Tom Cleverley | 2012-14 Performances

Status
Not open for further replies.
Devil may care said:
Yes you ignored the fact that City had took their foot off the pedal and as for why he played better than Fellaini? Well he hadn't been on 60 minutes already and hadn't played in midweek and was operating in a 3 which gave him the freedom neither Fellaini or Carrick had, there ya go. :)
Click to expand...

No, I didn't ignore that fact, it was obvious they weren't playing with high intensity as they were in first half.

What freedom? That wasn't really midfield three, Fellaini was playing almost as second striker when he was introduced, so looking by positions, nothing changed too much in second half, except for different players playing in same positions. City even brought Milner and Garcia in second half to make them stronger in midfield in second half.
 
Amar__ said:
No, I didn't ignore that fact, it was obvious they weren't playing with high intensity as they were in first half.

What freedom? That wasn't really midfield three, Fellaini was playing almost as second striker when he was introduced, so looking by positions, nothing changed too much in second half, except for different players playing in same positions. City even brought Milner and Garcia in second half to make them stronger in midfield in second half.
Click to expand...

You put no context on the performance, it was like he just came on and took us to another level with his brilliance, he had the freedom of the fact City were no longer pressing and he was in a 3 with Fellaini and Carrick even if Fellaini was the most advanced. I didn't even say he played badly I said you couldn't judge it as much as the game was over at that point which is true, honestly on here it's like people just look for a fight where there is none.
 
It was too late for it to matter but when he came on we certainly improved. Like many have said though City had basically quit playing at that point.

I like Cleverley a lot, I said before we signed Fellaini that as a partner for Carrick I'd prefer Cleverley over him and so far Fellaini hasn't done anything to change my mind.

Cleverley doesn't really stand out in any aspects of his game but his movement and passing keep things ticking, we just need our more creative players to step up/be given a chance.
 
Devil may care said:
You put no context on the performance, it was like he just came on and took us to another level with his brilliance, he had the freedom of the fact City were no longer pressing and he was in a 3 with Fellaini and Carrick even if Fellaini was the most advanced. I didn't even say he played badly I said you couldn't judge it as much as the game was over at that point which is true, honestly on here it's like people just look for a fight where there is none.
Click to expand...


I never said he was out of this world, or something like that, I just he deserved praise for yesterday, and that he was only positive.
 
pocco said:
Cleverley is a bit here nor there, for me. We don't need to judge him on a 30 minute cameo against a team that had switched off, we know all about him already. Mr Mujac is wrong, too. We looked better all over the park when City decided to shut up shop, it wasn't just Cleverley.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Amar__ said:
I never said he was out of this world, or something like that, I just he deserved praise for yesterday, and that he was only positive.
Click to expand...

And all I said was that you couldn't really judge it as much due to the circumstances, I'm not anti-Cleverlely or some shit.
 
Devil may care said:
And all I said was that you couldn't really judge it as much due to the circumstances, I'm not anti-Cleverlely or some shit.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know you aren't, but no need to be picky on this one, he played good.
 
Mr. MUJAC said:
Love it...if Tom Cleverley has a poor game (in people's opinions) then he is a shit player. If he has a good game then it's because the opposition 'allowed' him to play.

Still can't work that one out at all? Particularly as Fellaini and others were still poor even if city did sit back....using the same theory everyone should have been much better...but they weren't!

Way too convenient for me.

He offers a number of things to the team...high workrate, retaining possession and high tempo.

He's been made a scapegoat by many for way too long.
Click to expand...
It does my head in. In that period we played better because Cleverley helped turn the possession on its head. We couldn't get a sniff of the ball in the first half and only had something like 35% possession yet after he came on we ended up keeping the ball and it wasn't coincidental, or because City 'stopped trying'. Like feck did they stop trying, they wanted to score more. What I love about Cleverley is that he passes and moves, receives the ball back and passes quickly again and moves into space. He gives people and option which is in contrast to several of our other players who's movement off the ball is non-existent at the moment. He made just 15 passes fewer than Fellaini despite being on the pitch for over 50 minutes less. What he adds to our play is so criminally underrated on here. People bemoan our sluggish passing and lack of movement yet don't want to give credit when someone comes on and ups our tempo instantly, passes quickly and has good off the ball movement. The Chelsea game showed that with the right tactics Cleverley can be positionally disciplined too, which is a part of his game that he needs to work on (unsurprisingly at 23/24 with a lot of previous injuries behind him he isn't the finished article yet).
He shouldn't be written off. My fear with Fellaini's purchase was that Cleverley would become a fringe player when Fellaini isn't a better player and shouldn't be keeping him out of the team. He's the most complimentary partner we have for Carrick in midfield.

A midfield trio of a Carrick in just behind Cleverley and Kagawa would have potential imo. It has strength and defensive stability in Carrick, tempo and movement from Cleverley and creativity and movement from Kagawa.
 
Definitely looked a lot more free in that forward role without a big defensive duty. On a better day that injection on 50-60mins might have been attributed to 'changing the game' for us.
 
I think from a footballing point of view, most would want Cleverley ahead of Fellaini. However, due to the difference of what comes with the player, I think it's far easier to drop Cleverley. He is a youth product who cost us nothing and doesn't really eat away at the wage bill. Then you have a multi million pound midfielder who was our only signing.

Unfortunately, I think if Moyes can't decide between the two in a certain match, the situation will force him to select Fellaini.

Both have big roles to play in the squad though.
 
Eric'sCollar said:
I think from a footballing point of view, most would want Cleverley ahead of Fellaini. However, due to the difference of what comes with the player, I think it's far easier to drop Cleverley. He is a youth product who cost us nothing and doesn't really eat away at the wage bill. Then you have a multi million pound midfielder who was our only signing.

Unfortunately, I think if Moyes can't decide between the two in a certain match, the situation will force him to select Fellaini.

Both have big roles to play in the squad though.
Click to expand...


The big plus point with Fellaini over Cleverley is that he'll stop us getting steamrollered in games...
 
Eric'sCollar said:
I think from a footballing point of view, most would want Cleverley ahead of Fellaini. However, due to the difference of what comes with the player, I think it's far easier to drop Cleverley. He is a youth product who cost us nothing and doesn't really eat away at the wage bill. Then you have a multi million pound midfielder who was our only signing.

Unfortunately, I think if Moyes can't decide between the two in a certain match, the situation will force him to select Fellaini.

Both have big roles to play in the squad though.
Click to expand...

I would be astonished if moyes tooks transfer fee and wages into account when he picks his team. A throey which makes even less sense with Anderson and Nani getting very few gamea so faf this season.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I would be astonished if moyes tooks transfer fee and wages into account when he picks his team. A throey which makes even less sense with Anderson and Nani getting very few gamea so faf this season.
Click to expand...
Nani and Anderson weren't signed by him though.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
So? I was addressing the point that Cleverley is automatically lower down the pecking order because he cost nothing.

Regarding Fellaini, he's bound to be a moyes favourite (for the next few months, anyway) because he's worked with him so much longer than any other player.
Click to expand...

So he might feel that he needs to play Fellaini more because he spent £27.5m on him and couldn't justify it if he didn't play him on a more or less regular basis. Not saying this is going to happen though.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I would be astonished if moyes tooks transfer fee and wages into account when he picks his team. A throey which makes even less sense with Anderson and Nani getting very few gamea so faf this season.
Click to expand...
Could you imagine the stick he would get for spending that amount of money and wasting it away on the bench. Moyes is the new manager, it's his team, he has brought Fellaini in and judging by the price, he sees him as an important part of the team.

It's not so much a pressure from the boardroom but it's something that would always be in the back of his mind and could subconsciously affect his decisions.
 
Feed Me said:
The big plus point with Fellaini over Cleverley is that he'll stop us getting steamrollered in games...
Click to expand...

...I see what you did there...

On a more serious note I hope that Fellaini's signing will have the same impact on Cleverley as Poborsky's did Beckham.

Poborksy came in after Euro 96 on the crest of a wave after a superb tournament but the added competition spurred Becks on to improve and reach levels of effectiveness I never thought he was capable of.

Cleverley is similar to the early Becks in that he does all the basics well but doesn't seem to do any one thing exceptionally. Becks, through grit and determination, made himself the best crosser and free kick taker on earth to nail down a place. Hopefully Fellaini coming in will force Clev to take similar action and make himself similarly undroppable.
 
#07 said:
...I see what you did there...

On a more serious note I hope that Fellaini's signing will have the same impact on Cleverley as Poborsky's did Beckham.

Poborksy came in after Euro 96 on the crest of a wave after a superb tournament but the added competition spurred Becks on to improve and reach levels of effectiveness I never thought he was capable of.

Cleverley is similar to the early Becks in that he does all the basics well but doesn't seem to do any one thing exceptionally. Becks, through grit and determination, made himself the best crosser and free kick taker on earth to nail down a place. Hopefully Fellaini coming in will force Clev to take similar action and make himself similarly undroppable.
Click to expand...


Good analogy. Generally speaking I do think a bit of midfield competition will do Clev the world of good. I certainly dont think Fellaini's arrival spells the end - or the beginning of the end - of his career with us.
 
#07 said:
...I see what you did there...

On a more serious note I hope that Fellaini's signing will have the same impact on Cleverley as Poborsky's did Beckham.

Poborksy came in after Euro 96 on the crest of a wave after a superb tournament but the added competition spurred Becks on to improve and reach levels of effectiveness I never thought he was capable of.

Cleverley is similar to the early Becks in that he does all the basics well but doesn't seem to do any one thing exceptionally. Becks, through grit and determination, made himself the best crosser and free kick taker on earth to nail down a place. Hopefully Fellaini coming in will force Clev to take similar action and make himself similarly undroppable.
Click to expand...


Very good post. I had hoped that Cleverley would be spurred on by the extra competition, but hadn't thought of your parallel.
 
pocco said:
Cleverley is a bit here nor there, for me. We don't need to judge him on a 30 minute cameo against a team that had switched off, we know all about him already. Mr Mujac is wrong, too. We looked better all over the park when City decided to shut up shop, it wasn't just Cleverley.
Click to expand...

All about opinions...;-)
 
Yeah, some of the City players probably fancied scoring more to rub our noses in it, the fans for sure but they did switch off a bit and if they wanted to, on Sunday they could have scored 8 past us, we were that bad.
 
Can't understand the reluctance to give Cleverley credit.
 
He looked the best midfielder in our squad when he come on, by far. The contrast in performance to Carrick/Fellaini on the day was remarkable.
 
It's easy to say that City switched off, and yes they did. But Cleverley was still our best performer in that time by far and was actually trying to make it happen.

I really hope he kicks on from here because he showed us a glimpse of the type of midfielder some of us know he is capable of becoming.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Aye, I thought he was excellent. Made a big impact.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and the fact that everyone else didn't immediately look excellent makes me think it was more to do with Cleverley rather than City downing tools early. He gave us what we needed, helped us keep the ball better, upped our tempo, provided good movement in midfield and constantly made himself available. Even added a couple of tackles for good measure.
 
Genius Me! said:
It's easy to say that City switched off, and yes they did. But Cleverley was still our best performer in that time by far and was actually trying to make it happen.
Click to expand...

Because he's a pass and move player who has been playing way too deep of late trying to fill the combat role of a two man midfield beside Carrick.
 
Not sure why people keep talking about City 'switching off', it wasn't a choice, they were clearly knackered. It may not have looked like it at the time but I reckon we could have come back and got a result second half, if we'd not gone full spastic for ten minutes at the start of it.
 
Chabon said:
Not sure why people keep talking about City 'switching off', it wasn't a choice, they were clearly knackered. It may not have looked like it at the time but I reckon we could have come back and got a result second half, if we'd not gone full spastic for ten minutes at the start of it.
Click to expand...

The second goal on the brink of half time killed us off, it was a massive blow. I'd say we would have come out a lot more confident had it been only 1-0.

Ah feck it anyway, it wasn't our day at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.