He is 4 years younger though. It's a bit of an odd statement none-the-less.
Tom Cleverley | 2012-14 Performances
- Thread starter Bebe
- Start date
- Status
He looked bright in his early cameo appearances and a carling cup game against Newcastle I think, but that's about all I've seen. Looked good though, going past players in the middle and played a few inventive passes. That's it though, there's no comparison at all yet.
Scholesy proclaimed him to have perfect technique, thats all that matters right? So he must be miles better than Cleverley.
Wasn't Nathan Delfouneso one of his tips for the top as well?
Indeed he was. As was Danny Guthrie (???), Oliver Norwood and some kid from Hull whose name I can't remember. He also had an inexplicable fondness for Scott Wooton.
I mean, if you keep predicting bright futures for random young players you're bound to get at least one right. Even a blind chicken pecks some corn every now and then.
Wilshere only possibly too.
If people think there's been a lot of hype with little substance about Cleverly then the same can definitely be said about Wilshere.
Yes he's a very classy player and still very young, but he's yet to have the chance to show if he can really cut it, and develop as everybody expects.
Only time will tell, but there's every chance that in 10 or 15 years time it's Tom that has had the better career.
I'd call it about 50-50 at the moment, though obviously Cleverley's age means he ahs got to the point where the onus is on him to produce regularly and fully establish himself.
What? Wilshire is clearly a bigger talent than Cleverley and has made triple the amount of appearances for Arsenal than Cleverley has for us despite being over three years younger.
Bias is crazy on here sometimes.
Bias is crazy on here sometimes.
Unlike Cleverley, Wilshere has made plenty of appearances for Arsenal already. He's also played in the CL and performed very well against Barcelona.
I dont know who'l have the better career as these things are very difficult to predict but Wilshere is definitely the bigger talent atm. Younger too.
Wilshire is the bigger talent for sure but he needs to get back and play some football at some point
I don't see that appearances have got much to do with it - both have had their chances massively curtailed by injury on that front, it just happens that Wilshere managed to squeeze pretty much a whole season without getting injured.
The main reason Clevelery has fewer appearances is the fact he's been on loan - he actually has loads more career appearances than Wilshere, as you'd expect given his age.
Wilshere has had the chance to make his at his parent club because frankly Arsenal don't have the depth of talent we do (or did).
Wilshere certainly developed earlier, but I don't see what that's got to do with it - he was freakishly young to be doing so well, while Cleverley has developed at a similar sort of age as a Scholes or a Beckham.
If you want to go on achievements so far, you could just as easily look at the fact that Cleverley (despite, as discussed "not being a goal scorer") has 17 goals form his 86 league appearances, whereas Wilshere has just 2 from 51. Does that mean Cleverley is clearly better? No, no more than Wilshere's 35 Arsenal appearances make him "clearly a bigger talent".
For me, both players are great talents, but neither has had enough time to be fully judged on yet. I'd call it 50-50 on who ultimately turns out to be better, and if either is over-hyped, it's the Arsenal lad.
I brought up the appearances bit in response to this:
This bit is untrue when it comes to Wilshere. Yes, he missed almost the entire last season because of injury but he had a fairly injury free period before that when he not only shone on loan at Bolton but then at Arsenal in the league. He also had a very good 2 legs vs the best midfield in the world atm.
Also, its not true that Arsenal lack depth when compared to us when it comes to midfield. Wilshere, as you correctly said is freakshly good for someone his age and made it sooner than Cleverley. That ofcourse is no slight on Clev, he's just developing at a natural pace.
My point about Wilshere being the bigger talent isnt based on his appearances but because of what he's done in those. He's a rare talent. He'l never be much of a goalscorer though, plays a far deeper role to score many. So even later in his career, goals as a yardstick to compare him with someone like Clev who plays a much more advanced position wouldnt make much sense
Wilshere is completely over rated, in that he does a very easy job very well.
I think there's something in that, even if I wouldn't quite put it like that.
To be a genuine star in that holding midfield role takes, more-so than in other positions, consisitency over time. Hitting the level is a lot easier than, say, centre-forward, but staying there is the proof of the pudding.
Well that's bullshit, seeing as center forwards generally hit their peak a lot earlier than midfielders do.
I must be missing something here.
Easy job? Do you like any other midfielders other than Barry?
He drives with the ball when the game is stretched and there's plenty of space. When the game is tight and creative midfielders are meant to come to the fore he just plays fairly easy balls. And he's not all that defensively.
Err I'll go through the top English teams and say who I rate, just to show I'm not overly negative;
City: Barry, Toure, Rodwell
United: Carrick, Cleverley and Anderson as a duo, Fletcher when fit
Chelsea: Mikel (Big games only), Ramires (Big games/away games mainly), Lampard of old and to a certain extent now
Arsenal: Song (I know he's left but imo the best central midfielder in the PL last year), Arteta, Diaby, Rosicky (Like him, not sure why)
Spurs: Sandro, Dembele, the new Icelandic lad
Liverpool: Lucas, Gerrard of old
I'm not talking about age, I'm talking about what you have to do to be counted as amongst the best.
In fact, your point agrees with mine - if a forward is banging the goals in, they are "there", and if they hit a dry spell, it's just a dry spell. Whereas a holding midfielder is only recognised as having made it if they are making a career out of dominating midfields. Hence why centre-forwards are seen to "peak" earlier.
If Wilshere had stayed fit and was now playing his 3rd season in a row at the same level, he'd now be starting to justify the hype. Whereas if he'd stayed fit and had a bit of a rubbish second season, he'd be emabrking on the Anderson path of everybody trying to figure out if he's good enough.
Compare to say, Michael Owen. By the time WC98 was done, nobody was in any dout that he "had it", and despite a list of disappointments as long as your arm, it was only ever his fitness, pace etc that was questioned for the rest of his career - it remained a given that he was a special player. And that's because what he had was so exceptional.
I don't see the proof that Wilshere is exceptional in the same way... ridicdulously good at football for a 17 year-old, yes, but still needing to develop that talent. And that development is far from guaranteed.
You're going on some really weird tangents here, I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove at this stage, I mean Cleverley has been just as injured as Wilshire, has played far less at his home club despite being three years older and generally hasn't looked as good a player. You can't say that it's "50/50" between them based on the fact that Wilshire was out all of last season. He proved over a full season, aged 18 how good he is and can be, Cleverley so far for us has played 13 games, and his best spell was his first 5, before he went and got injured for most of the season.
The development is always "far from guaranteed" for a youngster, but seeing as he's 3 years younger than Cleverley and has already done more and played more at the highest level, including an awesome performance in the CL against Barca, I'd say he shades it, somehow.
The development is always "far from guaranteed" for a youngster, but seeing as he's 3 years younger than Cleverley and has already done more and played more at the highest level, including an awesome performance in the CL against Barca, I'd say he shades it, somehow.
Pretty mixed bag that. You're not really saying Rodwell > Wilshere though are you?
Barry and Rodwell = unbiased 
I don't agree with that. Well I sort of do, I just think that's a negative aspect of his game. I don't actually think the creative burden is meant to be on his shoulders in games like that anyway. He doesn't ever have the same freedom as Silva, Nasri, Fabregas, Cleverley the other night or Rosicky for example. I wish some fecker would tell Anderson to play an easy pass when the game is tight!
Meh. Think he's over rated these days.
Fergie said he was the reason you turned it around at Southampton. I think it's more just that they can't defend. We turned around a 2-1 deficit in similar fashion, with similarly poor defending.
Personally I would never feel comfortable starting a game against a top side, or most away games, with a defensive passenger like Scholes in the side.
You also said "Lampard of old". Why not Scholes of old?
Anderson and Cleverley's short passing was absolutely devastating last season. Our slow, unagile midfielders just couldn't get close to them. Imo that's the only way you'll beat us bar getting Kompany sent off, like he always threatens to do against Rooney.
Yeah i get that. Wilshere is just at a funny position where he doesn't command fear with or without the ball, if you ask me at least. He's almost caught between the two. I'd always go to isolate Wilshere defensively over someone like Arteta, and I'd always be looking at what happens after Wilshere releases the ball rather than when he does.
Err, not exactly. There's a mixture of me out right rating them, and just rating them more than other players.
I do think Rodwell and Wilshere are quite comparable from what I've seen of Rodwell. Offensively he's sound and just needs to get comfortable taking risks, then he'll contribute more. But defensively he's an animal, throws himself into challenges he really shouldn't and generally bullies teams. As he grows in maturity and stature he'll only get better at that.
Because he was always a bit too good for me to like him
I do of course respect Scholes' fantastic talent and career. I guess I made a point of leaving him out because he's a bit overrated these days.
Wilshire is a far better player than Cleverley, at this point, anyway. For me, Cleverley is far too overrated on here by some posters.
What I'm trying to prove is simple - both have a huge amount of talent, but we haven't seen enough of either to be able to make a good call on who is more likely to develop the better player.
All we can say at this point is that Wilshere has developed younger, but that really does count for little - very few players continue on the sort of linear development that means that developing young translates to be better by, say, 25. See Milner, Barmby etc.
As per my original point - I think people get far too carried away with some of those performances, particularly one match against Barcelona (as I recal they got pretty thoroughly dicked on in the retun leg). We all remember John O'Shea nutmegging Figo, and how for a few wonderful months he was giong to be the best full-back the world had ever seen!
Anyway, this whole Wilshere thing is turning into a big side-track, given that this thread is meant ot be about Cleverley. I'm clearly not as convinced by the Arsenal lad as many are, but I'm clearly in a minority there!
Of course we've seen enough to come to a conclusion about who is the more talented of the two. You don't exactly need to see 100+ games from a young player before you figure out how good they are/could be.
Haven't read much of what you've said, but I agree with this. Wilshere has talent, but of the two I think Rodwell is the top English midfield talent right now. If he develops in the right way and learns to play the defensive midfield role effectively, he could be England's best player quite soon.
So annoyed that City got him.
If you include the likes of Gareth Barry and Jack Rodwell on a list but not Paul Scholes, then it is seriously flawed. Scholes has more talent in his big toe than Barry and Rodwell have combined. Completely different class of a footballer.
And he includes the likes of Sandro, Rodwell and Sigurdsson and not Wilshere.
On top of that, he thinks Barry is better than Alonso.
Not sure what to make of opinions like that.
On top of that, he thinks Barry is better than Alonso.
Not sure what to make of opinions like that.
I love Clev but Wilshere is simply superior
You serious? You rate Rodwell over Wilshere?
Some of the comments here are odd. Wilshere has played more games than Clev in the pl and europe and done better at a younger age. There aren't even obvious weaknesses in his game unlike Clev who has a lot to work on, on the disciple side to play a deeper role. Both talents but Wilshere has more potential, how he'll play after his injuries is another matter.
Wilshere is easily the biggest talent out of them but I think Cleverley will end up years from now being regarded as the better player. Wilsheres development is being stifled with injuries and he's not getting the football he needs. He has massive question marks over his ability to stay fit at this time. I think Wilshere has the highest ceiling out of all the young english midfielders but only time will tell if he fulfils it.
If I'd never heard another footballing opinion in my life then yes Wilshere would make that list. I don't think he's a bad player, but the job he does is relatively easy. It's that he's not a defensive figure yet he's only scored or assisted 4 goals in 51 league appearances. That's playing in a side with RVP in who get a lot of the ball.
And I never said that Barry was better.
Wilshere's currently better rated of the two, but only time will tell who goes on and makes it bigger.
and ICIP, no disrespect but you wrote down some really odd choices.
and ICIP, no disrespect but you wrote down some really odd choices.
See this is just silly, because if you looked up Iniesta's stats they'd be pretty damn low too, and he plays a very advanced role. Assists and goals are far from everything when it comes to being a quality midfielder.
Yep or Modric. You can even just look at scholes, he wasn't exactly raking in goals/assists these past few years but still been the main guy in the team about dictating our attacks etc.
Yeah, I like Rodwell a lot. Finding young players, especially in England, who have the natural inclination and tactical awareness and discipline to play as a defensive midfielder is very rare. I'd say to get a good idea of what I like about him, is to imagine if Carrick added physicality to his game. He's not quite as offensively minded, but he can contribute with goals and assists too.
Hopefully the midfield at the next World cup will be all three with Cleverly as the attacking mid. So good!
- Status