Last night was the first time that I actually saw how Clev could be an an excellent player. My only two concerns were that the opposition did not press the ball and that he was playing in a three man midfield. Against Senegal he did get out muscled and marginalised, though the referee really facilitated Senegal's style by not doing his job properly. I am skeptical about Clev in a blood and thunder 4-4-2 as he doesn't have much pace or strength, but as part of a three man midfield playing slick and intricate possession football I think that he will shine. He dosen't have the frustration factor of Anderson either as he doesn't give the ball away.
Tom Cleverley | 2012-14 Performances
- Thread starter Bebe
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
- Status
Agree with you - if Fletcher was fit or if Anderson and Cleverley didn't have the injury history they have, I wouldnt be worried.
But the fact remains - only Carrick hasn't got an injury history or the age really against him. Cleverley I believe a lot in - and if he stays injuryfree - we will manage nicely. But there are one or 2 questionsmarks too many in our central midfield.
I'm being devil's advocate, to be fair (as usual
) My personal opinion is that we do need to sign another CM. I'm just presenting the scenario above to show that the issue is not as black and white as it first seems. I'm sure Fergie plans for every season on the assumption that the player's in his squad won't miss large chunks of it through injury. You have to assume that players like Cleverley and Anderson will be available for selection, otherwise they're a waste of a squad number. On that basis, any new addition will potentially hinder the development of young players at the club who Fergie obviously sees as future mainstays of our team.I find the closer we get to the season, the more resigned I am to not signing any more midfielders, but also the more relaxed I am about that situation. Im not sure why exactly. Trust in SAF is probably a major part of it. A little self delusion as well perhaps. I find myself more and more able to imagine Anderson especially - Cleverley as well - staying fit for the majority of games, and fulfilling their destiny by becoming the greatest midfield pairing the club has had since Keane departed. There is nothing more to worry about, people. Sign up Van Persie, our midfield troubles are no more.
Yeah but when it comes to our midfield that's a big risk, one that has cost us quite heavily in the last few seasons, especially last year.I'm being devil's advocate, to be fair (as usual
I think we're going to be really reliant on Cleverley this season, and I hope to god he can stay fit. Hope for Anderson continues to dwindle, I don't think Scholes will be able to hack another full season, maybe the same for Giggs, and Fletcher won't be back. I think we'll need him playing 30+ games this year.
Do you? Despite what past experience tells you? Is that prudent or reckless? You talk about black and white: are things as black and white as you imply? You are either likely to be fit, or a waste of a squad number? Is there really no in between, no injury prone, may well not be available, but if they do come good will develop into a marvellous talent? Is there no room for these kind of calculated gambles? I dont see why not personally...
Anyway, back to what I was saying above. History be damned. Anderson will be the POTY.
It's obviously prudent to have cover in all positions. I just don't see the point in signing an extra player in a specific position, purely on the basis that the other options for that position might be injured more often than most.
I can see the sense when you're talking about a player in the twilight of his career, who will be getting less and less physically robust and can be gradually phased out in favour of the new signing but I don't see the sense in potentially doing the same to young players who are supposed to be on the cusp of their peak years as a footballer.
I think there is plenty of room, injuries or no. Personally I feel that if we were to bring a regular midfielder in, it should be Scholes and Giggs who suffer for appearances, not Anderson and Cleverley. It's not like we need to develop them anymore.
Exactly. If Scholes and Giggs end up not getting enough games we will have done very well, it'll end up being a natural passing of the baton, as opposed to learning how to cope without them. We shouldn't be worrying about ensuring opportunities for either of them. They're like our training wheels on a kids bike, the ideal situation is we don't need them and can remove them without really noticing.
Well I have always said that his natural position is in centre midfield and that was shown last season when you compare how he played for us there as opposed to for England U21s in the hole or wide right. Cleverley's a give and go player whose game depends on receiving the ball a lot and having people around to pass to. Whenever he's too far ahead or away from the play his influence drops significantly as was again shown in the first 15-20 minutes of the 2nd half last night.
I think Cleverley is in part what Ferguson talks about when he says that we don't need "holding" players as such. Nick Powell looks to be another case in point. Ferguson wants every one of his midfielders, even the more defensive minded ones, to be capable of conducting play and be capable passers.
The challenge is getting the right amount of bite in that mix as well, along with the drive and the neat passing and orchestrating. Cleverley can do the drive and the combinational play, and got plenty of energy. Carrick can shield and conduct play, but who's got the bite when we have our backs against the wall? I imagine Hargreaves was brought in for that very purpose, and we saw glimpses of it against Liverpool and Arsenal away in his debut season.
Obviously Fletcher at the peak of his powers was similar.
The challenge is getting the right amount of bite in that mix as well, along with the drive and the neat passing and orchestrating. Cleverley can do the drive and the combinational play, and got plenty of energy. Carrick can shield and conduct play, but who's got the bite when we have our backs against the wall? I imagine Hargreaves was brought in for that very purpose, and we saw glimpses of it against Liverpool and Arsenal away in his debut season.
Obviously Fletcher at the peak of his powers was similar.
Cleverley has plenty of bite when he wants. Look at his first few games of last season, especially the community sheild, where he was bullying and harasing Yaya Toure for most the 2nd half..
That was more an evidence of our supreme fitness on the day than an accurate representation in the bite stakes, between Tom and Touré.
Yaya Touré is much more of a physical presence in midfield. It's not really comparable.
And I feel a midfield of Carrick and Cleverley could still become unstuck Bilbao-style, because they don't really have the physical dominance required to answer to that sort of approach.
In theory, they're our best option right now, even if it would mean dropping the brilliance of Scholes for the added drive, thrust and energy of Cleverley.
Darren Fletcher is a huge miss for Man Utd.
As you point out while Tom Cleverley is a quality player he's the answer to a different question than Darren Fletcher. I was interested and unconvinced by what the Boss said about tackling being less important in football these days. The two most important players for City in the run in last season where Kompany and Toure. The elite of La Liga can play without those players because the elite of La Liga play a different way. Their ability to keep the ball means they're guaranteed to dominate midfield so they don't need a 'presence' but nobody can play quite like the Spanish not even the best Brazilian players. Its not an approach you can import to the Premier League wholesale and even Arsenal recognise that by having Song and Diaby.
I don't think how Cleverley performed against Toure was entirely down to superior fitness. While it was partly due to his conditioning Toure had looked no slouch as City had strolled past other teams during their own pre-season tour and they started the season, only a week later, with a bang so they cannot have been that far behind us on fitness. However, Cleverley is the player to take over from Scholesy. Like Scholesy he can tackle when needs must and the defensive side of his game is underrated but he's not steel in the centre. For that we'll need something else.
I'd agree with most of that - but to me it was perfectly clear that our fitness levels were much superior to City's at that Community Shield. English vs Italian build-up IMO. Perhaps they had planned to train a bit easier the last week before the PL started, and were heavy legged, but there was a clear difference. We absolutely mauled them, which we didn't come anywhere near doing once the season started properly.
It's because otherwise when you have an injury crisis you end up playing Park and Rafael in midfield and shipping three goals at home to Blackburn.
Park's moved on so that won't happen again, will it?
That said, if ever have an injury crisis of that magnitude again I'm sure we'll see similarly experimental line-ups. That's what comes with trying to find a balance between a squad big enough to cope with most eventualities yet not so bloated that we can't give youngsters the experience they need to develop.
Well that's reassuring
Thinking back that injury crisis was just ridiculous wasn't it? Very unlucky indeed.
You do have to strike that balance and it is more art than science. But I dont think it makes sense to ignore history. If someone has a record of being injured a lot it doesnt make sense to assume they wont be injured. So our midfield is a special case. It is better to have too much cover and risk someone being unsettled in that situation.
Also, Giggs and Scholes are old.
Anderson and Cleverley have barely had a full season of fitness between them in the last four years. Setting your squad up to rely on their fitness now falls into the daft/no one to blame but yourself category.
Fletcher is dead. Kagawa apparently is going to play ahead of the midfield. Powell is 18 years old and used to playing for Crewe, in attack.
It's quite conceivable that in the near future our reliable midfield options could end up being Michael Carrick (the midfield centreback), and that's it.
Also, who plays instead of Michael Carrick when he gets injured? ...even when Anderson and Cleverley were both excellent at the start of last season, people were still pulling their hair out on here because of the gaps they left in the middle of the park.
Anderson and Cleverley have barely had a full season of fitness between them in the last four years. Setting your squad up to rely on their fitness now falls into the daft/no one to blame but yourself category.
Fletcher is dead. Kagawa apparently is going to play ahead of the midfield. Powell is 18 years old and used to playing for Crewe, in attack.
It's quite conceivable that in the near future our reliable midfield options could end up being Michael Carrick (the midfield centreback), and that's it.
Also, who plays instead of Michael Carrick when he gets injured? ...even when Anderson and Cleverley were both excellent at the start of last season, people were still pulling their hair out on here because of the gaps they left in the middle of the park.
Last season, in our crucial Champions League game, we played a midfield of Giggs, Jones and Park. Then in our crucial Premier League title decider, we had to play Giggs and Scholes in the same midfield, with Park.
Just no.
Just no.
Like I said (can't remember if it was this thead?) I am being devil's advocate here. I do think we could do with another CM and Giggs/Scholes are the obvious players to drop if/when the young 'uns start to make a case for starting every week.
Having said that, I can understand why Fergie might be willing to take a calculated risk and defer a signing in CM for another 6-12 months if he really can't identify/sign the player he wants.
Basically the same stuff I've said for months. Anyone who tries to justify our current midfield being good enough is ... well .. dumb.
Look, the only really reliable CM we have is Michael Carrick. All our others are either pushing forty, not really a CM, injury prone, young and unproven, young and unproven and injury prone, young and unproven and in fact a defender, semi-retired, or dead.
I love a good Caf gibbering session or twenty, but there just shouldn't really be any debate about the fact that this is way too risky for a club playing the number of high-pressure games we do.
Especially given that the one reliable constant we're taking for granted is a very good, but not brilliant, slightly bemused Geordie.
EDIT: didn't see noods' identical post
I love a good Caf gibbering session or twenty, but there just shouldn't really be any debate about the fact that this is way too risky for a club playing the number of high-pressure games we do.
Especially given that the one reliable constant we're taking for granted is a very good, but not brilliant, slightly bemused Geordie.
EDIT: didn't see noods' identical post
It shouldn't be a debate. The only reason it is is that one of the people seemingly taking the opposing view is the only person whose opinion actually matters. SAF.
It's simple, SAF is going to push Rooney into midfield to allow Kagawa and RVP upfront.
Valencia---Carrick--Rooney---Nani
-----------Kagawa------------------
------------------RVP---------------
Sorted. Sort of.
Valencia---Carrick--Rooney---Nani
-----------Kagawa------------------
------------------RVP---------------
Sorted. Sort of.
Nah, we're going to buy as many wingers and forwards as possible so that we no longer have to play midfielders, push Carrick to left back while we're at it.
He's had 4 whole seasons where the weakest part of our (in fairness, brilliant) squad has been the central midfield to identify and sign that player. It's been evident since about 2008 that Scholes will need replacing, and since then a couple of players have died, Anderson has grown fatter and more inconsistant by the year, youth players who could have stepped up have left due to them being spoiled brats, Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs should by all rights be allowed to rest and not being hounded into playing football in their age, and Tom Cleverley has played about two matches.
If he hasn't really managed to identify one player who would be a reliant performer in a midfield with the sort of question marks hanging over it that we have, I'd say that's simply not good enough. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see us go through yet another summer window without strengthening this area of the pitch, but it just strikes me as somewhat daft, especially for a manager of Sir Alex's undoubted genius.
Last season, we would probably have won the league with another quality, reliable option in CM. And we would never have gone out of the Champions League, mostly due to us not having to play a midfield consisting of Giggs, Park and Jones together in a vital clash in Basel.
And I'm not even buying this "value" excuse, because there are most certainly options available to us that wouldn't cost us more than say Ashley Young or Phil Jones did last season, which would have improved us a whole lot.
Doughnut formation
See I don't buy this line about our European debacle last season being down to a misfiring midfield. We crashed out of the Cl almost entirely due to unforced errors at the back. It was our rookie defenders/keeper that cost us, not the players in front of them. Ditto in the league, most notably/memorably with the defensive cluster-feck that cost us 2 points against Everton.
But having a strong and experienced midfield in Basel would have meant that we would have controlled that game - as evidenced when they crashed out against FC Bayern, and as Sir Alex himself said, they aren't really a special team.
I don't think we would have let a 2-0 lead at home slip with a midfield duo pulling the strings and controlling the match, for instance. We simply were wide open that night. No defence could have withstood what they had coming at them on the night.
And don't get me started about the Benfica-game.
If you honestly don't think a quality, reliable performer in CM would have helped us get something more from at least one of those matches... Then you're surely Sir Alex!!
Youre not the devil's advocate Pogue. Youre the devil himself, damn you. Waging a one man campaign to ensure we never sign a midfielder.
You could say that about any position on the pitch. If we had another "quality, reliable performer" up front, maybe we would have scored the extra goal or two that made the difference? An extra "quality, reliable performer" at the back would have kept the score down, that's for damn sure. All of our worst European performances were typified by absolutely horrendous defending, I can't remember the last campaign where we gifted that many chances/goals to the opposition with basic defensive errors.But having a strong and experienced midfield in Basel would have meant that we would have controlled that game - as evidenced when they crashed out against FC Bayern, and as Sir Alex himself said, they aren't really a special team.
I don't think we would have let a 2-0 lead at home slip with a midfield duo pulling the strings and controlling the match, for instance. We simply were wide open that night. No defence could have withstood what they had coming at them on the night.
And don't get me started about the Benfica-game.
If you honestly don't think a quality, reliable performer in CM would have helped us get something more from at least one of those matches... Then you're surely Sir Alex!!
Didn't he admit at almost exactly this time last year that he was short of midfield options? ...and wouldn't our season have then fallen apart completely had someone not come out of retirement to effectively rescue him for not addressing it?
I refuse to believe he isn't aware of the problem.
I also still don't understand why Pogba wasn't made a huge priority at this time last year if we were struggling to bring anyone in. It should have been top of the "get sorted" list.
Fixed your post, as they say.
I'd disagree with you on the Everton match though, we lost that because we got swamped in midfield. We got swamped in midfield because Everton outnumbered us, Scholes having completely disappeared. We were outnumbered and overun because Sir Alex, in what I consider the single worst bit of management in his entire career, refused to make the most obviously needed change in recent football history. I was almost literally screaming at the TV for him to throw Jones into the midfield from the 75th minute on, but he sat there doing nothing, and Phil Neville was allowed to the freedom of the park to gift City the title. Then, with five minutes left to chase an unlikely winner, he responded by...sending Phil on into midfield. It's the closest football has ever come to giving me a nervous breakdown.
It probably was. SAF was talking him up a lot at the time. I'm sure that was intended to help negotiations along.
Of course, it takes two to tango.
Well, if we had gone into the Basel game playing Rafael and Park up front, then yeah, another striker might have been needed for us to get something from it.
Come on Pogue. You know as well as I do that the weakest part of our squad is CM, don't argue the feck out of whether or not we would have qualified with another reliable CM in the squad(we would've, just look at results with/without Scholes in the team post christmas for evidence of the effect it has).
Hmm. Let me try something here now: Pogue, have the Glazer family, who owns United, ever hindered you in any way from performing your job to maximum effect?
(I think we might be on to something Simon..)
On the one hand I agree.
On the other, lets just see if we actually sign anyone to cover this. I bet we dont. Just like we didnt last year, despite, as you said, acknowledging the problem then.
I hope I am wrong.
This business about Scholes 'saving our season' should probably be put to bed. He was great, but we got more points in the first half of the season than the second. We didn't bring him back to provide quality we were lacking, we brought him back to provide a living, breathing midfielder after three of main four all died at the same time.
- Status