Fox says sacking Lambert would be like flicking a coin??

[PeterWithesShin]

He played okay today after a shaky start.

[dave.woodhall]

Seriously, re Cleverley, are we absolutely sure there isn't some "I MUST PLAY' clause going on?

It just seems nuts. Week after week, he starts. Week after week, he looks awful.

There can't be. After all, if he didn't play what could they do - demand him back?

Demand some financial penalty? As laid down in the loan deal?

I honestly don't know, but I can't see any reason for him to start every match. I know the manager is a clueless chancer, but even saying that, I wonder if he's clueless enough to have developed this Cleverley fixation alone.

I've never heard of such a clause so it's unlikely. Some managers just like a player for whatever reason.

[dave shelley]

Perhaps that he himself chose him and, doesn't like his judgement questioned, ha! It happens.  It's funny but, how come so many of us know-nothing's could see this yet, someone who is paid a kings ransome couldn't and still believes his judgement is sound despite evidence to the contrary?  It's late and I'm just in from the pub and shouldn't really be posting but, it's annoying.

I've a long day in front of me tomorrow so should be in bed!

[Ads]

I struggle to remember a player having so little impact. Cleverley is beyond garbage and steals a living as a top flight player.

[Des Little]

Cleverley is no better than Westwood. He's a waste of a shirt, something we can ill afford right now.

[Clampy]

Seriously, re Cleverley, are we absolutely sure there isn't some "I MUST PLAY' clause going on?

It just seems nuts. Week after week, he starts. Week after week, he looks awful.

There can't be. After all, if he didn't play what could they do - demand him back?

Demand some financial penalty? As laid down in the loan deal?

I honestly don't know, but I can't see any reason for him to start every match. I know the manager is a clueless chancer, but even saying that, I wonder if he's clueless enough to have developed this Cleverley fixation alone.

I've never heard of such a clause so it's unlikely. Some managers just like a player for whatever reason.

It is odd that he's the only central midfielder other than Delph not to have been dropped so far. I don't get what he brings to the side to be honest.

[PeterWithe]

There simply has to be a 'must play' clause or agreement, it would explain Cleverleys last minute change of heart to join and his continued presence in the team despite his performances.

That said he did well yesterday.

[silhillvilla]

Cleverley is no better than Westwood. He's a waste of a shirt, something we can ill afford right now.

Westwood had a good game in my opinion yesterday .

[Steve67]

There might be a must be played clause in cleverly's contract whilst on loan. Maybe?

[Ian.]

Any manager agreeing to 'a must play' term in a contract needs seriously questioning.
I'm sure Lambert's done a lot wrong but agreeing to that? Surely not?

[David_Nab]

It's telling that when he is brought off it's because we need a goal and need to be more attacking.So does that confirm he is deployed to play in a deep role?Does that also mean we start every game in a defensive mode?

He scored goals as an attacking midfielder so why is he  not getting in the box.I don't think he is a world beater but he is being used incorrectly.

[ez]

Seriously, re Cleverley, are we absolutely sure there isn't some "I MUST PLAY' clause going on?

It just seems nuts. Week after week, he starts. Week after week, he looks awful.

There can't be. After all, if he didn't play what could they do - demand him back?

Demand some financial penalty? As laid down in the loan deal?

I honestly don't know, but I can't see any reason for him to start every match. I know the manager is a clueless chancer, but even saying that, I wonder if he's clueless enough to have developed this Cleverley fixation alone.

I've never heard of such a clause so it's unlikely. Some managers just like a player for whatever reason.

It is odd that he's the only central midfielder other than Delph not to have been dropped so far. I don't get what he brings to the side to be honest.

I think Klinnsman had such a clause in his contract when he went back to spurs.

[Ad@m]

I started thinking there was some sort of clause in his contract when he was played on the right wing earlier in the season but after seeing Sanchez dropped yesterday and Cleverley start I'm now convinced.

Probably not a 'must play' clause but probably a clause which increases the loan fee every time he doesn't start when fit.

[PaulWinch again]

Whatever you think of Cleverley, him and Westwood can't play in the same side.

[SamTheMouse]

Cleverley is competent enough without setting the world alight. I think he'd look better in a team with a better shape. Mind you, that goes for all our players.

As it is, Lambert's fixated on having his three central mids occupy the same 20 square feet of grass, with the result that they frequently have no passing options and even more frequently just end up getting in each other's way. The shape of the side is bollocks, and has been almost ever since Lambert took over. For a start, one of those three midfielders needs to go and stand 15 yards in front of the other two, and make late runs into the box.

We all wondered why he brought in Cleverley when it was clear we needed an attacking midfielder. We were right to wonder, as it turns out. The man has the tactical acumen of a stool sample.