Huddlestone or Carroll

Has Defoe been quality though? Or just in half of the games and average/poor the rest?

HRH, just because Carroll is a skinny young lad, doesnt mean he 's our least effective option! Id rather have a lightweight player who creative, effective and compliments the holding midfield player, than a heavyweight is bringing very little to the midfield except his presence

Given the fact he's been playing up front on his own with Dempsey behind him he's done well.. my point though was more about his workrate. He doesn't look like a player that isn't trying.

Don't think that applies to any of the players you've mentioned.

comment by BaLennon on ze wings (U7980) posted 52 minutes ago

HRH, just because Carroll is a skinny young lad, doesnt mean he 's our least effective option! Id rather have a lightweight player who creative, effective and compliments the holding midfield player, than a heavyweight is bringing very little to the midfield except his presence

---------------------------------------------------------

When has Carroll been creative, effective and complimented the holding player? What games in particular have convinced you he'd cope with West Ham's physical midfield?

Arguments

You don't rate him HRH, fair enough.. hopefully he'll get a game against Lazio to show whether he's ready or not.

Not true - I rate him very highly and have wanted him to get starts in the Europa and Leage Cup. I just don't happen to think he is ready for Premier League starts in a CM pair yet, unless it's last resort.

To be honest, a game against Lazio could give us some indication but Europa games aren't ever going to match a PL game for physicality...the refs simply won't stand for it.

Lazio away is a great test for him - the atmosphere over there will be intense and if Lazio win they're through so they will be going for it. If he starts and does well there I don't see why he shouldn't start in the league.

This thread was made in mind that Hudd is our only other creative option in the middle and he's been poor.. if we don't try it we'll never know.

comment by junction8 (U1074)
posted 33 minutes ago
HRH....

i'm picking carrol over hudd...as that was the option given....

the surest thing is....thudd is not up to it.

- - - - -

People are now making judgements based on a humiliating loss when we had 10 men.

Sure we could have maybe held on a bit more at 1-0 but in all honesty their 1st goal was a decent goal, maybe Hudd could have got more pressure on Mertessaker (what was he doing up there anyway...I bet we would have not been there if it were 11 v 11) BUT Mertessakler is a giant and any CB would have struggled to win that header.

There second goal was luck....deflected off Hud to Podolski, then deflect off Gallas to bobble right into the corner.

Their third was also a good goal, we cannot be criticised too much, it was fine play by Cazorla who is the sort of class player that we are lacking in the hole behind the striker.

By the 2nd half we were just very open as we pushed to get back into the game.

Arsenal only looked good when we had 10 men. Lennon and Gallas could have scored and we could have been 3-0 up in the first 15 minutes, so bad were they, and so dominant were we.

It was always going to be difficult with Hudd + Sandro vs Cazolra + Wilshere + Arteta and while we had Ade to drop in and help out we did well. We also had an outlet and we controlled possession.

With Ade off we had no outlet and were well and truely outnumbered in midfield. the red is all Arsenal needed to be able to take more chances, get more people forward and really have a go at us, knowing that we had no effective outlet.

With the quality Arsenal have centrally they were always going to dominate and the likes of Hudd were always going to be running around chasing shadows.

What is more of a shame is that to me, in that first 15 minutes we played how AVB would want us to play every week. High line, high pressure, controlling the ball and possession, dangerous in attack and their players in CM had not time to play. Now with Ade out we cannot play that 442 formation and are back to playing with Deuce/Siggy or whoever behind Defoe. A system that has not worked too well so far this season.

While I am happy to see Carroll get more game time, picking him against the giants of WHU is not the right time.

People are now making judgements based on a humiliating loss when we had 10 men.

---

I can't speak for junction but this thread is based on performances this season, not one game. I was all for giving Thudd.a chance to get his fitness back but he's chasing shadows for a lot of the game and passing sideways all the time.. Carroll might not be the answer but it's worth a go IMO.

Devonshire, if Hudd had been playing well most games then I would agree making judgements on him after we were down to 10 men are harsh But I honestly do not think Hudd is anything more than an average player. His creativity is basic, he doesnt score anymore (hence his vow to not cut his hair until he scores in the league again), he doesnt get involved in defensive work as often as he should, all he really is doing that is decent is set pieces. The same way some feel about Livermore is the same I feel about Hudd - nothing more than a squad player and a back up on the bench. I know it may seem harsh in what I am saying but I have felt this about Hudd for a very long time.

HRH, Carroll had a quality game against Maribor, looked to play well for the 10 or so minutes he came on against Wigan, which was unfortunate as only played one striker instead of 2. My point is Carroll looks like he brings something in midfield, his passing and link up play is very good, he looks sharp and we actually look like something is being created with him in midfield. Which is more than I can say for Hudd or Siggy, both just seem to be making up numbers in midfield rather than make any kind of impact.

Im 100% with Carroll starting instead of Hudd