Saha's last 3 seasons at United:
05-06 - 30
06-07 - 34
07-08 - 24
And 3 years at Everton:
08-09 - 29
09-10 - 40
10-11 - 26
Not much difference really.
Scott Parker to United?
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
Saha's last 3 seasons at United:
05-06 - 30
06-07 - 34
07-08 - 24
And 3 years at Everton:
08-09 - 29
09-10 - 40
10-11 - 26
Not much difference really.
Well the Media and a lot of those around the game seem to disagree.
They had a small revivial in a few games a couple of months ago - I wacthed a few of those games and he was absolutley outstanding. He's been injured and its all gone to rat shit again.
Very good player who would be a decent aquisition for any club - very hard worker, very experienced, reliable and with a good attitude. Plenty of clubs will be in for him, especially given he'll probably be fairly cheap.
i hope not
unless he changed his name to Scottio Del Parkerio
unless he changed his name to Scottio Del Parkerio
We could've signed Scott Parker 2 years ago, surely that ship has long since sailed
Exactly. That was my point. Ferguson and the rest of the coaching staff obviously didn't think he was good enough then, so what's changed? People are vastly over rating him. He's had one decent season in a shite team where he's looked good in comparison.
He's the sort of player Liverpool would go for. Enough said.
I don't believe we're in the market for either Parker or Charlie Adam. Both will get moves and do well, but they are not better players than Carrick or Fletcher.
We're talking about completely different levels of football here. Its certainly easier for less able players to shine when playing for top side like United, but on the flip side I think Carrick, Fletcher and even Gibson would all be dominant players playing for a team at the lower end of the division.
If United are to strengthen the midfield this summer, and I think we should even though the need seems to be slightly less pressing than it did earlier in the season, then I'd hope we'll buy a player who can sprinkle a little magic on the pitch. Either that or a physically-imposing ball-winner. Parker and Adam fit neither of those requirements.
We're talking about completely different levels of football here. Its certainly easier for less able players to shine when playing for top side like United, but on the flip side I think Carrick, Fletcher and even Gibson would all be dominant players playing for a team at the lower end of the division.
If United are to strengthen the midfield this summer, and I think we should even though the need seems to be slightly less pressing than it did earlier in the season, then I'd hope we'll buy a player who can sprinkle a little magic on the pitch. Either that or a physically-imposing ball-winner. Parker and Adam fit neither of those requirements.
On the cheap?
I can't see why anyone would say no. Great option.
I can't see why anyone would say no. Great option.
Because he would add nothing to the squad, would take up valuable wages and a squad number. It would be a total waste of time and money for United and for him.
Why is this even up for discussion? He's not good enough for United, not even as a squad player. He showed at Chelsea he hasn't got the cajunas, he's having a decent season at a shite club.
I'd rather keep Gibson.
I wouldn't bother with Parker even if he was free. I don't think he offers anything different/better than anyone else we have and he'd be nearly 31 when arriving so what's the point?
I wouldn't bother with Parker even if he was free. I don't think he offers anything different/better than anyone else we have and he'd be nearly 31 when arriving so what's the point?
He would replace Hargreaves in the squad and be a reliable squad player.
That's adding something to the squad.
I think United are going to buy a first team worthy central midfielder this summer in any event but Parker could certainly add to the squad.
I disagree. Plenty do. That's why it's up for discussion.
If we could pick him up cheap as part of the squad he'd be a good option as part of the squad.
He's having better than a decent season.
Has done at West Ham for some time.
What a load of rubbish.
He was hardly ever picked at Chelsea, largely because he was up against Lampard in his prime, Makelele and Essien - no shame in that. In games I watched when he played I never thought he let them down.
Was a very good player at newcastle as well for a couple of years.
He's no world beater but he does the simple things well, is very solid even in a poor side surrounded by shite and as he's English you know what you'll get from him week in week out. He's no show pony but he's certainly a player who's gotten better with age.
Hopefully United will move for someone with real class in the transfer window, but a player like Parker, at a decent price would be a good signing for any club - even the top four.
neither have done a thing in the premierleague and you would be looking in excess of £40m!
paul pogba has potential, personally i think far more so than jack rodwell!!
when we signed juan veron there was no better at what he did.
i like scott parker. my only reservation is that he excells in a battling team. we are rarley involved in a battle. how would parker cope when we are at home to sunderland with 70% possession and trying to break down a 10 man defence??
No thanks
Not with the current squad limits, no way.
You think he's not good enough to get in ahead of Huddlestone (or Palacios?) but he is good enough for us? Something doesn't make sense there.
I'm just a bit baffled by all the Parker love.
I'm by no means one of those people who thinks that every squad member should be world class but I also hate the idea of actively seeking mediocre 30 year-olds just to fill up a squad place.
I'd much rather give one of the youth players a chance.
I'm by no means one of those people who thinks that every squad member should be world class but I also hate the idea of actively seeking mediocre 30 year-olds just to fill up a squad place.
I'd much rather give one of the youth players a chance.
Nah. He is average.
Quite shocked at the amount of criticism Parker is getting in this thread. I think he has been wonderful this season, every time I have seen him play. In the scenario that you present, I think Parker would be a very good signing, only if we get him cheap, mind.
He's just not though...
Wanted to sign him when he was at Charlton.Not so sure now.
I'd take him to replace Hargreaves in our squad.
Because our cover/competition for Fletcher has been crocked for 3 years?
Raoul, he's already spoken of in the past tense by Fergie according to Daniel Taylor
Park can play a little of that role as well. Besides, United don't really play with an out and out defensive midfielder who wouldn't venture into the opponents half the game. Scott Parker's a decent player at what he does, but he wouldn't bring much to the current United or what is lacking at the moment
He's a decent player but I think we can do better, plus I'm almost certain he's going to Spurs.
Also seems quite injury prone to me. No thanks.
Out of the 36 league games played he's played 30 this season.
I see Parker as more similar to Park than Parker to Fletcher. Fletcher's best attribute in my view is his ability to snuff out opponents dangermen. This is why he is regarded by many as a big game player imo, not because of what he brings to the team, but more for what he detracts from our opponents.
I see Parker as more of a Keane (though obviously nowhere near Keane's class) type player, than Fletcher. He is very comfortable in a defensive role and has the ability to carry the ball forward and be an influence offensively.
He has the type of personality that wants to dominate games, and an attitude that refuses to yield when the chips are down. I believe it is this mentality that would make him a very useful player at Utd. I would take Parker in a heart beat, he is a leader and i believe he may surprise a few people on how important he could become to our midfield.
Park shares many of Parker's attributes and look how important he has become. You don't have to be a world beater to become a very important player. Every team needs players like that and i would suggest there have been more than a few away games this season where our midfield would have benefited from someone with the battling qualities and desire of Scott Parker.
-------------VDS-------------
O'Shea---Rio---Vidic----Evra
--------Parker--Carrick------
Valencia-----------------Park
--------------Rooney--------
----------Hernandez---------
Looks pretty solid to me, i personally can't see Arsenal, Liverpool, City, Bolton, WBA, Wolves, Blackpool, Newcastle and Villa dominating that midfield away from home quite so easily.
Come on, really?
A great, hard working, passionate player that could come and play for free? Id take him anyday
It's a good point, but due to Parker's attitude and his importance to West Ham, there could have been quite a few of those games which he played while still carrying an injury.
Players like Parker give everything for the team. His committed style of play suggests he will always pick up knocks, but his attitude and desire imply he has no fear about continuing to play despite them.
He certainly manages to pass a lot of late fitness tests.
He's a very good player, and always has been imo.
Depends for which role. He would obviously not add much creativity to the team, but there are not many quality DM's about really. I would much rather Parker than a De Jong, Barry, Song or a Lucas!
Well Arry can certainly pick a player, and Parker and Modric does potentially seem quite a formidable midfield pairing.
Who would you believe would be a better option for a proven, all action, committed, battling DM than Parker? Imo we certainly haven't got one. A fit Hargreaves is a world class DM, but unfortunately we haven't got one of those either.
His role at Utd would be less demanding than at West Ham, we have much better players offensively than they do, so he would be more able to better concentrate his considerable energies in the middle of the pitch like Keane used to do.
Parker is not really a player to win you a game, but you can be sure he will give everything he has got to try and prevent you losing one and in my view that is just the type of player our away performances have lacked this season.
Not really what we need.
I disagree completely, he's shown tremendous ability for matchwinning or matchsaving contributions but at the same time he's a little reckless and a little careless and he can lose you games. He does bring some of what we've been missing in away games I agree but it's not enough to get him a move here and it's not enough overall.
I reckon all of that stands out when you're at West Ham. At United his inadequacies in ability would stand out more.
Kinell. Muppetry or no muppetry, we can surely do better.
I think we aren't really in the market for a player like him, I think the priority really is a more attacking technical midfielder.
That may well be true, but no more so than Fletcher, Anderson, Gibson or Carrick. Even Sir Ryan can be a little careless at times. He gives the ball away needlessly in almost every game, but it does not detract from his overall effectiveness.
Just to clarify, i didn't mean to imply Parker was incapable of being a matchwinner, only that we would not be as dependent on him for that side of his game as WHam currently are. He would be used more defensively here simply because we have much better attacking players than they do.
I do not believe we currently have a better option for a defensive minded combative midfielder imo. Parker offers everything Fletcher does in terms of commitment and desire, but as you yourself rightly point out, has much better offensive qualities. He also plays effectively in a 2 man mid and is very mobile, with undeniable leadership qualities.
Firstly, why would you not think him at the least, a viable replacement for Hargreaves position? Secondly, why would you believe his overall contribution to our midfield would be less considerable over a season than Fletcher, Anderson or Gibson?
If we're looking to sign a midfielder from a bottom PL club, then we should sign Charlie Adam.