Yes, yes and yes.
Scotty Parker anyone?
- Thread starter honcho
- Start date
Is our midfield really too good for Parker? I don't think so.
Crazy thread this.
Unreal the amount of hate Parker gets on here. I think he's a very effective player playing right at the top of his game at the moment. I dont think anyones claiming he's world class, just people thinking he could have done a decent job for us for a couple of seasons which i agree with. I think he would have been a shrewd signing until the likes of Pogba and Morrison step up or we identify the right signing to make in that position long term. He wouldnt set the world alight but not everyone we sign has to be a world beater.
I dont think anyone can argue that in the last couple of seasons he's been much more consistant than the likes of Anderson, Carrick or Fletcher. However obviously that ship has sailed and we're never going to sign him now, but think people should atleast give credit where its due as he's a much improved player and is having an exceptional season.
Hallelujah! Some objective views at last, where have you people been while i have been dealing with the deluded?
I wait all that time for a logical post and then they all turn up at once!
Just to clear up, as those with sense have said, Parker is a good player who will probably never play for us. What i have argued for repeatedly in this thread is not for us to sign him, but had we signed him he would have provided more as a defensive player than the likes of Fletcher and Carrick due to his reliability and consistency. Ergo a consistent level of performance is more beneficial to the team than a better player who regularly underperforms.
It's really that simple a point, and i am genuinely surprised by those who simply refuse to acknowledge that there is even a reasonable case to be made for such a suggestion.
Tbf I'm still waiting for you to show me posts where people've touted Young, Cleverley, Jones as world class to prove that people here are biased.
Absolutely agreed.
Also one more thing, much has been said about Fletch's defensive weakness, the fact that he is been playing with Rooney or Anderson this season surely contributes to that. Last season, whenever he played with Carrick, defensively our team looked solid(and offensively created nothing)
Alright i admit it, maybe i went a bit over the top, but by that point i was losing the will to live, having every suggestion i made mocked and taken to the extreme. You know how it is and maybe i was getting frustrated by that point. But you are still being pedantic taking me to task over that, because you know very well what i meant. Massively over rating of our players, and the similarly underrating dismissal of opposition players.
Mockney and the Chief have said more or less the same as i suggested, that Parker would have done a consistent job for us. Yet when i said it you scoffed, yet you somehow agree with them. You clearly got the wrong end of the stick thinking i was advocating signing Parker, i only argued that he would have done a better job than the others consistently had we signed him.
So, in the summer you wanted us to sign Parker, yesterday you're havin a go at apotheosis for saying he's good enough for United and now today you're agreeing with Mockney that he's as good as Carrick and Fletcher.
Which is it to be then?
Made one amazing interception from a Fabregas cut-back late in the second half. Goal saving.
Would have been a perfect buy in the summer (in hindsight). Short-term, cheap & would have been phased out when the youngsters started developing.
Really? KM wanted to sign him in the summer? Wasn't aware of that, interesting and considering he has been in great form so far this season, wonder what could have occurred since then, that would lead to such drastic change of opinion? Well KM called me deluded yesterday, but at least i am consistent in my views. Although consistency does not seem to be a particularly coveted attribute, in this thread at least.
Wondered about that myself, although Mockney does have a particularly impressive way of getting his point across. I'll be honest though i did not think what i was suggesting was that radical a viewpoint, and i was genuinely surprised, and regrettably a little frustrated by the almost hysterical opposition to it.
Really I did?
That's my post tbf.
I only considered him on loan but as the season has progressed and the problems we're having, I don't think he would be a viable option for us right now. I also didn't thought that Fletch would ever recover from virus as said in the above post.
No-ones suggesting we sign him now (from what i've read of this thread). Just a few speculating on what might have been if we had.
Ah but you have made the mistake of actually reading what people say, not just taking each point to the most extreme possible interpretation, and then twisting it to make it appear foolish.
Yes if we had sign him our current lack of creativity problems wouldn't have solved. The problem people do have with Carrick and Fletcher wouldn't have vanished with Parker.
They're suggesting we should have signed him last summer. Unless he's undergone some freakishly accelerated aging in the last few months, that's essentially the same thing as suggesting we sign him now.
He's a less creative passer than either of the above. He would have made the problem worse, if anything.
If Fergie really wanted another specialist defensive midfielder who excels at defending but offers almost nothing going forwards then he should have held onto John O' Shea.
Fergie likes his midfielders to be decent footballers though. I'd like to think that - when we do sign another CM - he's a talented ball-player. That's what we're lacking, not Scott fecking Parker.
What problem? Inconsistency is the main problem, surely signing a consistent player would actually change that?
That was my whole point, if Fletcher and Carrick performed anywhere near their best week in week out, then not only would we not be in the market for midfielders, but we would not even be discussing why Parker would potentially provide more than they do, more often.
The fact is they don't and they don't regularly. I really don't know why you had such a go at me yesterday for suggesting pretty much the same as you suggested in your post from the summer!
Not really, as he was available in the summer following relegation with West Ham. He's hardly a viable option now.
Well i certainly wasn't, but i would have took him as opposed to the alternative, which was sign no-one.
What problem? Inconsistency is the main problem, surely signing a consistent player would actually change that?
That was my whole point, if Fletcher and Carrick performed anywhere near their best week in week out, then not only would we not be in the market for midfielders, but we would not even be discussing why Parker would potentially provide more than they do, more often.
The fact is they don't and they don't regularly. I really don't know why you had such a go at me yesterday for suggesting pretty much the same as you suggested in your post from the summer!
Actually if you read my posts properly, I was advocating us to sign him(on loan) if in-case Fletcher never recovers properly from his virus. However now that he has done that, I see no use of him here.
There's no guarantee he would have joined us in the summer either. This whole discussion is entirely hypothetical, surely?
Hang on fellas, Parker would've sorted our lack of creativity? What with? quality passing? He's a headless chicken...he's the archetypical English midfielder, runs around a lot and gets stuck in, but totally devoid of any other quality. And the say Barca are the benchmark.
But what makes you think that Pogue, can you imagine any realistic signing for our midfield that would have made the team any better than it looked early on in the season?
For me this season and away from home in the last, what we lacked was a reliable defensive option. We have concede shitloads of chances this season due to a lack of protection for the defence, and since we have set up more defensively after that thrashing, we have kept 3 clean sheets and the defence has looked much more solid.
A player like Parker who would offer discipline and reliability to that position would free up the full backs to a degree and enable our midfielders to get forward and joint the attack with more confidence. Surely that is all we need.
A lot of it probably is hypotetical, but with the shortage of options we have currently in the centre resulting in our best forward being moved back to play there i dont think its that outrageous to think the likes of Parker could have improved our options in the short term.
What we need is someone to pull the strings in midfield. Someone who will make sure we hold onto the ball, not someone to run round chasing after it. We miss Scholes, not Hargreaves.
Who said that?
Bollocks it is - he's playing in midfield - he's supposed to win and KEEP the bloody ball.
Getting the ball isn't the issue, it's keeping possession of it.
Even though Fletcher is not a DM? If you had read my posts properly you will see i never called for his signing, i only speculated that his reliability and discipline would have served us better this season, than what Carrick and Fletcher have offered in a similar role.
Why people keep on using Fletcher as a justification for not needing Parker is beyond me.
You said yesterday he is not good enough for our midfield, but in the summer he was good enough to take on loan at least. Consdering his form now is better and for a higher level team than last year, added to the fact our midfield is the same as in the summer, how can you justify such a drastic change of opinion?
You were either wrong in the summer or you are wrong now, i would choose the latter personally, but you surely cannot have it both ways.
Nah, i think we need a ball winner first and foremost. If we're not planning on playing Carrick in the league for whatever reason we need someone thats gonna put the boot in instead. We've enough creativity on the wings with Nani and Young, and with Rooney dropping deep. We've no problem scoring, but where we're not so good is in centre midfield without the ball. We need a Makelele or a Keane more than a Sneijder.
We have the majority of possession in most of our games, it is what you do with it that counts. Cleverley and Ando pairing rarely had a majority of possession but when they played we were devastating on the break and scored goals galore.
The chances we have given up to our opponents this season, have pretty much all come through the middle because there was no-one there to stop them. Can you really believe that having a disciplined DM playing there would have made no difference?
Yes, I do. And, to be fair to him, he was showing those qualities at 23, that's why he went to Chelsea at that age.
I agree with Pogue, we need someone who can keep it, and Parker isn't that good at that...But my point was saying he's "not United quality" and dismissing him off hand isn't right considering he's no worse than 4 or 5 players we've had in our midfield for years now.
I would disagree but meh, opinions.
Be great if we signed someone with a bit of aggression to his game as well as ability on the ball but what we really need is someone to pull the strings in midfield. With Scholes retired we need this type of player urgently IMO. A proper midfield schemer who controls the tempo of the game and rarely misplaces a pass. Which is something Parker has never and will never be able to do.
He'd be a good squad player to have tbh. But, as i've said before in this thread. I'd be disappointed if we bought a player of his quality.
CM is the weakest area on our team, we should be looking at players better than scott parker. fwiw, i dont think we need a particularly creative passer or playmaker either. Still think Rooney playing in the hole with another striker ahead of him is the best way to go. he does enough of defensive work for it to work. what we need is a midfielder who's sound defensively but is capable of passing the ball around at the same time. Carrick if you like, if he develops a pair and trusts himself again.
CM is the weakest area on our team, we should be looking at players better than scott parker. fwiw, i dont think we need a particularly creative passer or playmaker either. Still think Rooney playing in the hole with another striker ahead of him is the best way to go. he does enough of defensive work for it to work. what we need is a midfielder who's sound defensively but is capable of passing the ball around at the same time. Carrick if you like, if he develops a pair and trusts himself again.
Dont get me wrong, we're certainly lacking that type of player aswell currently and i certainly wouldnt be against that type of signing. However my concern would be then for the development of our young players. Assuming we remain 4-4-2 could we pair up the creative gem (Scholes, Sneijder type) with the likes of Anderson or Cleverley, or in the future with Pogba or Morrison. I'm not sure, we'd be leaving ourselves far too open i would imagine.
My hope is that if we signed the right ball winner that we could give one of the 4 mentioned the right platform to eventually become that type of creative force we all crave.
I'd absolutely take him in the role Hargreaves possessed. Parker is limited but he's very disciplined defensively and consistent. He can get himself out of tight situations with nice ball work and passes the ball simply. He won't be creative or score goals but we need bite and he's a working biter.
But I think Jones will be our answer to the Hargreaves hole.
This is just getting ridiculous. We've had the same midfield for sometime now. This is the same midfield that played a part in our unbeaten streak in 09/10 when people said we were too defensive. This is the same midfield that has been described as functional and not offering enough in attack for about two seasons now. Obviously some things have changed in terms of players' form and what not but the consistent issue that has been brought up is creativity from the middle. It pains me more that we've been struggling to keep possession of the ball in the middle because that's actually been a consistent problem for us. What we're seeing now in terms of defensive shape is what I'd consider an anomaly for us.
The only difference is that this season, we've been a bit too open compared to how we have been in the past. The key thing in terms of signing Parker is how he'd be used. I argue that he'd be wasted in a 4-4-2 as that requires that you have a CM that's good with his feet. His traits dont really suit that for us. It's good enough for your West Hams but not good enough for us. We could only really utilize him in a 4-3-3 (like how he was used last night). He'd basically be a stop gap plugging up any holes in our defense. In that sense, we'd be more defensively solid but he still wouldn't contribute much in terms of attacking.
The reason I'm opposed to bringing Parker is because I don't see him making that much of a difference in the way we set up. If we consistently setup in a midfield 3, then I wouldn't be as opposed as I am now. He's a good player but if he's going to shine for us, he'd be a DM.
The bigger problem that has come to the surface is really a lack of consistency in our attack. At the beginning of the season, we looked set to go and were actually playing through the middle. Something that we don't really see all the time. Even though our philosophy is to attack through the wings, we should also be able to attack through the middle. If anyone has noticed recently. When we distribute the ball wide, there's not really anyone troubling the opposition in the middle of the park. It's like one big gap between our wingmen, CMs, and forwards. The only person that has seemed to give us any semblance of interplay in the middle is Cleverley. I'm sure Giggsy could offer the same even though his passing is more error-prone.
From the current set of midfielders that we have, I've never really worried too much about their ability to defend or at least maintain our defensive shape except maybe Anderson. What's concerned me more is our consistency in how we attack from the middle. If we actually possessed the ball better and were more confident on the ball then I think there would be improvement in terms of overall contribution from the midfield.
So again, if we were to sign Parker, I think he'd be used in a 4-3-3 where his defensive nous would be utilized as a platform for the other 2 CMs to do as they please. It wouldn't be any different than how he was used for England. Only difference is that we don't really setup like that anymore.
The only reason we're even entertaining the idea of signing someone like Parker is because of our defending this season. However, that's something that has gotten considerably better and that's even with Rooney in midfield!
Like I said, I think Parker is a good player and if we use him as a DM then it could be something beneficial for us. However, SAF isn't one to buy specialist-type players so I doubt we were ever really interested. Let alone the fact that in our current setup, we wouldn't get that much from him.
The only difference is that this season, we've been a bit too open compared to how we have been in the past. The key thing in terms of signing Parker is how he'd be used. I argue that he'd be wasted in a 4-4-2 as that requires that you have a CM that's good with his feet. His traits dont really suit that for us. It's good enough for your West Hams but not good enough for us. We could only really utilize him in a 4-3-3 (like how he was used last night). He'd basically be a stop gap plugging up any holes in our defense. In that sense, we'd be more defensively solid but he still wouldn't contribute much in terms of attacking.
The reason I'm opposed to bringing Parker is because I don't see him making that much of a difference in the way we set up. If we consistently setup in a midfield 3, then I wouldn't be as opposed as I am now. He's a good player but if he's going to shine for us, he'd be a DM.
The bigger problem that has come to the surface is really a lack of consistency in our attack. At the beginning of the season, we looked set to go and were actually playing through the middle. Something that we don't really see all the time. Even though our philosophy is to attack through the wings, we should also be able to attack through the middle. If anyone has noticed recently. When we distribute the ball wide, there's not really anyone troubling the opposition in the middle of the park. It's like one big gap between our wingmen, CMs, and forwards. The only person that has seemed to give us any semblance of interplay in the middle is Cleverley. I'm sure Giggsy could offer the same even though his passing is more error-prone.
From the current set of midfielders that we have, I've never really worried too much about their ability to defend or at least maintain our defensive shape except maybe Anderson. What's concerned me more is our consistency in how we attack from the middle. If we actually possessed the ball better and were more confident on the ball then I think there would be improvement in terms of overall contribution from the midfield.
So again, if we were to sign Parker, I think he'd be used in a 4-3-3 where his defensive nous would be utilized as a platform for the other 2 CMs to do as they please. It wouldn't be any different than how he was used for England. Only difference is that we don't really setup like that anymore.
The only reason we're even entertaining the idea of signing someone like Parker is because of our defending this season. However, that's something that has gotten considerably better and that's even with Rooney in midfield!
Like I said, I think Parker is a good player and if we use him as a DM then it could be something beneficial for us. However, SAF isn't one to buy specialist-type players so I doubt we were ever really interested. Let alone the fact that in our current setup, we wouldn't get that much from him.
I agree with this view, but not with the final conclusion. We have tried Carrick and the fact he cannot do it anywhere often enough is the problem. If he were able to perform near his best regularly then i doubt we would even need a midfielder at all.
Based upon what we saw from the team early on, i think Carrick at his best playing behind Clev and Ando is all we need. I cannot think of an available midfielder who could provide any more attacking impetus than what Clev and Ando provided. The problem is what happens behind them against better teams.
Clev and Ando showed what we are capable of, all we need now is to tweak a system that makes use of the attacking options that pairing brought, but at the same time provides a little more protection for the CB's.
Hypothetically, and again based upon what Parker has regularly produced, him playing behind Clev and Ando is not only a feasible trio, but an all round complimetary one. Clev and Ando have enough versatility and energy to be able to get back and support, but their forward forays would not be restricted by a concern of exposure behind them.
Ideally yes i would love an absolutely top drawer ball playing DM like Banega, but in the absence of that, someone like Parker or Tiote would still fulfill the basic requirements of protecting the defence, and adding a bit of bite when the going gets tough.