Daggers Posted 29 January 2009 Posted 29 January 2009 I don't understand why everyone is giving Cleverley a 6/7 Everyone isn't.
Alf Bentley Posted 29 January 2009 Posted 29 January 2009 I agree with you, but people always see the game differently. Partly relates to how you view a "mixed" performance, I think. On the plus side, Cleverley played some incisive passes, showed good mobility and penetrated their 9-man defence with some good runs. On the minus side, he played some poor passes and gave the ball away a number of times. Particularly for a player new to the team and particularly in an "attack v. defence" game like this one, the pluses outweigh the minuses, so he's worth a "7/10". much more than a player who didn't give the ball away much but didn't look like breaching their defence (e.g. King, Oakley). He looked one of the players most likely to create a breakthrough. Once he's got used to the team, hopefully he'll lose the ball less and be a very good player for us.
Thracian Posted 30 January 2009 Posted 30 January 2009 Partly relates to how you view a "mixed" performance, I think.On the plus side, Cleverley played some incisive passes, showed good mobility and penetrated their 9-man defence with some good runs. On the minus side, he played some poor passes and gave the ball away a number of times. Particularly for a player new to the team and particularly in an "attack v. defence" game like this one, the pluses outweigh the minuses, so he's worth a "7/10". much more than a player who didn't give the ball away much but didn't look like breaching their defence (e.g. King, Oakley). He looked one of the players most likely to create a breakthrough. Once he's got used to the team, hopefully he'll lose the ball less and be a very good player for us. King was actually nearest to breaching their defence with his on-target shot which was deflected onto a post.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.