Anyone else worried about Martins...

[Mick]

I've been in a state of semi-apathy since that fateful day some idiot or idiots decided appointing Graeme Souness as Sir Bobby's successor was such a good idea, it warranted paying Blackburn some compensation for their soon-to-be-sacked manager, and then giving that man a 4 year deal and over £50m to spend. Since then I've considered NUFC to be a bit of a lost cause.

 

That wasn't my apathetic phase, that was nothing but anger.

[Howaythelads]

  To point something as insignificant out as that, out of the entirety of my post which included 6 or 7 lengthy and detailed paragraphs... What else would you call it mate? Did you even read past the first line?

 

Course not, why would I want to read something before replying? 

[Guest Knightrider]

I've been in a state of semi-apathy since that fateful day some idiot or idiots decided appointing Graeme Souness as Sir Bobby's successor was such a good idea, it warranted paying Blackburn some compensation for their soon-to-be-sacked manager, and then giving that man a 4 year deal and over £50m to spend. Since then I've considered NUFC to be a bit of a lost cause.

 

That wasn't my apathetic phase, that was nothing but anger.

 

I got over the anger when I realised it did really happen, apathy set in after the 3-0 Blackburn win in which Carver masterminded. Apathy and a begrudging "well he's here now, may as well back him and give him a clean slate, you never know" like I do with all managers and players. I said he had 2 years, his first full year determining my support. By the time January came round though in that first full year Souness out was ringing in my head, like everyone elses. Pisses me off to this day that I was forced into giving a manager I knew and said at the start would be a huge failure, the benefit of the doubt time and time again simply because the club weren't going to sack him without some good money handed to him and a good run at things and I couldn't bear joining in with all the doom and gloom. Grrrrrrrrrrrr.

[Howaythelads]

If we'd signed a striker to play alongside Martins we could have moved Dyer back into CM in place of the inept Butt. Apart from that obvious improvement to the team the point that you're missing mate is wtf would happen if Martins was injured right now and out for the rest of the season? With the number of injuries we've had so far it's not impossible that Martins could get injured at any time.

 

It's a gamble not bringing in a striker.

Fixed that little typo.

 

Both the original and your amendment are utter garbage so don't waste your effort, Towelie.

 

Ffs, grow up.

[Yorkie]

I disagree with your opinion and am told to grow up...

 

Sorry, i bow down to your vast fountain of knowledge. How dare i not.

[Howaythelads]

I disagree with your opinion and am told to grow up...

 

Sorry, i bow down to your vast fountain of knowledge. How dare i not.

 

No, lie often enough and people may believe you.......

 

Here's your unjustified comment which made me tell you to grow up.

 

"Both the original and your amendment are utter garbage so don't waste your effort, Towelie. 

 

There was nothing wrong in the way I phrased my first post, but obviously the fact I disagree with your post is causing you to have a "terrible two".

 

Grow up, ffs.

[Yorkie]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

[Northern Monkey]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

[Yorkie]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

 

Disagree about Butt. I'd argue, and i can imagine quite a few people would also do so, that he has been a key figure in the first team this season. His experience and his passing ability have been vital, and i think he and Emre have a very good partnership in the middle. Parker's alright - he's neither here nor there, really.

 

Neither of them are 'inept'.

 

Bramble's just shit.

[Rich]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

 

Completely agree on Nicky Butt. More like his usual self against Fulham and has been awfully bad on numerous occasions this season. His winner against Spurs was fantastic and some performances have been good, but in the main his passing is inaccurate, he's far too slow, he's not strong enough in the air and for a defensive midfielder he doesn't win the ball nearly enough in one-on-ones.

 

Decent player for someone like Sheffield United, but not what we should consider first team at NUFC. I still maintain that if Scott Parker was asked to play the role that Butt does, as he was a lot last season, then he would excel. Parker simply doesn't have the creative spark/passing/shooting ability to be considered a playmaking midfielder, but I feel his attributes/performances have exceeded Butt's by a long way when played in the same role.

 

It's plainly obvious to me that Parker, even when with Emre, was being asked to be a box-to-box midfielder, instead of a holding player. I don't know how anyone can dispute that, given Roeder's comments about him last season and in the pre-season. Granted the lad has scored goals, but I'd rather see Dyer or Emre in the advanced role alongside him. If Mourinho classed Parker as an anchorman, then that's good enough for me, I don't know what Roeder is playing at trying to suggest otherwise.

 

Parker/Butt together is cringeworthy and reminiscent of the Faye/Clark dynamic duo from last season in terms of an utter lack of creativity. Parker loses the ball far less than Butt and is a far better passer of the ball as well.

[Nobody]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

 

Disagree about Butt. I'd argue, and i can imagine quite a few people would also do so, that he has been a key figure in the first team this season. His experience and his passing ability have been vital, and i think he and Emre have a very good partnership in the middle. Parker's alright - he's neither here nor there, really.

 

Neither of them are 'inept'.

 

Bramble's just shit.

The one he showed us on Saturday?

I think Butt's general passing ability is horrible, tbh. He often gets the small passes wrong, giving up possession when we should be attacking

[Yorkie]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

 

Disagree about Butt. I'd argue, and i can imagine quite a few people would also do so, that he has been a key figure in the first team this season. His experience and his passing ability have been vital, and i think he and Emre have a very good partnership in the middle. Parker's alright - he's neither here nor there, really.

 

Neither of them are 'inept'.

 

Bramble's just s***.

The one he showed us on Saturday?

 

Yes, because he's been doing that consistently all season. 

[Guest alex]

I've been in a state of semi-apathy since that fateful day some idiot or idiots decided appointing Graeme Souness as Sir Bobby's successor was such a good idea, it warranted paying Blackburn some compensation for their soon-to-be-sacked manager, and then giving that man a 4 year deal and over £50m to spend. Since then I've considered NUFC to be a bit of a lost cause.

 

That wasn't my apathetic phase, that was nothing but anger.

 

I got over the anger when I realised it did really happen, apathy set in after the 3-0 Blackburn win in which Carver masterminded. Apathy and a begrudging "well he's here now, may as well back him and give him a clean slate, you never know" like I do with all managers and players. I said he had 2 years, his first full year determining my support. By the time January came round though in that first full year Souness out was ringing in my head, like everyone elses. Pisses me off to this day that I was forced into giving a manager I knew and said at the start would be a huge failure, the benefit of the doubt time and time again simply because the club weren't going to sack him without some good money handed to him and a good run at things and I couldn't bear joining in with all the doom and gloom. Grrrrrrrrrrrr.

Didn't you back Souness until his days were numbered? I.e. properly back him, rather than just give 'grudging support'?

[Howaythelads]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

 

Completely agree on Nicky Butt. More like his usual self against Fulham and has been awfully bad on numerous occasions this season. His winner against Spurs was fantastic and some performances have been good, but in the main his passing is inaccurate, he's far too slow, he's not strong enough in the air and for a defensive midfielder he doesn't win the ball nearly enough in one-on-ones.

 

Decent player for someone like Sheffield United, but not what we should consider first team at NUFC. I still maintain that if Scott Parker was asked to play the role that Butt does, as he was a lot last season, then he would excel. Parker simply doesn't have the creative spark/passing/shooting ability to be considered a playmaking midfielder, but I feel his attributes/performances have exceeded Butt's by a long way when played in the same role.

 

It's plainly obvious to me that Parker, even when with Emre, was being asked to be a box-to-box midfielder, instead of a holding player. I don't know how anyone can dispute that, given Roeder's comments about him last season and in the pre-season. Granted the lad has scored goals, but I'd rather see Dyer or Emre in the advanced role alongside him. If Mourinho classed Parker as an anchorman, then that's good enough for me, I don't know what Roeder is playing at trying to suggest otherwise.

 

Parker/Butt together is cringeworthy and reminiscent of the Faye/Clark dynamic duo from last season in terms of an utter lack of creativity. Parker loses the ball far less than Butt and is a far better passer of the ball as well.

 

Couldn't disagree more, tbh.

[Nobody]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

 

Disagree about Butt. I'd argue, and i can imagine quite a few people would also do so, that he has been a key figure in the first team this season. His experience and his passing ability have been vital, and i think he and Emre have a very good partnership in the middle. Parker's alright - he's neither here nor there, really.

 

Neither of them are 'inept'.

 

Bramble's just s***.

The one he showed us on Saturday?

 

Yes, because he's been doing that consistently all season. 

He has been passing terribly all season, and that backpass on saturday hasn't got anything to do with my opinion.

[Yorkie]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

 

Disagree about Butt. I'd argue, and i can imagine quite a few people would also do so, that he has been a key figure in the first team this season. His experience and his passing ability have been vital, and i think he and Emre have a very good partnership in the middle. Parker's alright - he's neither here nor there, really.

 

Neither of them are 'inept'.

 

Bramble's just s***.

The one he showed us on Saturday?

 

Yes, because he's been doing that consistently all season.  

He has been passing terribly all season, and that backpass on saturday hasn't got anything to do with my opinion.

 

Why did you include it in your initial post, then?

[Howaythelads]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

So no apology for your incorrect assertion I told you to grow up purely on the basis I disagree with you.

 

What's your problem, mate? Apart from me disagreeing with you, what is it in my first post that has resulted in you posting in such a childish way? Here's the post again, perhaps you'll tell me where I went wrong and ywhy ou're behaving as though you've been insulted or something.

 

If we'd signed a striker to play alongside Martins we could have moved Dyer back into CM in place of the inept Parker. Apart from that obvious improvement to the team the point that you're missing mate is wtf would happen if Martins was injured right now and out for the rest of the season? With the number of injuries we've had so far it's not impossible that Martins could get injured at any time.

 

It's a gamble not bringing in a striker.

 

BTW Parker is no better than average, which as far as I'm concerned is inept at this level of football for the ambition I have for the club. He's not good enough and that's the bottom line. That you disagree does not make the opinion garbage. I'm sure the irony of that and the fact you've been spitting out your dummy because someone dared to disagree with you will be totallly lost on you.

[Yorkie]

HTL,

 

I said that you nit-picked because...

 

You chose to comment on the opening 6 words of my entire post which, like i say, included 7 or 8 lengthy and detailed paragraphs, with plenty more relevant things worth quoting on. The opening line was even mis-worded - something i clearly pointed out later on. I know you didn't know that at the time, but still. It was just something so pointless and barely worthy picking up on, out of the entire post. That's why i said you were nit-picking.

 

Why you chose to overreact about that is beyond me, calling me 'paranoid', etc. And about me being 'childish' in my response to your first post, it's hardly as if i blew up about it. I said it was 'disappointing' that you had decided to do that. That's all.

 

And, regarding the other note, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and although i agree with you to some extent (i don't believe Parker should be a regular starter), to say that Scott Parker is 'inept' is simply nonsense.

[Guest TampaToon]

i think the prospect of pairing up with owen to form one of the most dangerous strike partnerships in the game is ample motivation for both to stay, even if we miss qualifying for europe, i think it's a great sell to current and prospective players just how dangerous this team can be with the right elements next year....consider:

 

-martins & owen, 2 of the best strikers in the world, up front

-one of the prem's best keepers at the back

-dyer looks to be international class & very dangerous again

-playmakers milner, n'zogbia, and duff supplying balls out wide

-future england int'l steven taylor

 

i think we've got as high-quality a squad as there is outside the big 4, and can probably promise more exposure for a young player than the big 4 can in terms of playing time & popular support, both huge in trying to make a case for better sponsorships & international squad time.

 

i think the players believe in roeder's plan, and even if we finish lower than we did last year, i think many people in the team will actually see it as a step forward.

[Rich]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

 

Completely agree on Nicky Butt. More like his usual self against Fulham and has been awfully bad on numerous occasions this season. His winner against Spurs was fantastic and some performances have been good, but in the main his passing is inaccurate, he's far too slow, he's not strong enough in the air and for a defensive midfielder he doesn't win the ball nearly enough in one-on-ones.

 

Decent player for someone like Sheffield United, but not what we should consider first team at NUFC. I still maintain that if Scott Parker was asked to play the role that Butt does, as he was a lot last season, then he would excel. Parker simply doesn't have the creative spark/passing/shooting ability to be considered a playmaking midfielder, but I feel his attributes/performances have exceeded Butt's by a long way when played in the same role.

 

It's plainly obvious to me that Parker, even when with Emre, was being asked to be a box-to-box midfielder, instead of a holding player. I don't know how anyone can dispute that, given Roeder's comments about him last season and in the pre-season. Granted the lad has scored goals, but I'd rather see Dyer or Emre in the advanced role alongside him. If Mourinho classed Parker as an anchorman, then that's good enough for me, I don't know what Roeder is playing at trying to suggest otherwise.

 

Parker/Butt together is cringeworthy and reminiscent of the Faye/Clark dynamic duo from last season in terms of an utter lack of creativity. Parker loses the ball far less than Butt and is a far better passer of the ball as well.

 

Couldn't disagree more, tbh.

 

I know I'm not allowed to use stats to defend my points (and I fully understand that stats do NOT tell the whole story), but Parker is miles ahead of Butt both in terms of number of passes made and percentage of passes completed, as well as tackles made and percentage of successful tackles. Let me expand on this a bit before you completely dismiss it...

 

Now obviously that doesn't tell us that Parker is indefinitely better than Butt, because Parker could be passing it back to Bramble 99% of the time (small risk-small gain), while Butt could be looking to release Martins or Dyer with a long-ball an awful lot(high risk-high gain)... so there's no need to call me up on that. However, I do feel that when you watch both play there's certainly very little variation in the TYPE of passes that both make, which suggests that Parker does complete more passes. In your opinion from watching them this season/last season, does Nicky Butt play a lot more "risky" passes than Parker does (causing his completion percentage to drop)? Or is the ratio fairly similar for each? (Meaning that Parker is probably a better passer of the ball.)

 

There's a few layers to that and we're heading into complicated grounds in regards to types of passing, speed of passes, quickness to release the ball, etc. But I know you'll be keeping up with it, which makes a nice change on here

 

From what I remember from previous threads your main issues with Parker are that he dives in all-too-often and holds onto the ball for far too long, please correct me there if I'm wrong. I do agree that you have good arguments with these, but when the lad is winning "76.6%" of the tackles, then surely it's not THAT much of a problem? (Again, a crude way of defending him, but you get my gist - I'm trying to move away from just "I think he's better 'cos he's he captain" shite.)

 

I'd argue that Nicky Butt is far too slow to react to situations and doesn't win the ball enough when he gets into tackling situations, plus he misplaces far more "easy" passes than Parker and he still has the "Cardiff performance" hanging over him, which was utterly disgusting at the time. I do openly admit that I could be biased here because of Nicky Butt's past, but as you likely know it's difficult to get past initial biases in order to make fair judgements on players, so maybe that's why our opinions differ?

 

I know we're never likely to agree on this one, and we've probably both seen every home game this season as well as a massive majority of the away games (being there/ART Sport/internet streaming/etc.) - or at least extended highlights of every away game, so it's not much other than personal feelings on team styles/what we expect from a defensive midfielder/personal bias that seems to be separating us.

[Guest Knightrider]

I've been in a state of semi-apathy since that fateful day some idiot or idiots decided appointing Graeme Souness as Sir Bobby's successor was such a good idea, it warranted paying Blackburn some compensation for their soon-to-be-sacked manager, and then giving that man a 4 year deal and over £50m to spend. Since then I've considered NUFC to be a bit of a lost cause.

 

That wasn't my apathetic phase, that was nothing but anger.

 

I got over the anger when I realised it did really happen, apathy set in after the 3-0 Blackburn win in which Carver masterminded. Apathy and a begrudging "well he's here now, may as well back him and give him a clean slate, you never know" like I do with all managers and players. I said he had 2 years, his first full year determining my support. By the time January came round though in that first full year Souness out was ringing in my head, like everyone elses. Pisses me off to this day that I was forced into giving a manager I knew and said at the start would be a huge failure, the benefit of the doubt time and time again simply because the club weren't going to sack him without some good money handed to him and a good run at things and I couldn't bear joining in with all the doom and gloom. Grrrrrrrrrrrr.

Didn't you back Souness until his days were numbered? I.e. properly back him, rather than just give 'grudging support'?

 

Nah, you're thinking of that Gemmill bloke

 

Seriously, after we finished 14th I was all for giving him a chance to see what he could do with his own team but as the season got underway (his first full season) it wasn't long before I cracked, and what did it for me were his constant excuses regarding injuries and the subsequent undermining of those in for injured players which resulted from his pathetic "we won't win games without our better players" line. I wrote a "time to go" type article for the main site after our defeat at Goodison. I wasn't as vocal as some mind so that's probably why you feel I supported him until the very last days.

[Guest Knightrider]

Regarding Butt Vs Parker: I couldn't agree more with The Janitor, although I do feel you're being a tad harsh on Butt as his performances in the main have been canny... still nowhere near to the level he produced for England and Man Utd like, but a vast improvement on pre-Birmingham loan spell (which I feel is blinding a few fans who have gone OTT with Butt's performances this time round). And before anyone starts, I rate Butt or I did when we signed him and I'm pleased he's turned things around as I always wondered whether the wrench of leaving a club he'd been at all his life, had an adverse effect on his Toon performances, and I think they did, much more than people realised anyway at the time. Parker isn't the great player he was being lauded as last season but he's a very good player and a better DCM than Butt, quite clearly.

[Howaythelads]

HTL,

 

I said that you nit-picked because...

 

You chose to comment on the opening 6 words of my entire post which, like i say, included 7 or 8 lengthy and detailed paragraphs, with plenty more relevant things worth quoting on. The opening line was even mis-worded - something i clearly pointed out later on. I know you didn't know that at the time, but still. It was just something so pointless and barely worthy picking up on, out of the entire post. That's why i said you were nit-picking.

 

Why you chose to overreact about that is beyond me, calling me 'paranoid', etc. And about me being 'childish' in my response to your first post, it's hardly as if i blew up about it. I said it was 'disappointing' that you had decided to do that. That's all.

 

And, regarding the other note, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and although i agree with you to some extent (i don't believe Parker should be a regular starter), to say that Scott Parker is 'inept' is simply nonsense.

 

I selected the bit to comment on because that was the bit I wanted to comment on. I think it is very, very risky not signing a striker, something you appear to support because you want to see Martins up front with Dyer.

 

I don't see why you have a problem with me quoting it, tbh.

[Howaythelads]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

 

Completely agree on Nicky Butt. More like his usual self against Fulham and has been awfully bad on numerous occasions this season. His winner against Spurs was fantastic and some performances have been good, but in the main his passing is inaccurate, he's far too slow, he's not strong enough in the air and for a defensive midfielder he doesn't win the ball nearly enough in one-on-ones.

 

Decent player for someone like Sheffield United, but not what we should consider first team at NUFC. I still maintain that if Scott Parker was asked to play the role that Butt does, as he was a lot last season, then he would excel. Parker simply doesn't have the creative spark/passing/shooting ability to be considered a playmaking midfielder, but I feel his attributes/performances have exceeded Butt's by a long way when played in the same role.

 

It's plainly obvious to me that Parker, even when with Emre, was being asked to be a box-to-box midfielder, instead of a holding player. I don't know how anyone can dispute that, given Roeder's comments about him last season and in the pre-season. Granted the lad has scored goals, but I'd rather see Dyer or Emre in the advanced role alongside him. If Mourinho classed Parker as an anchorman, then that's good enough for me, I don't know what Roeder is playing at trying to suggest otherwise.

 

Parker/Butt together is cringeworthy and reminiscent of the Faye/Clark dynamic duo from last season in terms of an utter lack of creativity. Parker loses the ball far less than Butt and is a far better passer of the ball as well.

 

Couldn't disagree more, tbh.

 

I know I'm not allowed to use stats to defend my points (and I fully understand that stats do NOT tell the whole story), but Parker is miles ahead of Butt both in terms of number of passes made and percentage of passes completed, as well as tackles made and percentage of successful tackles. Let me expand on this a bit before you completely dismiss it...

 

Now obviously that doesn't tell us that Parker is indefinitely better than Butt, because Parker could be passing it back to Bramble 99% of the time (small risk-small gain), while Butt could be looking to release Martins or Dyer with a long-ball an awful lot(high risk-high gain)... so there's no need to call me up on that. However, I do feel that when you watch both play there's certainly very little variation in the TYPE of passes that both make, which suggests that Parker does complete more passes. In your opinion from watching them this season/last season, does Nicky Butt play a lot more "risky" passes than Parker does (causing his completion percentage to drop)? Or is the ratio fairly similar for each? (Meaning that Parker is probably a better passer of the ball.)

 

There's a few layers to that and we're heading into complicated grounds in regards to types of passing, speed of passes, quickness to release the ball, etc. But I know you'll be keeping up with it, which makes a nice change on here

 

From what I remember from previous threads your main issues with Parker are that he dives in all-too-often and holds onto the ball for far too long, please correct me there if I'm wrong. I do agree that you have good arguments with these, but when the lad is winning "76.6%" of the tackles, then surely it's not THAT much of a problem? (Again, a crude way of defending him, but you get my gist - I'm trying to move away from just "I think he's better 'cos he's he captain" s****.)

 

I'd argue that Nicky Butt is far too slow to react to situations and doesn't win the ball enough when he gets into tackling situations, plus he misplaces far more "easy" passes than Parker and he still has the "Cardiff performance" hanging over him, which was utterly disgusting at the time. I do openly admit that I could be biased here because of Nicky Butt's past, but as you likely know it's difficult to get past initial biases in order to make fair judgements on players, so maybe that's why our opinions differ?

 

I know we're never likely to agree on this one, and we've probably both seen every home game this season as well as a massive majority of the away games (being there/ART Sport/internet streaming/etc.) - or at least extended highlights of every away game, so it's not much other than personal feelings on team styles/what we expect from a defensive midfielder/personal bias that seems to be separating us.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree, as you have my points against Parker sorted out in your post. I'll post my thoughts on him one last time though as a reply to your comment.

 

I believe Parker dives into challenges far too often, which can look impressive due to the commitment level and all that, but nevertheless, he dives in because he doesn't anticipate well enough, his reading of the game is very poor. He tends to chase the ball around the pitch like a young schoolboy tbh. Contrast that with Butt, who goes about his work quietly, which is often what you find with defensive midfielders, not noticing them that much generally means they're doing a good job. He plays a more controlled game, relying on anticipation and reading of the game more than Parker.

 

The effect each of these players has on the players around them is important imo. People can argue about Parker's individual ability but most now seem to be of the view that the partnership with Emre is a poor one. Emre is a good player imo and he plays better alongside Butt than he does alongside Parker, the whole team generally plays better without Parker in the side imo, such is the negative effect of his poor quality of passing.

 

I don't go in for the idea some have of telling Parker to play DM and hey presto, problem sorted. It's a specialist role, I don't think his passing is good enough for that role, he just can't do it. Where Butt often lays the ball off to a team-mate without even controlling it first, his first touch is often a pass, Parker dwells for too long. Butt is often aware of the pass before he's even received the ball, which is what gives him the ability to lay it off without taking a first touch to control it, Parker rarely manages to do that, he just doesn't seem to know what's is 'on' around him. Parker also offers very little attacking threat, so I see no role for him there either. His creativity is pretty much zero.

 

I mentioned it above but the damage done to the way we play by the length of time Parker holds onto the ball can't be overstated, it's a massive weakness in his game because it's very important for a player in that role to move the ball on quickly when there are players up front with pace. The needless diving into challenges and the poor quality of passing are what irritate me the most about Parker. Players with pace need the ball released early otherwise they're going to be caught offside more often than not. I think this will become even more apparent with the return of Owen. Imagine if we ever end up with Zog on the left and Dyer on the right as well, for example. 

 

Regarding stats. Yes, Parker may have a higher success rate for passes but I'd imagine Butt isn't far behind, factor in that Butt's passing has a far more positive impact on the way we play and to me it means he's a far, far better player than Parker.

[Rich]

To say that either Butt or Parker is 'inept' is utter garbage. No argument whatsoever. That's a total exaggeration.

 

No, thats true. Butt is not "inept", he's just "mediocre at his very best". And Parker is "decent int he main".

 

BRAMBLE is inept.

 

Completely agree on Nicky Butt. More like his usual self against Fulham and has been awfully bad on numerous occasions this season. His winner against Spurs was fantastic and some performances have been good, but in the main his passing is inaccurate, he's far too slow, he's not strong enough in the air and for a defensive midfielder he doesn't win the ball nearly enough in one-on-ones.

 

Decent player for someone like Sheffield United, but not what we should consider first team at NUFC. I still maintain that if Scott Parker was asked to play the role that Butt does, as he was a lot last season, then he would excel. Parker simply doesn't have the creative spark/passing/shooting ability to be considered a playmaking midfielder, but I feel his attributes/performances have exceeded Butt's by a long way when played in the same role.

 

It's plainly obvious to me that Parker, even when with Emre, was being asked to be a box-to-box midfielder, instead of a holding player. I don't know how anyone can dispute that, given Roeder's comments about him last season and in the pre-season. Granted the lad has scored goals, but I'd rather see Dyer or Emre in the advanced role alongside him. If Mourinho classed Parker as an anchorman, then that's good enough for me, I don't know what Roeder is playing at trying to suggest otherwise.

 

Parker/Butt together is cringeworthy and reminiscent of the Faye/Clark dynamic duo from last season in terms of an utter lack of creativity. Parker loses the ball far less than Butt and is a far better passer of the ball as well.

 

Couldn't disagree more, tbh.

 

I know I'm not allowed to use stats to defend my points (and I fully understand that stats do NOT tell the whole story), but Parker is miles ahead of Butt both in terms of number of passes made and percentage of passes completed, as well as tackles made and percentage of successful tackles. Let me expand on this a bit before you completely dismiss it...

 

Now obviously that doesn't tell us that Parker is indefinitely better than Butt, because Parker could be passing it back to Bramble 99% of the time (small risk-small gain), while Butt could be looking to release Martins or Dyer with a long-ball an awful lot(high risk-high gain)... so there's no need to call me up on that. However, I do feel that when you watch both play there's certainly very little variation in the TYPE of passes that both make, which suggests that Parker does complete more passes. In your opinion from watching them this season/last season, does Nicky Butt play a lot more "risky" passes than Parker does (causing his completion percentage to drop)? Or is the ratio fairly similar for each? (Meaning that Parker is probably a better passer of the ball.)

 

There's a few layers to that and we're heading into complicated grounds in regards to types of passing, speed of passes, quickness to release the ball, etc. But I know you'll be keeping up with it, which makes a nice change on here

 

From what I remember from previous threads your main issues with Parker are that he dives in all-too-often and holds onto the ball for far too long, please correct me there if I'm wrong. I do agree that you have good arguments with these, but when the lad is winning "76.6%" of the tackles, then surely it's not THAT much of a problem? (Again, a crude way of defending him, but you get my gist - I'm trying to move away from just "I think he's better 'cos he's he captain" s****.)

 

I'd argue that Nicky Butt is far too slow to react to situations and doesn't win the ball enough when he gets into tackling situations, plus he misplaces far more "easy" passes than Parker and he still has the "Cardiff performance" hanging over him, which was utterly disgusting at the time. I do openly admit that I could be biased here because of Nicky Butt's past, but as you likely know it's difficult to get past initial biases in order to make fair judgements on players, so maybe that's why our opinions differ?

 

I know we're never likely to agree on this one, and we've probably both seen every home game this season as well as a massive majority of the away games (being there/ART Sport/internet streaming/etc.) - or at least extended highlights of every away game, so it's not much other than personal feelings on team styles/what we expect from a defensive midfielder/personal bias that seems to be separating us.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree, as you have my points against Parker sorted out in your post. I'll post my thoughts on him one last time though as a reply to your comment.

 

I believe Parker dives into challenges far too often, which can look impressive due to the commitment level and all that, but nevertheless, he dives in because he doesn't anticipate well enough, his reading of the game is very poor. He tends to chase the ball around the pitch like a young schoolboy tbh. Contrast that with Butt, who goes about his work quietly, which is often what you find with defensive midfielders, not noticing them that much generally means they're doing a good job. He plays a more controlled game, relying on anticipation and reading of the game more than Parker.

 

The effect each of these players has on the players around them is important imo. People can argue about Parker's individual ability but most now seem to be of the view that the partnership with Emre is a poor one. Emre is a good player imo and he plays better alongside Butt than he does alongside Parker, the whole team generally plays better without Parker in the side imo, such is the negative effect of his poor quality of passing.

 

I don't go in for the idea some have of telling Parker to play DM and hey presto, problem sorted. It's a specialist role, I don't think his passing is good enough for that role, he just can't do it. Where Butt often lays the ball off to a team-mate without even controlling it first, his first touch is often a pass, Parker dwells for too long. Butt is often aware of the pass before he's even received the ball, which is what gives him the ability to lay it off without taking a first touch to control it, Parker rarely manages to do that, he just doesn't seem to know what's is 'on' around him. Parker also offers very little attacking threat, so I see no role for him there either. His creativity is pretty much zero.

 

I mentioned it above but the damage done to the way we play by the length of time Parker holds onto the ball can't be overstated, it's a massive weakness in his game because it's very important for a player in that role to move the ball on quickly when there are players up front with pace. The needless diving into challenges and the poor quality of passing are what irritate me the most about Parker. Players with pace need the ball released early otherwise they're going to be caught offside more often than not. I think this will become even more apparent with the return of Owen. Imagine if we ever end up with Zog on the left and Dyer on the right as well, for example. 

 

Regarding stats. Yes, Parker may have a higher success rate for passes but I'd imagine Butt isn't far behind, factor in that Butt's passing has a far more positive impact on the way we play and to me it means he's a far, far better player than Parker.

 

I do see where you're coming from and you make some excellent points, I just hope either Butt proves me wrong, or Parker proves you wrong... or that we sign a "proper" defensive midfielder who has pace and an aerial threat about him, as well as all these other attributes we keep mentioning as being essential for someone who plays that position. What I'd give for us to discover the next Gilberto.

 

I personally don't think either of them are good enough to play that "specialist" role for a club who should be challenging the top four, but I'm not the manager, or the chairman - let's just hope what we've got is a lot better than we're giving them credit for.