Scotty Parker anyone?

Brwned said:
Not really because the Ford Mondeo still isn't meeting the requirements, it doesn't matter if your current car is worse - when buying your next car you look at whether it can fulfil your needs, not whether it's slightly better than the current car that isn't fulfilling your needs. You're splashing out a few thousand quid here - it's important to buy right when you spend big, it's wasteful to pay big money for small improvements.
Click to expand...

Yes but this is where the analogy falls down i suppose, because you have no real clue as to how much Parker's acquisition would benefit the team. Surely nobody could have predicted that Cleverley's inclusion at the start of the season would have such a positive and dramatic effect on the capabilities of the offensive players especially.

So who can really predict how much would Parker benefit the team?

All i know is that he regularly provides attributes we currently lack, i am fairly certain that away from OT at least, he would have made a huge difference with regards to scrapping for midfield supremacy in the more fiercely contested games.


Fletcher was promoted from the youth team and holds more value because of that - understanding the club's values, understanding his role in the team and importantly has lots of top level experience. Plus he cost nothing. Parker would cost decent money and has little experience at the top level. Carrick was signed when he was 25 with the potential to step up to the top level - again, like Parker, but he failed. It'd be like us signing Carrick, getting rid of him to Newcastle and then Chelsea signing him four years later - because there's no doubt Carrick would've excelled at a lower level like Parker again, and he would've been attracting similar plaudits from yourself that Parker's now getting.
Click to expand...

It's a fair point Brwned, but with one vital difference. Carrick was hounded out of West Ham for the same reasons he has failed with us. He visibly shrinks under pressure, he is simply not up to the task of dealing with adverse situations. Parker on the other hand was outstanding at Charlton, outstanding at West Ham and has been outstanding for Spurs so far. The only time he 'failed' was at Chelsea, where he was not a Mourinho signing and was treated as such, getting very little opportunity to either fail or succeed imo.

Excelled at Spurs to a level Parker hasn't yet reached and likely never will...yet you're advocating swapping the two. I reckon if it was the other way around, you'd still be doing the same thing. Which is the whole point - Parker's good enough for Spurs like Carrick obviously was, but that doesn't mean he's good enough for us (as you seem to think Carrick isn't, I on the other hand do).
Click to expand...

Again a fair if not somewhat biased point, Carrick has failed to fulfill his potential due to a personality flaw rather than lack of talent. Parker on the other hand is less talented but has made the most of his talent whenever he has been given a decent opportunity and risen to the challenge each time.

That is the difference between the 2, it is not a question of comparable talent, it is a question of how that talent is regularly utilised to the repeated benefit of the team they play in. That comes down to personality and the desire to make a difference imo. It's not a question of me rating Parker over Carrick or Fletcher, it is a question of whether they regularly reproduce their best form, and in those terms Parker is streets ahead. Having a great player is not much use if he does not regularly perform to the standard that sets him apart.

In that circumstance which i believe mirrors our current one, then a reliable player playing his best, is of more use than a better player who only occasionally plays anywhere near his best.



If Anderson turns out to be below the level needed of him, he'll be shipped off and we'll get someone that is at the level needed, not someone who's slightly better but still below that level needed.
Click to expand...

How can you determine what level is needed if you believe what Carrick and Fletcher regularly contribute is good enough? If it was good enough, often enough why do we need to sign midfielders in the first place?

Anderson has only not looked regularly good enough when partnered with the persistently underperforming Carrick and Fletcher, as soon as he was paired with somone who complimented his game, the sky looked the limit for him imo.

I know he has had a few good games with Carrick before anyone starts, but significantly less than the not so good ones.

Signing a 29 year old Parker goes against the club's transfer policy that's made us so successful - how many players have we signed around his age in Sir Alex's entire time here? Very few I'd imagine, with them either being superbly gifted - like Berbatov - or dirt cheap squad players - like Owen. Parker's neither.
Click to expand...

I think you will find Brwned that if you actually look at SAF's transfer dealings over his entire reign, you will find that before Ronaldo and Rooney we had never signed a teenager. The vast majority of his signings have been established and experienced players. Nani and Anderson in 2007 made it 4 teenage signings in 2 decades. The current policy is different and the trouble with buying kids is while you are preparing for the future, the present is ignored. We have still won only 1 trophy since Ronaldo left and the performances have been pretty poor on the whole.

It's a short-termist view and we've very rarely operated in the transfer market with anything other than a long-term view.
Click to expand...

Have we not short term goals as well as long term ones? I would say so, and as i have maintained not only in this thread but in others, that ignoring the midfield is now threatening our short term goals. We have stood still while City get ever stronger. I contend we are no better a team now than we were after Ronaldo left. We lost our title to Chelsea because we did not strengthen properly, and only by an inexplicable decision by Chelsea to get rid of 5 players and not replace them did we regain the title last season.

Some say we improved but i say different. We finished 5 points less than we had coming 2nd the season before, Chelsea finished a whopping 14 worse off than their double season, that tells me they were worse not that we were better.

City however have improved and will continue to do so. We have again bought well for the future, but for the present the desire to keep faith with players who are regularly playing below their capabilities will stop thisteam from improving. We have had a glimpse of what the team can do with a different pairing than we have been used to, and the subsequent downturn in form since the old guard returned. If we can not improve by buying ferrari's then a more relaible level of perfromance is surely a step in the right direction.
 
All that tells us is that we could have really done with the actual Darren Fletcher in both finals against Barcelona, not that we should go out and buy an older and slightly less impressive version.
 
Pronewbie said:
Great warrior but for a midfielder doesn't use the ball intelligently enough for my liking.
Click to expand...

That's what the other midfielders are there for. He is there to stop the threat from the opposition, which he does week in week out. I've said it all along, what you need is reliability and a desire to make an impact on the game.

Scott Parker has both attributes in abundance.
 
poor first half, good second half I thought. He gave the ball away quite a lot but produced some vital pieces of defending at times.
 
I really don't know what some of you want from Parker. He does what he is good at, and he does it every week. Is he Roy Keane? No of course not, not even close. But you know what he will give you every game.

For all Spain's midfield talent, they managed to get through once and incidentally that was just after Parker went off. People should just give him some credit, instead of finding any possible reason to put him down.
 
He's good at what he does, and he did well today. But a lot of what he does is pointless. Good game though
 
apotheosis said:
I really don't know what some of you want from Parker. He does what he is good at, and he does it every week. Is he Roy Keane? No of course not, not even close. But you know what he will give you every game.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why he's not good enough for United. We already have squad players who will do a "job" for us.

What we need is more talent in midfield. Parker ain't the answer.
 
apotheosis said:
I really don't know what some of you want from Parker. He does what he is good at, and he does it every week. Is he Roy Keane? No of course not, not even close. But you know what he will give you every game.

For all Spain's midfield talent, they managed to get through once and incidentally that was just after Parker went off. People should just give him some credit, instead of finding any possible reason to put him down.
Click to expand...

they got through a lot more than once.
 
apotheosis said:
Their midfielders? When?
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be a midfielder that they put through?

When Villa took it round Hart and missed, when Fabregas was through on goal but tried to cut it across to Piqué, and when Fabregas cut across the ball and shot narrowly wide to name the ones that spring to mind.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
He's average
Click to expand...

He's better than average. But more importantly he is very reliable, something our midfielders are not, and have not been for some time.

You may feel our midfielders are better than him, and that's fair enough. But without consistency it means you are hardly performing near your best, anywhere near often enough.

How anyone can believe Parker would not have given us more consistency and discipline in midfield is beyond me. Parker is the type of player who imposes himself on the opposition, away from OT, a contribution like his would surely be of benefit in stopping our midfield being outfought.
 
Scrumpet said:
Why does it have to be a midfielder that they put through?

When Villa took it round Hart and missed, when Fabregas was through on goal but tried to cut it across to Piqué, and when Fabregas cut across the ball and shot narrowly wide to name the ones that spring to mind.
Click to expand...

Parker is tracking midfielders, and i was talking about midfielders.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
Which is exactly why he's not good enough for United. We already have squad players who will do a "job" for us.

What we need is more talent in midfield. Parker ain't the answer.
Click to expand...

Did we have enough talent in midfield at the start of the season? There certainly did not look like any shortage of goals, creativity or imagination from my viewpoint. what we have lacked since then is consistency and discipline in front of the back four.

It's not all about talent you know, you also need reliability. All the best teams have it, and at present we do not have enough midfielders who can be counted on to produce their best, or even close to it, from one week to the next. Consistency is what breeds confidence, confidence improves performances and improved performances lead to better results, it's that simple.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Looked it tonight.

Are people really impressed by that performance? Weird.
Click to expand...

Ole's_toe_poke said:
He was voted England's MOTM. You forget, he runs around a lot.
Click to expand...

What i cannot understand is why you believe fletcher's inconsistent performances are more impressive, or of more benefit to the team, than what Parker contributes?

Fletcher runs around a lot, but he offers no protection whatsoever to the defence, is certainly no better on the ball, and is just nowhere near as reliable.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
He's a slower, not as good, version of Hargreaves.
Click to expand...

But what's that got to do with what he would bring to our current midfield?

Furthermore as i said how can his general contributions be seen as somehow less impressive than Fletcher's?

Every team Parker has played for bar Chelsea, he has made the team more effective, does Fletcher really make us more effective with the job he does?

At his best maybe, but the problem is we have not seen his best for 2 seasons, Parker is performing close to his best form, almost every time he plays.
 
apotheosis said:
But what's that got to do with what he would bring to our current midfield?

Furthermore as i said how can his general contributions be seen as somehow less impressive than Fletcher's?

Every team Parker has played for bar Chelsea, he has made the team more effective, does Fletcher really make us more effective with the job he does?

At his best maybe, but the problem is we have not seen his best for 2 seasons, Parker is performing close to his best form, almost every time he plays.
Click to expand...

What a fecking question to ask :rolleyes:
 
apotheosis said:
Well does he? Regularly? Maybe 2 years ago, but not since. I still don't even know what job he does. If he is a DM he offers no protection whatsoever, if he isn't i fail to see how he could do a better job there than Parker, who is without question significantly more consistent.
Click to expand...

Thankfully our manager disagrees with your opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.