Scott Parker - Not good enough.

[Skirge]

Old ground we are going over here, he isnnot as class as we furst thought but he would be miles better if he was used the right way. Stop playign him as a DCM and start to use him as a box to box player, its why he was boguth by Chelski because at Charlton he was a superb box yo box player.

[gray]

he would be if he could run from one box to the other without 5 pirouettes

[Cajun]

Boumsing ran faster than Henry once. Beyond that, he wasn't even capable of outplaying Bramble, a footballer who generates contempt and mockery across the country.

 

I disagree, I think on a few occasions they were up against each other Boumsong came out on top. Was one of the few things he seemed to be able to do.

[Guest alex]

Boumsing ran faster than Henry once. Beyond that, he wasn't even capable of outplaying Bramble, a footballer who generates contempt and mockery across the country.

 

I disagree, I think on a few occasions they were up against each other Boumsong came out on top. Was one of the few things he seemed to be able to do.

Boumsong would be far happier playing against a player like Henry every week. Unfortunately that's not much good in the Premier League if (like him) someone like Geoff Horsfield would cause you all sorts of problems.

[toptoon]

Parker is a very good player but his peformances have been very up and down latley. He'll come good though and prove the doubters wrong, i'm convinced this will be the case. He's better off defensive midfield (Roy Keane type mould) not attacking Midfield imo. Butt's suspended next game so hopefully the midfield will be:  DUFF  ZOGGY  PARKER  MILNER  (unless Emre's fit then Duff should make way). 

[Guest Knightrider]

I agree with Northern Monkey, it isn't as if there is a huge difference in quality, good or bad, between the likes of Parker, Butt, Emre and Dyer so to single out Parker is silly. As for the get rid, he's not good enough brigade, if we are going to be that critical then 90% of the squad isn't good enough, so do we get rid of them all? People need to be realistic here. I'm all for having debates about how effective a player is or isn't, who should play and who shouldn't, but some go to the extreme. Parker has shown himself to be a more than capable Premiership standard player, he isn't top-class but he isn't shite either, he's a decent player who at the moment fits the bill for what is an average NUFC side. Long-term we need to improve on most positions in the starting 11, but lets start from the back first, i.e. weed out the shite and work our way up so we can have, one day, class in almost every position. There are others ahead of Parker in the not good enough, get rid, list who need replaced and improved on, at least a handful if not more.

 

In Parker I think people are looking for a route to our failings, and have become so myopic to the issue that some actually do believe that by replacing this one pretty insignificant player in the grand scheme of our shortcomings, that we'll suddenly become a much better team. We won't, it doesn't work like that. Our problems are many and I'd say we need to first look at the back and up front before we get to work on the midfield.

[Northern Monkey]

I agree with Northern Monkey, it isn't as if there is a huge difference in quality, good or bad, between the likes of Parker, Butt, Emre and Dyer so to single out Parker is silly. As for the get rid, he's not good enough brigade, if we are going to be that critical then 90% of the squad isn't good enough, so do we get rid of thgm all? Peole need to be realistic here. I'm all for having debates about how effective a player is or isn't, who should play and who shouldn't, but some go to the extreme. Parker has shown himself to be a more than capable Premiership standard player, he isn't top-class but he isn't shite either, he's a decent player who at the moment fits the bill for what is an average NUFC. Long-term we need to improve on most positions in the starting 11, but lets start from the back first, i.e. weed out the shite and work our way up so we can have, one day, class in almost every position.

 

Damned right - if Paker isnt good enough thn neither are Solano (at RB), Carr, Bramble, Babayaro, Emre, Butt, Dyer, Duff and Ameobi. Almost all of whom are preferred starters for that idiot Roeder, and almost all of whom offer less than Parker can.

[Guest Knightrider]

I agree with Northern Monkey, it isn't as if there is a huge difference in quality, good or bad, between the likes of Parker, Butt, Emre and Dyer so to single out Parker is silly. As for the get rid, he's not good enough brigade, if we are going to be that critical then 90% of the squad isn't good enough, so do we get rid of thgm all? Peole need to be realistic here. I'm all for having debates about how effective a player is or isn't, who should play and who shouldn't, but some go to the extreme. Parker has shown himself to be a more than capable Premiership standard player, he isn't top-class but he isn't shite either, he's a decent player who at the moment fits the bill for what is an average NUFC. Long-term we need to improve on most positions in the starting 11, but lets start from the back first, i.e. weed out the shite and work our way up so we can have, one day, class in almost every position.

 

Damned right - if Paker isnt good enough thn neither are Solano (at RB), Carr, Bramble, Babayaro, Emre, Butt, Dyer, Duff and Ameobi. Almost all of whom are preferred starters for that idiot Roeder, and almost all of whom offer less than Parker can.

 

Exactly, and you could even extend that further to Milner (who is having a great season) and even Owen who is a liability, none would get in the starting 11s of the top 4 would they? Which is where we want to be, need to be, and according to some, should be. Again, Parker isn't the problem or why we are failing, far from it.

[Guest alex]

I agree with Northern Monkey, it isn't as if there is a huge difference in quality, good or bad, between the likes of Parker, Butt, Emre and Dyer so to single out Parker is silly. As for the get rid, he's not good enough brigade, if we are going to be that critical then 90% of the squad isn't good enough, so do we get rid of thgm all? Peole need to be realistic here. I'm all for having debates about how effective a player is or isn't, who should play and who shouldn't, but some go to the extreme. Parker has shown himself to be a more than capable Premiership standard player, he isn't top-class but he isn't shite either, he's a decent player who at the moment fits the bill for what is an average NUFC. Long-term we need to improve on most positions in the starting 11, but lets start from the back first, i.e. weed out the shite and work our way up so we can have, one day, class in almost every position.

 

Damned right - if Paker isnt good enough thn neither are Solano (at RB), Carr, Bramble, Babayaro, Emre, Butt, Dyer, Duff and Ameobi. Almost all of whom are preferred starters for that idiot Roeder, and almost all of whom offer less than Parker can.

If that post wasn't by you I'd have been surprised to see Dyer included in that list. He makes a massive difference to our team when he plays imo.

[Guest Alex20]

The stats make sense tbh. Decent player, decent squad player.

 

Still unsure about what he actually gives to the team when he plays, though. We're undoubtedly better without him. And, it's not really a case of second season syndrome either... we've just found him out.

 

However, i still like Scott Parker and i wish he'd improve. I crave for him to become an integral part of our team because i reckon he's got the potential to. I wish he would be the powerful, driving midfielder that he could be. If his passing was more accurate and direct, i think he'd do well - but he's far too negative a player. Thing is, i think he's great at rushing into the box, a la Bowyer, and sticking it in the net.

 

But like i say - he's too negative. Which simply unbalances the side catastrophically when he plays like that with Emre - because Roeder seems intent on playing Emre defensively when he's with Parker, which makes him resort to long balls and picking up the pieces - which simply isn't him.

 

And it doesn't work for the side when Parker plays with Butt either, because Butt's naturally a defensive player - therefore giving us zilch attacking prowess when those two are together. And if the wingers are off form, like yesterday, we ain't got a hope going forward.

 

If Parker was more direct...  he'd work with Butt - and it could be a decent partnership. However, our midfield should be about Emre anyway in my opinion - the naturally driving, powerful centre-mid with a good eye for goal (despite inconsistency), who works with Butt. Parker should be cover for Emre anyway tbh.

 

Very well said.

[Guest Sniffer]

A fit Michael Owen would be in the starting 11 of any team in this country.

[Northern Monkey]

Wrong.

[Northern Monkey]

I agree with Northern Monkey, it isn't as if there is a huge difference in quality, good or bad, between the likes of Parker, Butt, Emre and Dyer so to single out Parker is silly. As for the get rid, he's not good enough brigade, if we are going to be that critical then 90% of the squad isn't good enough, so do we get rid of thgm all? Peole need to be realistic here. I'm all for having debates about how effective a player is or isn't, who should play and who shouldn't, but some go to the extreme. Parker has shown himself to be a more than capable Premiership standard player, he isn't top-class but he isn't shite either, he's a decent player who at the moment fits the bill for what is an average NUFC. Long-term we need to improve on most positions in the starting 11, but lets start from the back first, i.e. weed out the shite and work our way up so we can have, one day, class in almost every position.

 

Damned right - if Paker isnt good enough thn neither are Solano (at RB), Carr, Bramble, Babayaro, Emre, Butt, Dyer, Duff and Ameobi. Almost all of whom are preferred starters for that idiot Roeder, and almost all of whom offer less than Parker can.

If that post wasn't by you I'd have been surprised to see Dyer included in that list. He makes a massive difference to our team when he plays imo.

 

He's ab average player. Not a brilliant one, by any means. He doesn't offer that much, his stats prove that. But you kepe believing he's an international class player, if it makes you feel ay better.

[Guest alex]

Well, he makes England squads. There's more to his game than his assists/goal record although his stats have been pretty good this season. I honestly think his running, movement and pace give us options we just don't have without him (from midfield anyway). Glad to see you've moderated your view though, calling him above average must have stuck in your throat a bit

[Guest Sniffer]

Not wrong at all.

[Northern Monkey]

Gary Nevilel makes England squads. PHIL Neville has been known to.

 

AN average, and you know it!

 

I think he's as useful to us as any other central midfielder we have, no more, but over the years, his contribution has been weak, even when he HAS played.

 

I think he's a much better footballer than he is a person, but thats not saying a lot. 

 

 

[Guest Sniffer]

Gary Neville has probably been the best English RB for the last 10 years or so. Maybe the best RB in the premier league.

[Guest alex]

I agree, Gary Neville is an excellent player. Phil Neville is a good player too tbh despite the stick he gets.

[Guest Knightrider]

BTW, talking about turning circles, Dyer does it more than anyone, including Parker.

[Baggio]

Parker at his best - can match and outplay Steven Gerrard

 

Nowhere near. He could out-try anyone, but that doesn't mean much at the top level.

 

He did a few weeks ago, obviously he'll never be able to pass the ball like him or score the goals he can, but he can outplay him, i.e. getting the better over him, and not many players can do that.

 

The pitch was waterlogged which massively hindered Gerrard's passing game.

 

Pathetic, making excuses. Even if you don't rate him, or dislike him passionately which you seem to do, at least give the bloke some credit for a fine performance and stop making daft excuses for his opponent in that match, Parker subdued him, he wasn't allowed to pass the ball like he can and does, are you saying Gerrard is uncapable of passing a ball about on a wet pith? Didn't stop Parker pinging a few 40-yarders to the flanks. And I seem to remember Gerrard playing a few cracking balls in that match too. Gerrard is more than about passing you know, with players like that you have to subdue or they run riot. Parker did that, some would say that's his game, well Gerrard's game is to stamp his considerable ability or mark on a match and because of Parker he failed to do that.

 

 

 

I agree he did have an excellent game however the playing conditions did contribute to Gerrard's poor form that day, you also seem to be basing your whole argument for him being some top player for us off this one game, you'll have to go back to our game against Arsenal under Souness to find a performance from him close to that so it's obvious that he doesn't put in a shift like that on a regular basis.

 

As I've already said in the thread, we play better as a side when he's out injured and I'm far from the only one to think it either.

[Baggio]

BTW, talking about turning circles, Dyer does it more than anyone, including Parker.

 

The difference being when Dyer has gone around in a circle he'll bring the ball forward, Parker on the other hand is more likely to pass it back to a defender or the keeper.

[Dave]

Parker looks like he's playing netball at times.

[Baggio]

Has Gary Neville shagged Northern Monkeys missus as well?

[Guest Knightrider]

BTW, talking about turning circles, Dyer does it more than anyone, including Parker.

 

The difference being when Dyer has gone around in a circle he'll bring the ball forward, Parker on the other hand is more likely to pass it back to a defender or the keeper.

 

And why is that? Because there might not be nowt on up front? Sorry but I've seen most of his games for us and he doesn't just pass it backwards or sideways all the time, that is just selective nitpicking from the likes of you, he'll play it forwards as many times as he plays it backwards and the same goes for Dyer too. Dyer gets away with it because he has the pace and trickery to carry the ball, yet if you watch, quite often play breaks down around him unless he is in the final 3rd, in space and running at goal or in behind the full-back and centre-back ala Arsenal away where he scored which perhaps suggests he's better used up front or in a more attacking role and not centrally, but that's for another debate.

 

That's not me defending Parker's little circles BTW, they piss me off at times to, but I see sense in them sometimes and I know it isn't as if he just does that, i.e. does a few turns, then turns towards his goal, he doesn't.

 

For Parker's circles I give you Dyer's headless chicken impressions.

 

My point: Every player has his faults, but the way you and some others go on you'd think Parker was our worst player, in every game, and the root to all our woes. Now I agree with you that with him in the team we play different and don't look as good (I use that word loosely BTW) but that's a team dynamic issue more than an individual player issue. Under Souness he was our best player, but that said more about the team dynamic which was shite. Same this time around, or same things apply. Anyway, for me, as an individual Parker is a decent player and if I were to be ultra critical as the first post on here is, I'd give you a good argument as to whay 90% of them aren't good enough and need rid of.

[Baggio]

BTW, talking about turning circles, Dyer does it more than anyone, including Parker.

 

The difference being when Dyer has gone around in a circle he'll bring the ball forward, Parker on the other hand is more likely to pass it back to a defender or the keeper.

 

And why is that? Because there might not be nowt on up front? Sorry but I've seen most of his games for us and he doesn't just pass it backwards or sideways all the time, that is just selective nitpicking from the likes of you, he'll play it forwards as many times as he plays it backwards and the same goes for Dyer too. Dyer gets away with it because he has the pace and trickery to carry the ball, yet if you watch, quite often play breaks down around him unless he is in the final 3rd, in space and running at goal or in behind the full-back and centre-back ala Arsenal away where he scored which perhaps suggests he's better used up front or in a more attacking role and not centrally, but that's for another debate.

 

That's not me defending Parker's little circles BTW, they piss me off at times to, but I see sense in them sometimes and I know it isn't as if he just does that, i.e. does a few turns, then turns towards his goal, he doesn't.

 

For Parker's circles I give you Dyer's headless chicken impressions.

 

My point: Every player has his faults, but the way you and some others go on you'd think Parker was our worst player, in every game, and the root to all our woes. Now I agree with you that with him in the team we play different and don't look as good (I use that word loosely BTW) but that's a team dynamic issue more than an individual player issue. Under Souness he was our best player, but that said more about the team dynamic which was s****. Same this time around, or same things apply. Anyway, for me, as an individual Parker is a decent player and if I were to be ultra critical as the first post on here is, I'd give you a good argument as to whay 90% of them aren't good enough and need rid of.

 

I'm not sure how you can blame him passing it back on there being no available outlet up top, he doesn't pass it 40 yard forward because he's comfortable doing the simple things, that and his passing over 20 yards is awful and unlikely to reach the target (except against Liverpool of course) Dyer (like Emre) on the other hand does try and make things happen whether it's driving forward with the ball or looking for space to start a decent passing move.

 

There may not be much of a difference between our midfielders as individuals but it's what effect they have on our teams performances that bothers me.

 

We play better football without Parker in the starting 11.