I agree with you but at the same time he does give us something different. If you cant see that, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
don't disagree with you at all that he offers something different I'm just saying I don't think he's been as vital to us or as major a reason for our loss of form as others do.
Well of course, now you're just being ridiculous. I'd agree with others that say he seems to drive players to raise their game a bit. You know what he brings to the team and if you allow yourself to benefit off his play, it seems to make the rest of the team better. I'd say his period out has probably made seem more valuable to the team but I think in the times that we have been struggling in attack, I'm sure he would made us better. Again, against Swansea, I'm sure we would have attacked better in the team.
I agree, he does have a great attitude which will lead others to raise their game but then I don't think our other players have negative ones. They all look to try and make things happen although they have different styles. Against Swansea as I said I think the attack was once again poor. Another example is Norwich, we had so much of the ball but the attacking players were consistently poor. That's my main point. I don't deny or dispute that Clev can or did add to the attack, I'm saying that there were other factors as to why we played better and certainly other reasons why our attack hasn't been as good recently. For example gainst Bolton and Chelsea our attack was fine without Cleverley, there may have been other issues but it wasn't the attack. Against Benfica the attack was good. All tough games minus Clev. The difference in those games though to the ones now was that you had Rooney/Young playing slightly deeper and you had the wingers in better form and also mixing up their attack. In recent weeks they've been far too stuck to their wings and both the strikers have been playing far too high. You need to mix it up which is what we've been missing. Clev can help with that but he's not been why it hasn't happened.
I guess so. It's definitely two-fold. Before Benfica, we struggled with creating some fluency and some substantial attacks. That didnt solely rest on the attackers. It's a combination really. It doesn't help when your CMs play a pass that put you under pressure or it's just an errant pass. You can see the difference it makes, when at least one of our CMs passing is on-song. I think Giggs is a great example. When he was playing against Swansea, his passing was dire and we really struggled to create anything. Today was a completely different story and it helped create more dangerous attacks. Also the forwards were still not at their best today but did well enough that we should have won the game. You make a fair point but it's not one or the other. It's a joint problem if that makes any sense.
Yep I agree, the attack is reliant on the supply from the midfield in order to thrive. However I feel that, that hasn't been the issue. I think the majority of the time we've gotten the ball to our attacks in good positions but they've failed to use it well. Today was a great example of that. Young was putting in poor passes. Nani was in and out of the game. Rooney was fairly anonymous and when he did get the ball he was sloppy. Hernandez's play outside the box let the team down and he was snatching at his chances. We controlled the middle though as I said the attack was poor. In took for Newcastle to go defensive and then a man down for our attack to look good. Against Benfica as you say we played well. Even the City game, if you take that first half we had the ball and the territorial advantage. But our attack was poor. Not only were the players far too fixed in their positions but when they did get the ball they used it poorly. That's our two biggest problems of late. Poor use of the ball in the final third and a lack of movement from the front four. I agree 100% that the attack needs good supply from the middle, I just think that they've had that but have failed to use it well and although Cleverley can help he can't make them suddenly change. It's something only more games and hard work can bring.
I'm not denying his importance. I was strictly addressing him being there for Cleverlely's passing game to be realized. It's not a causation. More like a mutual relationship. They benefit off each other but do not necessarily require each other.
See that's where I just don't agree. I'm not saying Clev needs Rooney in order to play well I'm saying he needs him or someone in that role in order to play that way.
That's neither here nor there. I think I'd agree in terms of chances created and being finished. You're right though. If Rooney or any of the other forwards have an off day, Cleverley cant really do all that much but as long as he continues to contribute what he can, then he's fine in my eyes. He's a refreshing player and like Hernandez, there's much more to come.
Again I'm not slagging of Clev, I like him and his attitude. All I'm saying is that if the attack is playing poorly which it is then he alone can't change that. That's all i'm trying to say. He can help, no doubt, but there are other more important issues that are playing a bigger role.
I'd say he'd positively impact the attack but he's not the vital cog. At least not yet. I think the brilliant football is more contingent on Tom's partnership with Anderson as well as the interplay between Rooney and our wingers. Our front 6 were all on the same page and that's really what it requires.
