I don't see anything stupid about it. Loads of players move on the cheap that turn out to be excellent. People are going on about Lewandowski now but only two years ago he was bought by Dortmund for 4.5m euros.
I also never said I know whether Carrick at 23 was better than Cleverly is now, just that your response wasn't exactly the best. And it's not as impossible as you seem to think it is - Cleverly isn't exactly a top prospect is he?
What are you even contributing here? I'm challenging the claim that Carrick at 23 was FAR better than Cleverley is at 23, when all objective evidence suggests otherwise. If you have no opinion on the matter other than trying (and failing) to point holes in my argument then it's not particularly conducive for any reasoned debate.
Did Carrick have any off-pitch issues that put clubs off signing him? No. At 23, the biggest clubs in the world had shown no interest in Carrick. They simply hadn't seen him enough from him to convince them. And yet acnumber9 from the internet obviously knew back then, with the benefit of hindsight 8 years later, that this Carrick chap was an excellent midfielder. At the same age Cleverley has been winning plaudits from the managers of United and England - putting in excellent performances against some of the best teams in the country. Yet acnumber9 from the internet can clearly and undoubtedly say that he's not as good as Michael Carrick was at the same age.
I personally think Cleverley is an excellent prospect, as did the majority of people on here when he was in great form earlier in the season. A few months later and he's the midfield John O'Shea. Even at 25-26 Carrick was receiving equal criticism from United fans. Can't control a game, merely a water-carrier for Scholes, doesn't have the mental strength, etc etc blah blah..
acnumber9 said:
He was though. The proof will be in the pudding if Cleverley goes on to having even close as good a career as Carrick. The fact that Coeverley came through our youth system rather than West Ham's doesn't make him a better player. There's a reason Wenger tried to sign Carrick.
Arsenal did want him by the way. Idiot.
No, that wouldn't prove anything at all. You've claimed that Carrick at 23 was FAR better than Cleverley at 23. Whether Cleverley becomes an excellent midfielder or fails completely will have ZERO effect on whether or not Carrick was a FAR better player at age 23. You can't take someone's ability at 31 years old, and assume that at 23 they must have been better than a current 23 year old because he is going through some patchy form.
John at 14 years old was 5ft. By 22, he was 6ft 4.
Paul at 14 years old was 5ft4.
Their father says that John was taller than Paul at age 14. His memory is affected because John is now so tall. Surely John was always so tall. Their mother says no, Paul is taller at 14 years old. Their father disagrees and declares "The proof will be in the pudding!" only if Paul grows to be taller than John!
Do you see the fallacy?
Sure, Arsenal looked at him. Arsenal scouted my mate when he was younger, too. They decided against signing Carrick, just as decided against signing my mate. Tom Cleverley, meanwhile, has the backing of Manchester United and England at the same age Carrick was when Spurs took a punt on him.