@ Patters

No my point is that he shouldn't just be a workhorse who doesn't pretend to be a flashy prick like Milner just because it didn't work out against Serbia. He obviously believes he can play how he plays. Why should he just adapt? Maybe he and the people around him believe he should carry on as is.

Honestly, I've seen Cleverley described as a workhorse before, and I think it's mostly because he's English. I don't think Milner is a dogged player either for what it's worth. Well, maybe he is nowadays. He's turned a bit shit since he got his big move but the guy who used to play for Aston Villa knew how to combine power with a few on-the-ball skills at least. He's been poorly handled by team and national coaches alike since then. He could've been terrific with someone like Wenger overseeing his development.

Tony Montana wrote:

@ Patters

No my point is that he shouldn't just be a workhorse who doesn't pretend to be a flashy prick like Milner just because it didn't work out against Serbia. He obviously believes he can play how he plays. Why should he just adapt? Maybe he and the people around him believe he should carry on as is.

And I've explained why - even if it may not be your 'natural game' or what you enjoy the most, it doesn't mean you shouldn't consider playing that position.

I've explained the reasoning of that, and along with my gut feeling, that he is not going to compare favourably with others in his position. That's why I am saying what I am. Other than a "nah he's good at what he does" vs "no he's not" argument, there's not a lot left to be said.

Klaus wrote:

Honestly, I've seen Cleverley described as a workhorse before, and I think it's mostly because he's English.

I think so too.

Patters wrote:

Tony Montana wrote:

@ Patters

No my point is that he shouldn't just be a workhorse who doesn't pretend to be a flashy prick like Milner just because it didn't work out against Serbia. He obviously believes he can play how he plays. Why should he just adapt? Maybe he and the people around him believe he should carry on as is.

And I've explained why - even if it may not be your 'natural game' or what you enjoy the most, it doesn't mean you shouldn't consider playing that position.

I've explained the reasoning of that, and along with my gut feeling, that he is not going to compare favourably with others in his position. That's why I am saying what I am. Other than a "nah he's good at what he does" vs "no he's not" argument, there's not a lot left to be said.

Yeah but it''s only your opinion (which I accept you are totally entitled to give).

I still don't see why, all of a sudden, that Cleverly should just consider playing the workhouse role just because he wasn't good against Serbia. If he's not good enough for United or England, he'll move elsewhere or adapt on the advice of his bosses. Should Lescott consider LB because he was poor at CB for a couple of games?

Should Diaby consider the workhorse role too? What about Ramsey?

Tony Montana wrote:

Patters wrote:

And I've explained why - even if it may not be your 'natural game' or what you enjoy the most, it doesn't mean you shouldn't consider playing that position.

I've explained the reasoning of that, and along with my gut feeling, that he is not going to compare favourably with others in his position. That's why I am saying what I am. Other than a "nah he's good at what he does" vs "no he's not" argument, there's not a lot left to be said.

Yeah but it''s only your opinion (which I accept you are totally entitled to give).

I still don't see why, all of a sudden, that Cleverly should just consider playing the workhouse role just because he wasn't good against Serbia. If he's not good enough for United or England, he'll move elsewhere or adapt on the advice of his bosses. Should Lescott consider LB because he was poor at CB for a couple of games?

Should Diaby consider the workhorse role too? What about Ramsey?

What makes you assume I am basing my opinion on one game?

You explained it after the England match. Fair enough I shouldn't have assumed you have made a point after only seeing one game.

Have you seen more than a handful of United games with him playing the full 90?

Tony Montana wrote:

You explained it after the England match. Fair enough I shouldn't have assumed you have made a point after only seeing one game.

Have you seen more than a handful of United games with him playing the full 90?

I've seen him play for Man Utd, yes. I don't know how many.

from what i've seen of cleverley, he's a good pass and move guy. looks decent enough to me. i don't think anyone is really saying he'll be the next scholes, who was a world class player.

anyone can get a thread these days.

Cleverly is a really gifted midfielder. He's a facilitator of play rather than creative midfielder. His touch, short passing and close control are probably his best attributes and he can fit seamlessly into any team that plays quick passing and combination football.

He has a massive future imo.

Klaus wrote:

Honestly, I've seen Cleverley described as a workhorse before,

yeh, but a workhouse? He was never called that.

Anyways, I thought Cleverly looked pretty fine in his junior role, now that he's in the senior Manc team he looks a tad unready but the quality's there. He's not going to be a superstar but a decent player.

And I don't get why people would call Milner overrated- I haven't seen anyone rate him that much!

Tom Cleverley?

Could one day be a decent butler for Jack Wilshere if he keeps his nose clean and works hard.

Good versatile player imo. Tactically and technically sound and he gets in to some great positions. Will need to start finishing better if he wants a long career in the England and Utd first teams, though.

So the general consensus is that he should not simply be some workhorse player.

Seems like he's all rounder but doesn't have any stand out qualities yet. Fuck knows why he was playing on the left wing though.

He's a bit in the Arteta mould. Doesn't have the skill and grace of Jack, you'll never see him create space for himself the way Jack does but apart from that he's very good. He is a bit of a British style player but he's a very good one, he'll be much better than Carrick eventually for instance. Not a work horse at all though, just not a lazy dandy like some gifted midfielders can get.

You lot never cease to amaze me,
Two whole pages about some Manc cunt.

It's incredible isn't it, Bigs?

This is Thomas William Cleverly they are talking about here. Tom fucking Cleverly! Not Ronaldo or Messi. And even if he was as good/had the potential of those two, he already plays for Manc cunts A, so except the thread is meant to insult or take the piss, it makes absolutely no sense to me.