Leeds United approaching Cresswell decision as Millwall clause moves into focus
Cresswell seems to have relished his loan spell at The Den this season
www.leeds-live.co.uk
Cresswell decision looms
- Thread starter STWall
- Start date
www.leeds-live.co.uk
He has improved the last few games, probably benefits him, us and thr ferret botherers that Rowett was a defender. If he ain't going to get a place on the bench with them then they may as well let him stay with us to get more experience and game time.
norwichmark
Well-known member
Seems he is settling in and finding his feet, quite well.
Phlion54
Well-known member
Also finding the net as well
Owl
Well-known member
First fella I spoke to in Manchester after disembarking the silver bird was a Weeds supporter- got a light off him and he saw Millwall tattoo on my wrist which immediately led to Cresswell discussion- I remarked that I've not been much on him and the fella laughed and said reckon he'll score a hattrick for you lads... Well, not exactly correct but he has been much better recently and puts in a shift so I'll eat some of my words with a smile then.
brockleyhuts
Well-known member
keep him, hutch seems to pick up a couple of injuries a season, and cooper will get the odd ban. I know there is talk of 5 at the back from time to time, but I would mind seeing him play in front of Cooper and Hutch, as a ball playing defensive mid on occasion, giving Saville and Mitchell, the chance to push us up the field more
Shawmi
Well-known member
Creswell needs at least a season out on loan at his age and for his development, makes sense to leave him with us if he is getting the minutes. No point rushing him, Spurs got it right with Kane and look where he is, plenty of time and Leeds/England will benefit in the long run.
Poplar Lion
Well-known member
What we should have done is done everything possible to have kept Ballard.
Why?
Ilderton Wanderer
Well-known member
It was a very good decision by the club not to spend 2M plus on Ballard, with a high percentage of any future sale going to Arsenal. A lot of fans and Fat Dan types were lining up to slag the management off back in June/July but time has proved they called it right.
He’s an excellent player but his injury record and underlying knee problem made it too much of a risk and that’s kind of been borne out by time at Sunderland so far, only three appearances so far this season.
He’s an excellent player but his injury record and underlying knee problem made it too much of a risk and that’s kind of been borne out by time at Sunderland so far, only three appearances so far this season.
partisan_lion
Well-known member
Since the season has started no one has mentioned that we need Ballard, especially since Cresswell bagged himself two goals in the first game, had a stint on the bench and recently come back into the side with renewed confidence.It would make sense for all three parties that he remains here as he seems relatively settled.
Reg Ilderton
Member
Just to add that I think Ballard was going to Burnley but they pulled out because of concerns about him being injury prone? They could be right judging by what has happened to him this season. Very good player though
Poplar Lion
Well-known member
He had a broken foot, nothing to do with his knee or injury record at all. The fact is he is a better defender than Cresswell by an absolute mile.
Ilderton Wanderer
Well-known member
Ballard is a much better defender than Cresswell there’s no doubt about that but it still doesn’t make it wrong that we didn’t lash out a small fortune on him in the summer and blow a large part of our limited budget.
The broken foot is a bit of a if my auntie had bollocks argument, he’s known to pick up injuries and the fact is Sunderland took a gamble that Burnley, us and probably other clubs weren’t willing to take and so far it hasn’t payed off.
If we had took the plunge and then got stung you can bet your life there would be thread after thread on here calling for Rowett, Kavanagh and Aldridge etc to go.
Eastsussexlion
Well-known member
Ballard looked a better player , but being injury prone , and given Cresswell looking much more assured since his recall , think we've got it right
Brusselslion
Well-known member
It's a tricky one. Imo Ballard is a cut above Cresswell in all aspects of the game, however, that isn't much use if Ballard's not on the pitch. Guess that we'll be able to make a more informed decision next May.
I think that the 'sell-on' clause is largely irrelevant. If Ballard plays regularly and to his potential for 3 seasons, then Sunderland will have more than had their £2m worth even if he leaves for nothing.
I think that the 'sell-on' clause is largely irrelevant. If Ballard plays regularly and to his potential for 3 seasons, then Sunderland will have more than had their £2m worth even if he leaves for nothing.
The main reason we didn't offer more was, apart from his suspect knee, Arsenal have put all sorts of caveats into the deal that Sunderland bought into. Big percentage of any future sell on fee, extra money after a certain amount of appearances, and on top of that a big bonus should they be promoted.
As it stands i think we made the correct decision, he's played less than three games this season. He was highly rated at Arsenal, then something went wrong, they didn't bin him off for the fun of it.
Last edited: