Swissmag Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Classic NM. Not even signed yet. Thats the point, for gods sake. Wankers build these players up, then they turn out to be crap. How about we just wait and find out what he's like, then decide? Unlike we did with Cacapa, Viduka, etc. And yes, befoire that absolute cretin Baggio starts, with his pathetic stuck-record drone, i was all for Parker when he signed, thought he'd be ace. I was wrong, i admitted that, unlike many on here with their fanboy behaviour. And the Taylor thing, yes i rate taylor. I've actually seen him play. Unlike most of the stupid c***s who want crap like Cacapa in his place. You are god, amen! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I tell you what, seeing how Barton has got on, I'd have Parker back in a shot! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I tell you what, seeing how Barton has got on, I'd have Parker back in a shot! Thought Barton had a decent game Sat. Ok not the quickest but his passing's getting better. Just wish he wasn't such a cunt! And tbh Parker just did 360 turns all day! So no thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Barton does look for the defence splitting pass which is something we need, but his overall ball retention is so bad he can become a liability. In his role, he needs to keep the ball better, and score some goals as well as making the odd cute pass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I tell you what, seeing how Barton has got on, I'd have Parker back in a shot! Thought Barton had a decent game Sat. Ok not the quickest but his passing's getting better. Just wish he wasn't such a cunt! And tbh Parker just did 360 turns all day! So no thanks Barton was absolutely gash on Saturday. He put Owen through for that chance, granted but he was woeful man. He does absolutely nothing, it was another anonymous display imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I tell you what, seeing how Barton has got on, I'd have Parker back in a shot! Thought Barton had a decent game Sat. Ok not the quickest but his passing's getting better. Just wish he wasn't such a c***! And tbh Parker just did 360 turns all day! So no thanks Barton was absolutely gash on Saturday. He put Owen through for that chance, granted but he was woeful man. He does absolutely nothing, it was another anonymous display imo. So you saying Parker would've been better? Neither of them are, or ever gonna be good enough. Barton misses the pool match I believe over his bail conditions so you'll be happy at least Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I tell you what, seeing how Barton has got on, I'd have Parker back in a shot! Thought Barton had a decent game Sat. Ok not the quickest but his passing's getting better. Just wish he wasn't such a c***! And tbh Parker just did 360 turns all day! So no thanks Barton was absolutely gash on Saturday. He put Owen through for that chance, granted but he was woeful man. He does absolutely nothing, it was another anonymous display imo. So you saying Parker would've been better? Neither of them are, or ever gonna be good enough. Barton misses the pool match I believe over his bail conditions so you'll be happy at least Where did I say Parker was better? I was challenging your assertion he had a decent game on Saturday. He didn't imo. Are you saying we'd win 5-0 if he was playing on Saturday? (Is that how this works?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I tell you what, seeing how Barton has got on, I'd have Parker back in a shot! Thought Barton had a decent game Sat. Ok not the quickest but his passing's getting better. Just wish he wasn't such a c***! And tbh Parker just did 360 turns all day! So no thanks Barton was absolutely gash on Saturday. He put Owen through for that chance, granted but he was woeful man. He does absolutely nothing, it was another anonymous display imo. So you saying Parker would've been better? Neither of them are, or ever gonna be good enough. Barton misses the pool match I believe over his bail conditions so you'll be happy at least Where did I say Parker was better? I was challenging your assertion he had a decent game on Saturday. He didn't imo. Are you saying we'd win 5-0 if he was playing on Saturday? (Is that how this works?) Well if you cared to read what I was replying to in the first place, you'd see what I was actually commenting on. That's your opinion and I respect that, but in no way do I believe he's the one to turn our fortunes around. I thought he did better on Sat than any other of the matches i'd seen him in, that's all I was saying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a shit about how good he was for Man City either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a s*** about how good he was for Man City either. Parker maybe had 2 games he did well in that's it. The rest of the time he was shit, to say one is better than the other is bollocks tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a s*** about how good he was for Man City either. Parker maybe had 2 games he did well in that's it. The rest of the time he was shit, to say one is better than the other is bollocks tbh. At least he passed the ball to his own players and kept the ball well, which is the basic requirement of any midfielder. He scored the odd goal as well. Parker was a bits' n pieces player who could do a job, Barton is a liability. Neither good enough, end of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a s*** about how good he was for Man City either. Parker maybe had 2 games he did well in that's it. The rest of the time he was shit, to say one is better than the other is bollocks tbh. Oh give over man. Parker had loads more than two games he was good in. He did very well when he first arrived, even if it was just because he battled and shone in a poor side. And are you now saying that having an opinion that either Parker or Barton are better than the other is 'bollocks'? Explain that one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a s*** about how good he was for Man City either. Parker maybe had 2 games he did well in that's it. The rest of the time he was s***, to say one is better than the other is bollocks tbh. At least he passed the ball to his own players and kept the ball well, which is the basic requirement of any midfielder. He scored the odd goal as well. Parker was a bits' n pieces player who could do a job, Barton is a liability. Neither good enough, end of. Exactly my point, not one is better than the other. Anyway have we signed this diatta guy or what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 It's obvious to most that Parker was just a scapegoat for a struggling team. He was more a symptom than the actual problem itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a s*** about how good he was for Man City either. Parker maybe had 2 games he did well in that's it. The rest of the time he was s***, to say one is better than the other is bollocks tbh. At least he passed the ball to his own players and kept the ball well, which is the basic requirement of any midfielder. He scored the odd goal as well. Parker was a bits' n pieces player who could do a job, Barton is a liability. Neither good enough, end of. Exactly my point, not one is better than the other. Anyway have we signed this diatta guy or what? That wasn't his point though. Fucking hell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 It's obvious to most that Parker was just a scapegoat for a struggling team. He was more a symptom than the actual problem itself. Aye, I thought he was praised to high heaven in an OTT way when he arrived then got some very undeserved, equally OTT, criticism towards the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a s*** about how good he was for Man City either. Parker maybe had 2 games he did well in that's it. The rest of the time he was s***, to say one is better than the other is bollocks tbh. At least he passed the ball to his own players and kept the ball well, which is the basic requirement of any midfielder. He scored the odd goal as well. Parker was a bits' n pieces player who could do a job, Barton is a liability. Neither good enough, end of. Exactly my point, not one is better than the other. Anyway have we signed this diatta guy or what? That wasn't his point though. f****** hell His point at the end is what i've been saying, one's not better than the other! You either don't read or just spout crap to try and get a reaction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a s*** about how good he was for Man City either. Parker maybe had 2 games he did well in that's it. The rest of the time he was s***, to say one is better than the other is bollocks tbh. At least he passed the ball to his own players and kept the ball well, which is the basic requirement of any midfielder. He scored the odd goal as well. Parker was a bits' n pieces player who could do a job, Barton is a liability. Neither good enough, end of. Exactly my point, not one is better than the other. Anyway have we signed this diatta guy or what? That wasn't his point though. f****** hell His point at the end is what i've been saying, one's not better than the other! You either don't read or just spout crap to try and get a reaction. He said neither were good enough, but Parker was better. Or so I thought anyway. Try reading it again before trying to be clever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a s*** about how good he was for Man City either. Parker maybe had 2 games he did well in that's it. The rest of the time he was s***, to say one is better than the other is bollocks tbh. At least he passed the ball to his own players and kept the ball well, which is the basic requirement of any midfielder. He scored the odd goal as well. Parker was a bits' n pieces player who could do a job, Barton is a liability. Neither good enough, end of. Exactly my point, not one is better than the other. Anyway have we signed this diatta guy or what? That wasn't his point though. f****** hell His point at the end is what i've been saying, one's not better than the other! You either don't read or just spout crap to try and get a reaction. He said neither were good enough, but Parker was better. Or so I thought anyway. Try reading it again before trying to be clever. Does it really fucking matter? Both are shit and were never going to be good enough. Fucking hell all this shit from saying he had a decent game compared to what he's been like. Decent's about a 6-7 rating in my book not sure what he got for that match but it must be close to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a s*** about how good he was for Man City either. Parker maybe had 2 games he did well in that's it. The rest of the time he was s***, to say one is better than the other is bollocks tbh. At least he passed the ball to his own players and kept the ball well, which is the basic requirement of any midfielder. He scored the odd goal as well. Parker was a bits' n pieces player who could do a job, Barton is a liability. Neither good enough, end of. Exactly my point, not one is better than the other. Anyway have we signed this diatta guy or what? That wasn't his point though. f****** hell His point at the end is what i've been saying, one's not better than the other! You either don't read or just spout crap to try and get a reaction. He said neither were good enough, but Parker was better. Or so I thought anyway. Try reading it again before trying to be clever. Does it really fucking matter? Both are shit and were never going to be good enough. Fucking hell all this shit from saying he had a decent game compared to what he's been like. Decent's about a 6-7 rating in my book not sure what he got for that match but it must be close to that. Changing tack now I see. I wonder why. Parker's good enough to walk into our current side fwiw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 What does it matter what else you were commenting on? You still said he had a decent game. That's what I disagreed with. The last bit was a piss-take btw. And fwiw I think I'd rather have Parker than Barton. And that isn't me saying Parker is/was the answer either but he did have some very good performances in b&w. Barton's never had a decent game yet for me. I couldn't give a s*** about how good he was for Man City either. Parker maybe had 2 games he did well in that's it. The rest of the time he was s***, to say one is better than the other is bollocks tbh. At least he passed the ball to his own players and kept the ball well, which is the basic requirement of any midfielder. He scored the odd goal as well. Parker was a bits' n pieces player who could do a job, Barton is a liability. Neither good enough, end of. Exactly my point, not one is better than the other. Anyway have we signed this diatta guy or what? That wasn't his point though. f****** hell His point at the end is what i've been saying, one's not better than the other! You either don't read or just spout crap to try and get a reaction. He said neither were good enough, but Parker was better. Or so I thought anyway. Try reading it again before trying to be clever. Does it really f****** matter? Both are s*** and were never going to be good enough. f****** hell all this s*** from saying he had a decent game compared to what he's been like. Decent's about a 6-7 rating in my book not sure what he got for that match but it must be close to that. Changing tack now I see. I wonder why. Parker's good enough to walk into our current side fwiw. How is that changing tack? Just bored of this pointless argument. Parker could walk back into this side you're right, but would he improve us? Hmmm don't think so Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Yes, he would improve us imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 why not ruin all the threads on the forums kids... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 why not ruin all the threads on the forums kids... Is that a challenge? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 why not ruin all the threads on the forums kids... We're only arguing about 2 Newcastle players (one current, one ex). I don't see the problem really. Your post made the thread ace though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now