Jump to content

Tom Cleverley


Bunnski

Recommended Posts

 

Cleverley has played for over 26 hours this season in the league for us and managed zero goals and zero assists!

 

This is a player who Lambert seemingly sees as an offensive player and the most forward thinking player of the midfield three.

 

26 hours!!! Can you imagine playing football for more than an entire day and being that crap!

How many hours have we not scored as a team for? 10 hours?? 10 players times 10 hours is?

 

Terrible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cleverley has played for over 26 hours this season in the league for us and managed zero goals and zero assists!

This is a player who Lambert seemingly sees as an offensive player and the most forward thinking player of the midfield three.

26 hours!!! Can you imagine playing football for more than an entire day and being that crap!

How many hours have we not scored as a team for? 10 hours?? 10 players times 10 hours is?

Terrible?
100 Edited by AVTuco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yillan I would have quoted your post but...... **** its long!

There's simply no way that would have happened for a loan fee. We pay what the loan is worth. Manu get his wages off the books knowing he'll be gone anyway. Better something small now than nothing now and nothing later. Hence the loan.

Cleverly isn't doing himself any favours by playing as he is though. Who would want him on his performances for us.

Edited by CannockVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, United will have written off his remaining transfer value against his wages for the season and taken a gamble on him performing well enough to persuade someone to offer them a fee for him in January. We'll be paying his wages (which he's currently stealing), United will be letting him go for nothing, which they'd have been doing anyway. The player will be getting more wages than he's worth when he signs for someone on a free.

 

In principle the only loser in United who couldn't get a fee for a player who had played for England not too long before they got shot of him.

 

In practice there are two other losers -  us because we're paying him and he's gone from average to awful and him because his decline means that even that wage hike that comes from being free is unlikely to match the wage that comes from being thought of as good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever seen a player of ours as unfairly maligned as Cleverley.

 

His problem is he is too like what we already have in central midfield. He's no better or worse - just more of the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think I've ever seen a player of ours as unfairly maligned as Cleverley.

 

His problem is he is too like what we already have in central midfield. He's no better or worse - just more of the same.

 

So why does he get so heavily criticised? I feel sorry for him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is no better or worse but he is the one who gets the most abuse, Delph has been as poor in his games from an attacking sense and nothing gets said

Delph has shown he can do it for us. Cleverley has shown nothing at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever seen a player of ours as unfairly maligned as Cleverley.

Yeah. He's not 'bad'. He's just nothing special. He puts a shift in, but for me lacks that little bit of quality. I'd have Westwood in ahead of him, and they seem to play quite similar roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So why does he get so heavily criticised? I feel sorry for him.

 

Because in a very poor midfield he's been our worst player. He's completely anonymous in games, offers nothing in attack or defence and just passes sideways/backwards/badly. Of the players who have played fairly regularly only Insomnia has been worse than him this season IMO.  He just isn't good enough and he'll end up at Sunderland or Hull be slightly less useless for them but no where near good enough to justify his wages and he'll end up in the championship where he might find his level.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He reminds me of a kid in a playground at a school just tear-arsing round following the ball, without ever doing anything useful with it.  I just think he's spectacularly average, like most of the rest of the midfielders, eg Delph and Westwood.  I had hopes for Sanchez and trust that the Arsenal was just a one off, and Gil could be the one bit of quality we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yillan I would have quoted your post but...... **** its long!

There's simply no way that would have happened for a loan fee. We pay what the loan is worth. Manu get his wages off the books knowing he'll be gone anyway. Better something small now than nothing now and nothing later. Hence the loan.

Cleverly isn't doing himself any favours by playing as he is though. Who would want him on his performances for us.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm still a little bit on my side that it's more than just a loan fee, or just a very big loan fee.

 

It wasn't a case of nothing now for Man Utd. He made 22 league appearances for them last season, 31 overall. I know they've spent money on new players, but chances are he'd have been in and around the squad, making appearances. It still comes down to what benefit is it for a team to buy  a player for a season, knowing that they could get them for free in the summer. Gareth Barry went to Man City for £12 million when he had just a year to run on his contract. Why did Man City consider it a good purchase when they knew if they waited a season, they could have gotten him for free?

 

There is value to be had by buying a player who has a year to run, rather than just waiting. And therefore value in having him even on loan for that last year of his contract with his old club. There's the value of having a player for the season, but also the value of having a year long contract talk with him, over why it would be a good idea for him to sign with you. As far as Man Utd were concerned if they sold him to Villa, they get £8 million and he never plays for them again. If they loan him, he never plays for them again, so how much does he cost?

 

Yes maybe a bit less, but if Man Utd were only willing to lose TC for that season for no less than £8 million, then why should they be willing to part with him for much less than that just because we haven't been able to agree terms. How did they arrive at the £8 million figure (I'm not saying this is actually the figure. Ballpark though maybe)? Villa offered £7 million, and Man Utd said, nah we'd rather keep him for that. He'll play out the rest of the contract here. So Villa came back with £8 million. That's the amount of money Man Utd wanted for Tom Cleverley, or he'd stay at their club for another season. So there's no reason to believe that the loan fee was anything else.

 

An additional fee in January doesn't make sense if we have loaned him for the entire season. At that point, we're negotiating directly with TC about what he's doing at the end of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He gets criticised because he's extremely ineffective and offers the team virtually nothing positive. On top of that he clearly only joined us because his preferred destination didn't materialise. 

 

He's a poor player, it's as simple as that. It's hard to think of worse central midfielders who played for us (as regulars) in recent times.

Edited by Dr_Pangloss
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He is no better or worse but he is the one who gets the most abuse, Delph has been as poor in his games from an attacking sense and nothing gets said

Delph has shown he can do it for us. Cleverley has shown nothing at all

 

 

but Delph has 1 assist all season which is equally appalling and nothing gets said to go with his 3 last season and ZERO the season before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â