Jump to content

Tom Huddlestone


Oldben

Recommended Posts

Would be absolutely devastated if we sell Huddlestone, he’s without a doubt the best passer outside the prem imo, and our best dm. Would be well annoyed if we lose him for the same fee we paid for him after the season he had last year, I know he’s not getting any younger but he’s good enough to mask his lack of pace, and I think some people discredit his defensive ability, he reads the game excellently imo.

I know we probably need to sell a defensive mid since we have too many, but personally I’d look at selling Thorne/ ledley over him. I see quite a few saying he’s not suited to a fast style of play, but I disagree. Just because he isn’t physically fast doesn’t mean he can’t pass the ball quickly, his speed of thought is very quick and he doesn’t generally dwell on the ball so I still believe he’ll show his ability under lampard. Never shies away from the ball either, unlike ledley seemed to Friday night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, brankostrupar said:

OK Johnson cant play as a DM, Ledley cant play in a 1 in my opinion was poor against reading,  Evans I have no idea about.....Thorne as much as I love him is no where near the player he was, therefore TH is the best DM we have.....hope that helps x

No Johnson can't do consistently.

Did Ledley actually play as the DM on Friday? Bryson was the one going to retrieve the ball from the defence and was regularly the deepest midfielder. This meant Bryson was setting the tempo of our play up from deep and you need someone who can accommodate that. Also If Huddlestone was collecting the ball would he be able to set that tempo? Ledley' game is all a about positioning and breaking up play, the stuff you don't necessarily see essentially. Thought in that's respect he played well on Friday. The difference is Ledley is bullish imo, maybe not as small good technically but like Johnson has a nasty streak which we need. 

Thorne, like Huddlestone, hasn't played this season so it's hard to say. Yeah I'd think he'd be the guy but if no one comes in for him you have to think he will eventually have an important role to play at some point.

Evans we've not seen but as Frank's signing you have to think he will be playing a big part too.

Huddlestone is the best DM we have is your opinion, but it's not necessarily the case in what he brings is what currently need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

No Johnson can't do consistently.

Did Ledley actually play as the DM on Friday? Bryson was the one going to retrieve the ball from the defence and was regularly the deepest midfielder. This meant Bryson was setting the tempo of our play up from deep and you need someone who can accommodate that. Also If Huddlestone was collecting the ball would he be able to set that tempo? Ledley' game is all a about positioning and breaking up play, the stuff you don't necessarily see essentially. Thought in that's respect he played well on Friday. The difference is Ledley is bullish imo, maybe not as small good technically but like Johnson has a nasty streak which we need. 

Thorne, like Huddlestone, hasn't played this season so it's hard to say. Yeah I'd think he'd be the guy but if no one comes in for him you have to think he will eventually have an important role to play at some point.

Evans we've not seen but as Frank's signing you have to think he will be playing a big part too.

Huddlestone is the best DM we have is your opinion, but it's not necessarily the case in what he brings is what currently need.

in the words of Mr Clough, we have discussed this now its time to agree I was right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to sell 1. Would make sense if we get a decent price for him. Not convinced he’s mobile enough to play our system but we haven’t seen him to judge.

His passing is unbelievable and it would be sad to see him go, but if we’re going to re-balance the squad (hopefully not with yet more strikers!!) then we’ll get more money for him than the others. I’ve also not given up on George yet, think loaning him for a season or 6 months is the best option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derby have been reliant on a defensive midfielder for years now. I think Lampard is changing this to a team where we have old fashioned midfielders who do a bit of everything. I blame FIFA and football manager for convincing everyone that midfielders are either attacking or defensive rather than a bit of both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Key Club King said:

Derby have been reliant on a defensive midfielder for years now. I think Lampard is changing this to a team where we have old fashioned midfielders who do a bit of everything. I blame FIFA and football manager for convincing everyone that midfielders are either attacking or defensive rather than a bit of both. 

Every successful team has a defensive midfielder in the team so to blame it on Fifa and football manager isn’t right in my opinion. Of course you can have all around midfielders but you still need a defensive minded midfielder in the team. Lampard will know the importance of having a defensive midfielder in there having played in front of Makelele for years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, McLovin said:

Every successful team has a defensive midfielder in the team so to blame it on Fifa and football manager isn’t right in my opinion. Of course you can have all around midfielders but you still need a defensive minded midfielder in the team. Lampard will know the importance of having a defensive midfielder in there having played in front of Makelele for years

In Lampards autobiography, he blamed Makeleles defensiveness for Chelsea not winning the CL more often, saying they were so good all round they didn't need an anchor being a water carrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

In Lampards autobiography, he blamed Makeleles defensiveness for Chelsea not winning the CL more often, saying they were so good all round they didn't need an anchor being a water carrier.

 

34 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

In Lampards autobiography, he blamed Makeleles defensiveness for Chelsea not winning the CL more often, saying they were so good all round they didn't need an anchor being a water carrier.

Lampard also said he wouldn’t have scored the amount of goals that he did without Essien’s and Makelele’s defensive protection. I’d suggest that Chelsea wouldn’t have won the league titles that they won without Makelele as he provided protection for the likes of robben and duff to express themselves , Mourinho certainly liked him. A side point, Real Madrid still won the champions league with Makelele.

Lampard also said that the reason England’s golden generation didn’t do as well as they should have and why he didn’t perform well with Gerrard is because they didn’t play a defensive midfielder

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5825627/amp/Frank-Lampard-reveals-played-alongside-Steven-Gerrard.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having three all action midfielders sounds nice on paper but the reality is that it would be too chaotic in midfield, how do they decide who sits deeper if we are under pressure. We were good in 13/14 because Thorne allowed Hughes, Bryson and Hendrick to play their natural forward thinking games. Thorne could contribute as well but his first thought was to be defensive first , to provide protection to Keogh and Buxton. Look what happened in 14/15 when all of our defensive midfielders were injured. Defensive midfield is a key position in 4-3-3.

Huddlestone still has a role to play even though he isn’t an all round midfielder. He doesn’t need to be particularly quick the way he plays. His passing range means that the forwards can play 5-10 yards higher up the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

In Lampards autobiography, he blamed Makeleles defensiveness for Chelsea not winning the CL more often, saying they were so good all round they didn't need an anchor being a water carrier.

Is that any good? Came up as a recommendation on Amazon, was tempted but not sure I can stomach a book full of Chelsea just because he's our manager now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David said:

Is that any good? Came up as a recommendation on Amazon, was tempted but not sure I can stomach a book full of Chelsea just because he's our manager now. 

Dunno I've never read it. 

Didn't even know it existed until I read your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, McLovin said:

Every successful team has a defensive midfielder in the team so to blame it on Fifa and football manager isn’t right in my opinion. Of course you can have all around midfielders but you still need a defensive minded midfielder in the team. Lampard will know the importance of having a defensive midfielder in there having played in front of Makelele for years

At the top level I'd agree, but in the Championship I've seen several successful teams running rings around our midfield by having mobile players with an all-round game giving a fluid, less rigid feel than our DM/am combination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, deanoakaram4life said:

Doubt he'd go for 2 mill,like Curtis, we'd need to be making a profit on him. I still can't believe we got him for 2.5mill last summer. He's easily 4 millions worth simply down to his unbelievable passing. 

He had a release clause written into his contract at Hull of 2.5M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...