Tom Cleverley | 2012-14 Performances

Status
Not open for further replies.
Could it be the case that Hodgson is choosing Cleverley over Lampard/Gerrard because he is young rather then better? I doubt that the latter would still be around for the EURO 2016 let alone the World cup 2018

He might be choosing him because he thinks that by 2014 or 2016 he will be better. Is that a criticism of Tom, that his international manager thinks he's going to keep getting better?
 
That's re-writing history, isn't it? Because it simply isn't true at all.

At 23 Carrick had just had his first season at Spurs, who finished 9th. They bought him for 3.5 million from West Ham, who failed to win promotion from the Championship. At the same age Cleverley was playing for the best team in the country, and for the first half of the season absolutely looked the part.

Carrick's break out season came at 24, when he was partnered with Edgar Davids.

One player can't carry a team. Not that I know whether Carrick was that good at 23, but that response wasn't exactly a good response.

Darron Gibson was playing for the best team in the country at some point, and starting in a Champions League semi (or was it quarter) final. Doesn't mean very much. But like I said, I have no idea how good Carrick was at 23.
 
That's re-writing history, isn't it? Because it simply isn't true at all.

At 23 Carrick had just had his first season at Spurs, who finished 9th. They bought him for 3.5 million from West Ham, who failed to win promotion from the Championship. At the same age Cleverley was playing for the best team in the country, and for the first half of the season absolutely looked the part.

Carrick's break out season came at 24, when he was partnered with Edgar Davids.

No. Just remembering it. Carrick was playing Premier League football at 18. Not exactly his fault West Ham were relegated.
 
Cleverley, he'll never make it. Cleverley? I think he's the best young English player. Cleverley, will be sold if doesn't breakthrough next season. Cleverley, a United great who destined to follow in the footpath of Ryan Giggs. Blahblahblahblahblah another 692 pages....
 
One player can't carry a team. Not that I know whether Carrick was that good at 23, but that response wasn't exactly a good response.

Darron Gibson was playing for the best team in the country at some point, and starting in a Champions League semi (or was it quarter) final. Doesn't mean very much. But like I said, I have no idea how good Carrick was at 23.

The suggestion that a 23 year old Carrick who was bought by a Spurs side that finished 14th, for 3.5m from a Championship, facing no competition from bigger clubs for his signature, was a FAR better player than 23 year old Tom Cleverley, who played a significant part in United and England's midfield, putting in excellent performances against some of the best teams in the world is absolutely fecking stupid.

The comparison to Gibson in this debate is beyond irrelevant.
 
Tom Cleverley hasn't looked bad in one of the most important positions on the pitch

Hasn't looked a world-beater either but maybe will be with time

Moyes surely will rely on him
 
No. Just remembering it. Carrick was playing Premier League football at 18. Not exactly his fault West Ham were relegated.

And loads of big clubs were queuing up to sign him of course.

14th place Spurs really broke the bank when they shelled out 3.5m to sign him. I hear they beat off competition from Barca and Arsenal.

And yet you claim he was at the time FAR better than Cleverley is at the same age today!!

Not just better. Not just in your subjective opinion. But undoubtedly FAR better.

Deary me. How people can be so blind to their own ignorance and biased assumptions amuses me greatly. Wake the feck up.
 
Really like Rowem's editing on his last post to really make it uber-sarcastic when it was just very sarcastic to start with

Keep it up son, another two or three to get your point across
 
The suggestion that a 23 year old Carrick who was bought by a Spurs side that finished 14th, for 3.5m from a Championship, facing no competition from bigger clubs for his signature, was a FAR better player than 23 year old Tom Cleverley, who played a significant part in United and England's midfield, putting in excellent performances against some of the best teams in the world is absolutely fecking stupid.

The comparison to Gibson in this debate is beyond irrelevant.

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?
 
Really like Rowem's editing on his last post to really make it uber-sarcastic when it was just very sarcastic to start with

Keep it up son, another two or three to get your point across

:lol:

I was that annoyed I felt extra emphasis was required!

I might well be acting like a prick but I'm right. I'm on a crusade to make people actually think about the nonsense they spout. I'm absolutely doomed to failure, but I can't resist trying.
 
:lol:

I was that annoyed I felt extra emphasis was required!

I might well be acting like a prick but I'm right. I'm on a crusade to make people actually think about the nonsense they spout. I'm absolutely doomed to failure, but I can't resist trying.

That's the redcafe spirit mate

Congrats on reaching the 10k mark on that note
 
The suggestion that a 23 year old Carrick who was bought by a Spurs side that finished 14th, for 3.5m from a Championship, facing no competition from bigger clubs for his signature, was a FAR better player than 23 year old Tom Cleverley, who played a significant part in United and England's midfield, putting in excellent performances against some of the best teams in the world is absolutely fecking stupid.

The comparison to Gibson in this debate is beyond irrelevant.

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.
 
And loads of big clubs were queuing up to sign him of course.

14th place Spurs really broke the bank when they shelled out 3.5m to sign him. I hear they beat off competition from Barca and Arsenal.

And yet you claim he was at the time FAR better than Cleverley is at the same age today!!

Not just better. Not just in your subjective opinion. But undoubtedly FAR better.

Deary me. How people can be so blind to their own ignorance and biased assumptions amuses me greatly. Wake the feck up.

Arsenal did want him by the way. Idiot.
 
:lol:

I was that annoyed I felt extra emphasis was required!

I might well be acting like a prick but I'm right. I'm on a crusade to make people actually think about the nonsense they spout. I'm absolutely doomed to failure, but I can't resist trying.

And loads of big clubs were queuing up to sign him of course.

14th place Spurs really broke the bank when they shelled out 3.5m to sign him. I hear they beat off competition from Barca and Arsenal.

And yet you claim he was at the time FAR better than Cleverley is at the same age today!!

Not just better. Not just in your subjective opinion. But undoubtedly FAR better.

Deary me. How people can be so blind to their own ignorance and biased assumptions amuses me greatly. Wake the feck up.

Indeed.
 
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.

:lol: "The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding in this case... is a football"
 
Arsenal did want him by the way. Idiot.

If Wenger wanted him he would not have had to have tried to hard to have secured his signature when he left West Ham in 2004. Spurs were the only club who made serious overtures and got him for £3.5m. That was dirt cheap at the time. We paid double that for Alan Smith in the same summer and almost ten times that to get Rooney.

Wenger has said he considered signing Carrick as a replacement for Vieria when he left in 2005 which is after he did his first season at Spurs. It's the season after when he started to look a very good player hence our interest in the summer of 2006.

Rowem's spot on. If anything Carrick's development with West Ham, then Spurs and then a big move to United should show that Cleverley development is on the right track.
 
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.
 
Strange the way his form completely went downhill around the half way point this season. Seems like a different player to the one we saw at the start of last season.
 
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..




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.

That doesn't make him a better player. He was brought through the club and has struggled to hold down a starting spot ahead of a near 40 yea told and a defender. The person who said bring up Gibson was irrelevant, it wasn't by the way, brings up his mate. Go and lie down for a while and come back when you're feeling better.
 
If Wenger wanted him he would not have had to have tried to hard to have secured his signature when he left West Ham in 2004. Spurs were the only club who made serious overtures and got him for £3.5m. That was dirt cheap at the time. We paid double that for Alan Smith in the same summer and almost ten times that to get Rooney.

Wenger has said he considered signing Carrick as a replacement for Vieria when he left in 2005 which is after he did his first season at Spurs. It's the season after when he started to look a very good player hence our interest in the summer of 2006.

Rowem's spot on. If anything Carrick's development with West Ham, then Spurs and then a big move to United should show that Cleverley development is on the right track.
Wenger mentioned he was interested if Vieira was to leave. He didn't leave until the year after when Carrick was already at Spurs.

He's not spot on at all. He's saying that because Cleverley is playing for Utd at that age it means he was better than Carrick because he was at Spurs. By the same logic he's also better than Bale. It's retarded logic.
 
That doesn't make him a better player. He was brought through the club and has struggled to hold down a starting spot ahead of a near 40 yea told and a defender. The person who said bring up Gibson was irrelevant, it wasn't by the way, brings up his mate. Go and lie down for a while and come back when you're feeling better.

He's struggled with consistency, not with his competition.

Tom was in very good form in the first half of the season, so good that he started pretty much every big game around then. If he'd have maintained that early season form, it would have been a different story IMO.

As Cleverly gets older and more experienced, I believe he will be able to maintain a high level of performance throughout a whole season.
 
So cause Carrick wasnt that good at 23 and wasnt wanted by the best teams in the world but turned out to be a very good midfielder the same has to count for Clev?

Don't get that. We certainly can hope that he will turn out to be as good as him, but let's judge him by what we see atm shall we?

And I see a player that might turn into a decent midfielder. I don't see him becoming top class. And even when he had this good spell at the start of the season I think he was overhyped. Just as much as he is written off now by some.
 
He's struggled with consistency, not with his competition.

Tom was in very good form in the first half of the season, so good that he started pretty much every big game around then. If he'd have maintained that early season form, it would have been a different story IMO.

As Cleverly gets older and more experienced, I believe he will be able to maintain a high level of performance throughout a whole season.

The point being he hasn' maintained it and has yet to prove he's quite good enough to play regularly. The further point I'm making is at similar ages Carrick was a much better player but apparently because he didn't play for Man United this is impossible.
 
He's not spot on at all. He's saying that because Cleverley is playing for Utd at that age it means he was better than Carrick because he was at Spurs. By the same logic he's also better than Bale. It's retarded logic.

Firstly, get your facts right.

I haven't said that Cleverley at 23 is better than Carrick.

I have responded to your claim that Carrick was FAR better at 23 than Cleverley is, and pointed out that ALL evidence contradicts this. I have made no statement about whether Cleverley is better, equal or similar in terms of ability - I have merely disputed the claim that he is worse, and presented the evidence.

The fact that you don't even understand my comments speaks volumes. You apply your assumptions to my comments in order for them to fit with your pre-existing conclusions on the matter. You have no intention of actually reading my comments, empathizing with my point of view and applying the points made to your opinion. You have your opinion, and any opinion that counters it you instantly assume they must think that because of your pre-existing opinion on why people think that.

Wake. Up.
 
That doesn't make him a better player. He was brought through the club and has struggled to hold down a starting spot ahead of a near 40 yea told and a defender. The person who said bring up Gibson was irrelevant, it wasn't by the way, brings up his mate. Go and lie down for a while and come back when you're feeling better.

What does Giggs and Jones have with how good Carrick was at age 23?

You're so blinded by your existing bias and ignorance it actually makes me pity you.

And with that, I'll leave you to it. I'll let you get the last word in, it's highly unlikely to be anything worthwhile or insightful.
 
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..

I never contribute anything, just bicker over meaningless things - it's my m.o.

No one is saying Cleverly is John O'Shea, just that at the moment his talent level suggest he'll more than likely have a career similar to someone like Phil Neville - not that being John O'Shea is a slight at any rate.

You can't really compare the criticisms Carrick was getting at 25-26 because at the time, Carrick was very quickly establishing himself as one of the key members of the squad which would go on to dominate English (and European) football for about 5 years. There was clear evidence to the contrary on the pitch and he was supported by SAF. Cleverly hasn't shown very much at all and even SAF seems to see his limitations.

As for your Carrick at 23 thing, it makes more sense to show Cleverly is superior through concrete evidence rather than something as anecdotal as "well he didn't get offers from big clubs", something you can't confirm even if you tried. Maybe, like most people even on this forum, people didn't realise what he could offer, whereas it was easier for a club like Chelsea to identify one of his teammates, Frank Lampard, because he had a keen eye for goal and his greater attacking influence.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
 
Firstly, get your facts right.

I haven't said that Cleverley at 23 is better than Carrick.

I have responded to your claim that Carrick was FAR better at 23 than Cleverley is, and pointed out that ALL evidence contradicts this. I have made no statement about whether Cleverley is better, equal or similar in terms of ability - I have merely disputed the claim that he is worse, and presented the evidence.

The fact that you don't even understand my comments speaks volumes. You apply your assumptions to my comments in order for them to fit with your pre-existing conclusions on the matter. You have no intention of actually reading my comments, empathizing with my point of view and applying the points made to your opinion. You have your opinion, and any opinion that counters it you instantly assume they must think that because of your pre-existing opinion on why people think that.

Wake. Up.

You don't think he's worse? Are you saying they were equally good at the same time. There is no evidence. Playing for a particular club is not evidence. It's one subjective opinion set against another. You have yours I have mine. Of course in your own words you are right. Way to open yourself up the debate hou're implying you now want. I'll leave you to keep boiling over if you like.
 
What does Giggs and Jones have with how good Carrick was at age 23?

You're so blinded by your existing bias and ignorance it actually makes me pity you.

And with that, I'll leave you to it. I'll let you get the last word in, it's highly unlikely to be anything worthwhile or insightful.

They have nothing to do with Carrick. They have to with the level Cleverley is at the fact that just because be happens to be a Manchester United player that Carrick couldn't possibly have better at the same age. The point being that in a stronger era of United midfielders he'd be nowhere near the first team. Reading is not your strong suit.
 
One bad game against Chelsea and the Caf's changed their mind? He was great in the first 45 against Madrid at home, he's a talented lad who needs time to grow. Not getting injuries this year was the main thing for me. You take Cleverley away from that October to February period and I don't think Carrick grows into this season. He's not the midfielder everyone yearns for but neither was Carrick, give the lad time.
 
One bad game against Chelsea and the Caf's changed their mind? He was great in the first 45 against Madrid at home, he's a talented lad who needs time to grow. Not getting injuries this year was the main thing for me. You take Cleverley away from that October to February period and I don't think Carrick grows into this season. He's not the midfielder everyone yearns for but neither was Carrick, give the lad time.

Who has changed their mind? Personally I've always had the opinion that Cleverley is good enough for Utd, he's just never looked like he's quite good enough or talented enough to be a full on core member of our team, at least not with the standards you'd expect here. He can still be a great squad player though.
 
They have nothing to do with Carrick. They have to with the level Cleverley is at the fact that just because be happens to be a Manchester United player that Carrick couldn't possibly have better at the same age. The point being that in a stronger era of United midfielders he'd be nowhere near the first team. Reading is not your strong suit.

Who Cleverley? Well that isn't true is it. In what era would that be?

He's got more than enough talent to be a top player for us for many years. He needs to add consistency and improve various areas of his game, but that will come with experience.

Look at Carrick, who is now peaking at the age of 31. Cleverley is still only 23, who would bet against him improving considerably. He has already shown he has the technical quality. He nailed down the CM spot for a long run of games when we played some of our best football this season, including in some of the biggest matches. This proved he has what it takes to contribute positively to our play already despite his relative inexperience and I bet he comes back even stronger next year.

Even if we sign a world class CM it wont be to Cleverley's detriment. The competition will help improve him further. The playing time for him and the new CM will be freed up by space made available from rests for Carrick, as well as the game time that was given to Scholes/Fletcher/Giggs/Jones/Anderson in CM this year.
 
It's as if all the Caf's anger has seeped out of the Rooney thread and into here. You can't use an argument for a player's future based on what happened with another player's development, these are individuals and there are many factors.

Right now there are already players at top clubs that are younger than him and better than him, but that doesn't mean he can't develop further, the same way it doesn't mean he'll develop as well as Carrick did from the same age.
 
Who has changed their mind? Personally I've always had the opinion that Cleverley is good enough for Utd, he's just never looked like he's quite good enough or talented enough to be a full on core member of our team, at least not with the standards you'd expect here. He can still be a great squad player though.

What's a core member of the squad? He was that right up until the Chelsea game. Young players need time, the Caf changes their mind every 5 mins with players. Surely from Carrick, Evans, Fletcher, Rafael and De Gea people have learnt. The problem for me is that I really do think people are setting ridiculous standards, you won't see another midfield 4 like we had. He's just had a decent game and people are harping on about other players at the same age like development is linear.
 
What's a core member of the squad? He was that right up until the Chelsea game. Young players need time, the Caf changes their mind every 5 mins with players. Surely from Carrick, Evans, Fletcher, Rafael and De Gea people have learnt. The problem for me is that I really do think people are setting ridiculous standards, you won't see another midfield 4 like we had. He's just had a decent game and people are harping on about other players at the same age like development is linear.

A nailed on first teamer, I see Cleverley as more of a squad player. It's hardly an insult, nothing wrong with being a squad player at Man Utd.

This isn't some new opinion I've formed, I've always had it, always.
 
A nailed on first teamer, I see Cleverley as more of a squad player. It's hardly an insult, nothing wrong with being a squad player at Man Utd.

This isn't some new opinion I've formed, I've always had it, always.

How many core members do we really have though? It may change under Moyes but rotation is a big part of our game, no point having a big squad otherwise. Cleverley started our biggest game of the season when another 'core' member didn't. If that's your opinion that's fine, I just don't like the periodic mood swings in threads, really would have thought people have learnt from the past.
 
How many core members do we really have though? It may change under Moyes but rotation is a big part of our game, no point having a big squad otherwise. He started our biggest game of the season when another 'core' member didn't. If that's your opinion that's fine, I just don't like the periodic mood swings in threads, really would have thought people have learnt from the past.

Right now our midfield is a bit shit and clearly needs to be addressed, I won't read much into him starting particular games, let alone one. Nani was picked for that too and then magically disappeared for most of the season. He was also dropped quite regularly in favour of midfielders who aren't actually midfielders at all.
 
Right now our midfield is a bit shit and clearly needs to be addressed, I won't read much into him starting particular games, let alone one. Nani was picked for that too and then magically disappeared for most of the season. He was also dropped quite regularly in favour of midfielders who aren't actually midfielders at all.

By quite regularly you mean the last 2 months of the season, one of which was more or less pointless. Madrid at home was Sir Alex's last shot, he set out a specific gameplan and trusted Cleverley with a disciplined role. Our midfield isn't shit, it just needs a few more bodies.
 
By quite regularly you mean the last 2 months of the season, one of which was more or less pointless. Madrid at home was Sir Alex's last shot, he set out a specific gameplan and trusted Cleverley with a disciplined role. Our midfield isn't shit, it just needs a few more bodies.

Rooney, Giggs and Jones were all regularly picked in midfield ahead of him throughout the season. He didn't play in the first Madrid game did he? Carrick has played in basically every game he's been fit for this season, cause he's a core member of the team, Cleverley has been in and out, cause he's a squad player, that's the way I see it for the future too. We're very likely to sign a midfielder or two that are better than him, and quite rightly, so I can't see it changing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.