Tom Cleverley | 2012-14 Performances

[ninety]

I agree that he unremarkable on the ball, his game is more or less just pass and move, without creating a whole lot. He gets us ticking over and passing the ball but not a whole lot else. But I don't think he's finished article. He might've just turned 24 but he's really only had one full season in the United first team. He was injured for most of the 11/12 season after starting brightly and it wasn't really until last season that he was injury-free and playing regularly. I'm expecting him to have more of an impact this season because there is no doubt that all the injuries he's had have hampered his development. For me he needs to be able to provide that incisive final ball that his game currently lacks.

I like him alot but his game seems to be based on pure energy off the ball. Pressing, chasing, closing down, but when on the ball, I don't think he does anything which really sets him apart. His shooting is erratic, his passing is okay, I don't think I've seen him play a successful cross. He's relatively 'neat and tidy' as everyone says, but I've always viewed that term as a diplomatic way of branding a footballer is very unremarkable. .

Sums up my thoughts on him nicely.

 

[Nathan]

I must admit i am not a big fan of cleverly. I think he has been given ample opportunity to stamp his authority on the game but too often it results in him running into blind allies. Yesterday he had a perfect opportunity to score only for him to place the ball hopelessly wide.

I dont think we can have passengers in the midfield, those who are chosen to play must be able to defend and put us on the front foot and link up the play, sadly cleverly doesnt have this in his armoury.

 

[paceme]

He's a solid squad member at the moment but young midfielders are very hard to judge potential wise at times.

 

[Comsmit]

If Fellaini and Cleverley were both at United, do people honestly believe that Cleverley would start/play more games than him?

I don't. Fellaini is the better player and people like Brightonian undervalue what he could bring to United's engine room. It would be more than Cleverley provides at present, that isn't a dispute as far as I'm concerned. I think he would be perfect for United.

I feel a few are truly underrating him and at the same time overrating Cleverley. Tom's a decent player but he's hardly going to start pulling up trees.

 

[Bilbo]

Its always interesting to see when that deadline is for a player we bring through the ranks. When do they stop being that player we are just excited about seeing play for the first team, and start becoming that player of whom we expect great things?

For me Cleverly is still in the former category. He has a huge burden on him because of the current view of our midfield, but its unfair to expect him to progress any quicker than he already is. Let the boy develop. He has the potential to improve still and, with the way he gets himself into good positions around the opponents box, I can see him becoming a player that could deliver a dozen goals a season.

 

[Stack]

How many dispute we still need to strenghten in the midfield? I like Clevz, his movement and short passing is top notch however he still has a lot to learn and needs shooting lessons from Scholes. He's always trying to place/pass it in when it needs a laced shot. He's awareness is usually very good but rarely tries a risky pass or killer long pass. Good tidy player but no world beater!

78th minute at the CS game and he sent a killer pass forward to Evra. 1 touch pass from deep, as the ball came to him he looked, saw Evra and made the pass.

 

[bananaman]

Cleverly is still very young for a centre midfielder, isnt he only turning 24 today?
This is a big year for him.

 

[Stack]

I don't. Fellaini is the better player and people like Brightonian undervalue what he could bring to United's engine room. It would be more than Cleverley provides at present, that isn't a dispute as far as I'm concerned. I think he would be perfect for United.

I feel a few are truly underrating him and at the same time overrating Cleverley. Tom's a decent player but he's hardly going to start pulling up trees.

2 quite different players to compare. I like Fellaini, hope we sign him to be honest. Tom is more than a decent player.

 

[apotheosis]

Disagree on both points.

I remember Fletcher completely dominating you lot in the CL before a ludicrous red card. Before his illness took full fold Fletcher was an incredibly under-rated player.

I think Cleverley is aswell, He never does anything spectacular, but he presses hard every game, rarely gives possession away cheaply, has great control and 1-2 touch passing. He's the perfect person you want in the middle keeping things ticking over.

In terms of England I can see a midfield of Cleverley / Wilshere being a brilliant combination because Cleverley would allow Wilshere to express himself and go forward and create things while he'd always be the safe option available for a pass or to set up the quick counter attack. Wilshere is the better talent and you'd be mad to argue otherwise but you need people like Cleverley to allow him to make the most of his talent. You'd never say Makelele was the most talented footballer in the Chelsea squad but he allowed those with the attacking fair to do their thing. I see Cleverley doing the same thing for England with Wilshere

Comparing his situation to Fletcher's seems to be missing the point. Fletcher was a danger to the opponent, he put their top players under pressure and that's why he became important to the team. Even the Makelele comparison fails to highlight that he performed a role no other in the team could fulfil as effectively, that is why he was vital to Madrid, and why they were far less effective when he left. Your description of Cleverley's contribution tells it's own tale, he fulfils the basics, which is really the least you should expect from a player at a top club. You could probably find a thousand players across Europe who work hard, rarely give the ball away, and play 1 and 2 touch passes across the midfield. A top player surely has to offer more than that, if TC is capable of more than at present, he doesn't seem to have the confidence to display it.

For me, he is being criticised for what Carrick was being criticised for a couple of years ago, which is playing it safe and not doing enough to make a difference. It may be a confidence issue, but the difference between Carrick and TC, is thatwhereas we knew Carrick had the talent, the jury is still out on TC. If he was reproducing the type of dynamism we saw a couple of years ago, then we probably wouldn't be looking so hard for a top quality midfielder. The problem is he now looks nothing like the player we saw ripping it up with Ando a couple of years back, he has not improved, and if anything has regressed under the weight of expectation. He now looks like he is more worried about taking a risk than making a difference, and that to me is indication that he lacks the self belief of someone like fletcher, who understood what he had to do to get into the team and showed the determination to ensure that he was the most effective option for what he could offer.

Clevs needs to do likewise, as opposed to staying under the radar, taking no risks and playing it safe. We need far more from him if he is to be a regular in our midfield, rather than simply a competent stop gap until some real top quality comes along.[/quote]

 

[Ash_G]

I He's just an odd player really. I've said it before but he's sort of in between a central midfielder and an attacking midfielder. Most the time I see him he always wants to move in to the pass but I can't remember many times where he'll then turn and face forward, always feels like he moves it sideways and then he himself will make the forward run, usually into a wide area. That for me leads to him often ending up in positions where we don't need him to be, getting himself to far away from his partner.

When we play at a quick tempo he fits in nicely as he can just keep things going, I still think his drawbacks can be seen even in this role, he's often very conservative, looking to ensure he keeps the ball and it leads to him not seeing in time some passes that he could make that would put us in to a dangerous area.

When its slow though is when you see the real problems. As I said above he doesn't look really happy to just get the ball and play it forwards through the middle, he's always the one really moving and when we need to cover the distance a bit quicker his style just leads to slowing us down and leaving us open to counter attacks. He needs others to be playing well atm to really influence.

I wouldn't compare him to Carrick/Fletch when people felt they weren't at their best because both always kept the ball well, as Clev does, but both were far better defensively than him. It would be fine if he was just a tidy player who kept things ticking and kept things solid in the middle, but he likes to drift and it can cause issues for me, certainly defensively.

Still he's still learning and I think a lot of it is more his approach/confidence rather than something he lacks and in fairness when he's forced to play a more disciplined role, such as in some of the bigger games you can see he definitely helps with his ability to move the ball on quickly and neatly.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Something hasn't been clicking for him. He looked so much more impressive when he first broke into the first team. He seemed to think quicker than most players as if he made up his mind about what to do before he got the ball. Now he just seems to play simple passes most of the time. Not that he played badly on Sunday, but I think something he's capable of, is lacking.

 

[Ash_G]

I think it was a case that when he first came it we were on a bit off a high, I think that period is often overly fondly remembered. The same things happened to his game as are happening now in the West Brom and probs the ifrst half or so of the Spurs ggame, game once they got organized. Our play slowed down and Clev didn't bring much. The second half against City and Spurs plus Arsenal which were high energy, fast tempo games, he fitted in nicely because he can keep up with the speed the others were passing, so was complimenting them nicely. But once the game becomes tighter he just struggles to do much as I think the onus because more on him to do something.

 

[ArmchairCritic]

First season was injury hit, second was him bedding in, he'll kick on now and he's the type of player Moyes likes. He'll be a very good midfielder for us.

 

[adexkola]

That's why Wilshere would cost so much if he joined us.

 

[apotheosis]

I He's just an odd player really. I've said it before but he's sort of in between a central midfielder and an attacking midfielder. Most the time I see him he always wants to move in to the pass but I can't remember many times where he'll then turn and face forward, always feels like he moves it sideways and then he himself will make the forward run, usually into a wide area. That for me leads to him often ending up in positions where we don't need him to be, getting himself to far away from his partner.

When we play at a quick tempo he fits in nicely as he can just keep things going, I still think his drawbacks can be seen even in this role, he's often very conservative, looking to ensure he keeps the ball and it leads to him not seeing in time some passes that he could make that would put us in to a dangerous area.

When its slow though is when you see the real problems. As I said above he doesn't look really happy to just get the ball and play it forwards through the middle, he's always the one really moving and when we need to cover the distance a bit quicker his style just leads to slowing us down and leaving us open to counter attacks. He needs others to be playing well atm to really influence.

Agree with all that Ash, nicely put.

I wouldn't compare him to Carrick/Fletch when people felt they weren't at their best because both always kept the ball well, as Clev does, but both were far better defensively than him. It would be fine if he was just a tidy player who kept things ticking and kept things solid in the middle, but he likes to drift and it can cause issues for me, certainly defensively.

Still he's still learning and I think a lot of it is more his approach/confidence rather than something he lacks and in fairness when he's forced to play a more disciplined role, such as in some of the bigger games you can see he definitely helps with his ability to move the ball on quickly and neatly.

That's the point I was trying to make. Fletch didn't keep the ball well, and he wasn't that good defensively when he first came in. If Fletch would have contributed only what clevs does currently, that would not have been enough to get him in our team. Fletch was more of an attacking player when he first came through, but he quickly realised he wasn't going to dislodge our attackers, so he worked hard at developing other aspects of his game to offer us something we lacked (namely Keano's aggression and capacity to dominate) which gave him the opportunity to then become a regular. At one point - in the big games - he was up there with the first names on the team sheet, and rightly so, because he was easily the best option we had for that manner of contribution.

Cleverley has to do likewise in my view. We currently lack someone who can drive forward with the ball, turn opponents back towards their own goal and be the link between the attack and midfield. I think he is capable of that because we have seen it from him before. He may not be the best at it, but then neither is Anderson, but it is still an attribute which can make a huge difference in games. That is my issue with his current contribution, he looks half the player we expected, and that's why I likened him to Carrick and the criticism he received for playing it safe, rather than showing a Fletch like determination to make the difference.

 

[RedRover]

Also I'd say he's worth about 15ish whilst Wilshere's worth around 40 or over, around 3 times the price.

Disagree with you Liam on you saying quality isn't the issue.

Who would pay £15 million for Cleverly? If he left the top 6 or 7 sides probably wouldn't be interested - and how many teams below that could, or would pay that money?

 

[RedRover]

Agree with all that Ash, nicely put.



That's the point I was trying to make. Fletch didn't keep the ball well, and he wasn't that good defensively when he first came in. If Fletch would have contributed only what clevs does currently, that would not have been enough to get him in our team. Fletch was more of an attacking player when he first came through, but he quickly realised he wasn't going to dislodge our attackers, so he worked hard at developing other aspects of his game to offer us something we lacked (namely Keano's aggression and capacity to dominate) which gave him the opportunity to then become a regular. At one point - in the big games - he was up there with the first names on the team sheet, and rightly so, because he was easily the best option we had for that manner of contribution.

Cleverley has to do likewise in my view. We currently lack someone who can drive forward with the ball, turn opponents back towards their own goal and be the link between the attack and midfield. I think he is capable of that because we have seen it from him before. He may not be the best at it, but then neither is Anderson, but it is still an attribute which can make a huge difference in games. That is my issue with his current contribution, he looks half the player we expected, and that's why I likened him to Carrick and the criticism he received for playing it safe, rather than showing a Fletch like determination to make the difference.

Fletcher is a good example of a player who made the most of what he had when he got into th first team - not a world beater but found a place and a role in the side, although its worth noting that in his best years he had a better team around him - Ronaldo, Tevez and Rooney up top were a lot for teams to handle with their work rate and ability and Scholes could control a game.

To me the biggest thing he learned was discipline - being happy to anchor the midfield and let more creative players around him do heir stuff.

Cleverley doesn't look like that kind of player - he runs around a lot, works hard but seems to have a bit of the headless chicken about him at times.

 

[SilentWitness]

Just wondering but if people rated Cleverley and Gibson out of 10 during their time at United (So Cleverley until now and Gibson until he came to us) what would they give them? Gibson was around a million or so wasn't he? Even though he was given a torrid time with abuse he can't have been THAT bad.

To be honest, if you offered me Gibson or Cleverley at this time i would take Gibson, and Fellaini is better than Gibson.

To say he is worth £15 million right now is laughable tbh.

 

[Gazza]

Cleverley has more potential and is a better fit for a team like United, imo. His movement and quick one/two-touch passing is just not something you'd see Gibson do consistently. Gibson did fine for United but it was evident from day one he didn't have enough to his game; we all said it at the time: he has a great shot and long pass on him but that's not enough. Cleverley has more to his game but needs the consistency and stamina to show it. Look at Cleverley's offerings in the early part of the 2011/12 season (including Community Shield vs City) and you'll see why he's closer to the midfielder United want than Gibson.

 

[ghaliboy]

Fletcher is a good example of a player who made the most of what he had when he got into th first team - not a world beater but found a place and a role in the side, although its worth noting that in his best years he had a better team around him - Ronaldo, Tevez and Rooney up top were a lot for teams to handle with their work rate and ability and Scholes could control a game.

Fletch always had a tireless engine and a willingness to get in and try and win the ball though. It's not exactly a talent that players are born with or can be 'coached into'. IMO.

To say he is worth £15 million right now is laughable tbh.

It's a fair assessment. But would you say that 16m for Henderson is laughable as well?

 

[surf]

Just wondering but if people rated Cleverley and Gibson out of 10 during their time at United (So Cleverley until now and Gibson until he came to us) what would they give them? Gibson was around a million or so wasn't he? Even though he was given a torrid time with abuse he can't have been THAT bad.

To be honest, if you offered me Gibson or Cleverley at this time i would take Gibson, and Fellaini is better than Gibson.

To say he is worth £15 million right now is laughable tbh.

To be fair to Cleverley he is an England regular, which adds something to his sale value. The only reason to take Gibson over Cleverley is if you are Gibson's mum.

 

[Gazza]

Fletch always had a tireless engine and a willingness to get in and try and win the ball though. It's not exactly a talent that players are born with or can be 'coached into'. IMO.

It's a fair assessment. But would you say that 16m for Henderson is laughable as well?

I was going to namecheck Henderson, but to me all English young talent is overpriced so I agree it's hard to say Cleverley is worth that anymore than Henderson was worth what he cost. But in this market, Cleverley's potential is probably worth that.

 

[ghaliboy]

I was going to namecheck Henderson, but to me all English young talent is overpriced so I agree it's hard to say Cleverley is worth that anymore than Henderson was worth what he cost. But in this market, Cleverley's potential is probably worth that.

For sure. It's a bit of a 'skew' on the valuation. I genuinely think Cleverley has more in his locker than Henderson but I would probably say they are pretty similar and in this case to me it is a bit of a 'if he went for this then this guy should go for the same' scenario. Even though I don't like doing that.

 

[apotheosis]

Fletcher is a good example of a player who made the most of what he had when he got into th first team - not a world beater but found a place and a role in the side, although its worth noting that in his best years he had a better team around him - Ronaldo, Tevez and Rooney up top were a lot for teams to handle with their work rate and ability and Scholes could control a game.

To me the biggest thing he learned was discipline - being happy to anchor the midfield and let more creative players around him do heir stuff.

Cleverley doesn't look like that kind of player - he runs around a lot, works hard but seems to have a bit of the headless chicken about him at times.

Biggest thing I noted was that despite that being such a great team, and Fletcher being somewhat limited, he still found a way to make himself relevant by offering something the team lacked. I just don't see what Cleverley is offering that any of our other midfielders cannot offer and more. Anderson gives the ball away more often, but then he is far more adventurous with his passing. If he passed it 5 or 10 yards side to side opting for minimal risk then he could easily do what TC does, as well as offering the driving powerful runs into advanced areas. Giggs also offers far more than Cleverley, he can play deep next to Carrick and playmake from there, or carry the ball forward and provide a penetrative pass. Even the youngsters -Lingard and Januzaj - seem to offer something different to the likes of Giggs and Anderson.

Cleverley is clearly playing without much self belief in my view. Maybe he thinks not making mistakes will be enough to keep him in. Not for me, at a club like ours midfielders have to be able to contribute something noteworthy to keep the others out. He currently offers the type of contribution that you would want to see a game out - neat, tidy and safety first - rather than being able to turn a game. That has to change or he will be used only for what we can rely on him to produce, a safe option off the bench to boost numbers in midfield and help us close games out. I initially felt he could be a modric type player for us if he worked harder on his defensive side and positional sense. Now looks to have regressed at present rather than developing that early promise further.

 

[SilentWitness]

It's a fair assessment. But would you say that 16m for Henderson is laughable as well?

Of course it was, but Liverpool during that time spunked on a load of English crap so it always seems overly unfair to use Carroll/Downing/Henderson as examples.

To be fair to Cleverley he is an England regular, which adds something to his sale value. The only reason to take Gibson over Cleverley is if you are Gibson's mum.

Gibson would be a regular for Ireland if he wanted to be, i'm fairly sure the only reason he isn't is because of a falling out. Like someone said earlier, if you sold him to a club, do you think the top ones would be interested in him? I'm not sure. Cleverley may have the higher ability between him and Gibson but right now i'd say Gibson is the better overall player.

 

[Gazza]

Of course it was, but Liverpool during that time spunked on a load of English crap so it always seems overly unfair to use Carroll/Downing/Henderson as examples.




Gibson would be a regular for Ireland if he wanted to be, i'm fairly sure the only reason he isn't is because of a falling out. Like someone said earlier, if you sold him to a club, do you think the top ones would be interested in him? I'm not sure. Cleverley may have the higher ability between him and Gibson but right now i'd say Gibson is the better overall player.

I'd say the points I made still apply: stylistically, Cleverley is a more valuable commodity than Gibson. There are players out there who shoot and pass to a decent degree, but a player with Cleverley's sense of movement and quick thinking are rarer, especially in England.

I'll say this: if the choice was given again, I still would go for Cleverley over Gibson every day of the week. And I didn't dislike Gibson like some did when he was here.

 

[SilentWitness]

I'd say the points I made still apply: stylistically, Cleverley is a more valuable commodity than Gibson. There are players out there who shoot and pass to a decent degree, but a player with Cleverley's sense of movement and quick thinking are rarer, especially in England.

I'll say this: if the choice was given again, I still would go for Cleverley over Gibson every day of the week. And I didn't dislike Gibson like some did when he was here.

That is interesting you say that. I know it is hard to compare a player at United to a player at Everton as there are differing expectations, however, reading through this thread it seems adamant that Cleverley doesn't control games, it's Carrick who does, and he is really there to keep things ticking and such.

It has been evident in games for us that when Gibson has played we have looked much calmer and assured, and more controlled due to him controlling games. Sometimes when he has been subbed off we have turned to shit.

 

[ghaliboy]

That is interesting you say that. I know it is hard to compare a player at United to a player at Everton as there are differing expectations, however, reading through this thread it seems adamant that Cleverley doesn't control games, it's Carrick who does, and he is really there to keep things ticking and such.

It was interesting a few games in the last season people were having huge goes at Cleverley for simple things like 'not working in combination' with Carrick but it was Carrick doing things like 'not looking for Cleverley in good positions' and other things like 'not looking for space on the ball to give Cleverley an avenue to recieve a pass'.

It all just depends on the role as well. If you wanted an attacking player would you go with Gibson? If you wanted a defensive player would you go for Cleverley?

edit: Derp

 

[Gazza]

That is interesting you say that. I know it is hard to compare a player at United to a player at Everton as there are differing expectations, however, reading through this thread it seems adamant that Cleverley doesn't control games, it's Carrick who does, and he is really there to keep things ticking and such.

It has been evident in games for us that when Gibson has played we have looked much calmer and assured, and more controlled due to him controlling games. Sometimes when he has been subbed off we have turned to shit.

Cleverley doesn't control games, certainly not. He is at his best moving the ball quickly over short distances, imo. But having said that, he's young, new to the first team, and usually playing alongside Carrick who he defers to. In time he will become stronger physically and mentally, I hope, and that will include taking the initiative more. But in terms of movement and intelligence Cleverley is a fair few steps ahead of Gibson, and I see those abilities as vital for a United midfielder.

I don't think Gibson would control games for United and I think the system he plays in at Everton probably allows for his style to shine. Glad he's working out at Goodison though.

 

[Jiggs'Hamstring]

He can be our Leon Osman. I'm only half joking.

 

[Stack]

Cleverley doesn't look like that kind of player - he runs around a lot, works hard but seems to have a bit of the headless chicken about him at times.

He is a long long way from being a headless chicken. Those runs you see him making are sometimes to clear space, sometimes to make space for himself. He always makes himself available as an outlet for his team mates, often providing the wall pass to enable the ball to get to another team mate in a better position. None of his off the ball movement is without purpose. Unfortunately its often not noticed and his value to the team isnt understood.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

He can be our Leon Osman. I'm only half joking.

He'd need to add goals to his game, but yeah he can be used in the same way. Technically sound, and intelligence in movement.

 

[Ash_G]

Agree with all that Ash, nicely put.



That's the point I was trying to make. Fletch didn't keep the ball well, and he wasn't that good defensively when he first came in. If Fletch would have contributed only what clevs does currently, that would not have been enough to get him in our team. Fletch was more of an attacking player when he first came through, but he quickly realised he wasn't going to dislodge our attackers, so he worked hard at developing other aspects of his game to offer us something we lacked (namely Keano's aggression and capacity to dominate) which gave him the opportunity to then become a regular. At one point - in the big games - he was up there with the first names on the team sheet, and rightly so, because he was easily the best option we had for that manner of contribution.

Cleverley has to do likewise in my view. We currently lack someone who can drive forward with the ball, turn opponents back towards their own goal and be the link between the attack and midfield. I think he is capable of that because we have seen it from him before. He may not be the best at it, but then neither is Anderson, but it is still an attribute which can make a huge difference in games. That is my issue with his current contribution, he looks half the player we expected, and that's why I likened him to Carrick and the criticism he received for playing it safe, rather than showing a Fletch like determination to make the difference.

Cheers. Well if you mean Fletch when he was coming in around 18 I think than guess you could say he was raw, at 18 in general you would expect there to be some issues, but personally, as someone who always backed Fletch, I felt that he always showed a great workrate and a good reading of the game that let him be an important player in bigger games from a younger age. Plus when he came in he had to play right mid for a fair bit which wasn't really ideal for him. Clev although maybe hasn't had as much PL experience is a lot older and really imo should know his position better than he sometimes appears too.

I agreed with your point about Clev needing to develop his game though. The problem with wanting Clev to develop in that way imo is that it's a very tough skill to do. It's hard to develop that dribbling ability or that power and their not aspects that I see in Clevs game. He's got a good touch but I can't see him carrying the ball well. I think he can link up with players well, when those players are in gear, but as I said him making something happen just doesn't seem to happen. With Carrick personally I think whilst you can accuse Carrick of not utilizing his ability as much as he could have over his time here, for me he was still always filling an important function of being the best defensive player in the midfield, Fletch aside. I just don't see that from Clev, there are a fair few games where he's not defending well and he's not really attacking well, he's just there.

It sounds like I'm massively knocking him, I do think he's capable of being a good player for us. I reckon though he might end up in a deeper role, I don't think, despite it appearing to be his inclination, that he's suited to being the more attacking player, I just think he's missing key skills which would be hard to develop now. If he can stay more disciplined though he could be the deeper player, we'd have to see how well he reads the game, but I think with his ability to quickly keep the ball moving, good touch, and he is happy to get stuck in, he could maybe play the deeper role, but its speculative now. Right now I guess more than anything he needs to develop his confidence to try and do more from a deeper role and enforce himself on games without constantly needing to move out of the middle. The players should be moving around him, not him them.

 

[DanNistelrooy]

Just wondering but if people rated Cleverley and Gibson out of 10 during their time at United (So Cleverley until now and Gibson until he came to us) what would they give them? Gibson was around a million or so wasn't he? Even though he was given a torrid time with abuse he can't have been THAT bad.

To be honest, if you offered me Gibson or Cleverley at this time i would take Gibson, and Fellaini is better than Gibson.

To say he is worth £15 million right now is laughable tbh.

Gibson wasn't a bad player on the ball, could strike well and pass reasonably well. What drove me mad was his general laziness around the pitch, never making himself available when he should have been and was just a bit slow to get around the pitch. Didn't deserve all the abuse he got but he isn't a United player IMO.

I think Cleverley has reached higher heights for us in 2011/2012, he is much better suited to our style. One thing Gibson has over him is probably goal threat though he has surprisingly not hit the net much for you lot if I'm not mistaken...

 

[KingEric7]

Gibson was pretty poor in my opinion - bad off the ball, inexpressive on it and wasteful with his shooting. He did have a handful of decent/good performances but he was often a liability.

There is actually no comparison between him and Cleverley for us. It was the Cleverley and Carrick combination last year that turned our football from absolutely dreadful to decent during the first half of the season, and Cleverley was also an important component of a team that was playing wonderful football at the start of the previous season. Gibson never looked half as good for us and was never anywhere near as important as Cleverley has been.

Definitely not in the business of mindlessly laying into United players, but the whole Gibson episode was frustrating I felt.

 

[Brightonian]

There's simply no comparison between Cleverley and Gibson. Tom may not be a Fabregas, but if people think he's another Gibson (or even another Henderson, for that matter) they're having a laugh.

 

[gza the genius]

That is interesting you say that. I know it is hard to compare a player at United to a player at Everton as there are differing expectations, however, reading through this thread it seems adamant that Cleverley doesn't control games, it's Carrick who does, and he is really there to keep things ticking and such.

It has been evident in games for us that when Gibson has played we have looked much calmer and assured, and more controlled due to him controlling games. Sometimes when he has been subbed off we have turned to shit.

Cleverley himself doesn't control games but at his best he helps this United side tick. Our best games last season were all played with Carrick and Cleverley as the two midfielders. There were plenty of games that we ended up taking Cleverley off last season and there was a clear shift of the majority of possession going to our opponents. Stylistically alone I'd much rather have Cleverley in this United side, and even if you just compare the two straight up I don't think it's even debatable that Cleverley isn't the better player.

 

[RedRonaldo]

I remember during one summer Gibson was the reason we didn't sign anyone, according to Fergie and our coaching staff.

 

[RedRonaldo]

On the other hand, I think Cleverley does compliment Carrick quite well, one does all the classy works the other does the remaining.

 

[Ferguson]

Gibson is slow, otherwise he'd still be at United.