• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Who have we missed most this season?

Most missed player this season?

  • Huddlestone

    Votes: 23 39.0%

  • Dawson

    Votes: 2 3.4%

  • Gallas

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Sandro

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Lennon

    Votes: 33 55.9%

  • Kranjcar

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Total voters
    59
glorygloryeze said:
Huddlestone:
- ability to spot the wingers in space quickly, leading better counter-attacks
- long-range pot-shots would have allowed us to open up bus-style defences, plus more scraps for attackers to pick up (parries, etc)
- fear of the long-range pot shots would have meant teams having more to think about when working out strategies to defende against us
- good understanding with Lennon and Defoe

Lennon would have been my choice until i realised we let Pienaar and Bentley go, both players who could have done a job on the right (poor squad rotation/management imo)
Click to expand...

Who would you have dropped to accommodate Hudd?
 
milo said:
Who would you have dropped to accommodate Hudd?
Click to expand...

Depending on the opposition, Parker. Especially in those games in December when we played Parker and Sandro.
I think it would have either allowed Modric to push up or perhaps he would have played further upfield so his shooting would have been more useful
 
glorygloryeze said:
Depending on the opposition, Parker. Especially in those games in December when we played Parker and Sandro.
I think it would have either allowed Modric to push up or perhaps he would have played further upfield so his shooting would have been more useful
Click to expand...

When we played Hudd and Modric together last season Modric was called on to do a lot more defensively and was effectively Hudd's legs. He was good in this role but I prefer Parker breaking up play and Modric creating from deep. I also think that we would have conceded a lot more without Parker and latterly Sandro.
 
milo said:
Who would you have dropped to accommodate Hudd?
Click to expand...


it isn't really about dropping anyone - Huddelstone being involved in the central midfield mix would have given us more options and a different style of approach(when played) therefore making us less predictable to the opposition - a central midfield pool of Huddelstone Modric Sandro and Parker offers a lot more (obviously) than without him in it, or with Livermore there instead. it's having the option that we have missed and i think we would have benefited having him available for selection. Modric no doubt wouldn't have played as much and been better for the rest
 
milo said:
When we played Hudd and Modric together last season Modric was called on to do a lot more defensively and was effectively Hudd's legs. He was good in this role but I prefer Parker breaking up play and Modric creating from deep. I also think that we would have conceded a lot more without Parker and latterly Sandro.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd prefer Sandro to be Hudd's legs and have Modric in their as well to knit things together in a midfield 3 in certain games, especially away from home. Hudd may not have Modric's legs but he has similar vision, slightly better long-range passing and a MUCH MUCH better ability to shoot. Parker has been good when he's kept things simple, but as soon as he started getting ideas he could do what Modric does things started to go downhill for him for me.
 
billyiddo said:
it isn't really about dropping anyone - Huddelstone being involved in the central midfield mix would have given us more options and a different style of approach(when played) therefore making us less predictable to the opposition - a central midfield pool of Huddelstone Modric Sandro and Parker offers a lot more (obviously) than without him in it, or with Livermore there instead. it's having the option that we have missed
Click to expand...

Thank you - This
 
Imagine in the games we played both Sandro and Parker we had played one with Hudd. We would currently be third.
 
Its a myth that Huddlestone is a better goalscorer then Modric.

Modric has 13 goalls in 111 lge games ( 17 in 141 games in total)

Hudd has 8 goals in 124 lge games ( 15 in 178 games in total)

He also has more assists the the Hudd in less games, anyone who thinks that the Hudd can replace Modric are really doing so out of hope more then fact ( imo)
 
Lennon. Not buying someone who can challenge his place in the team or at least provide some cover was always going to catch up with us given Lennon's injury record. Harry didn't manage Pienaar accordingly, and as a result he was let go on loan in January and could have easily been placed on the right-hand side of midfield to at least give us some shape when going forward.
 
billyiddo said:
it isn't really about dropping anyone - Huddelstone being involved in the central midfield mix would have given us more options and a different style of approach(when played) therefore making us less predictable to the opposition - a central midfield pool of Huddelstone Modric Sandro and Parker offers a lot more (obviously) than without him in it, or with Livermore there instead. it's having the option that we have missed and i think we would have benefited having him available for selection. Modric no doubt wouldn't have played as much and been better for the rest
Click to expand...

I think the times we moved Modric out to the left wouldn't have been such a calamity if we'd had Hudd in the middle as well. But we haven't had Hudd for a single game this season so I don't feel we've missed him as such. Lennon going out for us arguably resulted directly in us losing 3rd, so it has to be Lennon 100% for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back