby and Parker for the first 60 and not Holtby in front of Hudd and Parker.

Don't think we desperately need Dembele for Hudd and I actually think Hudd should start against Stoke though.

 

[Strikeb4ck]

Thought he was fine...not in there to track Hazard.

But I would like to see Carroll played way more, think he could have changed/impacted the season greatly. Hudd can pass and has an eye for a a pass so I'm glad he is playing but by far the best creative passer we have (which is also what we need) is Carroll.

I think a midfield 3 of Scotty (DM, defense only), Hudd, and Carroll would be worth a go.

 

[ItsBoris]

I think the analysis is pretty simple - he started out well and got tired out by the 2nd half. Not really surprising. But he certainly wasn't as bad as many people are suggesting, he was actually pretty good first half. If I have one criticism of AVB from today I thought he maybe should have brought Hudd off for Carroll in the last 10 minutes but I can understand why he didn't after we scored the equalizer. Hudd provides a bit more defensive presence.

 

[Gilzeanking]

Full marks to the OP . Many thanks for taking the time to do this . Interesting stuff

 

[lol]

general play was decent, set pieces were absolutely terrible. corners, werent high and close to the 6yrd box enough, free kicks were all over the place

 

[YiddoInPoland]

for me he slows up play to much as does scotty, when we played quick little balls we were able to get through them, but the constant holding on to the ball to see a pass was fustrating for me anyway.

Yesterday he was ok, but the floaty free kicks/corners are pointless in a professional game they are just so easy to defend and all our set pieces where like gifts

 

[RuskyM]

I'd say he was decent and improved as time went on, it was just hard to tell what he actually...did. He seemed to be a defensive midfielder that doesn't have the mobility to be defensive or enough technical attributes to be attacking.

 

[talkshowhost86]

I thought he was a liability I'm afraid.

Defensively he was all over the place and was completely given the runaround by the entire Chelsea midfield.

That would be okay if he offered anything going forwards but he didn't. His passing lacked incision, at times he just lumped it forwards, and he was far too easily closed down.

He needs a team to be built around him but he's not good enough for that for me.

 

[Dazza86]

Thought he was fine...not in there to track Hazard.

But I would like to see Carroll played way more, think he could have changed/impacted the season greatly. Hudd can pass and has an eye for a a pass so I'm glad he is playing but by far the best creative passer we have (which is also what we need) is Carroll.

I think a midfield 3 of Scotty (DM, defense only), Hudd, and Carroll would be worth a go.

I'm a big fan of a 4-3-3 but Hudd and Carroll cannot play together as the wide options of the central 3. At least one of these needs to be a player who can burst forward and have a goal scoring threat. Otherwise we'd end up leaving our "attackers" isolated and vastly outnumbered.

A big part of me is already thinking about next year (like a lot of people on here) and someone like Eriksen is a great shout for this type of role. He can create those triangles with the full back and wide attacker but also be able to come inside and go passed a defender whilst being a threat. Neither Hudd or Carroll can offer that, which would make us quite predictable.

 

[Spursh]

Nice to see I'm not going mad, and some others thought he had a good game too

Yes he got caught out a few times, and seeing him chasing Hazard from the half way line would be hilarious if I were a neutral viewer.

But considering this was one of a handful of starts this season, and that Parker often went on his mindless head-down marrauds forward - leaving Tom exposed when he was eventually dispossessed high up the pitch - I thought Hudd had a very decent game

Put in some decent tackles, strong defending set pieces (although admittedly awful taking them), and kept us ticking over very well. He may be literally slow, but he actually gets the ball out of his feet and finds a teammate quite quickly.

There were many occassions last night when he found himself picking up the ball deep, with 3 or 4 blue shirts bearing down on him, but he kept cool, and apart from a few dodgy moments, manoeuvred himself well and found a teammate well with either foot.

 

[kernowspur]

Sorry, but he is far too slow to be a first choice in the team. Defensively he was missing most of the match and his dead ball attempts were appalling. He and Parker were continually out thought, out run and out played by the Chelsea midfield.

 

[JimmyG2]

I have always liked Hud. A proper Tottenham player and have often defended
him when he has been criticised unfairly as he often is.
But I don't think he played well yesterday.
He kept possession but didn't make enough positive, incisive passes which is what he is there for.
We have Parker for the mundane ordinary stuff.
His dead ball play was average at best and he was caught flatfooted more than a couple of times.
Overall I thought he was very average and got progressively worse.
This does not make him a bad player but a good player that had a bad game.
Chelsea denied him space and broke at speed.
Of course he made a few good passes that's an entry level assessment for any player.
I prefer him further forward, because he desperately needs a haircut.

 

[stevenqoz]

Watching his game in isolation shows that he did have a pretty mixed game. He often found time on the ball against a quick footed Chelsea who were generally quick to close down. Unfortunately only Ade made himself an outlet today...Bale and Lennon struggled. I would really lke to see the Parker or Holtby versions of this today .....you wouldn't need more than 45 seconds for each of them...the former being particularly anonymous

 

[Kingellesar]

Had an ok game. His set pieces were pathetic though, he should not be allowed near them. Those two free kicks on the edge of the box, should've gone STRAIGHT at the goal so that any touch and it could go in or they would've had to clear for a corner. Instead they were both wasted. Also his free kick near the end was pathetic.

I don't understand how we are so bad at set pieces, we have the likes of Dawson, Adebayor, Vertonghen and even Bale who are all capable of scoring a header.

 

[robin09]

When there is time and space, his touch, and ability to pick a pass is second to none.

Unfortunately when we're not in possession, he's a complete liability. He is cumbersome, slow, and the ball is played all around him. Resorting to body checking Hazard and Cole showed how unathletic he is. Yes he tired, but he should be considerably fresher than any of the Chelsea players were.

I'm sure he's going to find himself used sparingly, if not sold for more first team opportunities next year. It is a shame, because if he was more mobile, he'd be a great alternative to Dembele, but with a more incisive pass.

 

[fatpiranha]

Hud can be effective but he is simply too slow to be starting premiership matches. His main asset is his passing range. For this to be incisive he needs space and time, not a huge amount, just an extra half second or so. That is why he often performs well as an impact substitute against tiring legs. Unfortunately he is just too much of a liability losing the ball against fresh teams who harry him. I'd like to see Siggy or possibly Carroll given a starting CM role and Hud brought on for the last 20 minutes when the game gets stretched. He also should not be taking set pieces when we have Siggy on the pitch. If he can accept a role as supersub i'd keep him at Spurs but if he wants to be a 1st team starter on a regular basis I think it is best for all concerned for him to move on.

 

[talkshowhost86]

When there is time and space, his touch, and ability to pick a pass is second to none.

Unfortunately when we're not in possession, he's a complete liability. He is cumbersome, slow, and the ball is played all around him. Resorting to body checking Hazard and Cole showed how unathletic he is. Yes he tired, but he should be considerably fresher than any of the Chelsea players were.

I'm sure he's going to find himself used sparingly, if not sold for more first team opportunities next year. It is a shame, because if he was more mobile, he'd be a great alternative to Dembele, but with a more incisive pass.

People always say this about him but I really don't remember him ever dictating a game with his passing even when he's been given time and space.

He undoubdtedly has a tremendous range of passing but he very rarely uses it to actually put us on the front foot. A 50 yard cross-field ball is impressive, but rarely constructive, and that is unfortunately the problem with Hudd.

If he set up attacks and contributed to goals then I could forgive his defensive frailties. But he doesn't.