'If it was the 1980's, he'd be a superstar'
Back in March 2009, I posted this here, asking the simple question: Is Huddlestone incredible or just plain ordinary. Here's some extracts/questions asked at the time. I guess the aim of this exercise is to see if any of the questions have came close to being answered (something I attempted to do first time round). See how you get on.
Hulk or Bulk?
But is Tommy too slow, cumbersome and defensively a liability?
Or is that an unfair description for the player, where his strengths are of a more offensive nature?
If you stick him in the middle of the park and the Spurs midfield are under pressure, can he step up and get stuck in, much like the maligned Jenas is capable of doing (when he's on song)* by running up and down the pitch and hassling opposition players?
Just because he can deliver clever balls and Hoddlesque passes, does this warrant an inclusion in our starting line-up? And if it does, what would it mean to the structure and balance of the team?
So unless Huddlestone actually has an overwhelming negative influence on the team, there is no reason why he can’t play centre-midfield in a role that takes full advantage of his vision and skills. Yes? Or no?
So how do we maximise Tommy boy? Huddlestone - the quarterback? Sat in the middle laying off balls to both wings or dinking them forwards, with Wilson in the role of fullback, protecting him. Sounds immense on paper. Yes? or no?
So does Huddlestone - passing abilities aside - give us enough strength and assurance down the middle? Can he adapt to the pace of the game and the quality of the opposition?
When the original article was written, Hudd was a bit part player, but he's now a fully fledged first teamer. So simply this: Is he making the grade? Harry appears to think so. Do you?
*Does that still count re: Jenas? Does he even give us an on song performance nowadays?