The Magnificent Moddle: The little man on the left

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part VI

Magic Mullet

So here we are, at journeys end. Although it's more of a beginning than a conclusion as the Spurs midfield is bound to go through another change or two cometh the summer months and the usual giddy transfer shenanigans that we never seem to go without. No knee-jerking please Mr Levy.

From Part 1 through to Part V - I looked at the current set of central midfielders at the club and attempted to dissect the conundrum: Who should sit in the middle?

Palacios is the only 100% certainty. Jenas the current preferred choice alongside him. Which leaves Zokora, Huddlestone and O'Hara on the bench. Taarabt, on loan at Q.P.R., is a player who I would like to see ahead of all the three just mentioned in a creative capacity from next season.

So Palacios remains the anchor in midfield. The player tasked to do the dirty work, get the tackles in, protect the back four and allow other players the freedom of expression. He gives us some much needed breathing space and confidence in that other players don't have to worry too much if they happen to lose the ball in an offensive position as Wilson will be there to fix it. A defensive/holding midfielder is one that's been lacking for a while. Zokora simply doesn't excel in the acquired abilities needed to boss the midfield. Great athlete, limp footballing brain. Wilson does not have the passing range of a Carrick, but although both have similar responsibilities - both go about their business with completely different methods. In fact, they are nothing alike. But either system works. I will try to avoid going over old ground, so feel free to read up on the previous parts for a more detailed analysis on specific players and their attributes.

What has to be asked is who gets paired up with Wilson in central midfield? It's a simple answer to the final question of this series, but one with some minor complications. Here's why the conundrum isn't quite solved just yet:

We do not have an out-and-out left-winger.

We haven't had one for an age. Ironic that we've struggled to sign players for these two key positions (DM being the other) or simply got it wrong with the players we did sign. We've failed to find the right player for the left. And then we go out and buy a right player (David Bentley for £15M ) when we've already got Aaron Lennon - plain ridiculous - more so when Aaron retained his right-wing place and Bentley was slotted out on the left - which didn't help his already fragile confidence. Only Spurs, eh?

So with Wilson in the middle, with the players available, the best option (which Harry finds agreeable) is to have Jermaine Jenas partner him and play Luka Modric on the left.

I've not discussed Modric in detail yet during the course of this series. Best to leave the jewel of the crown till the end, and as we're at the end, here goes...

Modric, ideally, would prefer to play in the middle of the park with Palacios. It's a more natural position for him to be central. Add to the mix a defensive/offensive combination with Lennon out on the right and XXXXX (please God, not Downing) on the left and the balance would be unquestionable in comparison to some of the sides we've put out over the past couple of seasons. But as we do not have a left-winger, and we can't say for sure if we will be purchasing one (although if Boro go down, expect IT to happen) the logical option would be to have Modric out on the left-hand side. He is more than capable there.

What this does is change is the dynamic of the midfield in comparison to how it would work if Modric was in the middle of the park with Wilson - which is what most want to see. Having Jenas out on the left as an alternative? Hush. So the dynamics? Let me explain...

Palacios remains the anchor, but having Jenas in the middle gives us a player with an abundance of energy who can run box to box and defend and attack. It's almost a ying to a yang. One player inhales (Wilson) the other exhales (JJ). The role of Jenas is adaptable depending on the tempo of the game. In an ideal world its perfect, but we know that Jenas is erratic and lacks self-belief to turn potential to product. But for now - out of all the options we have for that position, its best to have JJ there.

The other options, you'd shrug at in a second.

Zokora in the middle with Palacios? That would be like having a litter-bug following a road-sweeper around.
Huddlestone? Wilson would need to clone himself to help compensate for Toms weaknesses.
O'Hara? Nope. Decent late sub for a couple of positions, but not an option alongside Wilson.

So, Jenas it is. Which means Modric - who isn't a natural left-winger - can (still) play on the left but with the twist of drifting in and dictating play. Jenas, adapting to the game at hand, will work with Palacios to make sure the midfield is protected and the opposition hassled while Modric drifts in and does what he does best. Play incisive balls, create and orchestrate. At times this requires JJ to be instinctive in his responsibility for the team. Allow me to place my fantasy-hat on my head. Now, take JJ out of the equation and imagine Essien alongside Palacios. Or Gerrard. Imagine the difference and impact this would have? Fantasy-hat off, the reality is somewhat rooted to the ground rather than floating up in the sky. JJ is neither one or the other but on form, he has enough about him to cover the ground and participate rather than be a passenger. He has a chance to really shine now, before the summer arrives and decisions are made. For now he is the best player we have who can support Wilson in the current midfield set-up.

What does this mean for the team, and in particular Luka? In essence, Palacios and Jenas are there to make sure Modric has the freedom to play football. It's a pretty simplistic viewpoint I know. A generalisation based on the fact that Luka is out on the left and has far too much talent to be stuck there - and the emphasis has to be to get the little Croatian involved as much as possible, on his terms. If the middle two do their job well, then it will snow rainbows. If it doesn't, expect a heavy downpour of misery. Which is why Jenas is perceived as the weak link. Stronger player, and we wouldn't worry so much,

If Jenas excels, maybe we won't look to change the system and purchase a left-winger. Maybe drifting in from the left will suit Luka in the long run. But its doubtful. The little man can handle himself just fine so sitting in the middle of the park and getting stuck in won't be too much of an issue for him. He took time to adjust to the English game, not helped by our woeful form and lack of structure. And he'll improve further in a consistent winning side (something Harry has began to flirt with in recent games). A base of operations is far more prominent from the centre than out on the wing. Although it's in no way a disadvantage. It's not quite a free-role in the purest sense of the term, but it's tricky for the opposition to mark a player who darts and dinks inwards.

Modric is showing glimpses of form that warms the cockles. A little bit of Ossie, a little bit of Hoddle. In truth its just a little bit of flair and creative output we love down at the Lane. It's an imperative ingredient for any team that displays comfort when unlocking the oppositions defence. Luka has a skeleton key.

Berbatov gave us that something special before he moved to pastures new to look after orphaned squirrels, and Keane can provide sparks - but we have needed a constant pipeline of passing for some time and in Luka we have that. Whether its down the middle or on the left-hand side - he can provide the magic.

Luka has vision, great touch, superb passing ability and can score the odd goal (not enough, but I expect him to hit the back of the net more often from next season). All the 'he's too weak for the Prem' nonsense was exactly that. He has fight in him. Might not look like he does, but he does.

Obviously the problem we might have is when Modric or Palacios or the both of them do not play. Which is why it's important that Adel Taarabt's development is made a priority. Harry called him a genius, and I'm holding out he was talking about football and not a reference to comedy. Zokora and O'Hara will have to do in any possible absence of Wilson from the starting line-up. Bostock is a couple of seasons away from the first team (at a guess).

So as things stand - Wilson and Luka are dead certs for the starting eleven. Jenas third in line. Three 'central' midfielders then. And Lennon guaranteed the freedom of the right-side of midfield (where this leaves Bentley, other than sitting on the bench, is up for debate).

The Fab Four. Modric Palacios Jenas Lennon.

Might seem unbalanced but its far from being so. It's not perfect, but it works. It works because the players play for each other. Everyone has a responsibility. It's a unit.

What happens next is dependent on who slaps in a transfer request in the summer and what we do to replace them? We have some useful kids in the academy and reserves. Do some of them get promoted early? Or do we look for more experienced players to come in to play back-up? We'd need to, if say Huddlestone and Zokora go. Jenas might walk if we draft in another central midfielder. And if that happens, then Luka and leftism will have to rule supreme.

Whatever Harry decides it has to be strategic, tactical. It has to either provide depth to the squad or improve the midfield. We have a tradition of just buying players without a thought-process behind what that player will do to the equilibrium of the side. Just to reiterate, the only two positions that should be considered for evaluation is where Modric and Jenas play.

Either both stay where they are and we sign squad players or we shift Modric into the middle and purchase ourselves a left-winger. Or we keep Luka on the left and buy us a more complete and established all-round central midfielder to partner Palacios.

So the conundrum has evolved a little, but remains with us. The question that now requires answering is simply.............Do we need a left-winger?

The Magnificent Seven - Part I

The Curious Case of Jermaine Jenas - Part II

The Incredible Huddlestone - Part III

Palacios answers the question: "Yes he can" - Part IV

The Lilywhites on the outside looking in - Part V

Jamie, Adel and John: The Lilywhites on the outside looking in

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part V

The Outsiders

Palacios. Modric. Jenas. Zokora. Huddlestone. Taarabt. O’Hara. Seven players. One massive conundrum. At least, that’s how it all started out back in Part I of this series. I’ve not touched on the worth of Adel and Jamie just yet (will do in a sec), but arguably thus far, only Palacios and Modric….and at a push (one that has Spurs fans split) Jenas are forming the basis of the new-look Spurs midfield. More on this in Part VI (the concluding article). Decided to extend this series by one rather than fit it all in this blog entry.

So for now, the backups.

Jamie O’Hara. Adel Taarabt. And John Bostock (which makes it eight in total, but whoever heard of the Magnificent Eight?). All three players sit in very different categories with regards to first team selection.

O’Hara is a first team player, if not a first choice player.

Bostock is a youth player and looks a real talent, but won’t arrive in the first team for another season or two. Depends on how his development progresses and whether Harry opts for yoof in the Carling Cup games next season. Reality is - he's not a backup player to the first team. Not yet. But One for the Future©.

Taarabt is an enigma. In the sense that some rate him others don’t. Clever feet, clever brain, not so clever decision making – but that’s not a negative. It's a learning curve. Going on loan to Q.P.R. is the best thing for him at the moment. Starting games is vital, and that’s something that was not happening for him at Spurs. It’s one thing show-boating in the reserves, another performing in the Championship. A competitive hard-working league is the best place for him to adapt his silky skills into a more realistic environment, so his understanding of when the basics are more important than the flicks gets programmed into his creative head.

Time for a closer look at the thrilling threesome...

O’Hara, an ex-Arsenal youth player, but one who would wear a Lilywhite shirt under the red and white of the South London club when playing for their youth team before making the short journey across their swamps to the bright lights of White Hart Lane. There is absolutely no doubting Jamie’s passion for the club. He’s a fan. If I was Premiership class (I'd play behind the front-two in a free-role creative play-making capacity...obviously) and you stuck me in the Spurs team, you’d love my intensity and spirit and commitment. I’d give it 110% and some. Jamie has that level of urgency in his play. What he doesn’t have is the polished all-round abilities to match his heart, that would surely make him a first-choice regular.

"Did ya just pinch me bum?"

If you take a look at successful sides, most of the players never supported or support the team they are representing. It’s not a necessity. It would be nice to have that (love for the club) in every single one of our players – if we did, we’d have accumulated more than 2 points from the opening 8 games. But players should have instilled in them the right amount of graft as a given. They are professionals on a ton of money, they should never get anything less than 100%.

Fantasty football, yeah?

Jamie would probably give 110% no matter the club he played for because that’s him. He gets himself about a bit on the pitch, flying tackles and the like. He’s high tempo. But is he high class? Nope. We love him because....well, because he loves Spurs. But he’ll only ever be a decent squad player – a backup. Someone to come on in the final 20 minutes or perhaps start a Cup match to lower league opposition. I’m not sure he’ll progress any further. Hope I’m wrong. So I’m not stating anything amazingly insightful here. Possessing intensity, spirit and commitment is great, but doesn't account for much if you don't excel in other areas of your game.

Taarabt is Marmite. You love him or ....you know, but why anyone would hate him is beyond me. Have we become so impatient? Isn't Adel the quintessential Tottenham player? Ok, so he plays like a flash thirteen year old in a playground, ball stuck to his feet, trying to dribble it past everyone twice. If Adel was around when we sat up in 4th spot in that giddy season, he’d have made an impact. Much like he did against Utd earlier this season when Modric oh so nearly scored. It was Adel who started the move with those clever little feet.

'Potentially' World class....right?

But in other cameos he has frustrated the home support or just made us laugh out loud with his audacity and his naivety. But he doesn’t lack ability. Or self-belief. He has it in abundance. Storming performance for Morocco a month or so back on his debut. And not too shabby for Q.P.R. so far. He’s also stated he wants to return to Spurs and fight for a place. It’s difficult to know whether he will always just be the flash kid in the playground, a combination of Timothee Atouba (you’re perpetually worried he’s about to lose the ball) and Zidane (he thinks, we wish).

Next season, when back at Spurs, Harry should have him on the bench and start him when it’s safe to do so. He has to play games in the Prem for his raw potential to be tested, which means he should train with the first team squad and our coaches make sure that he matures and improves his decision making and composure. Shining at QPR will do him no harm at all.

The problem I have is that at other clubs, you see players touted as potentially world-class and they make their first team debuts early and shine and continue to do so - and prove they are on the road to possible greatness. We have had so many false dawns with much hyped players. And some are always stuck in limbo, never quite making it beyond the bench. If he is good enough, he should play. At the moment he isn't because of one or two immature traits. Iron them out, and we might just have a brilliant player on our hands. One that can change the game with a blink of an eye and a dink of the foot.

As for Bostock. It’s too early to make any assumptions – and to be honest, I’ve not seen enough of him. What I have seen, he’s been impressive and his UEFA Cup appearance (at the age of 16 years 295 days, the youngest ever Spurs player) this season showed that he was worth the battle with Palace to claim his signature. He's composed, refined and confident. An England U-17 captain and definitely not a player who will disappear into obscurity. He looks the part. Absolutely no need to rush him. Or is there?

To break into the first team at the age of 16/17 you have to be something extraordinary. Arsenal (Cesc) and Everton (Rooney) both stuck their young prodigy's into first team football early. For all the hype, we never do. Arguably you could state that Fabregas wasn't rushed. He was ready for it, such is the ability of the spitting Spaniard.

Show us your dance moves

Again, responsibility falls to Spurs, but in the academy and in Alex Inglethorpe – I have faith. Our youngsters have claimed a few tournament successes over the past year and have fared very well in the ones they haven’t won. We do - hype aside - have proven quality at this level. Yes, I know, that doesn't mean they will all make the grade. But we've been pretty starved of academy promotions in recent years (I know Bostock came from Palace, but you get where I'm coming from - remember Owen Price and Michael Malcolm?).

Like most kids, once they start to make reserve appearances and knock on the first team door – you can only hope Spurs are in a decent position in the league and strong enough to allow for the young one to make comfortable appearances in the Prem. Asking a young player to perform in a struggling side can be soul destroying (Bale, Gio). A blossoming team is safer ground for promotion. Which is why Bostock hasn't played a bigger part this season.

So.

O’Hara – Decent squad player, but not of a standard that would have Palacios sweating any time soon.
Taarabt – Young, ambitious, talented – but still naive and made up of raw potential. Has to play a part next season ‘at’ Spurs, off the bench and in the CC games.
Bostock – Ask again in one year, but we might see more of him in CC games next season (possibly along with Dean Parratt) – but still a few seasons off from first team football.

I know I’ve spoken about Huddlestone already back in Part III, but he deserves to be mentioned again. Last week he tapped himself up by suggesting he might need to look elsewhere for first team football. Newcastle were linked with him over the weekend in the tabloids (although why anyone would want to go there...) although that’s probably just a journo making stuff up just to fill the page.

Hudd performed well for the U-21’s – he usually does. He controlled the midfield in his usual nonchalant manner, which does get mistaken for looking a little on the lazy side. He played the ball well offensively and got stuck in defensively, winning a few tackles. And he scored and got to wear the captain’s armband for the second half. A confident all round performance then:

Huddlestone, and his accurate precise passing range, saviour of young England.

So why do we not rate him again? Oh yeah. He’s too slow.

Unless the entire midfield is built around him, and aids in compensating his lack of mobility – then maybe a transfer away is the only conclusion to this Tottenham midfield question. He has the technical ability but it’s not enough, and his weakness are too apparent for him to stand all on his own. Works in the U-21s. Might even work if he played his football abroad. But not over here where football is 1000mph. He needs protection.

So can he stand up and be a man? That's down to him. Not sure you can quite learn that on a training pitch.

Tom is a superb passer of the ball can hit a sweet volley. But whether it’s the lack of that much maligned mobility (of if you prefer to criticise him as being too casual with no fire in his belly and killer instinct) it’s apparent that he is lopsided when counting his positives and negatives. If you can’t move you get side-stepped. If you get side-stepped you become nothing more than a passenger. Compare him to other players of his ilk who start Prem games and you get to see the gulf in difference.

Personally, I don’t think Hudd is ‘too casual’. It's just a fallacy. He has an unflappable quality about him. Hoddle was always cited as being too casual, but what a player – not just with his passing or getting the tackles in (which he did more than people give him credit for) but his effort/application was unquestionable. That’s the crux of it with Tom. And it's why the question about 'standing up' to it is still left unanswered.

Whether you are casual or 110% in the way you play – you can get the same job done as long and the application is there. Is Huddlestone showing enough that suggests his effort can improve? It’s also a fallacy to suggest his build stops him from achieving acceptable lateral movement to keep him competitive in games. He shed a load of weight, he got himself into great shape. So unless he requires specific training for mobility – I can’t see what else he can do about it. If you don’t have the application, you’ll stagnate.

It's quite possible the problem is not in his gut, but in his head.

Huddlestone is at that cross-roads. I want him to be a success, but he’s nothing more than backup at the moment. And that might well result in him being someone else's conundrum next season.

In the concluding Part (VI) of this series - the (not so) Magnificent Seven become the Fabulous Four, led by a certain magical Croatian...

The Magnificent Seven - Part I

The Curious Case of Jermaine Jenas - Part II

The Incredible Huddlestone - Part III

Palacios answers the question: "Yes he can" - Part IV

Palacios answers the question: 'Yes he can'

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part IV

The Panther Strikes

When Spurs signed Wilson Palacios, some people scoffed at the transfer fee. There’s no doubt it’s extortionate considering he spent time on loan in Birmingham’s reserve team having been bought for a million or so by Wigan and then sold for £12M - £14M not long after. But when we spend on average £12M - £16M on must-have players that turn out to be fluff from a belly-button rather than a tail from a scorpion, when a player does have sting, you don’t much care about the cost involved.

Fingers still pointed towards us with the suggestion that Wilson is yet another in-form player Spurs have signed on a knee-jerk reaction. Then he dominated Arsenals midfield in the NLD and any doubters shut their mouths and moved back into the shadows.

Wilson Palacios is nothing like Michael Carrick or Didier Zokora or Jermaine Jenas. There’s a bit of Davids in there with regards to intensity. There’s a bit of a lot of what’s been missing from our midfield.

He grafts, he gets the tackles in and hassles and bullies the opposition giving them little time to stick their foot on the ball and dictate play. He also knows when and where to commit fouls. Naughty but necessary at times when our backs are up against it. What type of midfielder is he? Why is it so important to tag him with a label? He’s a panther not a pussycat. That’s all that should matter.

Too many times we are left wanting in the centre of the park. Jenas is maligned because he runs forward with the ball and loses it and suddenly we are under pressure at the other end of the park. But it’s usually because the opposition stroll down the middle with impunity. Having Palacios – a player of his ilk – anchored in the area between defence and attack, waiting to pounce, gives balance and structure to the side. Which breeds confidence. Never happened with Zokora in the middle because he isn’t of the same assured standard. As discussed in Part I, Didier lacks discipline and a footballing brain. Wilson marshals his area which allows the likes of Modric to express himself creatively in the full knowledge that if the ball is lost, they still have to get through Wilson.

His best performance for us thus far was against Arsenal and also arguably against Chelsea's might (Ballack, Essien, Lampard). His distribution is not perfect by a long-shot. But his reliability is. And he’ll get better as the team improves. It’s simplicity really. He knows what his responsibility is and he does exactly what he has to do. Modric isn’t the only one to blossom. Jenas also looks better for it. There is absolutely no doubt that the money spent on him was worth it. We’ve actually signed a player that we required to help remove the deficiencies of the side.

As mentioned, he is not a Carrick type of player. But times have changed and our creative outlet comes from Luka and at the moment that’s from the left-hand side which means Jenas role is one of ambiguity as he can support Wilson in midfield and also make the most of his box-to-box traits by supporting both Luka and the forwards. For the first time this season, there is actual fluidity through the team as you’ll see Robbie Keane drop deep if need be to support the midfield and link-up play.

Players playing for each other. Its still early days still. And it's obvious the evolution has only just began. We've stuck our heads out from beneath the water and crawled out of the ocean and onto the beach.

Palacios in the middle and Lennon on the right are the only certainties (IMO), which means the midfield is yet to be set in stone. Modric, out on the left, might find himself central alongside Wilson – with a new left-winger (Downing?) taking over on the wing. Personally I’d stay clear of Downing. He’s a decent enough player but faith has to be placed on Gareth Bale who I think might have a future on the left side of midfield. It’s a risk, but no bigger than signing Stewart Downing. We’ve been burnt by the Bentley signing, and just don’t see how the Boro boy is worth the same amount of money, considering Bentley is only worth half of the price tag we paid for him (and he still hasn’t repaid a quarter of it out on the pitch).

Bentley can’t beat a man, neither can Downing. Their strengths are in their ability to cross a ball, and land it on the foot or head of a forward. But Downing is not that good (he's not right?) to warrant a massive fee and the usual dollop of over-whelming pressure that goes hand-in-hand with signing for Spurs. Bentley’s problems are more in his head than his feet at the moment, and although some would like to see him sold on, he should be given the chance next season to prove his worth. £16M for a bench-warmer (if that's as good as it gets for him) is oh so typical of us, and if that ends up being the case, then we may as well sell him. If he rediscovers his form then we have a player who can cross the ball. The problem is, if Lennon is fit, David won’t get near the team. But this is altogether another discussion for another article.

If Modric stays slotted into the left-hand side with the freedom to drift in-wards, then that means a possible target in the summer will be another brand spanking new central midfielder. If Modric and Lennon are the creative sparks then signing another imposing DM might be the answer. Again, I say ‘DM’ in the broadest sense. There are players who can tackle and play-make. Having someone alongside Wilson who is as strong mentally and physically, but with the added bonus of possessing a decent passing range, then we’ll be laughing.

Or maybe a Carrickesque type player who can provide defensive support, but also Hoddlesque passes. Palacios and Carrick, hmm. Try it out in FM2009 and let me know how it works out. I guess this would be a good time to mention the name of Huddlestone again. Shame oh shame the mobility is lacking for Tom.

So am I asking for the moon on a stick with regards to having two big, strong central midfield players bossing the centre-mid? Yes. Yes I am. Two brick walls are better than one. By having a midfield that's hard to break down and one that can own that part of the pitch is the basis for dominating matches.

That will mean that Zokora, Huddlestone and O’Hara will be nervously waiting on whether they have a future or not. Adel and Bostock are both potentially future first-teamers – so it’s obvious that another signing would open the exit door for two players at the very least.

In Part V I’ll look at the young pretenders to the midfield conundrum and a concluding analysis on who should play where and who needs to go.

What is certain is that Wilson Palacios is one of the pieces of the jigsaw. The piece right in the middle.

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part I

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part II

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part III

The Incredible Huddlestone

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part III

Incredible or just plain ordinary?

The supervolcano under the Yellowstone Park has been fairly consistent, erupting on schedule every 600,000 years or so. Considering the caldera is the size of the park itself, when it’s erupted in the past, to say that it bestowed apocalyptic disaster upon Gods green earth is putting it mildly. It's been 640,000 years since the last time it coughed up lava, so we are due another one pretty soon if you go on its timetable from the past three million years. Although geologists don't actually know with any certainty if it will happen again because apparently the molten below is cooling off and the reoccurring eruptions might have reached the end of their schedule. If so, it might be a million years or more before Mother Nature wakes it up. It might never erupt again.

Tom Huddlestone is a supervolcano.

He's big, doesn't move much but when he does he melts the oppositions defence with devastating consequences. But it doesn't happen often. You might be lucky to witness this marvel once every 10 games or so. When the next one is due, I couldn't say.

Actually, scrap this particular analogy. I've no idea where it's going, and I'd rather limit the amount of Partridge-isms I'm guilty of from one week to the next. So let's try this again.

Tom Huddlestone is a fat Glenn Hoddle.

No.

Tom Huddlestone is like a lighthouse. Stationary, but manages to light up all before him.

No, no.

Tom Huddlestone is our Dr Manhattan. Big and powerful, but understated and misunderstood.

No, no, no!

Ok. Analogies scrapped. Stick to facts.

Tom Huddlestone is not the most mobile of players.
Tom Huddlestone is a very decent passer of the ball.
Tom Huddlestone has a cracking shot.
Tom Huddlestone is technically good.
Tom Huddlestone is versatile.

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?

It's the job of Palacios or Zokora (shudder) to bite the ankles of the opposing players and break down their attack or reclaim possession. But that doesn't mean other players shouldn't pull their weight (ouch). Lennon is superb at times, in nicking the ball back for us. It's not so much a case of getting stuck in though, is it? He's played centre-back in the past and he's got involved turning defence into attack, with a touch here and a 30 yard pass there. You can defend brilliantly by sending the ball across one side of the pitch to the other with the outside of the foot, releasing your winger or forward and giving the defence time to re-organise.

But what happens before the ball is back in our possession and we are on the backfoot? And there are questions around consistency. There is an argument that Tom does put in a shift, it's just that compared to others, it doesn't resemble one.

The problem with Tom is that he is far less dynamic than many players of similar ilk (creative/playmaking midfielders). Which means he is far weaker in less offensive areas than any other midfielder we have. Carrick could defend well, wasn't exactly fast, but was mobile. Pace, or more so mobility, is important. He doesn't have any. Or more to the point, to quote about a thousand websites, he turns slower than the QE2.

Tom is quite similar to Jermaine Jenas in the way of potential. Both highly rated as youngsters, both possessing qualities that are admirable. But are both over-hyped? Or do they excel in some areas, but not enough in others to be considered complete?

Tom is a regular for the U-21’s and performs well, chipping in with a goal every now and again. But he’s not a regular for Spurs. But does chip in with plenty of assists and a few goals when he does turn out in Lilywhite. Why? 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? Well, for starters, the team would have to be built around him. Or at least compensate for his deficiencies. So Palacios responsibility would be to clear the area allowing Tom to play Quarterback.

Now, this might work if, let’s say, Tom was as talented as Hoddle. To make a player the main creative outlet of the team he has to be something a bit special, and I’m not sure he’s that good, potentially or otherwise. Comparing anyone to Hoddle is blatantly unfair, so to re-word the above, I'd say that to build the team around one player they have to be, unquestionable, class - if not 'world class'.

Not to say I would not like to see him given a chance. But it’s asking a little too much for someone like Tom to 'carry the team'. It’s a bit like asking us to build the team around Bent by playing football like Charlton Athletic did in the days they resided in the Premiership - just because we all know he can score goals when on the break. Bent has a knack of doing so, but doesn’t offer enough to slot into a variety of forward roles which is required depending on the opposition. He’s a bit one dimensional. But what of Huddlestone? (not one dimensional, I'd go with a beefy 3D figure, tbh).

Even little Modric (did take his time to adjust which is understandable) gets involved with some of the dirty work – but he’s no defensive midfielder. 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?

It’s a conundrum this one for the simple fact that he doesn’t play often enough. Let’s say Jermaine Jenas did not exist (I’ll give you a moment to climb down off your desk and pull your pants up and compose yourself........). Huddlestone would possibly get a more sustained opportunity to impress. The more games, the bigger the confidence, the better the communication on the pitch is with team mates. Coming off the bench, he’ll always be a decent impact player simply because of his sharp passing. But from his personal perspective, he’d want more than that. I want more than that. We all do.

Imagine if you will (I'm in fantasy mode today), Tom Huddlestone in Claret and Blue. Easy now. It's just a fantasy. He’d probably play every single week. That’s just an opinion, and West Ham fans might accuse me of over-rating him and that he’d never get into their team. Maybe. Possibly. But I guess that’s the point. He’s good enough, but good enough for whom? He is definitely good enough for someone. At some point in the next year or two, he'll need to be far more involved otherwise his progression will stagnate. Unless of course, what you see is what you get. Maybe there is no improvement coming. So, would you argue that his passing is that good, we can't afford to lose him? Or that the only thing he has is his passing ability and it isn't enough to claim a centre-midfield pairing - arguably one of the most important positions in the team.

Tactically, a manager will want his strongest 11 starting every week. Let’s say that includes Palacios and Jenas in the centre. If Jenas was unavailable, would Huddlestone slot in and give us the same type of thing, or more to the point, would he give us something that amounts to the same positive for the flow of the side?

Much like Jenas, he is good at some things, and not so good at others. Much like, well, most players. The trick is to maximise his abilities, getting the best out of him which will benefit the team. Harry has managed to do this with Lennon, a player who had an outstanding season, followed by a low-key one, and his now back to the type of form his potential has been screaming out for.

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. And we've seen it in patches. I remember, when he first really started to push for a place at Spurs I considered him and Cesc Fabregas as the brightest midfield talents in the UK. Compare the two now. Ok, so Fabregas is a horrible arrogant piece of classless muck, but his ability as a footballer is unquestionable. But sadly the difference is fairly astronomical. The mucks influence is superior as is his general mobility. But one plays every week (when fit) the other is not first choice and excels (much like Jenas) against lesser opposition. But has done epically against the bigger teams too. Just not as often as, let's say, the scum that is Cesc.

Our midfield has always lacked spin. Palacios has brought us that. Lennon outstanding on one wing, Modric covering the other. 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 he dictates, he is superb. And its those moments that have us asking the questions about his worth to the team. When the emphasis is with the opposition, that's when the concerns creep in.

If Huddlestone is around 60% of what we need from a player and Jenas is about 68% , then possibly both are nothing more than squad players and that we need to look at bringing in a more complete player, someone who is around the 80% mark and above. Someone like Carrick who gave us more than enough of everything. Or someone better. That’s no easy task. So an option would be to stick him in the team and run with it and just see where it takes us. If the talent is there and needs developing then first team appearances will answer the questions.

There’s also the option of playing Modric in the middle. But if we did, how would this improve on a Palacios-Jenas combination or a Palacios-Huddlestone pairing?

More on this in Part IV.

In conclusion, Hudd does offer us something but if a player doesn't scream out 'FIRST TEAM REGULAR' just by looking at him, and you have to pose questions, then it's likely that he isn't quite what's required - simply because of the doubts. To counter that, if a player isn't given a chance, then he won't be any nearer to proving he can do the job. Sometimes players do not fit into certain teams because of the way the team plays. Which is why Tommy is as a luxury.

If Jenas and Zokora can play so often for us and be considered first team regulars - with all the doubts and concerns around their abilities (or lack of) then maybe it is only fair to give Tom a chance.

If it was the 1980's, he'd be a superstar.

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part I

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part II

The Curious Case of Jermaine Jenas

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part II

Understanding the Goldfish

Jermaine Jenas is pretty much like the Bermuda Triangle. You know there's something in there, but it's completely lost. I remember when he was at Forest and how highly rated he was. Newcastle signed him and I can quite clearly remember being gutted about it. There was something exicting about him. A bit special dare I say. Get hold of a player with a good energetic engine who can run box to box, and you've potentially got a gem. Which is what Newcastle appeared to have. But things turned sour up at St James Park and Jenas looked towards London as an escape route.

When we signed him, many Spurs fans shrugged with uncertainty. At the time, we had a few central midfielders and arguably there were other areas that required assessment and improvement in the way of incoming transfers. Yet whilst Mendes, Davis, Murphy, Ghaly, Tainio have all been and gone - Jenas is still with us. Regardless of the manager at the helm (Jol, Ramos, Redknapp) they all rate him highly as do his team mates. Even Jose found the time to slot JJ into his fantasy football team. Yet many fans (Spurs or otherwise) just don't quite get the hype surrounding him and are basing this on what he produces on the pitch. But still, he is practically undroppable and always considered a first team regular. He also gets a fair share of England call-ups.

So why is it that a Spurs fan can't say with any certainty that Jermaine Jenas is a top drawer quality player?

What makes it even more confusing is when Jenas doesn't play. We seem to lack a certain something in midfield and yet when he does play we only ever dwell or notice his mistakes and errors. Unless of course, he plays very well and scores. We like him when he does that.

So is it simply our perception of the player? Is his work ethic understated? Bit like Carrick was initially. To agree with this, would be an act of self-patronising. Football fans (well, most of us) are not daft and read the game well. We haven't played the game, but that doesn't mean we are blind to it's finer details. We can spot a decent player and his worth to the side. We can right? I mean football, at a fundamental level, is fairly basic. It can't be that difficult to work out how productive Jenas is. Is it?

Is it? Yes. It appears so.

Jenas is the first one to be tagged scapegoat when things don't quite go right. He's an easy target for the boo-boys. But why exactly? Does he try less than everyone else? Is he responsible for the team not playing well when he doesn't perform?

A player is either crap, average, good, very decent, great or world class. Yet Jenas is very decent as far as people in the game are concerned and between crap and good if you listen to the fans. Well, the problem and frustrations - at least from the fans perspective - is that we all know Jenas could be great or close to it. Maybe not great, but very very good. I'm defining that by what we - in the stands - consider to be top drawer, rather than what a manager or a team mate thinks.

Someone like Ledley King for example, is a great player for Tottenham. Why? Well he not only excels at what he does, he does it consistently and makes a massive difference when in the side. And his errors are so rare, you can count them on one hand. But not everyone can be of Ledders high standard. Which means fans are likely to be have less patience for someone who is not as good. And equally so for someone who could be a lot better. But with King, there is no mistaking his quality. You can assess Dawson in the same manner and conclude that although he has clumsy moments, on form (and high on confidence) he is an excellent defender. But with Jenas, its all a bit clouded. Everyone is in agreement (management and players and fans) regarding King. It's not the same case with JJ.

The fact is, Jenas has all the qualities you would wish to bestow on a midfielder. He's an outstanding athlete. He can cover every blade of grass, such is the lads energy levels. He can tackle, he can pass (I'll come back to this, so stop laughing) and he has a knack of getting into the box at the right time to claim a goal (much like he did against Villa on Sunday). He's pulsating when he surges forward and you can clearly understand why people cite him as a box to box player because he can get stuck in at both ends of the pitch. We miss him when he doesn't play because he can be the connection between the midfield and attack (not so relient on this nowadays thanks to Modric).

Box to box is also another way of tagging a player who is not quite a DM and not an out and out attacking midfielder (or simply a 'complete' midfielder). I say not quite, because even though Jenas has all the qualities, for prolonged periods of time they are all wrapped up in potential. He's potentially this, he's potentially that can only get you so far before people start to question why it remains all boxed up and hardly ever displayed.

Lampard is not the worlds greatest footballer. Talent wise. But he scores plenty of goals and his work rate and influence on the game is up there with the best. Sure, he has had some excellent players doing the donkey work around him, meaning that he can express himself as he wishes out on the pitch. Gerrard is far more complete than Lampard is - although you'd still get people slag off the both of them for being over-rated. But the fact remains they both scrub up well defensively and both create and score goals.

Now compare Jenas to the both of them. You might think its a redundant exercise to do so, but Jenas is meant to be of similar ilk to the two aforementioned players. He possess all the same qualities they do. At least that's what the label says.

Jenas has the engine, he has a bit of everything defensively and offensively but he does not excel in any of his abilities to the standard and consistency of Lampard of Gerrard. Now and again he does stick in a class performance. Whether its a high octane running of the show with a goal or two or a digging deep and battling hard fought display - he can play to a very high standard. But not week in, week out. Even though Lampard and Gerrard might not do it to a very high standard every single week - they do it infinitely more times than Jenas ever does.

Jenas is dynamic...at times.
He has all-round abilities. He can defend and attack. He scores goals and assists.
Stamina? An abundance of it.
Can he tackle, pass and shoot? Arguably, yes.
Can he retain possession? Debatable.

Being able to do a bit of everything is just half of what's required. The rest is all in the head. He has decent awareness and vision, but his passing doesn't always come off the way it should. What he also lacks is the most important element that is required. Confidence. Tinged with arrogance.

Jermaine simply doesn't believe he is as good as people tell him he is. So regardless of all the abilities you might possess, if you can't display them when it matters, then the excuse that the potential is there is nothing more than a day dream that will never come true.

Jermaine Jenius

His composure and concentration lag behind when he is low on self-esteem. We've seen how plenty of times his performance has degraded when the crowd have got on top of him when his has been below-par. On other occasions he has has run the show, scored scorchers and has everyone beaming with pride.

Jenas lacks basic mental strength. And because of the expectations we have, it's far more apparent when he misplaces a pass. His general lack of consistency means on occasions he also misses a tackle or just backs away from one altogether. On other days, he is relentless. And because its so obvious when Jenas is on form and not on it, nobody tends to notice if he is in-between the two. Again, if you look at the Villa game - although he scored - he worked hard in midfield, made one or two mistakes in possession, but put in a good shift for the team. He does this quite often, and many tend to ignore the work, other than say his manager and team mates and the odd fan. The rest ask what it is exactly he does for the team.

You've probably read that and disagreed with me, proclaiming Jenas was average/poor on Sunday. It's a tricky one this. One fan says one thing, the next the complete opposite. Yet both fans witnessed the same game.

You can probably pick out any other current Spurs player - past or present - and you'll find it easier to state whether said player is/was a decent for us. Apart from say Darren Bent who also splits Spurs fans into differing sections of opinion much like JJ does.

So we basically have a player who chokes/suffers from mental blocks. A player who can have an outstanding game, but usually against lesser teams. A player who looks a lot worse when he does play poorly virtue to the fact that so much more is expected from him. When he doesn't play, we tend to lack a spark in midfield. When he does play, he frustrates people with his see-saw composure but can also delight thousands with moments of magic.

He can pass. He can't pass. He can tackle, he can't tackle. He goes missing, he runs the show. The bloke is an enigma. Or maybe he isn't. Maybe Jenas is simply an average player who excels now and again rather than a player with all the ability in the world who doesn't show it week in week out because he lacks belief. There's a difference between the two. The latter can become a great player, the former never will.

Maybe its more simplistic than that. Maybe JJ's abilities are not good enough to match his awareness of play. Or maybe its the other way around and his decision making is shabby and erratic and he panics and goes for the wrong ball/pass/shot.

So what of Jenas and our current midfield? Having signed Wilson Palacios - a far better proposition for the DM position than Zokora - can Jenas (with the man-management of Harry Redknapp) discover self-expression in a more balance side and sustain it? If he does partner Wilson, then Modric has to drift in from the left-hand side (his under-rated versatility coming in handy), which makes him a little less effective than possibly starting alongside the Panther in centre-mid. Or does having Modric on the left-hand side mean that the responsibility of creative outlet is down to him and Jenas role is simply to hassle the opposition midfield (aiding Palacios) and support the forward line while Wilson sweeps up and protects the defence? Having an enforcer in the centre of the park would allow Jenas to wonder forward more directly (box to box) and cause a bit of trouble for the opposition. Something he did more than well against Villa.

Jenas role in the side has to be defined but as the side continues to evolve under Harry and the midfield begins to take shape we'll know if having him in the middle with Palacios is the way forward.

Some would suggest that Huddlestone should be given the opportunity. Yes, Huddlestone. You know, the big bloke with anchors for feet. More on that particular discussion in Part III.

Definition of Jenas role placed aside, there's still the questions concerning his self-confidence. If he doesn't get over it, he'll always yo-yo between the acclaims and the boo-boys. At the minute, that's good enough for a place in the Spurs team.

Can't say I'm any closer to solving this particular conundrum.

Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part I

The Magnificent Seven - Deconstructing the Tottenham midfield conundrum - Part I

Palacios. Modric. Jenas. Zokora. Huddlestone. Taarabt. O'Hara. Seven players. One massive conundrum, as puzzling to us in the same way a Rubik's Cube would be for a blind monkey. Why do we persistently struggle with the central midfield pairing and how do we go about resolving it? Signing Wilson Palacios might allow for some sustained consistency but who is best paired up with him? Where should Modric play - central or left-wing? Can Jenas ever offer us whatever it is he's meant to offer? Is Huddlestone too slow to command first team selection and have a team built (orbit) around him? Has Zokora found his true calling elsewhere in the starting line-up? And what of Jamie O'Hara and his big Lilywhite heart but limited abilities?

Where do we even begin to unearth the answers? Most of the questions might be redundant come the summer anyway as Harry chops and changes the team to his liking. But the fact remains we find ourselves in this current predicament and a working partnership still needs to be formulated in the centre of the park.

So let's go back in time a little bit to where it all began (to go wrong).

Part I - How do you solve a problem like Carrick ?

Ever since Michael Carrick moved onto pastures new and claimed a new founded personal annoyance of having to polish loads of silver around the house, we've gone back to the drawing board more times than Rolf Harris. And all we ever manage is a badly illustrated scribble of Mickey Mouse which looks more like a duck. Slightly roasted.

Why is it such a monumental task of impossibility for our little club in N17 to plug the gaping holes? There's no doubting our efforts to plug said holes. We throw money into them. In all the years we've been crying out for a true left-winger, we've done the same with our fabled dreams of a defensive midfielder. A 'most wanted' player to marshal the centre-park with authority and menace. We've never really managed to pick up either. Capable players have worn the Lilywhite shirt (Mendes) and others have struggled with injuries (Sean Davis). Whereas some have been below average (KPB) or far too erratic (Ghaly).

Carrick of course was never an out-and-out 'DM' himself when at the Lane. He does have some wonderful defensive capabilities. His knack of nicking the ball away before the need to tackle is something many of the overly passionate missed in his early Spurs days when it was simply easier (and incorrect) to bemoan his apparent lack of getting stuck in. Carrick would sweep up and orchestrate proceedings as he assisted the team to push forward with intent. His passing was (is) top drawer. He positively glowed with quality. Hence his departure to Manchester United and guaranteed winners medals.

Our sun had gone supernova and replaced by a black hole.

So who did we turn too in our hour of need? Carrick was spellbinding for us in his final season, which saw us famously lose 4th spot at the death. We got around £18M - £20M for him. He wanted to leave, he made no secret of the fact, and never lied about it or his ambitions. With Davids having added bite and experience to our midfield that season, we had what you might consider to be a backbone. A pretty decent one. It was no surprise to see us perform so well.

Throughout my life as a Spurs fan, the club (on the pitch) has been defined simply by the following:

- Flair players, with shirts tucked out
- Free flowing, beautiful football
- Loads of Cup silverware
- Bit of a soft touch (i.e. no backbone)

The spirit of a David Mackay or Graham Roberts has been missing from our starting line-ups far too many times over the past decade and a bit. We've much preferred to splash money out on what people (fans and the media) expect from us. Luxury players, who are only luxury because the rest of the team structure lacks the right amount of balance to accommodate them. Superfluous signings are quintessentially Tottenham when something far more basic and unsexy is the sometimes the answer.

Obviously, I'm exaggerating a little with that assessment. The likes of Ginola and Gascoigne are definitive Spurs players and I'm glad we saw them in a Spurs shirt. But there has been times when we've had players worthy of winning silverware but no backbone to support them. Which is why as a soft touch we never appear to do much in the sustained challenge that league football offers.

Considering we have an outstanding tradition in playing football (in the purest sense of how football should be played) and a ridiculous list of uber-talented players dating all the way back to the 1950's - you can probably ask yourself what if someone had built a Spurs side that combined the best of both worlds rather than always siding with the romantic notion of beautiful football?

It's easy for anyone to say 'what if' and then lay claim for the missing pieces of the jigsaw. We got away with the gaping holes until mediocrity reigned supreme and injections of a Ginola or Gazza were not enough to see us progress (other than Cup Final wins) so we stuttered through the mid-90's and into the new century badly lagging behind the Top 4.

The renaissance under Martin Jol was an indication that plugging in the right players means things can tick along splendidly. One player out of synch could result with the whole team being lopsided. And once that happens, it can so easily come apart.

So with Carrick gone, the replacement had to be one of two things. And this is just an opinion, as I'm sure some of you will have your own:

1) A direct replacement

Obviously, finding a Carrick clone was never going to happen. But drafting in a similar style of footballer (a good passer of the ball, good vision, good defensive qualities, steady, reliable and consistent) was an option. If one could be found. There wasn't it seems any available in the UK that fitted the bill, but that's going on the assumption that Comolli and Jol were looking for a player of the exact same ilk.

2) An out-and-out defensive midfielder

DM is arguably interpreted in many ways depending on personal opinion. Is a DM the same thing as a holding midfielder? Well yes, except you'll still hear people say that Carrick is a combination of both or more so the latter with one or two offensive weapons in his locker (ooh) too. Even though, fundamentally both have a duty to protect the defence and to help out the midfield and forwards. So a DM is the same as a holding midfielder. Right? It's just a different descriptive label for the same thing. Right? The reason I'm banging on about this is because of the amount of discussions/arguments I've heard debating the differences between certain players who play in the central midfield position that is not the attacking position (catchy). If you get a player who does more in said position than the next bloke, it's probably because he is simply a better footballer.

Much like House music is broken down into countless genres and sub-genres, the same could be applied for this much maligned midfield role. Carrick would fall into the Progressive House category. Plenty of peaks and layers, bringing them together to drive forward some good solid movement.

For the sake of this discussion and article, by out-and-out I'm simply referring to the Roy Keane stable of midfielders. Loads of bite, someone you can count on in a battle and (to retain an element of the Tottenham way without going off in the complete opposite direction - i.e. Robbie Savage) a player who can pass the ball. Offence is the best form of defence, right?

Zokora's movement is unsurpassed

Now this basis of the exact type of player required to fill the void will be the responsibility of manager and director of football. How do Spurs push on from here with minimum impact to the teams performance? Carrick is gone so do we want to continue playing the same type of system or do we have to adapt accordingly? It's the latter. Simply because every player is unique. Not trying to teach you to suck eggs with that particular understatement. No matter who or what you bring in as a replacement, the team balance will alter from 'ever so slightly' all the way down to 'Oh my God the humanity!' depending on the choice.

We don't have the obvious quality that Utd and Liverpool and Chelsea have in this 'DM' position. So when we lose a player like Carrick, its a serious issue. Arsenal have struggled this season with their obvious lack of depth in centre midfield. And going back to when Carrick departed, we had to make sure it was not detrimental to the teams progress.

Hmm. Yeah. I know.

So basically - the replacement would either be a 'conductor' who could still get forward and create something either with a pass or a dinking run as well as completing his holding role or a more traditional DM who would get stuck in, bite the ankles of opposing players and generally do all the dirty work and graft allowing the more skilful creative players the time, freedom and space to do their thing.

What Jol and Comolli did was sign Didier Zokora.

Zoko had performed with much acclaim during the African Nations cup. He looked good and at £8M, a steal. Here's someone who appeared to have an abundance of energy and authority. Could tackle and thus although not as subtle and clever as Carrick - still a player with some midfield clout. The one evident (and worrying aspect) was his passing. Or lack of. Add to it his lack of goals also. But many still saw this as a major coup.

So there was no direct replacement for Carrick in the strictest sense of the word. Didier and Michael might be grouped under the DM stable, but both are very different which meant the team would need to adapt and evolve into something a little bit different. But such was the importance and productivity of Carrick, Zokora was always doomed to fail.

If Didier Zokora was House music he'd be Minimal. Repetitive glitches and bleeps and some sporadic melodic moments now and again.

What we have at the present moment in time is a nifty little dancer who is infinitely better at right-back than in central midfield. I'm not blaming Zokora for the teams frailties. He was apparently (if you believe the press) courted by several 'big clubs' before accepting our offer. I spent the first season making excuses claiming 'he needs time to bed in'. He was no Carrick (who also took a little time to settle the nerves of the Spurs boo-boys) but he was also not the player many had watched and admired at international level. He was at times clumsy in his manner.

Zokora doesn't appear to excel at anything in particular when tasked with bossing the midfield area. Yes - he has put in some outstanding shifts in his time at WHL including a purple patch or two. And even recently he appeared to improve (possibly the arrival of Wilson played a part in that). But he can't pass the ball to save his life and his positional sense is poor and, well, he isn't the best tackler of the ball either. He simply doesn't dominate the midfield in any way that would help support the players around him. Now that might have a lot to do with the fact that Spurs always have a mish-mash of players that don't quite compliment each other. Bit like building something you see on Blue Peter with random items you'd usually just bin. Ends up looking snazzy, but at the end of the day it's just made up of rubbish.

And as Carrick famously stated, players at Spurs (during his time) didn't do their utmost to improve themselves by competing with team mates. So Zokora has never actually improved in any way since signing. Whether that's because he can't or because the Tottenham Disease is still evident, I don't know.

As mentioned earlier, it's not the fault of Zokora. And his effort can't be faulted when he is on the pitch. Great athlete. In a more disciplined position like right-back where his responsibilities are more defined, he has been a revelation. He can defend, work well with his team mates, and push forward with intent.

So why can't he do the same in midfield? Simply put? Didier has no footballing brain. The engine room of the team doesn't just need a grafter, it needs someone who can finely tune the nuts and bolts and unclog any parts that stop working. Zokora spends far too much time on a tea break. Sure, we love it when he just runs forward like an unstoppable locomotive. There are aspects of his play you almost admire and smile at. But its endearing and not exactly the foundation to build your midfield on.

Making things doubly difficult during this period of change was that as lauded as Carrick was for his holding play, he was far more than a guardian of our defence holding back the freedom for opposing players to run amok. He was also a deep-laying playmaker. By virtue of defending, he'd set our players off in the opposite direction. His Hoddlesque passing and quick thinking made us tick. When he left for Utd, we didn't just lose one player. We lost the man with two brains and gained a man with half of one.

What happened next? Not a lot.

Part II will follow in the next couple of days with a look at JJ's role in the Spurs midfield.