He must have a knock or something. To get no minutes after Gary Neville continues to tell us how highly rated he is within the club is strange. He's 23 not 18.
Tom Cleverley | 2012-14 Performances
- Thread starter Bebe
- Start date
- Status
Carrick is in good form at the moment and Kagawa always looks lively and is always a threat.
We are in a position where if anything we have too many midfielders battling for places. Giggs, Scholes, Kagawa, Cleverley, Anderson, Carrick and now Fletcher as well, not to mention Powell.
That's 8 players, of which we seem desperate to play the first two - who are both nearly 40 - regularly while we have youngsters craving some game time.
Fair enough it's Liverpool at Anfield and I expected Scholes to play 90 minutes but when you look at Liverpool and some players like Suso, Sterling and even Kelly - our selection seemed to have an element of fear in it.
It's a hard one because no matter who we play there are going to be some players left out and disappointed, but for me Cleverley should be starting when fit, Carrick in his current form should also be playing, and then either Scholes or Kagawa would be my choice for 3rd man, with Anderson and Powell rotating into the team as well. Giggs I think should be a backup at this point, and as much as I like Fletcher I would rather see any of those above than him at the moment.
We are in a position where if anything we have too many midfielders battling for places. Giggs, Scholes, Kagawa, Cleverley, Anderson, Carrick and now Fletcher as well, not to mention Powell.
That's 8 players, of which we seem desperate to play the first two - who are both nearly 40 - regularly while we have youngsters craving some game time.
Fair enough it's Liverpool at Anfield and I expected Scholes to play 90 minutes but when you look at Liverpool and some players like Suso, Sterling and even Kelly - our selection seemed to have an element of fear in it.
It's a hard one because no matter who we play there are going to be some players left out and disappointed, but for me Cleverley should be starting when fit, Carrick in his current form should also be playing, and then either Scholes or Kagawa would be my choice for 3rd man, with Anderson and Powell rotating into the team as well. Giggs I think should be a backup at this point, and as much as I like Fletcher I would rather see any of those above than him at the moment.
Do you think the transfer fee is still weighing on him? Im not so sure. It was a long time ago now, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. I think if anything is putting him under pressure it is his fitness record, not his fee. But the diagnosis I agree with: if he can stay fit and play a run of games he will come along massively.
I would have played Anderson or Cleverley instead of Giggs at Anfield.
If anything, I would've played Giggs to the left, tucking inside to link up play and combine with Kagawa, and one of Clev/Ando in CM with Carrick.
But SAF's the manager, and we won. Despite a poor performance, but still, we won.
If anything, I would've played Giggs to the left, tucking inside to link up play and combine with Kagawa, and one of Clev/Ando in CM with Carrick.
But SAF's the manager, and we won. Despite a poor performance, but still, we won.
SAF singled out Scholes, Carrick and Giggs after yesterday's game and said their experience got us through. In big games, he really likes to go with experience.
Cleverley's just going to have to be patient.
Cleverley's just going to have to be patient.
I honestly don't understand this. What got us through was a red card that ended Liverpool's total dominance; our equaliser was a brilliant effort from Rafael, our youngest player on the pitch; the penalty was a gift after a run from Valencia.
We did not control the game. We were poor in possession, worse when not in possession. We relied on Liverpool missing their chances. How did all that experience benefit us? I just can't see it.
Have to feel for Tom, when he's been in the team he has done well and yet he has been relegated to the subs bench by Ferguson. Playing Giggs ahead of him in the midfield doesn't make really any sense.
Experience is over-rated by Ferguson sometimes.
Experience is over-rated by Ferguson sometimes.
Not only was Giggs one of the worst players on the pitch, but it was his inability to track Gerrard that cost us the goal.
How about picking a team that might actually have a chance of being better at football than the opposition? Is that now less important than picking old people because they're old and will "get us through"?
How about picking a team that might actually have a chance of being better at football than the opposition? Is that now less important than picking old people because they're old and will "get us through"?
Yeah, it's quite annoying really. It was clear from the get go that Giggs was never going to be able to cope with that game, a very odd decision.
What I don't get is the inevatibility of it all.
As soon as I saw the teamsheet, I could confidently predict excactly what was going to happen in terms of the general flow of the match.
It was just so obvious that Liverpool would control the match, and we would look disjointed and struggle to do anything of note.
It has happened before on so many occasions, why don't SAF see this? Why do he persist with choosing strange teams in games of this importance? It's not good enough to simply cite "experience", experience in itself means feck all if you're performing horribly.
Yesterday, we were saved by our 22 year-old full back, Rio Ferdinand having a great match, Jonjo Shelvey being an absolute spacker and the ref giving us a soft pen while ignoring their penalty shout. It had nothing at all to do with experience.
As soon as I saw the teamsheet, I could confidently predict excactly what was going to happen in terms of the general flow of the match.
It was just so obvious that Liverpool would control the match, and we would look disjointed and struggle to do anything of note.
It has happened before on so many occasions, why don't SAF see this? Why do he persist with choosing strange teams in games of this importance? It's not good enough to simply cite "experience", experience in itself means feck all if you're performing horribly.
Yesterday, we were saved by our 22 year-old full back, Rio Ferdinand having a great match, Jonjo Shelvey being an absolute spacker and the ref giving us a soft pen while ignoring their penalty shout. It had nothing at all to do with experience.
Yup, as soon as Scholes started in the midweek, I thought Giggs is gonna start in the midfield. I love Giggs, but it'd have made more sense to play him on the left wing.
Problem is Cleverley had a bad game against Southampton (alongside Carrick) and Giggs had a good game against Wigan. People tend to forget that he isn't in great form so expecting him to start in such a huge game isn't realistic.
If Ferguson was going to start with Carrick it made sense to play either Giggs or Scholes because Cleverley has never had a good game in a 2 next to Carrick.
Going back to pre-season 2011 I've never seen Cleverley and Carrick play well together. They were rubbish when paired against Chicago Fire (I think?) that year and Cleverley didn't play that well with Carrick in the Barca friendly that summer either. He only livened up in that game when he played with Giggs in the 2nd half.
Cleverley moves around too much to play with Carrick. He passes the ball and follows it. This works well when he has a mobile partner like Anderson because if you lose the ball both are pressing immediately trying to win it high up the pitch. However, Carrick's instinct is to sit and hold and that opens a huge gap between your two centre midfielders that allows runners to move into this is what happened at St Mary's.
Ferguson has more faith in Carrick therefore it made more sense to play a midfielder who compliments him e.g. Giggs or Scholes instead of Cleverley. Because of age and experience Giggsy and Scholesy tend to pick their runs and stay deeper than Cleverley this is more complimentary to Carrick's cautiousness and makes it less likely you'll get a huge gap between your centre midfielders for Gerrard to race through.
Taking away our terrible performance and just looking at that aspect of the game you can say Fergie's selection did prevent us from being opened up too often in the middle. Liverpool's best attacks came down the flanks. Very rarely did Gerrard just go driving down the centre of the park and that's mostly cos the centre midfielders were not separated much.
On the flip side playing with two centre midfielders who sit so deep led to us having a broken team e.g. the front 4 completely separate to the 6 outfield players behind them. The wingers were shocking its true but they were also isolated and Kagawa and Van Persie were often surrounded by a handful of Liverpool players. There weren't enough bodies in attack for us to build anything and this continued for long periods even against 10 men.
For me the ideal midfield partnership is two mobile centre midfielders who press from the front which at the moment would be Cleverley and Anderson. Similarly to that spell in 2007/08 where we had Hargo and Ando in midfield I think you need that buzzing energetic pressure even if you have to sacrifice Carrick. I think we look better with a mobile midfield than with two holders.
Going back to pre-season 2011 I've never seen Cleverley and Carrick play well together. They were rubbish when paired against Chicago Fire (I think?) that year and Cleverley didn't play that well with Carrick in the Barca friendly that summer either. He only livened up in that game when he played with Giggs in the 2nd half.
Cleverley moves around too much to play with Carrick. He passes the ball and follows it. This works well when he has a mobile partner like Anderson because if you lose the ball both are pressing immediately trying to win it high up the pitch. However, Carrick's instinct is to sit and hold and that opens a huge gap between your two centre midfielders that allows runners to move into this is what happened at St Mary's.
Ferguson has more faith in Carrick therefore it made more sense to play a midfielder who compliments him e.g. Giggs or Scholes instead of Cleverley. Because of age and experience Giggsy and Scholesy tend to pick their runs and stay deeper than Cleverley this is more complimentary to Carrick's cautiousness and makes it less likely you'll get a huge gap between your centre midfielders for Gerrard to race through.
Taking away our terrible performance and just looking at that aspect of the game you can say Fergie's selection did prevent us from being opened up too often in the middle. Liverpool's best attacks came down the flanks. Very rarely did Gerrard just go driving down the centre of the park and that's mostly cos the centre midfielders were not separated much.
On the flip side playing with two centre midfielders who sit so deep led to us having a broken team e.g. the front 4 completely separate to the 6 outfield players behind them. The wingers were shocking its true but they were also isolated and Kagawa and Van Persie were often surrounded by a handful of Liverpool players. There weren't enough bodies in attack for us to build anything and this continued for long periods even against 10 men.
For me the ideal midfield partnership is two mobile centre midfielders who press from the front which at the moment would be Cleverley and Anderson. Similarly to that spell in 2007/08 where we had Hargo and Ando in midfield I think you need that buzzing energetic pressure even if you have to sacrifice Carrick. I think we look better with a mobile midfield than with two holders.
Or better still, Anderson?
Anderson is just as mobile as Cleverley and often goes walkies from Carrick. They have had good games together e.g. the 7 smashing of Blackburn in 2010/11 certainly more good games than Cleverley and Carrick. But it tends to break down because Ando doesn't bounce well off Carrick. The Chelsea home game last season being a case in point.
Anderson like Cleverley looks best next to a mobile partner. I think thats mostly why Ando's best games for United in centre midfield have been with Hargreaves and Cleverley.
Yeah, we'd have probably lost yesterday if he was in. Seriously, im as pissed off as the next man about how shit we are playing, but what has Anserson done to show he can be trusted? If anything, he's only ever shown that he can't be trusted. It seems that when players are missing for prolonged periods, suddenly opinions on them change.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Few weeks back against Southampton everyone was complaining about how bad Cleverley looked. Now they want him to start at Anfield.
So very true, but in this case it might not be totally accurate.
Cleverley had one poor game (as did Carrick and Kagawa), and he was then dropped. I find it a bit harsh that he's not played any football since. He's been on the bench ready to play, so obviously he's fit, yet he's not getting any game time. We opted to play Scholes against Galatasaray. Why not Cleverley? Galatasaray were a very mobile, fast side, yet we played the 37 year old.
I hope he's back in the team against Spurs. And possibly tonight against Newcastle. There's no reason to leave him on the bench this long.
Fletcher will be playing tonight and then maybe Cleverley or Powell. in that order.
SAF has a real blindspot for central midfield it seems. Cant spot the good ones out there and cant spot the problem we have with the current crop.
not going on about Pogba but he was overlooked most long periods and I just hope SAF gives Cleverley and Powell enough time to bed in and make mistakes and have bad games without the threat of being dropped for the rest of the season.
SAF only has faith and in a few in that midfield in seems and demonstrated by team selection on Sunday against the scouse.
not going on about Pogba but he was overlooked most long periods and I just hope SAF gives Cleverley and Powell enough time to bed in and make mistakes and have bad games without the threat of being dropped for the rest of the season.
SAF only has faith and in a few in that midfield in seems and demonstrated by team selection on Sunday against the scouse.
That is just retarded tbh. He cant mean that seriously. It must be some kind of poke at the younger players to try and make them step up.
It could have been a snipe at Shelvey's immaturity too...
Gutted he missed that one-on-one, been great tonight apart from that.
Agreed.
Yeah he looks good, always keeps the play ticking over. He was a good goalscorer at Watford, feck knows what happened to him.
Natural goalscorer...
There was that moment deep in the second half on the left touch line where we were playing one touch stuff and Cleverley was running rings around the Newcastle midfielders until he was taken down. THAT (as well as the winning goal) is what we've missed in our midfield: Cool under fire.
Clearly saving a goal for the Stretford End, our first there this season I believe.
This match will build his confidence hopefully.
What a load of shite.
Once again, the Anderson/Cleverley partnership has us playing sexy football. And bizarrely some on here are still in denial about that.
That combo does work well, but they need another one in with them, they're too open in a two. Worked well tonight with Fletcher running around mopping things up.
Rooney says the manager wasn't too pleased with Tom's miss in the first halfOnce again, the Anderson/Cleverley partnership has us playing sexy football. And bizarrely some on here are still in denial about that.
The good football has rarely been denies, it's just how open they might leave the team that worries.
I think we're too open no matter who plays in centre midfield. I'd like to see both get a run of games together. Both have the mobility and movement off the ball, that could get us functioning as an attacking unit.
Once again, the Anderson/Cleverley partnership has us playing sexy football. And bizarrely some on here are still in denial about that.
Sexy football? Jesus H Christ.
And it was Rooney pulling all the strings for me.
- Status