Howaythelads

We looked shite when Souness was manager, which is why he got the sack. :roll:

Butt and Emre have looked pretty good in 4-4-2 every time they've been paired. Are you saying you'd not bother with that just to see if Parker and Emre would improve because there are certain other players in the team around them? Is that what you're saying? You'd be prepared to sacrifice valuable points to do this, possibly pushing us back down the table if we lose a 4 or 5 on the spin? wtf is this fascination with Parker?

It's a problem that he has his favourites and will select them regardless, no matter how average they are and much they unbalance the team (Parker), or simply how shite the are. Depends how you look at it, though. I for one would always select Parker if fit and available. Also, all managers have their favourites. SBR had his - Jenas, Dyer et al - yet he brought results and performances from the team, and Roeder will have to do the same, in spite of his favourites and so on. We aren't the only unbalanced side in the league, in fact, I'd say most teams are unbalanced in one way or onother and could, conceivably select a better XI on paper, but it isn't down to individuals, but the team and good teams can compensate for weaker players, round pegs in square holes etc. etc. - again SBR did, and to great effect. I'm not too worried about Roeder selecting a few of his faves, he will have his reasons and lets face it, we as fans all have our ideal team WE would play and consider the best side equipped to win games, but it isn't as easy as that. For every reason someone could give for not playing Parker (for example), I could come up with reasons to play him and vice versa, right throughout the list of players. That might be so, but Parker actually does nothing that is worth having him in the team for. Imo. The worst decision by far made by Roeder to date has been making this bloke the team captain. He's committed to selecting him week in, week out and that's the biggest single concern I have over the club right now. Remember I said the same about Jenas for most of his time at the club before he eventually left and now everyone slags him. I agree about making him captain, although that isn't to say he's noty captain material because he is for me, we don't have many outstanding candidates do we... but by making him captain (as you said) that kind of makes him a guaranteed starter and that's never a good thing at any club unless that player happens to be world-class which Parker isn't and never will be. I disagree strongly with you that Parker "does nothing", however. He's a very good Premiership standard player in my opinion and while it is true we aren't seeing the best of him, I think that's more down to the team/Roeder/tactics than the actual player himself. That said, is Parker worth all the tinkering and changes to the team and from Roeder? I'm not so sure myself. I certainly wouldn't want to see the team built around him or for him to become the focal point of the midfield. There is a solution though, for both the team and player - play him as an anchorman and let him concentrate on that role and all the aspects that come with it. We need such a player anyway and I think Parker has shown himself to be more than able at doing that job for the team. Witness last season under Souness where he was man of the match most games (I know... he stood out more because the rest were more often than not shite, but that's my point, the best DCM's play in the background WHEN THE TEAM PLAYS WELL, they stand out when the team doesn't). All well and good, mate. However, I don't think he's any good as an anchorman, his passing ability isn't upto it nor is his tackling or reading of the game. It's why he does the eye-catching last ditch stuff, which seems to impress people but which to me is a limitation. Ah, we see different things HTL. No biggy though, just good debating these things Aye, I wish others could do it without sniping at every turn.

I remember lots of people posting similar stuff about what Jenas COULD do, blah blah blah. When it comes to the crunch, it's ok to WANT to see someone do something in a certain role, but that doesn't mean the player has the ability no matter how much you all may want him to. Good to see a few people at least putting the team first. A refreshing change, tbh. BTW For those who think using Parker at RB.... Q. Is it because you just want to fit him in somewhere because he's Parker? For example, would you all select him ahead of Solano, who has looked so good at RB recently?

I responded to this in the other thread, where you also mentioned this idea. You may want him to have the ability to play this role but he doesn't have it. Butt is in a differen class to Parker in this role, surely you've noticed the way Butt often doesn't even have to control the ball, he lays it off quickly with a single touch. A quality anchorman does this, Parker doesn't have the vision or the ability to do this kind of thing. Hence the twirls and stuff while he thinks about what he's going to do. I know Parker has the ability to play that role, he did so last season where he was by far our best player in the majority of the games he played. Sorry but I think Butt's touch and passing abilities are average at best where as Parker has a decent touch and a decent range too, especially short-passing. As for vision, neither have the vision but then you don't need vision to play anchor which is more about compressing space, pressing and breaking up play which Parker does better than Butt because he's cleaner in the tackle, has far more energy and drive and is also quicker. The "twirls and stuff" is Parker trying to keep the ball from the opposition due to lack of options/movement (more often than not) and not because he doesn't know what to do when on the ball. You will notice a clear contrast between Butt and Parker when in such situations - one tries to keep the ball and look for options while the other (Butt ) just gets rid, anyhow, anywhere. I prefer the ball retention and tactical awareness style myself which BTW shows a degree of vision, no? Hey, I like Butt as a player and its good to see him rediscover some form at last but lets not paint him out as some artist eh Butt is a very limited player while Parker has more to his game. IMO of course. You're going round in circles just like your hero..... :winking: and getting nowhere. He is making some very good points imo. :roll: You never do get it, do you..... I'm sure Chris does and that's what matters.

I responded to this in the other thread, where you also mentioned this idea. You may want him to have the ability to play this role but he doesn't have it. Butt is in a differen class to Parker in this role, surely you've noticed the way Butt often doesn't even have to control the ball, he lays it off quickly with a single touch. A quality anchorman does this, Parker doesn't have the vision or the ability to do this kind of thing. Hence the twirls and stuff while he thinks about what he's going to do. I know Parker has the ability to play that role, he did so last season where he was by far our best player in the majority of the games he played. Sorry but I think Butt's touch and passing abilities are average at best where as Parker has a decent touch and a decent range too, especially short-passing. As for vision, neither have the vision but then you don't need vision to play anchor which is more about compressing space, pressing and breaking up play which Parker does better than Butt because he's cleaner in the tackle, has far more energy and drive and is also quicker. The "twirls and stuff" is Parker trying to keep the ball from the opposition due to lack of options/movement (more often than not) and not because he doesn't know what to do when on the ball. You will notice a clear contrast between Butt and Parker when in such situations - one tries to keep the ball and look for options while the other (Butt ) just gets rid, anyhow, anywhere. I prefer the ball retention and tactical awareness style myself which BTW shows a degree of vision, no? Hey, I like Butt as a player and its good to see him rediscover some form at last but lets not paint him out as some artist eh Butt is a very limited player while Parker has more to his game. IMO of course. You're going round in circles just like your hero..... :winking: and getting nowhere.

Aye. Butt is a proper DM, Emre is a proper creative, attacking midfielder. Parker has the ability to do neither, but for some reason it seems that instead of putting the team first a number of people want to select Parker because they want him to have the ability. There is really no evidence he can do either role better than Butt or Emre, quite the opposite really.

Not directed at me but I share Andy's view, so here's my opinion: Parker is a better tackler, has more energy and drive to seek out the ball/player to tackle and is brilliant at pressing play, he is also less of a liability in the needless fouling/rash challenges sense and is tactically more switched on than Butt. He's just a better all-round player in my opinion hence I'd pick him ahead of Butt whose only asset over Parker is his experience and positional discipline, really. (and I rated Butt when we signed him) Also Parker scores more and creates more than Butt, albeit in small doses. I actually believe all of that post is as incorrect as a post can be. So we'll have to agree to disagree. No doubt that great football mind that is booboo is somehow interpreting that I'm calling you thick.

I responded to this in the other thread, where you also mentioned this idea. You may want him to have the ability to play this role but he doesn't have it. Butt is in a differen class to Parker in this role, surely you've noticed the way Butt often doesn't even have to control the ball, he lays it off quickly with a single touch. A quality anchorman does this, Parker doesn't have the vision or the ability to do this kind of thing. Hence the twirls and stuff while he thinks about what he's going to do.

It's a problem that he has his favourites and will select them regardless, no matter how average they are and much they unbalance the team (Parker), or simply how shite the are. Depends how you look at it, though. I for one would always select Parker if fit and available. Also, all managers have their favourites. SBR had his - Jenas, Dyer et al - yet he brought results and performances from the team, and Roeder will have to do the same, in spite of his favourites and so on. We aren't the only unbalanced side in the league, in fact, I'd say most teams are unbalanced in one way or onother and could, conceivably select a better XI on paper, but it isn't down to individuals, but the team and good teams can compensate for weaker players, round pegs in square holes etc. etc. - again SBR did, and to great effect. I'm not too worried about Roeder selecting a few of his faves, he will have his reasons and lets face it, we as fans all have our ideal team WE would play and consider the best side equipped to win games, but it isn't as easy as that. For every reason someone could give for not playing Parker (for example), I could come up with reasons to play him and vice versa, right throughout the list of players. That might be so, but Parker actually does nothing that is worth having him in the team for. Imo. The worst decision by far made by Roeder to date has been making this bloke the team captain. He's committed to selecting him week in, week out and that's the biggest single concern I have over the club right now. Remember I said the same about Jenas for most of his time at the club before he eventually left and now everyone slags him. I agree about making him captain, although that isn't to say he's noty captain material because he is for me, we don't have many outstanding candidates do we... but by making him captain (as you said) that kind of makes him a guaranteed starter and that's never a good thing at any club unless that player happens to be world-class which Parker isn't and never will be. I disagree strongly with you that Parker "does nothing", however. He's a very good Premiership standard player in my opinion and while it is true we aren't seeing the best of him, I think that's more down to the team/Roeder/tactics than the actual player himself. That said, is Parker worth all the tinkering and changes to the team and from Roeder? I'm not so sure myself. I certainly wouldn't want to see the team built around him or for him to become the focal point of the midfield. There is a solution though, for both the team and player - play him as an anchorman and let him concentrate on that role and all the aspects that come with it. We need such a player anyway and I think Parker has shown himself to be more than able at doing that job for the team. Witness last season under Souness where he was man of the match most games (I know... he stood out more because the rest were more often than not shite, but that's my point, the best DCM's play in the background WHEN THE TEAM PLAYS WELL, they stand out when the team doesn't). All well and good, mate. However, I don't think he's any good as an anchorman, his passing ability isn't upto it nor is his tackling or reading of the game. It's why he does the eye-catching last ditch stuff, which seems to impress people but which to me is a limitation.

totally agree Seconded, exactly my thoughts on the centre of midfield... bar that Parker still does a better job than Butt in a defensive midfield roll. Andy In what way does Parker do a better defensive midfield job than Butt?

Where's the poll?

Too many other variables, but I doubt it. They just went on a fantastic run they're given no credit for, but it sounds better for the media to suggest we threw away a 12 point lead. We should have thrashed them at our place and that was the game that gave them heart.

Urrgh. Agreed.

Why? If the deal involved a proven, better return on one of these players with no "risk factor" then possibly. Selling players from your starting 11 is a sure fire way to head for relegation. I know what you say about Parker, he isn't the most obvious talent. I think he is quite a good player. Not brilliant but he serves a role in the team and even if it should be changed to something more along the lines of rotating him in midfield with the likes of Butt then this will be much more effective than selling him for a fee no greater than 5 million and not being able to get anyone to replace him. Parker shouldn't be in the starting XI, I'd sell him. I hope the club gets an offer in January. I'd keep Emre.

WOOP! WOOP! TOUGH GUY ALERT!!! bluelaugh.gif

I think you've forgotten how average/crap Distin was for us.

Couldn't really give a shite about any of this really. Gemmill is right, like. Doesn't happen too often. :winking:

We need two out and out strikers and a LB, if possible.

I was at that match I laughed tbh You laughed at a player being badly injured?

I hope you're right, I just won't be shocked if it doesn't happen. January is difficult if you're going for a certain level of quality. Clubs don't normally want to let quality players go half way through a season.

Yes. We tried the 'softly softly' approach in the summer thinking we could snap up all of our targets in the last few days and it blew up in our faces, if there is money to spend then lets not mess it up this time. We also tried the "let's give them an offer they can't refuse and sign them up quickly" approach two years ago and look what happened. Aye - we signed one of the best strikers in the world if i remember correctly. Are you saying Owen's injury is directly linked to the amount of money we paid for him? Two years ago, December 27th, 2004...5 days later we signed Boumsong. And loads of people were happy at the time with that.

Yes. We tried the 'softly softly' approach in the summer thinking we could snap up all of our targets in the last few days and it blew up in our faces, if there is money to spend then lets not mess it up this time. I don't think you're the type to say you want them to up the ante and then moan later on when it becomes public knowledge.

What are you on about now, mate? My 'reply' was to your *previous* post. As I said to you the last time you moaned about this the other day, I'll do this in response to your *earlier* sarcastic snipes but I won't do it out of the blue. Do you understand the concept of sequence? There were a couple of questions in there by the way.

So what does that have to do with Roeder, like? Do you want the manager to change the formation to accomodate an average player like Parker? Roeder is the manager right or did I miss something? Its up to him to get the best out of the team, If Parker and Emre don't work its up to him to change it. Parker and Butt or Emre and Butt look to be a lot more effective so he needs to make a decision. My guess is in the long term he wont, when all are fit Parker and Emre will be in the middle. So was it the managers fault that Faye was shite, that Ameobi is shite, that Bramble is shite, that Carr is shite, that Ramage is shite, that Babayaro is shite? Is that what you're saying because it's the same thing when you blame the manager over Parker? When are people going to stop making excuses for Parker? :roll: Parker isn't shite though, is Emre shite? Because he looks as bad when he plays next to Parker or are you making excuses for Emre now? :roll: Maybe not shite, but definitely no better than average and definitely not better in CM than Emre, Butt and Dyer. We even did better last season with Faye, Bowyer and Clark in CM than when Parker was playing. Surely you remember? BTW That last bit indicates the end of what could have been a debate but never mind. It's a daft comment because I'm not making excuses for anyone at all, you and the other Parker rent-boys are making the excuses. I think Parker is average at best and that's it. No excuses. You have said before how you think Emre is the better player and its obvious that Parker should be the one sold, does that make you an Emre bum boy? Well not really because its just a childish thing to say. Faye, Bowyer and Clark were all given specific roles to play, Emre and Parker in the centre are played there to swap with each other and take turns in defending or attacking but this doesnt work. Whose fault is that? Maybe the person telling them where and how play ie the manager? mackems.gif Ok, so it's the managers fault for trying something you admit you've spotted doesn't work. What do you suggest to solve it? Here's where I'm expecting the standard if's and but's about what you think Parker should be able to do that he's so far demonstrated no ability for. Not play them together in the centre? Errr....is that it? Pretty simple and obvious no? What else do you expect? You suggested a problem, I gave you the solution, need a poem or something? Simple, aye.