People blaming Parker for their 2nd...

[Howaythelads]

Parker couldn't hold his position if his life depended on it, it's like when you see people kicking a ball around in the park with their dog, he just runs after everything without putting any thought into it whatsoever, their first goal is a good example of that.

 

He does. As does Dyer. Neither of them have any f***ing clue about playing in position.

 

That, for me, is why Emre and Parker never look good together (another lesser reason being Emre's obvious deficiencies). Parker wanders around, and Emre isn't disciplined enough to cover it. When Emre plays with Butt, a player who knows how to play in a position, Emre looks a lot better.

 

PARKER WANDERS AROUND??? Was anyone here at the Spurs game? Or the MANU game for that matter.

 

Actually, I wish I knew just how many times Ronaldo lost the ball, failed to beat his man, missed a pass, shot miles wide etc etc the other night. I guess none of that begins to compare with the sariousness of Parker passing back to Shay from kick-off....

 

I suggest you start thinking of more than one or two games and a couple of incidents. Think Big Picture.

 

What, like last season where Parker was our best outfield player by a country mile?

 

OMG. Graft and sweat. That's all he was last season too.

 

Not much point in me posting about Parker anymore. Some of us can see the reality and others can't.

 

I expect a load of u-turns when he eventually leaves, as we saw when Jenas left.

 

Cheers

 

Okay Mr Patronising.

 

It's what happens when head bangs against wall.  :winking:

 

Why don't you discuss the attributes of this player.  Comments like he was "our best outfield player by a country mile last season" remind me of the Jenas argument. People said Jenas was 'ace' because he won the Young Player of The Year Award. Well "so what" was my answer then, and "so what" is my answer now about Parker. He unbalances the team. We play better without him, we are more creative without him and the team  has a better shape without him, so we defend better too.

 

In what way was he our "best outfield player by a country mile?" People are now acknowledging his partnership with Emre is a poor one, it was a poor partnership last season too. XVentura has probably hit it on the head about last season. We were under the cosh and outplayed in loads of games, so of course a player who runs around diving into challenges is going to look like they're doing something under those circumstances. Bucket loads of sweat and effort is always appreciated, is it not? Well, effort and desire are needed but there is no substitute for outright quality when there is also some application.

[magorific]

Parker couldn't hold his position if his life depended on it, it's like when you see people kicking a ball around in the park with their dog, he just runs after everything without putting any thought into it whatsoever, their first goal is a good example of that.

 

He does. As does Dyer. Neither of them have any f***ing clue about playing in position.

 

That, for me, is why Emre and Parker never look good together (another lesser reason being Emre's obvious deficiencies). Parker wanders around, and Emre isn't disciplined enough to cover it. When Emre plays with Butt, a player who knows how to play in a position, Emre looks a lot better.

 

PARKER WANDERS AROUND??? Was anyone here at the Spurs game? Or the MANU game for that matter.

 

Actually, I wish I knew just how many times Ronaldo lost the ball, failed to beat his man, missed a pass, shot miles wide etc etc the other night. I guess none of that begins to compare with the sariousness of Parker passing back to Shay from kick-off....

 

I suggest you start thinking of more than one or two games and a couple of incidents. Think Big Picture.

 

What, like last season where Parker was our best outfield player by a country mile?

 

OMG. Graft and sweat. That's all he was last season too.

 

Not much point in me posting about Parker anymore. Some of us can see the reality and others can't.

 

I expect a load of u-turns when he eventually leaves, as we saw when Jenas left.

 

Cheers

 

Okay Mr Patronising.

 

It's what happens when head bangs against wall.  :winking:

 

Why don't you discuss the attributes of this player.  Comments like he was "our best outfield player by a country mile last season" remind me of the Jenas argument. People said Jenas was 'ace' because he won the Young Player of The Year Award. Well "so what" was my answer then, and "so what" is my answer now about Parker. He unbalances the team. We play better without him, we are more creative without him and the team  has a better shape without him, so we defend better too.

 

In what way was he our "best outfield player by a country mile?" People are now acknowledging his partnership with Emre is a poor one, it was a poor partnership last season too. XVentura has probably hit it on the head about last season. We were under the cost and outplayed in loads of games, so of course a player who runs around diving into challenges is going to look like they're doing something under those circumstances. Bucket loads of sweat and effort is always appreciated, is it not? Well, effort and desire are needed but there is no substitute for outright quality when there is also some application.

 

It takes two to f*ck up a partnership. So what's your appraisal of Emre? Does his overall contribution - or, often, lack of it - not deserve to be analysed every bit as much as Parker's?

 

In most away games - and pretty much every game against top-class Premiership opposition, Emre is a passenger. As for his temperament, it's only a matter of time before he gets sent off.

 

[Guest Knightrider]

Exactly HTL, we were under the cosh and one player who limited that effect was Scott Parker in his role as DCM. Hence a job well done. Hence people arguing that not only can he do that job, but that should be his role in the team - if like me you consider a DCM to be an important position or a role requirement. I don't buy the whole "we played much better once Parker got injured" line either and I think thats a bit of a cop out tbh. We played much better because Souness was removed and I'm sure had Parker played in most of the games post-Souness we'd have still played well and picked up points. We played much better without Owen if we want to be pedantic, Ameobi was flying, does that mean we should forget about Owen and keep with Ameobi?

 

Also you said earlier on in the thread you don't like to single out individuals (Dyer) for goals being conceded because its a team thing, but aren't you doing just that by singling out Parker's absence as a main factor in our form under Roeder after Souness got the sack?

 

You don't rate him and I can live with that and you make very good points as to why but some, not saying you BTW, are overreacting to this whole Parker issue and making a big big deal of it. Its a case of keep repeating a lie and it becomes a truth for many on here IMO, quite a few Parker detractors don't even see the full game so go off your posts and others and that has snowballed to the point now where people are using Parker as either a scapegoat ot to win an arguement, which I am guilty of two in a reverse way by citing Dyer as guilty for their goal, just because I'm sick of reading how everything is all down to Parker in one way or another.

 

Yes he's overrated by sections and yes he isn't a top-class player, but he's a good Premiership player who has played very well for us, even if its only by doing a few things like tackling, working hard and putting himself about. People forget that's what he was bought for - to do the defensive role.

 

Last season people were moaning he didn't score enough goals - he's among them this season and now people are saying he doesn't defend or doesn't create many. And another thing that boils my piss - people keep saying Parker needs to be doing this and that yet the very same cretins are saying he's shite and can't do this and that in another thread. You couldn't makew it up.

 

Anyway, Parker for me is our best DCM and because I think we need such a player, he starts in my XI and unless we can buy a much better DCM to do the job he has shown himself capable of doing, I see no reason in dispensing with a player like Parker who if anything is a very good club player to have on the books.

 

People need to accept we are not Chelsea or Arsenal, we can't just bring in world-class players to do the job our current ones can't do or don't do to the stupidly high expectations we place on them.

 

Sorry for the mini rant but well, that's how I see things and feel on the issue.

[thedudeabides]

Exactly HTL, we were under the cosh and one player who limited that effect was Scott Parker in his role as DCM. Hence a job well done. Hence people arguing that not only can he do that job, but that should be his role in the team - if like me you consider a DCM to be an important position or a role requirement. I don't buy the whole "we played much better once Parker got injured" line either and I think thats a bit of a cop out tbh. We played much better because Souness was removed and I'm sure had Parker played in most of the games post-Souness we'd have still played well and picked up points. We played much better without Owen if we want to be pedantic, Ameobi was flying, does that mean we should forget about Owen and keep with Ameobi?

 

Also you said earlier on in the thread you don't like to single out individuals (Dyer) for goals being conceded because its a team thing, but aren't you doing just that by singling out Parker's absence as a main factor in our form under Roeder after Souness got the sack?

 

You don't rate him and I can live with that and you make very good points as to why but some, not saying you BTW, are overreacting to this whole Parker issue and making a big big deal of it. Its a case of keep repeating a lie and it becomes a truth for many on here IMO, quite a few Parker detractors don't even see the full game so go off your posts and others and that has snowballed to the point now where people are using Parker as either a scapegoat ot to win an arguement, which I am guilty of two in a reverse way by citing Dyer as guilty for their goal, just because I'm sick of reading how everything is all down to Parker in one way or another.

 

Yes he's overrated by sections and yes he isn't a top-class player, but he's a good Premiership player who has played very well for us, even if its only by doing a few things like tackling, working hard and putting himself about. People forget that's what he was bought for - to do the defensive role.

 

Last season people were moaning he didn't score enough goals - he's among them this season and now people are saying he doesn't defend or doesn't create many. And another thing that boils my piss - people keep saying Parker needs to be doing this and that yet the very same cretins are saying he's shite and can't do this and that in another thread. You couldn't makew it up.

 

Anyway, Parker for me is our best DCM and because I think we need such a player, he starts in my XI and unless we can buy a much better DCM to do the job he has shown himself capable of doing, I see no reason in dispensing with a player like Parker who if anything is a very good club player to have on the books.

 

People need to accept we are not Chelsea or Arsenal, we can't just bring in world-class players to do the job our current ones can't do or don't do to the stupidly high expectations we place on them.

 

Sorry for the mini rant but well, that's how I see things and feel on the issue.

 

  Well said that man.

[Howaythelads]

Parker couldn't hold his position if his life depended on it, it's like when you see people kicking a ball around in the park with their dog, he just runs after everything without putting any thought into it whatsoever, their first goal is a good example of that.

 

He does. As does Dyer. Neither of them have any f***ing clue about playing in position.

 

That, for me, is why Emre and Parker never look good together (another lesser reason being Emre's obvious deficiencies). Parker wanders around, and Emre isn't disciplined enough to cover it. When Emre plays with Butt, a player who knows how to play in a position, Emre looks a lot better.

 

PARKER WANDERS AROUND??? Was anyone here at the Spurs game? Or the MANU game for that matter.

 

Actually, I wish I knew just how many times Ronaldo lost the ball, failed to beat his man, missed a pass, shot miles wide etc etc the other night. I guess none of that begins to compare with the sariousness of Parker passing back to Shay from kick-off....

 

I suggest you start thinking of more than one or two games and a couple of incidents. Think Big Picture.

 

What, like last season where Parker was our best outfield player by a country mile?

 

OMG. Graft and sweat. That's all he was last season too.

 

Not much point in me posting about Parker anymore. Some of us can see the reality and others can't.

 

I expect a load of u-turns when he eventually leaves, as we saw when Jenas left.

 

Cheers

 

Okay Mr Patronising.

 

It's what happens when head bangs against wall.  :winking:

 

Why don't you discuss the attributes of this player.  Comments like he was "our best outfield player by a country mile last season" remind me of the Jenas argument. People said Jenas was 'ace' because he won the Young Player of The Year Award. Well "so what" was my answer then, and "so what" is my answer now about Parker. He unbalances the team. We play better without him, we are more creative without him and the team  has a better shape without him, so we defend better too.

 

In what way was he our "best outfield player by a country mile?" People are now acknowledging his partnership with Emre is a poor one, it was a poor partnership last season too. XVentura has probably hit it on the head about last season. We were under the cost and outplayed in loads of games, so of course a player who runs around diving into challenges is going to look like they're doing something under those circumstances. Bucket loads of sweat and effort is always appreciated, is it not? Well, effort and desire are needed but there is no substitute for outright quality when there is also some application.

 

It takes two to f*ck up a partnership. So what's your appraisal of Emre? Does his overall contribution - or, often, lack of it - not deserve to be analysed every bit as much as Parker's?

 

In most away games - and pretty much every game against top-class Premiership opposition, Emre is a passenger. As for his temperament, it's only a matter of time before he gets sent off.

 

 

Well I'm not a professional football manager, I just call it as I see it as a fan. We've seen plenty of games with Parker/Emre, we've seen plenty of games with only one of those players while the other was either out of the side, or used in a different role in the team.

 

It's my opinion that of the two Emre is a better player, he performs well alongside Butt for example, and Butt performs well alongside Emre, the team looks better. Parker doesn't appear to complement any other player. That doesn't mean I'm entirely happy with Emre, I'd really like to get rid of them both in the end, it's just that I'd get rid of Parker first if possible.

[Howaythelads]

Exactly HTL, we were under the cosh and one player who limited that effect was Scott Parker in his role as DCM. Hence a job well done. Hence people arguing that not only can he do that job, but that should be his role in the team - if like me you consider a DCM to be an important position or a role requirement. I don't buy the whole "we played much better once Parker got injured" line either and I think thats a bit of a cop out tbh. We played much better because Souness was removed and I'm sure had Parker played in most of the games post-Souness we'd have still played well and picked up points. We played much better without Owen if we want to be pedantic, Ameobi was flying, does that mean we should forget about Owen and keep with Ameobi?

 

Also you said earlier on in the thread you don't like to single out individuals (Dyer) for goals being conceded because its a team thing, but aren't you doing just that by singling out Parker's absence as a main factor in our form under Roeder after Souness got the sack?

 

You don't rate him and I can live with that and you make very good points as to why but some, not saying you BTW, are overreacting to this whole Parker issue and making a big big deal of it. Its a case of keep repeating a lie and it becomes a truth for many on here IMO, quite a few Parker detractors don't even see the full game so go off your posts and others and that has snowballed to the point now where people are using Parker as either a scapegoat ot to win an arguement, which I am guilty of two in a reverse way by citing Dyer as guilty for their goal, just because I'm sick of reading how everything is all down to Parker in one way or another.

 

Yes he's overrated by sections and yes he isn't a top-class player, but he's a good Premiership player who has played very well for us, even if its only by doing a few things like tackling, working hard and putting himself about. People forget that's what he was bought for - to do the defensive role.

 

Last season people were moaning he didn't score enough goals - he's among them this season and now people are saying he doesn't defend or doesn't create many. And another thing that boils my piss - people keep saying Parker needs to be doing this and that yet the very same cretins are saying he's shite and can't do this and that in another thread. You couldn't makew it up.

 

Anyway, Parker for me is our best DCM and because I think we need such a player, he starts in my XI and unless we can buy a much better DCM to do the job he has shown himself capable of doing, I see no reason in dispensing with a player like Parker who if anything is a very good club player to have on the books.

 

People need to accept we are not Chelsea or Arsenal, we can't just bring in world-class players to do the job our current ones can't do or don't do to the stupidly high expectations we place on them.

 

Sorry for the mini rant but well, that's how I see things and feel on the issue.

 

Thing is mate, I don't consider charging around diving into challenges all the time to be the way the DCM role should be played. I think he's crap at it so we'll never agree.

 

Anyway, assuming you select him, would you STILL persist with his partnership with Emre? Even though it obviously doesn't work? And it really doesn't work, mate. Surely you can see that?

[thedudeabides]

Exactly HTL, we were under the cosh and one player who limited that effect was Scott Parker in his role as DCM. Hence a job well done. Hence people arguing that not only can he do that job, but that should be his role in the team - if like me you consider a DCM to be an important position or a role requirement. I don't buy the whole "we played much better once Parker got injured" line either and I think thats a bit of a cop out tbh. We played much better because Souness was removed and I'm sure had Parker played in most of the games post-Souness we'd have still played well and picked up points. We played much better without Owen if we want to be pedantic, Ameobi was flying, does that mean we should forget about Owen and keep with Ameobi?

 

Also you said earlier on in the thread you don't like to single out individuals (Dyer) for goals being conceded because its a team thing, but aren't you doing just that by singling out Parker's absence as a main factor in our form under Roeder after Souness got the sack?

 

You don't rate him and I can live with that and you make very good points as to why but some, not saying you BTW, are overreacting to this whole Parker issue and making a big big deal of it. Its a case of keep repeating a lie and it becomes a truth for many on here IMO, quite a few Parker detractors don't even see the full game so go off your posts and others and that has snowballed to the point now where people are using Parker as either a scapegoat ot to win an arguement, which I am guilty of two in a reverse way by citing Dyer as guilty for their goal, just because I'm sick of reading how everything is all down to Parker in one way or another.

 

Yes he's overrated by sections and yes he isn't a top-class player, but he's a good Premiership player who has played very well for us, even if its only by doing a few things like tackling, working hard and putting himself about. People forget that's what he was bought for - to do the defensive role.

 

Last season people were moaning he didn't score enough goals - he's among them this season and now people are saying he doesn't defend or doesn't create many. And another thing that boils my piss - people keep saying Parker needs to be doing this and that yet the very same cretins are saying he's shite and can't do this and that in another thread. You couldn't makew it up.

 

Anyway, Parker for me is our best DCM and because I think we need such a player, he starts in my XI and unless we can buy a much better DCM to do the job he has shown himself capable of doing, I see no reason in dispensing with a player like Parker who if anything is a very good club player to have on the books.

 

People need to accept we are not Chelsea or Arsenal, we can't just bring in world-class players to do the job our current ones can't do or don't do to the stupidly high expectations we place on them.

 

Sorry for the mini rant but well, that's how I see things and feel on the issue.

 

Thing is mate, I don't consider charging around diving into challenges all the time to be the way the DCM role should be played. I think he's crap at it so we'll never agree.

 

Anyway, assuming you select him, would you STILL persist with his partnership with Emre? Even though it obviously doesn't work? And it really doesn't work, mate. Surely you can see that?

 

Agreed that it's not a great partnership.......but why is it Parker's fault?

 

Parker has actually outscored Emre since he's been here and despite being a gifted player, Emre has hardly pulled up any trees since he arrived has he?

[Cajun]

Exactly HTL, we were under the cosh and one player who limited that effect was Scott Parker in his role as DCM. Hence a job well done. Hence people arguing that not only can he do that job, but that should be his role in the team - if like me you consider a DCM to be an important position or a role requirement. I don't buy the whole "we played much better once Parker got injured" line either and I think thats a bit of a cop out tbh. We played much better because Souness was removed and I'm sure had Parker played in most of the games post-Souness we'd have still played well and picked up points. We played much better without Owen if we want to be pedantic, Ameobi was flying, does that mean we should forget about Owen and keep with Ameobi?

 

Also you said earlier on in the thread you don't like to single out individuals (Dyer) for goals being conceded because its a team thing, but aren't you doing just that by singling out Parker's absence as a main factor in our form under Roeder after Souness got the sack?

 

You don't rate him and I can live with that and you make very good points as to why but some, not saying you BTW, are overreacting to this whole Parker issue and making a big big deal of it. Its a case of keep repeating a lie and it becomes a truth for many on here IMO, quite a few Parker detractors don't even see the full game so go off your posts and others and that has snowballed to the point now where people are using Parker as either a scapegoat ot to win an arguement, which I am guilty of two in a reverse way by citing Dyer as guilty for their goal, just because I'm sick of reading how everything is all down to Parker in one way or another.

 

Yes he's overrated by sections and yes he isn't a top-class player, but he's a good Premiership player who has played very well for us, even if its only by doing a few things like tackling, working hard and putting himself about. People forget that's what he was bought for - to do the defensive role.

 

Last season people were moaning he didn't score enough goals - he's among them this season and now people are saying he doesn't defend or doesn't create many. And another thing that boils my piss - people keep saying Parker needs to be doing this and that yet the very same cretins are saying he's shite and can't do this and that in another thread. You couldn't makew it up.

 

Anyway, Parker for me is our best DCM and because I think we need such a player, he starts in my XI and unless we can buy a much better DCM to do the job he has shown himself capable of doing, I see no reason in dispensing with a player like Parker who if anything is a very good club player to have on the books.

 

People need to accept we are not Chelsea or Arsenal, we can't just bring in world-class players to do the job our current ones can't do or don't do to the stupidly high expectations we place on them.

 

Sorry for the mini rant but well, that's how I see things and feel on the issue.

 

Thing is mate, I don't consider charging around diving into challenges all the time to be the way the DCM role should be played. I think he's crap at it so we'll never agree.

 

Anyway, assuming you select him, would you STILL persist with his partnership with Emre? Even though it obviously doesn't work? And it really doesn't work, mate. Surely you can see that?

 

Agreed that it's not a great partnership.......but why is it Parker's fault?

 

Parker has actually outscored Emre since he's been here and despite being a gifted player, Emre has hardly pulled up any trees since he arrived has he?

 

Which is a good point, Parker is always the target for blame when people question that the partnership doesnt work. Im sure he has more goals and assists as Emre this season and doesnt take the freekicks and corners yet he is the one who "just runs around throwing himself at everything" apparently.

[Guest Bellers]

Exactly HTL, we were under the cosh and one player who limited that effect was Scott Parker in his role as DCM. Hence a job well done. Hence people arguing that not only can he do that job, but that should be his role in the team - if like me you consider a DCM to be an important position or a role requirement. I don't buy the whole "we played much better once Parker got injured" line either and I think thats a bit of a cop out tbh. We played much better because Souness was removed and I'm sure had Parker played in most of the games post-Souness we'd have still played well and picked up points. We played much better without Owen if we want to be pedantic, Ameobi was flying, does that mean we should forget about Owen and keep with Ameobi?

 

Also you said earlier on in the thread you don't like to single out individuals (Dyer) for goals being conceded because its a team thing, but aren't you doing just that by singling out Parker's absence as a main factor in our form under Roeder after Souness got the sack?

 

You don't rate him and I can live with that and you make very good points as to why but some, not saying you BTW, are overreacting to this whole Parker issue and making a big big deal of it. Its a case of keep repeating a lie and it becomes a truth for many on here IMO, quite a few Parker detractors don't even see the full game so go off your posts and others and that has snowballed to the point now where people are using Parker as either a scapegoat ot to win an arguement, which I am guilty of two in a reverse way by citing Dyer as guilty for their goal, just because I'm sick of reading how everything is all down to Parker in one way or another.

 

Yes he's overrated by sections and yes he isn't a top-class player, but he's a good Premiership player who has played very well for us, even if its only by doing a few things like tackling, working hard and putting himself about. People forget that's what he was bought for - to do the defensive role.

 

Last season people were moaning he didn't score enough goals - he's among them this season and now people are saying he doesn't defend or doesn't create many. And another thing that boils my piss - people keep saying Parker needs to be doing this and that yet the very same cretins are saying he's shite and can't do this and that in another thread. You couldn't makew it up.

 

Anyway, Parker for me is our best DCM and because I think we need such a player, he starts in my XI and unless we can buy a much better DCM to do the job he has shown himself capable of doing, I see no reason in dispensing with a player like Parker who if anything is a very good club player to have on the books.

 

People need to accept we are not Chelsea or Arsenal, we can't just bring in world-class players to do the job our current ones can't do or don't do to the stupidly high expectations we place on them.

 

Sorry for the mini rant but well, that's how I see things and feel on the issue.

 

Thing is mate, I don't consider charging around diving into challenges all the time to be the way the DCM role should be played. I think he's crap at it so we'll never agree.

 

Anyway, assuming you select him, would you STILL persist with his partnership with Emre? Even though it obviously doesn't work? And it really doesn't work, mate. Surely you can see that?

 

Agreed that it's not a great partnership.......but why is it Parker's fault?

 

Parker has actually outscored Emre since he's been here and despite being a gifted player, Emre has hardly pulled up any trees since he arrived has he?

 

Which is a good point, Parker is always the target for blame when people question that the partnership doesnt work. Im sure he has more goals and assists as Emre this season and doesnt take the freekicks and corners yet he is the one who "just runs around throwing himself at everything" apparently.

 

The reason they don't work together is they simply can't read each others game.  When Parker attacks Emre will join in or vice-versa leaving massive gaps when we get hit on the break. When Parker holds Emre holds with him or vice-versa leaving us short in attack, add the fact they are similar players, they don't know whether they're on their head or their arse with each other.

 

This is probably nothing a bit of communication and work on the training ground can't solve, but one of them needs to hold and the other needs to influence attack otherwise they'll contiue to get in each others way...

[Howaythelads]

Exactly HTL, we were under the cosh and one player who limited that effect was Scott Parker in his role as DCM. Hence a job well done. Hence people arguing that not only can he do that job, but that should be his role in the team - if like me you consider a DCM to be an important position or a role requirement. I don't buy the whole "we played much better once Parker got injured" line either and I think thats a bit of a cop out tbh. We played much better because Souness was removed and I'm sure had Parker played in most of the games post-Souness we'd have still played well and picked up points. We played much better without Owen if we want to be pedantic, Ameobi was flying, does that mean we should forget about Owen and keep with Ameobi?

 

Also you said earlier on in the thread you don't like to single out individuals (Dyer) for goals being conceded because its a team thing, but aren't you doing just that by singling out Parker's absence as a main factor in our form under Roeder after Souness got the sack?

 

You don't rate him and I can live with that and you make very good points as to why but some, not saying you BTW, are overreacting to this whole Parker issue and making a big big deal of it. Its a case of keep repeating a lie and it becomes a truth for many on here IMO, quite a few Parker detractors don't even see the full game so go off your posts and others and that has snowballed to the point now where people are using Parker as either a scapegoat ot to win an arguement, which I am guilty of two in a reverse way by citing Dyer as guilty for their goal, just because I'm sick of reading how everything is all down to Parker in one way or another.

 

Yes he's overrated by sections and yes he isn't a top-class player, but he's a good Premiership player who has played very well for us, even if its only by doing a few things like tackling, working hard and putting himself about. People forget that's what he was bought for - to do the defensive role.

 

Last season people were moaning he didn't score enough goals - he's among them this season and now people are saying he doesn't defend or doesn't create many. And another thing that boils my piss - people keep saying Parker needs to be doing this and that yet the very same cretins are saying he's shite and can't do this and that in another thread. You couldn't makew it up.

 

Anyway, Parker for me is our best DCM and because I think we need such a player, he starts in my XI and unless we can buy a much better DCM to do the job he has shown himself capable of doing, I see no reason in dispensing with a player like Parker who if anything is a very good club player to have on the books.

 

People need to accept we are not Chelsea or Arsenal, we can't just bring in world-class players to do the job our current ones can't do or don't do to the stupidly high expectations we place on them.

 

Sorry for the mini rant but well, that's how I see things and feel on the issue.

 

Thing is mate, I don't consider charging around diving into challenges all the time to be the way the DCM role should be played. I think he's crap at it so we'll never agree.

 

Anyway, assuming you select him, would you STILL persist with his partnership with Emre? Even though it obviously doesn't work? And it really doesn't work, mate. Surely you can see that?

 

Agreed that it's not a great partnership.......but why is it Parker's fault?

 

Parker has actually outscored Emre since he's been here and despite being a gifted player, Emre has hardly pulled up any trees since he arrived has he?

 

I already answered that in the post you quoted.

 

Emre's own performances are better with another partner, whereas Parker's are not. His own performances do not improve with the absence of Emre from the team.

 

The player partnered with Emre also generally performs to a level you'd expect of them whereas alongside Parker the other players don't do as well.

 

The team performance overall is better without Parker.

 

Whether it is Parkers own fault or not, this is the effect he has on the team and other players around him. I would not change the team to accomodate such an average player.

 

All In my opinion.

[Northern Monkey]

Emre is not good enough to cover for Parkers ball-chasing. But Emre is not poor enough to put his midfield partner in that sort of position himself.

 

All in all, Emre is probably a better player, but he DOES go missing.

 

Neither of them is ideal - Emre's invisible man act vs parkers long range slidign "tackes" - different problems, but still problems.

 

Ideally, i wouldn't have either in the side, but we don't have a lot else, other than Dyer, who is at least as bad as Parker for wandering around, and Roeders "genius" substitution Pattinson.