Scotty Parker

[Howaythelads]

What annoys me is that every one is speaking like this:

 

Wanker no1: " Emre's shite man!"

 

Wanker no2: "No man Parkers the shit one, we only ever win when he leaves the pitch!"

 

The truth is neither Parker nor Emre are shit, it's about balance in midfield. Picking the players is the easy bit, finding the correct formula is the hardest task.

 

When Butt and Emre have played together we have improved but not becasue of Parkers absence in the talent sense but because Nicky Butt has played in defensive midfield. Where as Parker and Emre were playing on top of each other. I feel should we play Parker in defensive midfield we would have the same outcome.

 

 

 

You're preaching to the converted in my case mate. I even started a thread about it months ago. I won't link to it though otherwise melanie will slag me off again....  :winking:

[Howaythelads]

Basically, I think this is all bollocks and I think Parker will prove all his doubters wrong. IMO, if Emre had played against Arsenal, we would've lost.

 

You really do have a simplistic way of looking at things, mate.

 

I think you just have a simplistic way of interpreting what I write. If Emre had played his regular game against Arsenal, regardless of who was alongside him, I think we would've lost. He's too clumsy in posession, his passing is usually poor, his tackling is lightweight, he runs into player and gives up the ball too often, his set-pieces have usually been tame or inaccurate. He's played one good game against a shit team, what does that prove?

 

I actually don't give a shit about any comparison between Parker and Emre.  Emre being shite in your opinion doesn't improve Parker as a footballer.

 

By the way, what did you think of the team performances and the results during the latter part of last season when Parker was absent? Do you understand it is a team game and that the team generally performs better without Parker in that team?

 

Myth, tbh. We won matches with Parker in the side and without. The one common factor when we started winning was the absence of Souness. After he'd fucked off we won our first five or six matches (with Parker in the team, btw) until we went to Old Trafford.

 

Once again, simplistic. He really is your HERO, isn't he, mate.

 

I said "team performances", not just results. We looked a far, far better team without Parker, we created more chances and looked far more dangerous. In my opinion.

[Keefaz]

Basically, I think this is all bollocks and I think Parker will prove all his doubters wrong. IMO, if Emre had played against Arsenal, we would've lost.

 

You really do have a simplistic way of looking at things, mate.

 

I think you just have a simplistic way of interpreting what I write. If Emre had played his regular game against Arsenal, regardless of who was alongside him, I think we would've lost. He's too clumsy in posession, his passing is usually poor, his tackling is lightweight, he runs into player and gives up the ball too often, his set-pieces have usually been tame or inaccurate. He's played one good game against a shit team, what does that prove?

 

I actually don't give a shit about any comparison between Parker and Emre.  Emre being shite in your opinion doesn't improve Parker as a footballer.

 

By the way, what did you think of the team performances and the results during the latter part of last season when Parker was absent? Do you understand it is a team game and that the team generally performs better without Parker in that team?

 

Myth, tbh. We won matches with Parker in the side and without. The one common factor when we started winning was the absence of Souness. After he'd fucked off we won our first five or six matches (with Parker in the team, btw) until we went to Old Trafford.

 

Once again, simplistic. He really is your HERO, isn't he, mate.

 

I said "team performances", not just results. We looked a far, far better team without Parker, we created more chances and looked far more dangerous. In my opinion.

 

I'm not sure what your problem is: I'm just sticking up for a decent, whole-hearted player who's getting a lot of unnecessary stick, imo. In my opinion, it was the likes of N'Zogbia and Shola that helped us over the line last season not the absence of Parker that suddenly caused the team to gel: I don't think performances post-Parker were any better than those with Parker in the side. We played some very poor teams, and we got a bit lucky: for example, Amdy Faye put in one of the worst performances I've ever seen against Wigan and we still won.

[Howaythelads]

Basically, I think this is all bollocks and I think Parker will prove all his doubters wrong. IMO, if Emre had played against Arsenal, we would've lost.

 

You really do have a simplistic way of looking at things, mate.

 

I think you just have a simplistic way of interpreting what I write. If Emre had played his regular game against Arsenal, regardless of who was alongside him, I think we would've lost. He's too clumsy in posession, his passing is usually poor, his tackling is lightweight, he runs into player and gives up the ball too often, his set-pieces have usually been tame or inaccurate. He's played one good game against a shit team, what does that prove?

 

I actually don't give a shit about any comparison between Parker and Emre.  Emre being shite in your opinion doesn't improve Parker as a footballer.

 

By the way, what did you think of the team performances and the results during the latter part of last season when Parker was absent? Do you understand it is a team game and that the team generally performs better without Parker in that team?

 

Myth, tbh. We won matches with Parker in the side and without. The one common factor when we started winning was the absence of Souness. After he'd fucked off we won our first five or six matches (with Parker in the team, btw) until we went to Old Trafford.

 

Once again, simplistic. He really is your HERO, isn't he, mate.

 

I said "team performances", not just results. We looked a far, far better team without Parker, we created more chances and looked far more dangerous. In my opinion.

 

I'm not sure what your problem is: I'm just sticking up for a decent, whole-hearted player who's getting a lot of unnecessary stick, imo. In my opinion, it was the likes of N'Zogbia and Shola that helped us over the line last season not the absence of Parker that suddenly caused the team to gel: I don't think performances post-Parker were any better than those with Parker in the side. We played some very poor teams, and we got a bit lucky: for example, Amdy Faye put in one of the worst performances I've ever seen against Wigan and we still won.

 

Problem! What problem

 

I'm just more interested in the team than a hero or a favourite. I see a whole-hearted player just like you see, but I see a whole-hearted player who holds back the team due to his limited personal abilities and his inability to gel with other players in the team. I see a player who doesn't fit in with how the team plays. His speed of thought is too slow, the *quality* of his distribution is awful. (Is this where you get all simplistic and show me a stat showing completed passes, or something???).  He's not good enough no matter how whole-hearted he may be.

 

If he proves me wrong I'll be happy, but I don't see any way in the world he will ever fit in a central midfield with any of the players we currently have at the club, and as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, it's a team game. He's definitely not good enough to bring in new players specifically to fit around him and the way he plays.

[Guest Brazilianbob]

Interesting to note at least one opinion was that when Butt wins the ball he moves it on immediately and effectively, whereas Parker "has to turn 3 full circles before giving it back to Bramble or Moore to hoof up the field".

 

Clearly Parker does not have the vision to play in that holding role, and this view was reinforced by Eriksson's refusal to pick Parker for England because his distribution was not good enough.

 

Granted Parker is a tenacious battler who wins lots of possession, but if he cannot use the ball once he has done so, we might as well be playing a full back in the holding role.

[WhatTheFunk]

Interesting to note at least one opinion was that when Butt wins the ball he moves it on immediately and effectively, whereas Parker "has to turn 3 full circles before giving it back to Bramble or Moore to hoof up the field".

 

Clearly Parker does not have the vision to play in that holding role, and this view was reinforced by Eriksson's refusal to pick Parker for England because his distribution was not good enough.

 

Granted Parker is a tenacious battler who wins lots of possession, but if he cannot use the ball once he has done so, we might as well be playing a full back in the holding role.

 

Aye. Butt moves it on even before winning it so to speak. I remember several occasions against Arsenal and Pompey when his interception or block was actually a pass onto a player better positioned than him. It's that sort of quality we need at the moment, to spot the runs of our pacey players.

[Optimistic Nut]

Bring back Clarence.

[Howaythelads]

Bring back Clarence.

 

A very under-rated player. Somehow.

[STM]

What annoys me is that every one is speaking like this:

 

Wanker no1: " Emre's shite man!"

 

Wanker no2: "No man Parkers the shit one, we only ever win when he leaves the pitch!"

 

The truth is neither Parker nor Emre are shit, it's about balance in midfield. Picking the players is the easy bit, finding the correct formula is the hardest task.

 

When Butt and Emre have played together we have improved but not becasue of Parkers absence in the talent sense but because Nicky Butt has played in defensive midfield. Where as Parker and Emre were playing on top of each other. I feel should we play Parker in defensive midfield we would have the same outcome.

 

 

 

You're preaching to the converted in my case mate. I even started a thread about it months ago. I won't link to it though otherwise melanie will slag me off again....   :winking:

 

That's fair do's. Out of interest, who would be your ideal midfield partnership between Parker, Emre and Butt?

 

Personally, i would go with Parker and Emre, so long as both players stuck to their team role. If it didn't work i see no reason why we couldn't use Butts experiance to to teacher how to play in defensive midfield.

[Howaythelads]

What annoys me is that every one is speaking like this:

 

Wanker no1: " Emre's shite man!"

 

Wanker no2: "No man Parkers the shit one, we only ever win when he leaves the pitch!"

 

The truth is neither Parker nor Emre are shit, it's about balance in midfield. Picking the players is the easy bit, finding the correct formula is the hardest task.

 

When Butt and Emre have played together we have improved but not becasue of Parkers absence in the talent sense but because Nicky Butt has played in defensive midfield. Where as Parker and Emre were playing on top of each other. I feel should we play Parker in defensive midfield we would have the same outcome.

 

 

 

You're preaching to the converted in my case mate. I even started a thread about it months ago. I won't link to it though otherwise melanie will slag me off again....  :winking:

 

That's fair do's. Out of interest, who would be your ideal midfield partnership between Parker, Emre and Butt?

 

Personally, i would go with Parker and Emre, so long as both players stuck to their team role. If it didn't work i see no reason why we couldn't use Butts experiance to to teacher how to play in defensive midfield.

 

 

Going round in circles, eh.

[STM]

What annoys me is that every one is speaking like this:

 

Wanker no1: " Emre's shite man!"

 

Wanker no2: "No man Parkers the shit one, we only ever win when he leaves the pitch!"

 

The truth is neither Parker nor Emre are shit, it's about balance in midfield. Picking the players is the easy bit, finding the correct formula is the hardest task.

 

When Butt and Emre have played together we have improved but not becasue of Parkers absence in the talent sense but because Nicky Butt has played in defensive midfield. Where as Parker and Emre were playing on top of each other. I feel should we play Parker in defensive midfield we would have the same outcome.

 

 

 

You're preaching to the converted in my case mate. I even started a thread about it months ago. I won't link to it though otherwise melanie will slag me off again....   :winking:

 

That's fair do's. Out of interest, who would be your ideal midfield partnership between Parker, Emre and Butt?

 

Personally, i would go with Parker and Emre, so long as both players stuck to their team role. If it didn't work i see no reason why we couldn't use Butts experiance to to teacher how to play in defensive midfield.

 

 

Going round in circles, eh.

 

I have no favourites as such but i feel we should be looking long term. I believe parker has not found his true postion as a footballer yet ,he hasn't the ability to be an effective attacking midfielder. I noticed he does that spinning in a circle thing just like Dyer and JJ have done in the past. Believe it or not that it as small problem and i don't think is down to his passing ability but rather his conifidence in it. If our "coaches" had any sense they would work on these things to mould him into a defensive midfielder.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

What annoys me is that every one is speaking like this:

 

Wanker no1: " Emre's shite man!"

 

Wanker no2: "No man Parkers the shit one, we only ever win when he leaves the pitch!"

 

The truth is neither Parker nor Emre are shit, it's about balance in midfield. Picking the players is the easy bit, finding the correct formula is the hardest task.

 

When Butt and Emre have played together we have improved but not becasue of Parkers absence in the talent sense but because Nicky Butt has played in defensive midfield. Where as Parker and Emre were playing on top of each other. I feel should we play Parker in defensive midfield we would have the same outcome.

 

 

 

You're preaching to the converted in my case mate. I even started a thread about it months ago. I won't link to it though otherwise melanie will slag me off again....  :winking:

 

That's fair do's. Out of interest, who would be your ideal midfield partnership between Parker, Emre and Butt?

 

Personally, i would go with Parker and Emre, so long as both players stuck to their team role. If it didn't work i see no reason why we couldn't use Butts experiance to to teacher how to play in defensive midfield.

 

 

Going round in circles, eh.

 

I have no favourites as such but i feel we should be looking long term. I believe parker has not found his true postion as a footballer yet ,he hasn't the ability to be an effective attacking midfielder. I noticed he does that spinning in a circle thing just like Dyer and JJ have done in the past. Believe it or not that it as small problem and i don't think is down to his passing ability but rather his conifidence in it. If our "coaches" had any sense they would work on these things to mould him into a defensive midfielder.

 

 

 

He's 26 and should be approaching his prime.

[STM]

What annoys me is that every one is speaking like this:

 

Wanker no1: " Emre's shite man!"

 

Wanker no2: "No man Parkers the shit one, we only ever win when he leaves the pitch!"

 

The truth is neither Parker nor Emre are shit, it's about balance in midfield. Picking the players is the easy bit, finding the correct formula is the hardest task.

 

When Butt and Emre have played together we have improved but not becasue of Parkers absence in the talent sense but because Nicky Butt has played in defensive midfield. Where as Parker and Emre were playing on top of each other. I feel should we play Parker in defensive midfield we would have the same outcome.

 

 

 

You're preaching to the converted in my case mate. I even started a thread about it months ago. I won't link to it though otherwise melanie will slag me off again....   :winking:

 

That's fair do's. Out of interest, who would be your ideal midfield partnership between Parker, Emre and Butt?

 

Personally, i would go with Parker and Emre, so long as both players stuck to their team role. If it didn't work i see no reason why we couldn't use Butts experiance to to teacher how to play in defensive midfield.

 

 

Going round in circles, eh.

 

I have no favourites as such but i feel we should be looking long term. I believe parker has not found his true postion as a footballer yet ,he hasn't the ability to be an effective attacking midfielder. I noticed he does that spinning in a circle thing just like Dyer and JJ have done in the past. Believe it or not that it as small problem and i don't think is down to his passing ability but rather his conifidence in it. If our "coaches" had any sense they would work on these things to mould him into a defensive midfielder.

 

 

 

He's 26 and should be approaching his prime.

 

Your not wrong but every player can learn. Even wor Al learned a massive amount off SBR when came, in order to adjust his game. You also have to remember that last season was his first full season for along time.

[Guest s0ftcore]

Interesting to note at least one opinion was that when Butt wins the ball he moves it on immediately and effectively, whereas Parker "has to turn 3 full circles before giving it back to Bramble or Moore to hoof up the field".

 

Clearly Parker does not have the vision to play in that holding role, and this view was reinforced by Eriksson's refusal to pick Parker for England because his distribution was not good enough.

 

Granted Parker is a tenacious battler who wins lots of possession, but if he cannot use the ball once he has done so, we might as well be playing a full back in the holding role.

 

We could play him fullback. Don't see why we can't switch him there. Would save us alot of money from buyin a decent and proven leftback (Bridge not an option anymore, and Distin fancies himself as a centreback)

 

Zambrotta made the switch, Flamini made the switch... don't see why Parker can't do the job of a fullback. He tackles well, has good work-rate and isn't too slow.

 

Sigh - if only huh?  bluecry.gif

[iklgizmo]

Interesting to note at least one opinion was that when Butt wins the ball he moves it on immediately and effectively, whereas Parker "has to turn 3 full circles before giving it back to Bramble or Moore to hoof up the field".

 

Clearly Parker does not have the vision to play in that holding role, and this view was reinforced by Eriksson's refusal to pick Parker for England because his distribution was not good enough.

 

Granted Parker is a tenacious battler who wins lots of possession, but if he cannot use the ball once he has done so, we might as well be playing a full back in the holding role.

 

We could play him fullback. Don't see why we can't switch him there. Would save us alot of money from buyin a decent and proven leftback (Bridge not an option anymore, and Distin fancies himself as a centreback)

 

Zambrotta made the switch, Flamini made the switch... don't see why Parker can't do the job of a fullback. He tackles well, has good work-rate and isn't too slow.

 

Sigh - if only huh?  bluecry.gif

 

dont see it myself

 

[Howaythelads]

I'd rather mug some other club into buying him in January.