The College Dropout

I think a lot of modern day strikers have to be such good all-rounders that it takes an exceptional player to also be lethal. This is largely due to a lot of teams only playing 1 striker up top.

There's a lot of truth in that; Rivaldo had a fallout with Van Gaal because he shifted him wide, Ronaldinho always played wide... although Zidane always was a #10 for RM - even though I do believe his role in a 442 actually diminished the side as a whole (not a problem of his, but tactics) Yep, also the focus went to deep-lying creators instead of a #10. Xavi, Scholes, Alonso, Pirlo received more praise than anyone that can be described as #10 in the last 5 years. Aye, except Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo. By far and away the best and most critically acclaimed players in that time period. Neither are #10s. 20 years ago Lionel Messi would've been a #10 then maybe a striker. Now - he played wide then moved upfront. Ronaldo plays wide. The classic #10 - Zidane, Cruyff etc. spent a number of years wide or upfront these past few years.

There's a lot of truth in that; Rivaldo had a fallout with Van Gaal because he shifted him wide, Ronaldinho always played wide... although Zidane always was a #10 for RM - even though I do believe his role in a 442 actually diminished the side as a whole (not a problem of his, but tactics) Yep, also the focus went to deep-lying creators instead of a #10. Xavi, Scholes, Alonso, Pirlo received more praise than anyone that can be described as #10 in the last 5 years.

Cisse has scored 4 league goals (correct me if i'm wrong) in 2013. The same amount as Gouffran who managed so in less minutes and not often at CF.

For a long time (well maybe 5 years or so) #10's went out of fashion in Europe and existing ones had to play out wide a lot or become strikers. Now it seems more teams employ a #10 in their natural position.

He's been out of form much longer than he was in form. If he's any less than a 1 in 2 man he should be on the bench.

Forget the style, he was effective. Parker did all the donkey work even if it meant running instead of using positional knowledge. one thing I liked about redknapp is that he keeps the game simple. Parker got the ball and passed it to one of the more creative and talented players. With Modric alongside he would just give him the ball. He was a regular in a side that beat Inter, AC, went to the CL QF, finished 4th, 5th, 4th. To say he wasn't consistently good is ludicrous. Claude Makelele would struggle alongside Steve Sidwell.. what's your point? Parker's good at doing the legwork for more talented players, winning the ball and laying it off. Things went wrong for him here when he was the man we looked to, to dictate play. He's not that guy. People thought Modric would struggle as a real CM in this division and I honestly believe having a work-horse like Parker really helped him (at least at the beginning) adjust to life at CM in the PL. Parker's reliance on stamina/running also means he's fallen off with age. Would Spurs have finished 4th, 5th, 4th with the current Anita? I doubt it.

But that's where he played for a top 5 side for 3 seasons. When we tried to make him our B2B Steven Gerrard - he failed miserably.

Was very decent for Spurs. Anchored a team that finished 4th, 5th (Champions League QF beating Milan), 4th. Generally agree with you but I find it churlish that people think Anita is already a better player than what Parker was.

I'm not a big Scott Parker fan but he's a decent DM at this level. Blood and thunder with some technical skill can take you a long way in the PL.

Tbh that is just the Premierleague. As bad as I think those sides played, they'll all stay up this season. There's worse in this division.

That Alan Hansen comment on MoTD was impertinent tbh - "just show him outside". His left is obviously his stronger foot, but his turn of pace/explosion is so good that he can still hurt you from the byline tbh - and probably have time to come back on to his left once he's got round you. He put in a number of good crosses with his right against Fulham. Alan Hansen has been shite for at least 5 years as a pundit.

His lack of pace means he's going to have to be quite a tough tackling fullback.

Its not that is concerning me so much, its the utter lack of overall play which to me is limiting how good the team can be. You're getting it Mole. Everyone always asks what the other lads can do for him but what does he do for them? He offers so little in general play that it's one of the prime reasons we struggle to create chances or sustain momentum. The goals highly concern me though.. he's not scoring... so what is the point of him? I'd give him Hull to find the net.. if he doesn't score against them send him to the glue factory..

If daft lads like Johnson and Cole can learn how to be good/top defenders i'm sure Davide can too

Tiote just got figured out imo. Not sure he has the ability to move the ball quicker.

Agree with TT. He's been bad for over a year now...

Shola would get called lazy if he put in some of these performances.

Was very decent. Interestingly Tiote made more than half the passes Anita had in about 20 minutes. Pardew isn't one to change a winning formula. I reckon Anita will keep his place.

Looks to me to be better when he's told to just concentrate on defending.

Seems to get more chances than Cisse.... if it's fresh legs helping him get into positions maybe Cisse should play that role off the bench until he finds the net

Winning me over with every game since the Morecambe horro show

Glad for him. Seems a nice lad too.

so bad it's funny. Torn whether to leave him out or keep him in as we are turning the corner creatively..

So aye, HBA - love him.