Norwich v Manchester United | 3PM | Setanta Sports 1

Pro. F

Your Airbag wrote: »

Of course I remember, it was that painful. I still stand by my point that Clev was turned twice and taken to the cleaners in that exchange. You don't agree, no suprise. You threw up his passing stats to defend him. Where in his stats is him ending up on his arse covered? Thats right stats don't show everything which you have said youself but you continue to weild them as pointlessly as possible.

Whats so bs about Clev getting turned today? Are you not watching this or to biased to see whats right in front of you. He got turned and ended up behind the play more than once in the first 45 mins and they resulted in Norwich chances.

Actually dont bother to reply, you probably think he was positioned just right. I'd rather see can we pull ths win off then get into one of your typically over pedantic exchanges.

I did agree that he was poor to get turned so easy for Sandro's goal. What I disagreed with you on was that his defensive positioning was wrong before Sandro got the ball.

I never used his passing stats to defend or deflect from his defensive positioning. You lied. Typical bullshít from you.

I don't think that your criticisms of his defensive positioning in the first half today was bullshít. I think he made a few mistakes in that regard.

Your Airbag wrote: »

You are very odd I must say.

I'll tell you something that is odd, the fact that you spent the time to write that post instead of watching the game.

newballsplease

TheDoc wrote: »

Phil Dowd is a terrible referee, his card dishing is disgraceful

Its as if he gets immense pleasure out of giving a card.
His face is like 'im the man,im booking you,now get away from me u s**t '

mikeym

Norwich were terrible in the 2nd half.

Robson99

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

In fairness, I'm a big Kagawa fan, but he needs to be offering more, even if he is out of position. He is letting games completely drift past him and has to be showing more than he is.

Same as. However in fairness to him today he got absolutely nothing in terms of support or ball from Giggs, Carrick or Cleverly. I would love to see him with two proper middle of the park players with him, unfortunately I think he will be moved on before that happens. Im not making excuses for him but that trio we s**t today.

Montroseee

Things are certainly looking up with key players back from injury soon and results improving plus De Gea has been immense and Welback is finally scoring. Hopefully the confidence continues to grow and a title challenged for, 7 points isn't all that much with half a season left. One negative for me today is Kagawa, when do the excuses stop? The move has been a disaster for both parties but thankfully he could prove a useful bargaining chip for one of the Dortmund stars.

Your Airbag

Pro. F wrote: »

I'll tell you something that is odd, the fact that you spent the time to write that post instead of watching the game.

I replied to your "full of ****" insult. I suppose you sniping the match thread for my posts and taking the time to reply and write a post directed at me was perfectly normal though eh.

You also skimmed over the fact where I acknowledged you saying stats don't mean everything. That still doesn't change the fact when people are talking about how bad was Clev after a match you jump in with passing stats and say he was no worse than player x,y and z. I sure your aware there is more to a MF's game and you possibly realise we are talking about these very points but still you turn up with passing stats first and retrospectively say yeah i know its not all passing stats after dragging the conversation of course.

Mars Bar

We're getting fed up of this between ye, YA and Pro.F. Almost every game that Cleverley has played in the last month has seen threads ruined by this stupid argument.

And this goes to anyone who uses the "oh but of course someone will whip out the stats to defend him" argument to start this debate will get a yellow.

beno619

I think Cleverley is the problem, not boardsie's.

mike65

Utd were going to beat only two teams today playing like that - the other got thrashed 6-0.

MisterAnarchy

mikeym wrote: »

Norwich were terrible in the 2nd half.

Its a terrible league in general,the standard is very poor.
Some diabolical matches today .

Will I Amnt

mike65 wrote: »

Utd were going to beat only two teams today playing like that - the other got thrashed 6-0.

Meh, any other team could play bad enough to lose to that United performance. Different team, different day, different setup...

kryogen

mike65 wrote: »

More chance of Fulham winning today (0-4 down) than Norwich not conceding again. Chris Hughton is on thin ice again

Another superb declaration there

Pro. F

Mars Bar wrote: »

We're getting fed up of this between ye, YA and Pro.F. Almost every game that Cleverley has played in the last month has seen threads ruined by this stupid argument.

And this goes to anyone who uses the "oh but of course someone will whip out the stats to defend him" argument to start this debate will get a yellow.

Could you please clarify what your warning is. I'm not trying to argue it or anything, I'm just not sure what's allowed now.

Mars Bar

Pro. F wrote: »

Could you please clarify what your warning is. I'm not trying to argue it or anything, I'm just not sure what's allowed now.

It's mainly for the type of reply between ye in bold. Not the actual discussion of Cleverley himself. It's just becoming a point scoring contest rather than the very interesting debate it started out as.

Hope that helps clear it up a bit. I understand that my warnings were not as clear cut as they should have been today.

Your Airbag wrote: »

You are very odd I must say. Of course I remember, it was that painful. I still stand by my point that Clev was turned twice and taken to the cleaners in that exchange. You don't agree, no suprise. You threw up his passing stats to defend him. Where in his stats is him ending up on his arse covered? Thats right stats don't show everything which you have said youself but you continue to weild them as pointlessly as possible.

Whats so bs about Clev getting turned today? Are you not watching this or to biased to see whats right in front of you. He got turned and ended up behind the play more than once in the first 45 mins and they resulted in Norwich chances.

Actually dont bother to reply, you probably think he was positioned just right. I'd rather see can we pull ths win off then get into one of your typically over pedantic exchanges.

Pro. F wrote: »

I did agree that he was poor to get turned so easy for Sandro's goal. What I disagreed with you on was that his defensive positioning was wrong before Sandro got the ball.

I never used his passing stats to defend or deflect from his defensive positioning. You lied. Typical bullshít from you.

I don't think that your criticisms of his defensive positioning in the first half today was bullshít. I think he made a few mistakes in that regard.

I'll tell you something that is odd, the fact that you spent the time to write that post instead of watching the game.

Your Airbag wrote: »

I replied to your "full of ****" insult. I suppose you sniping the match thread for my posts and taking the time to reply and write a post directed at me was perfectly normal though eh.

You also skimmed over the fact where I acknowledged you saying stats don't mean everything. That still doesn't change the fact when people are talking about how bad was Clev after a match you jump in with passing stats and say he was no worse than player x,y and z. I sure your aware there is more to a MF's game and you possibly realise we are talking about these very points but still you turn up with passing stats first and retrospectively say yeah i know its not all passing stats after dragging the conversation of course.

Pro. F

Mars Bar wrote: »

It's mainly for the type of reply between ye in bold. Not the actual discussion of Cleverley himself. It's just becoming a point scoring contest rather than the very interesting debate it started out as.

Hope that helps clear it up a bit. I understand that my warnings were not as clear cut as they should have been today.

No problem. That makes perfect sense, thanks for the clarification.

sawfish

MagicMarker wrote: »

Your opinion is wrong.

Thats just your opinion, on my opinion. My opinion on your opinion on my opinion is that it`s wrong.

Whats your opinion on my opinion on your opinion on my opinion?

Pro. F

Your Airbag wrote: »

You also skimmed over the fact where I acknowledged you saying stats don't mean everything. That still doesn't change the fact when people are talking about how bad was Clev after a match you jump in with passing stats and say he was no worse than player x,y and z. I sure your aware there is more to a MF's game and you possibly realise we are talking about these very points but still you turn up with passing stats first and retrospectively say yeah i know its not all passing stats after dragging the conversation of course.

I don't drag the conversation off course. Of course I realise that there is more to a midfielder's game than passing stats, but sometimes they are all that is needed to disprove a particlar claim. For example, if somebody says that every pass Cleverley made was backwards in a game, showing that he made x number of forward passes would instantly disprove that claim. Or, for another example, if somebody says that Cleverley hid from the ball all game and it turns out that he made more passes than anybody else on the pitch, then that would disprove what they said. That's the type of way that I use the passing stats. I also through them in sometimes to back up more general points about how the performance went, that is nothing like dragging a conversation off course.

beno619

If X number of forward passes equals 25% of his total passes for the period in that game in question, nothing has been disproved.

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

If X number of forward passes equals 25% of his total passes for the period in that game in question, nothing has been disproved.

You didn't read my post properly.

beno619

Pro. F wrote: »

You didn't read my post properly.

If someone did say all Cleverley's passes were backpasses, common sense would prevail as he clearly meant the majority of his passes.

Hypothetically though of course

Nolars

Cleverley can have a 100% pass rate forward it doesn't mean anything, its about picking the right pass and not jsut playing it to the man in front of him or sideways every time. He has no killer pass in his game whatsoever.

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

If someone did say all Cleverley's passes were backpasses, common sense would prevail as he clearly meant the majority of his passes.

Hypothetically though of course

I'm not interested in discussing your interpretation of the statement.

miralize

Nolars wrote: »

Cleverley can have a 100% pass rate forward it doesn't mean anything, its about picking the right pass and not jsut playing it to the man in front of him or sideways every time. He has no killer pass in his game whatsoever.

Is he meant to? I dont think thats what he's supposed to do for United.

CSF

miralize wrote: »

Is he meant to? I dont think thats what he's supposed to do for United.

I think everyone playing within any distance of the front line is meant to be able. It may not be his primary function but you have to be absolutely outstanding at your primary function to get away with not being able to do anything else

Mars Bar

It would probably help if there was some better movement from the players in front of him to be able to make forward passes.

Pro. F

Nolars wrote: »

Cleverley can have a 100% pass rate forward it doesn't mean anything, its about picking the right pass and not jsut playing it to the man in front of him or sideways every time. He has no killer pass in his game whatsoever.

He has certainly not done enough of that type of pass this season. I disagree that he lacks the ability to do it though. The entire midfield has been dull, unimaginative and down right dysfunctional this season under Moyes.

beno619

He certainly has more to offer than he has recently. He lacks the basic characteristics of a good midfielder and has never displayed anything more than average technical ability.

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

He certainly has more to offer than he has recently. He lacks the basic characteristics of a good midfielder and has never displayed anything more than average technical ability.

I disagree. In the run he had alongside Anderson at the start of the 11/12 season he was excellent.

beno619

Pro. F wrote: »

I disagree. In the run he had alongside Anderson at the start of the 11/12 season he was excellent.

He certainly did play well, possibly his best period for the club ?

Average players can play well his partner also played very well in that period but still had another gear or two he could go to, imo.

I still don't think he has ever demonstrated having the required technical ability a box to box midfielder needs. I would gladly be proven wrong by the player though and will be the first to admit I got it wrong.

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

He certainly did play well, possibly his best period for the club ?

Average players can play well his partner also played very well in that period but still had another gear or two he could go to, imo.

I still don't think he has ever demonstrated having the required technical ability a box to box midfielder needs. I would gladly be proven wrong by the player though and will be the first to admit I got it wrong.

You are now saying something completely different from what you originally said.

beno619

Pro. F wrote: »

You are now saying something completely different from what you originally said.

That Cleverleys negative passes in the last 20 mins of the Hull game put us under severe pressure ?

I think il refrain from discussing Cleverley with you in the future as you seem to have some chip on your shoulder and completely ignored what was actually written in the last post.

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

That Cleverleys negative passes in the last 20 mins of the Hull game put us under severe pressure ?

No, different from what you said in post 278 in this thread.

beno619

Pro. F wrote: »

No, different from what you said in post 278 in this thread.

Can you point out what was different ?

beno619 wrote: »

He certainly has more to offer than he has recently.

vs

beno619 wrote: »

He certainly did play well, possibly his best period for the club ?

bucketybuck

Pro. F wrote: »

I disagree. In the run he had alongside Anderson at the start of the 11/12 season he was excellent.

Clearly we need to play Anderson more often then.

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

Can you point out what was different ?

vs

beno619 wrote: »

He certainly has more to offer than he has recently. He lacks the basic characteristics of a good midfielder and has never displayed anything more than average technical ability.

vs

beno619 wrote: »

He certainly did play well, possibly his best period for the club ?

Average players can play well his partner also played very well in that period but still had another gear or two he could go to, imo.

I still don't think he has ever demonstrated having the required technical ability a box to box midfielder needs. I would gladly be proven wrong by the player though and will be the first to admit I got it wrong.

Pro. F

bucketybuck wrote: »

Clearly we need to play Anderson more often then.

Anderson has been injured or unfit for the majority of his time at the club. He is a crock.

beno619

Pro. F wrote: »

vs

I stated he does not have the required ability to be in our midfield while accepting that he has played very well in the past relative to the ability he does posses.

You clearly missed or choose to ignore were I pointed out average players can play well. I would never ask more from a limited player than to play to the the best of his ability something he has not done recently.

Pro. F wrote: »

Anderson has been injured or unfit for the majority of his time at the club. He is a crock.

Not injured right now and still in a Manchester United player, by your logic we should never have signed RVP because "he's crock".

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

I stated he does not have the required ability to be in our midfield while accepting that he has played very well in the past relative to the ability he does posses.

You clearly missed or choose to ignore were I pointed out average players can play well. I would never ask more from a limited player than to play to the the best of his ability something he has not done recently.

You said he has never shown anything more than ''average technical ability'' but he clearly did in that run two seasons ago.

You then added the term "box-to-box midfielder" which you hadn't mentioned in the original post.

beno619 wrote: »

Not injured right now and still in a Manchester United player, by your logic we should never have signed RVP because "he's crock".

We have no evidence that Anderson is actually fit right now. RvP in recent years has been nothing like as crocked as Anderson.

beno619

Pro. F wrote: »

You said he has never shown anything more than ''average technical ability'' but he clearly did in that run two seasons ago.

You then added the term "box-to-box midfielder" which you hadn't mentioned in the original post.

2 years ago he played well, but never looked more than an average player playing well. ie, there was nothing special about him and the players around him made him look better than he is.

We have no evidence that Anderson is actually fit right now. RvP in recent years has been nothing like as crocked as Anderson.

I though of asking what style of midfielder he is and though box to box was the most appropriate. If you have a better way of describing him id love to know as...

His passing is average, shooting is average, dribbling is average, work rate is average, tackling poor, positioning average - poor, marking poor, vision average and character non existent.

Can you tell me what style of midfielder he is ?


We also have no evidence he's injured :rolleyes:

He's been on the bench most of this season not out injured, lets be honest RVP hasnt been fit this season, reasons for that have been debated to death.

Both players injury records.

RVP

Anderson

yeah we definately shouldn't have signed RVP :rolleyes:

bucketybuck

Its worth pointing out that rather much is being made of the "Run" that Cleverly had nearly two years ago. It was what, 3 or 4 games in which we played well? Hardly a run, especially considering Fergie almost immediately had to bring Carrick back in because we were getting overrun in midfield and shipping goals all over the place, which hardly reflects well on Cleverly as a central midfielder.

If that minute period of games years ago are held up as a reason to stick with Cleverly, then you really are damning him with faint praise.

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

I though of asking what style of midfielder he is and though box to box was the most appropriate. If you have a better way of describing him id love to know as...

His passing is average, shooting is average, dribbling is average, work rate is average, tackling poor, positioning average - poor, marking poor, vision average and character non existent.

Can you tell me what style of midfielder he is ?

I don't agree with your assessment of Cleveley's abilities, just like I don't agree with your claim that he has never shown anything more than average technical ability.

beno619 wrote: »

We also have no evidence he's injured : rolleyes:

He's been on the bench most of this season not out injured, lets be honest RVP hasnt been fit this season, reasons for that have been debated to death.

Both players injury records.

RVP

Anderson

yeah we definately shouldn't have signed RVP :rolleyes:

There is a difference between being uninjured and being fit. As I said, Anderson has been injured or unfit for the majority of his time at United. Taking both aspects into account, RvP's record in recent years has been miles better than Anderson's.

beno619

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't agree with your assessment of Cleveley's abilities, just like I don't agree with your claim that he has never shown anything more than average technical ability.

There is a difference between being uninjured and being fit. As I said, Anderson has been injured or unfit for the majority of his time at United. Taking both aspects into account, RvP's record in recent years has been miles better than Anderson's.

Can you tell me which parts of the assessment you don't agree with ?

I would also like to know if you can define his style of play ? as you dont agree with box to box.

Both Anderson and RVP have had dodgy records quite identical if you look at the numbers. Unless your on the training ground I dont think you can make an assessment of their fitness. Anderson certainly hasnt played enough this season for you to call him unfit. He also looked grand last year while not injured.

Pro. F

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its worth pointing out that rather much is being made of the "Run" that Cleverly had nearly two years ago. It was what, 3 or 4 games in which we played well? Hardly a run, especially considering Fergie almost immediately had to bring Carrick back in because we were getting overrun in midfield and shipping goals all over the place, which hardly reflects well on Cleverly as a central midfielder.

If that minute period of games years ago are held up as a reason to stick with Cleverly, then you really are damning him with faint praise.

No, I used that run of games as the most obvious and clear example to disprove the claim that he has never shown more than "average technical ability". My justification for why we should stick by him would be to look at all his games at United where he has shown himself to have good close control, good passing and a good work rate. This season he has regressed, so have most of our players.

With regards to Carrick having to come back into the team to address the cheap goals we were conceding, that was perfectly normal when we were playing with two CMs whose balance of skills were more on the creative side than the defensive. It was the balance of the partnership that was the issue. The same issue of conceding soft goals would happen if you played Xavi and Modric beside each other in a two man CM. That's no serious criticism of the creative players.

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

Can you tell me which parts of the assessment you don't agree with ?

I would also like to know if you can define his style of play ? as you dont agree with box to box.

I don't agree with any of your assessment.

As for style of play, I'd call him a creative or passing CM.

beno619 wrote: »

Both Anderson and RVP have had dodgy records quite identical if you look at the numbers. Unless your on the training ground I dont think you can make an assessment of their fitness. Anderson certainly hasnt played enough this season for you to call him unfit. He also looked grand last year while not injured.

Of course you can make an assessment of their fitness without being on the training ground, by watching them play. Anderson did not look grand last season from what I remember.

The numbers you linked don't show how many times Anderson has looked knackered when playing and how often RvP had played and looked fully fit before we signed him.

You seem to want to give Anderson another chance, that's fine. Me, I've lost patience with his constant injuries and lack of stamina when he does play. We disagree, lets leave it at that.

beno619

Pro. F wrote: »

No, I used that run of games as the most obvious and clear example to disprove the claim that he has never shown more than "average technical ability". My justification for why we should stick by him would be to look at all his games at United where he has shown himself to have good close control, good passing and a good work rate. This season he has regressed, so have most of our players.

Your opinion is enough to disprove facts apparently, just went back and watched the clips from the community shield vs City. Many people would say one of his best games / coming of age.

Nothing I saw was above average.

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't agree with any of your assessment.

As for style of play, I'd call him a creative or passing CM.

His 7 key passes this season and lack of positive play along with 19 key passes last year would "disprove" that


Of course you can make an assessment of their fitness without being on the training ground, by watching them play. Anderson did not look grand last season from what I remember.

The numbers you linked don't show how many times Anderson has looked knackered when playing and how often RvP had played and looked fully fit before we signed him.

I understand, stats are only meaningful when they come from you. When stats "disprove" your point. Your opinion is final.

I don't believe RVP has been fit this season, must be true then :rolleyes:

You seem to want to give Anderson another chance, that's fine. Me, I've lost patience with his constant injuries and lack of stamina when he does play. We disagree, lets leave it at that.

Why wouldn't I want to give a guy who appears fit and is a member of our squad a chance to play, when players ahead of him are not performing ?

Same goes for Fabio, Butters (never convinced), Welbeck(took chance) Smalling (took chance), Young(improving), Zaha.

Besides personal vendetta's why not give everyone a chance to show their worth ?

kryogen

Pro. F wrote: »

I disagree. In the run he had alongside Anderson at the start of the 11/12 season he was excellent.

Anderson was better offensively and both were pretty poor defensively from memory

Pro. F

beno619 wrote: »

Your opinion is enough to disprove facts apparently, just went back and watched the clips from the community shield vs City. Many people would say one of his best games / coming of age.

Nothing I saw was above average.

Judging a player's performance on a highlights video is ridiculous.

beno619 wrote: »

His 7 key passes this season and lack of positive play along with 19 key passes last year would "disprove" that

I understand, stats are only meaningful when they come from you. When stats "disprove" your point. Your opinion is final.

He has had plenty of positive play, he gets on the ball a lot and links up all over the pitch.

Last season in the EPL, with 0.9, Cleverley had more key passes per game than Mikel Arteta (0.8), Ramires (0.6), James McArthur (0.8), Morgan Schneiderlin (0.8), Mohamed Diame (0.7), Jack Cork (0.8) and Joe Allen (0.8) and the same number as James McCarthy. Also, 0.9 was the same number of kp/g that Scholes had in the 09/10 and 10/11 seasons. This season, with 0.5, Cleverley has more kp/g than Arteta (0.2), Jose Canas (0.1), Wanyama (0.4) and the same number as Joe Allen.

All the above from whoscored.com

That's a fair mix of central midfield styles and talents in those two lists, but they show that Cleverley's key passing numbers are not so low as to be an issue.

I don't think that stats are only meaningful when they come from me, nor do I ignore stats that disprove any point I make.

beno619 wrote: »

Why wouldn't I want to give a guy who appears fit and is a member of our squad a chance to play, when players ahead of him are not performing ?

Same goes for Fabio, Butters (never convinced), Welbeck(took chance) Smalling (took chance), Young(improving), Zaha.

Besides personal vendetta's why not give everyone a chance to show their worth ?

I don't have a personal vendetta against Anderson. I have just lost faith that he will ever be consistently fit. You still have faith in him. No problem, there is nothing to argue about.

Pro. F

kryogen wrote: »

Anderson was better offensively and both were pretty poor defensively from memory

I would say going forward they were about the same effectiveness, but that's not important. The point remains that Cleverley clearly showed a lot more than "average technical ability" during that spell.

Their defending as a pair was no worse than you would expect to see from a pair made up of Xavi and Iniesta, for example.

beno619

Pro. F wrote: »

Judging a player's performance on a highlights video is ridiculous.

Was not judging his performance, I was judging his ability based on highlights.


He has had plenty of positive play, he gets on the ball a lot and links up all over the pitch.

Last season in the EPL, with 0.9, Cleverley had more key passes per game than Mikel Arteta (0.8), Ramires (0.6), James McArthur (0.8), Morgan Schneiderlin (0.8), Mohamed Diame (0.7), Jack Cork (0.8) and Joe Allen (0.8) and the same number as James McCarthy. Also, 0.9 was the same number of kp/g that Scholes had in the 09/10 and 10/11 seasons. This season, with 0.5, Cleverley has more kp/g than Arteta (0.2), Jose Canas (0.1), Wanyama (0.4) and the same number as Joe Allen.

All the above from whoscored.com

Thats fair enough I didn't consider the amount of football he played last season when assessing his 19 key passes.

I wouldn't consider beating other average players and Arteta who is also under performing this season a success. Cleverley is clearly not playing to his potential.

That's a fair mix of central midfield styles and talents in those two lists, but they show that Cleverley's key passing numbers are not so low as to be an issue.

I don't think that stats are only meaningful when they come from me, nor do I ignore stats that disprove any point I make.



I don't have a personal vendetta against Anderson. I have just lost faith that he will ever be consistently fit. You still have faith in him. No problem, there is nothing to argue about.

I dont have faith in his long term fitness, but would be disappointing if he left.

The point I have been trying to make is that he has been fit enough to sit on the bench so there no reason he shouldn't get a go infront of the under performing Cleverley, regardless of his long term future he's a usefull member of the squad.

ITT-Pat

I'm really looking forward to this game vs Norwich now, I feel like we've been building up to it for days