Parker's playing style

[Howaythelads]

I think its more a problem with Roeder than it is Parker, he is a good player but when he is put next to Emre they seem to cancel each other out.

 

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.

[NE6]

Must admit that Parker doesn't really float my boat and the statistics with him not playing are worrying to say the least therefore Butt on his current from should play ahead of him everytime imo. Emre playing with Butt looks a different player as well.

 

If we got a good offer for either emre or parker i would take it tbh.

[Cajun]

I think its more a problem with Roeder than it is Parker, he is a good player but when he is put next to Emre they seem to cancel each other out.

 

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?

[Howaythelads]

I think its more a problem with Roeder than it is Parker, he is a good player but when he is put next to Emre they seem to cancel each other out.

 

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.

[Cajun]

I think its more a problem with Roeder than it is Parker, he is a good player but when he is put next to Emre they seem to cancel each other out.

 

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?

[Howaythelads]

I think its more a problem with Roeder than it is Parker, he is a good player but when he is put next to Emre they seem to cancel each other out.

 

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?

 

[Guest Invicta_Toon]

will you two piss off out my thread FFS

 

get a room

[Cajun]

I think its more a problem with Roeder than it is Parker, he is a good player but when he is put next to Emre they seem to cancel each other out.

 

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?

[Howaythelads]

I think its more a problem with Roeder than it is Parker, he is a good player but when he is put next to Emre they seem to cancel each other out.

 

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.

[Guest Li3nZ]

 

If we got a good offer for either emre or parker i would take it tbh.

 

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.

[Howaythelads]

 

If we got a good offer for either emre or parker i would take it tbh.

 

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.

[Guest Knightrider]

I'd keep Parker and sell Emre, good little player but not really suited to the Premiership or NUFC. I hope Bayern come back in for him and we accept their ridiculous offer - great return if that happens.

 

Anyway - Parker:

 

For me I'd play him strictly as an anchorman - to protect the back-four, press, give and take, tackle, etc. etc. Like he played under Souness where he was often brilliant. He's good at it as we know and does those things better than anyone else at the club and indeed better than most in the league. We need such a player and to buy a better one would cost fortunes and even then, there aren't many around.

[Guest thenorthumbrian]

Earlier in the season Parker was trying to be the creative player going forward and Emre was stuck behind him in the centre, it was wasting Emre's talent.

And whenever Parker gets the ball the attack slows right down. There was a game earlier when he did his little pirouette 3 times before passing.

And he falls over every time he makes a tackle even when it doesn't look necessary, I think he does it to try and impress the crowd. 

[Guest Knightrider]

Looking at it differently for a moment, Parker's pirouettes could be seen as good play, especially when there isn't much ahead of him or when players are in an off-side position. I've watched countless times Parker almost being forced into making pirouettes in order to keep the ball, because others around him weren't in a position to recieve the ball, making themselves available or because players were too tightly marked. This is good play and the basics of ball retention.

 

However, there are times when he needlesly does it and it impacts things in a negative manner and I agree, that needs cut out. But people go on as if he does it whenever he's on the ball... not true.

 

Anyway where most see this in Parker as a weakness, I see it as a strength. Most players would just hoof the ball or surrender possession or try to play a ball they aren't capable of which in turn surrenders possession anyway - but not Parker. You see, this is why I like Parker because tactically he's very tuned in and he is also demonstrating a great deal of belief in his own ability and a comfortableness with the ball at his feet and in tight areas that others don't show. Nobby and Owen are perhaps the only other players in our team who possess these attributes.

 

Part of a midfielder's job is ball retention and he should be applauded for showing a great deal of skill in this area not lambasted for it.

 

Look towards the team dynamic when play breaks down and not to an individual who along with a select few, is capable of playing super football as he showed at Charlton in what was a very decent footballing side under Curbishley. Remember his goal at the Valley for us, that sweet sweet move which he was involved in from start to finish?

 

I do and that's what he is capable of, that's the kind of influence he can have on play.

[Howaythelads]

I'd keep Parker and sell Emre, good little player but not really suited to the Premiership or NUFC. I hope Bayern come back in for him and we accept their ridiculous offer - great return if that happens.

 

Anyway - Parker:

 

For me I'd play him strictly as an anchorman - to protect the back-four, press, give and take, tackle, etc. etc. Like he played under Souness where he was often brilliant. He's good at it as we know and does those things better than anyone else at the club and indeed better than most in the league. We need such a player and to buy a better one would cost fortunes and even then, there aren't many around.

 

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.

[Guest Knightrider]

I'd keep Parker and sell Emre, good little player but not really suited to the Premiership or NUFC. I hope Bayern come back in for him and we accept their ridiculous offer - great return if that happens.

 

Anyway - Parker:

 

For me I'd play him strictly as an anchorman - to protect the back-four, press, give and take, tackle, etc. etc. Like he played under Souness where he was often brilliant. He's good at it as we know and does those things better than anyone else at the club and indeed better than most in the league. We need such a player and to buy a better one would cost fortunes and even then, there aren't many around.

 

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.

[Syrette]

HTL overrates Butt to a worrying extent.

[Howaythelads]

I'd keep Parker and sell Emre, good little player but not really suited to the Premiership or NUFC. I hope Bayern come back in for him and we accept their ridiculous offer - great return if that happens.

 

Anyway - Parker:

 

For me I'd play him strictly as an anchorman - to protect the back-four, press, give and take, tackle, etc. etc. Like he played under Souness where he was often brilliant. He's good at it as we know and does those things better than anyone else at the club and indeed better than most in the league. We need such a player and to buy a better one would cost fortunes and even then, there aren't many around.

 

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.

[Cajun]

I'd keep Parker and sell Emre, good little player but not really suited to the Premiership or NUFC. I hope Bayern come back in for him and we accept their ridiculous offer - great return if that happens.

 

Anyway - Parker:

 

For me I'd play him strictly as an anchorman - to protect the back-four, press, give and take, tackle, etc. etc. Like he played under Souness where he was often brilliant. He's good at it as we know and does those things better than anyone else at the club and indeed better than most in the league. We need such a player and to buy a better one would cost fortunes and even then, there aren't many around.

 

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.

[Howaythelads]

I'd keep Parker and sell Emre, good little player but not really suited to the Premiership or NUFC. I hope Bayern come back in for him and we accept their ridiculous offer - great return if that happens.

 

Anyway - Parker:

 

For me I'd play him strictly as an anchorman - to protect the back-four, press, give and take, tackle, etc. etc. Like he played under Souness where he was often brilliant. He's good at it as we know and does those things better than anyone else at the club and indeed better than most in the league. We need such a player and to buy a better one would cost fortunes and even then, there aren't many around.

 

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.

[Cajun]

I get it fairly often tbh  bluewink.gif

[Mick]

I get it fairly often tbh  bluewink.gif

 

tbh

[alpal78]

Looking at it differently for a moment, Parker's pirouettes could be seen as good play, especially when there isn't much ahead of him or when players are in an off-side position. I've watched countless times Parker almost being forced into making pirouettes in order to keep the ball, because others around him weren't in a position to recieve the ball, making themselves available or because players were too tightly marked. This is good play and the basics of ball retention.

 

However, there are times when he needlesly does it and it impacts things in a negative manner and I agree, that needs cut out. But people go on as if he does it whenever he's on the ball... not true.

 

Anyway where most see this in Parker as a weakness, I see it as a strength. Most players would just hoof the ball or surrender possession or try to play a ball they aren't capable of which in turn surrenders possession anyway - but not Parker. You see, this is why I like Parker because tactically he's very tuned in and he is also demonstrating a great deal of belief in his own ability and a comfortableness with the ball at his feet and in tight areas that others don't show. Nobby and Owen are perhaps the only other players in our team who possess these attributes.

 

Part of a midfielder's job is ball retention and he should be applauded for showing a great deal of skill in this area not lambasted for it.

 

Look towards the team dynamic when play breaks down and not to an individual who along with a select few, is capable of playing super football as he showed at Charlton in what was a very decent footballing side under Curbishley. Remember his goal at the Valley for us, that sweet sweet move which he was involved in from start to finish?

 

I do and that's what he is capable of, that's the kind of influence he can have on play.

 

This is probably one of those rare times that I'll agreewith HTL and disagree with HTT. I just can't see how the Pirouting is of any merit or benefit to the team. Parker's swirl and turn is sideways unlike Zidane's who uses them to beat a player. In effect, it's just wasting time and as good as passing backwards, which in a way can also be seen as "keeping possession", yet hated unanimously by all fans alike.

 

Parker slows down our attack and I don't buy the argument that he does the pirouting when there are no options. With fast players like Martins and Dyer and intelligent players like Solano around, there are always options available, it's just that Parker doesn't see these options.

 

I do agree with HTT though that Parker is better than Butt as a DM, the problem is Roeder does not want to play him in that role which makes that comparison moot.

 

If I had to sell one between Parker and Emre, and assuming we get the same amount of offers for both, I'd sell Parker first. Its not difficult to find an aggressive defebsive midfielder, most midtable teams have them, but only the top teams have a playmaker who can dribble in the final third, we have that in Emre. But knowing Newcastle, Parker's English and plays in typical British style, so its Emre who will go first.

[Howaythelads]

Looking at it differently for a moment, Parker's pirouettes could be seen as good play, especially when there isn't much ahead of him or when players are in an off-side position. I've watched countless times Parker almost being forced into making pirouettes in order to keep the ball, because others around him weren't in a position to recieve the ball, making themselves available or because players were too tightly marked. This is good play and the basics of ball retention.

 

However, there are times when he needlesly does it and it impacts things in a negative manner and I agree, that needs cut out. But people go on as if he does it whenever he's on the ball... not true.

 

Anyway where most see this in Parker as a weakness, I see it as a strength. Most players would just hoof the ball or surrender possession or try to play a ball they aren't capable of which in turn surrenders possession anyway - but not Parker. You see, this is why I like Parker because tactically he's very tuned in and he is also demonstrating a great deal of belief in his own ability and a comfortableness with the ball at his feet and in tight areas that others don't show. Nobby and Owen are perhaps the only other players in our team who possess these attributes.

 

Part of a midfielder's job is ball retention and he should be applauded for showing a great deal of skill in this area not lambasted for it.

 

Look towards the team dynamic when play breaks down and not to an individual who along with a select few, is capable of playing super football as he showed at Charlton in what was a very decent footballing side under Curbishley. Remember his goal at the Valley for us, that sweet sweet move which he was involved in from start to finish?

 

I do and that's what he is capable of, that's the kind of influence he can have on play.

 

This is probably one of those rare times that I'll agreewith HTL and disagree with HTT. I just can't see how the Pirouting is of any merit or benefit to the team. Parker's swirl and turn is sideways unlike Zidane's who uses them to beat a player. In effect, it's just wasting time and as good as passing backwards, which in a way can also be seen as "keeping possession", yet hated unanimously by all fans alike.

 

Parker slows down our attack and I don't buy the argument that he does the pirouting when there are no options. With fast players like Martins and Dyer and intelligent players like Solano around, there are always options available, it's just that Parker doesn't see these options.

 

I do agree with HTT though that Parker is better than Butt as a DM, the problem is Roeder does not want to play him in that role which makes that comparison moot.

 

If I had to sell one between Parker and Emre, and assuming we get the same amount of offers for both, I'd sell Parker first. Its not difficult to find an aggressive defebsive midfielder, most midtable teams have them, but only the top teams have a playmaker who can dribble in the final third, we have that in Emre. But knowing Newcastle, Parker's English and plays in typical British style, so its Emre who will go first.

 

It is a primary part of the role of the DM to distribute the ball well, to set the tempo of the play. The fact that Parker does not have the ability to do this is one of the reasons he is not as good a DM as Butt imo. By Roeder simply putting him in this role and telling him to do it does not mean he will have the ability to do it. With players in the team with pace, such as Dyer, Owen and Martins, not forgetting Zog when he gets back to fitness and form, this failing will be highlighted even more.

 

Not sure why you don't agree with more of what I post. I often agree with HTT once I've reached the important 10 or words from the 1000's he writes.  Perhaps you aren't reading the posts properly?  :winking:

[NE5]

Looking at it differently for a moment, Parker's pirouettes could be seen as good play, especially when there isn't much ahead of him or when players are in an off-side position. I've watched countless times Parker almost being forced into making pirouettes in order to keep the ball, because others around him weren't in a position to recieve the ball, making themselves available or because players were too tightly marked. This is good play and the basics of ball retention.

 

However, there are times when he needlesly does it and it impacts things in a negative manner and I agree, that needs cut out. But people go on as if he does it whenever he's on the ball... not true.

 

Anyway where most see this in Parker as a weakness, I see it as a strength. Most players would just hoof the ball or surrender possession or try to play a ball they aren't capable of which in turn surrenders possession anyway - but not Parker. You see, this is why I like Parker because tactically he's very tuned in and he is also demonstrating a great deal of belief in his own ability and a comfortableness with the ball at his feet and in tight areas that others don't show. Nobby and Owen are perhaps the only other players in our team who possess these attributes.

 

Part of a midfielder's job is ball retention and he should be applauded for showing a great deal of skill in this area not lambasted for it.

 

Look towards the team dynamic when play breaks down and not to an individual who along with a select few, is capable of playing super football as he showed at Charlton in what was a very decent footballing side under Curbishley. Remember his goal at the Valley for us, that sweet sweet move which he was involved in from start to finish?

 

I do and that's what he is capable of, that's the kind of influence he can have on play.

 

This is probably one of those rare times that I'll agreewith HTL and disagree with HTT. I just can't see how the Pirouting is of any merit or benefit to the team. Parker's swirl and turn is sideways unlike Zidane's who uses them to beat a player. In effect, it's just wasting time and as good as passing backwards, which in a way can also be seen as "keeping possession", yet hated unanimously by all fans alike.

 

Parker slows down our attack and I don't buy the argument that he does the pirouting when there are no options. With fast players like Martins and Dyer and intelligent players like Solano around, there are always options available, it's just that Parker doesn't see these options.

 

I do agree with HTT though that Parker is better than Butt as a DM, the problem is Roeder does not want to play him in that role which makes that comparison moot.

 

If I had to sell one between Parker and Emre, and assuming we get the same amount of offers for both, I'd sell Parker first. Its not difficult to find an aggressive defebsive midfielder, most midtable teams have them, but only the top teams have a playmaker who can dribble in the final third, we have that in Emre. But knowing Newcastle, Parker's English and plays in typical British style, so its Emre who will go first.

 

It is a primary part of the role of the DM to distribute the ball well, to set the tempo of the play. The fact that Parker does not have the ability to do this is one of the reasons he is not as good a DM as Butt imo. By Roeder simply putting him in this role and telling him to do it does not mean he will have the ability to do it. With players in the team with pace, such as Dyer, Owen and Martins, not forgetting Zog when he gets back to fitness and form, this failing will be highlighted even more.

 

Not sure why you don't agree with more of what I post. I often agree with HTT once I've reached the important 10 or words from the 1000's he writes.  Perhaps you aren't reading the posts properly?  :winking:

 

I think Butt is streets ahead of Parker, if Parker wants to play regularly he will have to play a forward role in front of Butt instead of Emre. Might not be a bad idea but he is going to have to adjust back to this role, which he played earlier in his career at Charlton. He holds the game up too much though and has to stay on his feel when he tackles. How often do you see Butt slide in ? It may look good but its crap, if he misses the ball or the man he's completely out of the game. If he plays the forward role he has to get into the box more and score goals like he did last week more often.