Scotty Parker anyone?

[MadDogg]

We do need quality cover for Carrick and Fletcher, and Parker could do that. He's certainly not as good as Carrick in that deep-lying role, but he can do it better than anyone else we have (including Fletch). And he'd give us the bite that nobody but Fletcher (and occasionally Ando) does in the middle of the park.

If Fergie thinks Jones can fill that position, then great. If not, I certainly wouldn't say no to Parker for fairly cheap experienced cover.

 

[Sassy Colin]

We do need quality cover for Carrick and Fletcher, and Parker could do that. He's certainly not as good as Carrick in that deep-lying role, but he can do it better than anyone else we have (including Fletch). And he'd give us the bite that nobody but Fletcher (and occasionally Ando) does in the middle of the park.

If Fergie thinks Jones can fill that position, then great. If not, I certainly wouldn't say no to Parker for fairly cheap experienced cover.

I don't think he would be particularly cheap though.

No thanks, not good enough for United...

 

[::sonny::]

We do need quality cover for Carrick and Fletcher, and Parker could do that. He's certainly not as good as Carrick in that deep-lying role, but he can do it better than anyone else we have (including Fletch). And he'd give us the bite that nobody but Fletcher (and occasionally Ando) does in the middle of the park.

If Fergie thinks Jones can fill that position, then great. If not, I certainly wouldn't say no to Parker for fairly cheap experienced cover.

Agreed

 

[The Black Pearl]

There's a reason not many clubs are showing an interest in him.

 

[ben_foster]

parker has looked ok over the last ten years as he has played for poor teams who far the majority of games spend alot of time without the ball.

playing for us parker would play in a team who for 30 league games per season will have 60% of possession. united players must offer more than desire and an engine. its why many on here thought so highly of hargreaves as he had the engine and desire of parker.....put was also usfull on the ball. i understand fletcher is going through some fitness probems due to this strange virus but assuming fletcher is fit for the season......how would parker offer an improvement on fletcher....who is not only a similar type of player to him but also in my opnion uniteds "poorest" midfielder.

i dont want him!!! we are manchester united not bolton. loaning a 31 year old midfielder from a championship side would not be a move i would like to see us make.

the transfer divs who talk about silly unrealistic signings get alot of fully deserved stick about the threads they start. in my personal opinion........this thread is worse......atleast the transfer wallies have a bit of ambition.

scott parker?????? ffs.......what about lee catermole?? or why ot try to tempt rory delap or maybe push the boat out and go for styllian petrov!??

 

[kietotheworld]

parker has looked ok over the last ten years as he has played for poor teams who far the majority of games spend alot of time without the ball.

playing for us parker would play in a team who for 30 league games per season will have 60% of possession. united players must offer more than desire and an engine. its why many on here thought so highly of hargreaves as he had the engine and desire of parker.....put was also usfull on the ball. i understand fletcher is going through some fitness probems due to this strange virus but assuming fletcher is fit for the season......how would parker offer an improvement on fletcher....who is not only a similar type of player to him but also in my opnion uniteds "poorest" midfielder.

i dont want him!!! we are manchester united not bolton. loaning a 31 year old midfielder from a championship side would not be a move i would like to see us make.

the transfer divs who talk about silly unrealistic signings get alot of fully deserved stick about the threads they start. in my personal opinion........this thread is worse......atleast the transfer wallies have a bit of ambition.

scott parker?????? ffs.......what about lee catermole?? or why ot try to tempt rory delap or maybe push the boat out and go for styllian petrov!??

Assuming Fletcher is fit for the season is a pretty big assumption. If Fletcher was fit, I'd expect him to be starting a lot of games for us, and if we accept Parker's better than him, then signing him would offer something of an improvement. I would prefer us to go and sign Nasri and/or Sneijder, of course, but if that's not going to happen then a minor improvement is better than no improvement at all. He can certainly do for us next season as much as Scholes did last.

 

[ben_foster]

ok then assume that fletcher isnt fit.........other than numbers....how is parker an improvement??? would you favour him in any game over anderson, carrick or giggs.

id prefer to see one of the twins in there than scott parker. or even ji sung park. thats 6 players i think would offer us more than scott parker

i was dissapointed to see JOS go.....but having let him go and the impedin departure of gibson....im pretty sure SIR alex has somebody in mnd to fullfill this back up midfeild position. please god i hope it isnt scott parker

 

[kietotheworld]

ok then assume that fletcher isnt fit.........other than numbers....how is parker an improvement??? would you favour him in any game over anderson, carrick or giggs.

id prefer to see one of the twins in there than scott parker. or even ji sung park. thats 6 players i think would offer us more than scott parker

i was dissapointed to see JOS go.....but having let him go and the impedin departure of gibson....im pretty sure SIR alex has somebody in mnd to fullfill this back up midfeild position. please god i hope it isnt scott parker

He is an improvement in numbers, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I'd favour him alongside Anderson or Giggs if Carrick was injured along with Fletcher, and I'd certainly favour him over full backs or a winger. While Fletcher's illness isn't a bit worry at the moment, if Carrick gets a strain then we are left with just Anderson and Giggs as our central midfield options, you're telling me honestly that Parker wouldn't get into our team then?

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

There's a reason not many clubs are showing an interest in him.

He is a defensive midfielder. Most EPL sides are stocked in that role.

 

[londonredmaniac]

parker has looked ok over the last ten years as he has played for poor teams who far the majority of games spend alot of time without the ball.

playing for us parker would play in a team who for 30 league games per season will have 60% of possession. united players must offer more than desire and an engine. its why many on here thought so highly of hargreaves as he had the engine and desire of parker.....put was also usfull on the ball. i understand fletcher is going through some fitness probems due to this strange virus but assuming fletcher is fit for the season......how would parker offer an improvement on fletcher....who is not only a similar type of player to him but also in my opnion uniteds "poorest" midfielder.

i dont want him!!! we are manchester united not bolton. loaning a 31 year old midfielder from a championship side would not be a move i would like to see us make.

the transfer divs who talk about silly unrealistic signings get alot of fully deserved stick about the threads they start. in my personal opinion........this thread is worse......atleast the transfer wallies have a bit of ambition.

scott parker?????? ffs.......what about lee catermole?? or why ot try to tempt rory delap or maybe push the boat out and go for styllian petrov!??

If you can't see that Parker is a better player than Cattermole, Delap etc then you are fecking mental.

Want him or not, that's bollocks.

 

[Eyepopper]

playing for us parker would play in a team who for 30 league games per season will have 60% of possession.

Bang on, and the one time he played for a team that came anywhere near that he looked ordinary and lasted a year.

 

[Eyepopper]

He is an improvement in numbers, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I'd favour him alongside Anderson or Giggs if Carrick was injured along with Fletcher, and I'd certainly favour him over full backs or a winger. While Fletcher's illness isn't a bit worry at the moment, if Carrick gets a strain then we are left with just Anderson and Giggs as our central midfield options, you're telling me honestly that Parker wouldn't get into our team then?

You think he'd retain any sort of form if he's only getting the odd game if/when we've injuries??

Part of the reason he's been able to retain any sort of form at the likes of Newcastle and West Ham is because he's playing regularly.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

If you can't see that Parker is a better player than Cattermole, Delap etc then you are fecking mental.

Want him or not, that's bollocks.

Agreed

 

[BaldwinLegend]

It's also worth pointing out that Parker has definitely improved as a player in the last couple of seasons, especially his distribution. He looks capable of holding his own at international level now, something he hasn't always looked, though I still wouldn't want him at United now.

 

[Eyepopper]

So we should sign anyone thats better than Lee Cattermole, Delap etc?

We get this sort of crap every year, lets sign Joey Barton, lets sign Nigle Reo Coker, lets sign Scott fecking Parker.... ben's right, the people who spout this stuff are as bad as those who want every 'dinho' under the sun, its never going to happen, just because they shine amongst a team of average players that doesn't mean they'd fit in at a team like Utd who play a totally different style of play, one which demands more from a player.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I'm sick and tired of reading this crap of wanting players who are improvements on what we have. It's like some of you have never heard of the word cover.

 

[::sonny::]

The only one real defensive midfielder we have is Fletcher, and I don't think he can play 60 games.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

..... just because they shine amongst a team of average players that doesn't mean they'd fit in at a team like Utd who play a totally different style of play, one which demands more from a player.

That is the bullshit we heard when we got Valencia in. It's dumb.

 

[Eyepopper]

You didn't hear it from me.... a 23 year old winger with potential is a totally different case to a 31 year old midfielder whose shone in average teams his entire career.

Also it seems not to be bullshit as we never signed Barton, Reo Coker or any of those other average players people seem to confuse with quality and insist couldve been master stroke signings.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

You didn't hear it from me.

I don't care if I didn't. It's the same mentality. It's ridiculous regardless. It's that type of reasoning that was having people say Young was a waste of cash of a target.

a 23 year old winger with potential is a totally different case to a 31 year old midfielder whose shone in average teams his entire career.

Another lame argument. You wouldn't be buying or loaning a Parker to become a star. He'd be there to do a good job as cover. He'd be no different to having a fit Hargreaves here. The very type of thing we need in the short term as Tunnifcliffe, James and Pogba mature.

Also it seems not to be bullshit as we never signed Barton, Reo Coker...

I don't see what any of them have to do with Parker. None of them have ever played for a big team and none of them have ever won player of the year. I can get not rating him. I can't get plain disrespect towards his ability. You don't win player of the year be being 'fecking average''.

 

[kietotheworld]

You think he'd retain any sort of form if he's only getting the odd game if/when we've injuries??

Part of the reason he's been able to retain any sort of form at the likes of Newcastle and West Ham is because he's playing regularly.

If Fletcher can play regularly for us then Parker can.

 

[Kelvin]

it be a desperate move if we sign him it will be because he be our last resort, i hope not.

 

[Fiskey]

If Fletcher can play regularly for us then Parker can.

Fletcher is a much better player than Parker, has a load more to his game.

 

[Eyepopper]

I don't see what any of them have to do with Parker. None of them have ever played for a big team and none of them have ever won player of the year. I can get not rating him. I can't get plain disrespect towards his ability. You don't win player of the year be being 'fecking average''.

They were the average players of yesteryear that people reckon 'could do a job for us'..... it turned out that the club didn't agree, just as they won't sign Parker, bottom line on all of them is that they're not good enough... Parker played for a big team alright, but how many games before he was shipped out? 15 - 20 wasn't it? Why? Same reason, he's wasn't good enough.

You can throw all the logic you want at it in terms of him being a stop gap or whatever else you want to call it, again the bottom line is it wont happen and the sole reason for that is that he's not good enough.

As for awards, I could give a feck who the football writers think is player of the year.

Theres a world of difference between the likes of Parker and Young and Valencia, I'm not going to explain it to you, if you can't see it we'll have to agree to differ, I've a sneaking suspicion the club will see things my way though.

 

[Eyepopper]

If Fletcher can play regularly for us then Parker can.

, oh, well.... thats that then....

Just to be clear we're talking about Darren Fletcher right? The player who has played about 60 times in the Champions League against top teams and about 50 times for his country, compared to Parker who has the grand total of zero champions league appearances and 5 England caps (despite being 4 years older).... yes, I can see why your point stands.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I'd rather promote from the youth cup winning side tbh, they are our future and would probably do as good a job or better anyway...

We CAN win with kids...

 

[Eyepopper]

He'd be no different to having a fit Hargreaves here.

Oh and in case you missed this one Chief, we let a fit Hargreaves go....

 

[BaldwinLegend]

They were the average players of yesteryear that people reckon 'could do a job for us'..... it turned out that the club didn't agree, just as they won't sign Parker, bottom line on all of them is that they're not good enough... Parker played for a big team alright, but how many games before he was shipped out? 15 - 20 wasn't it? Why? Same reason, he's wasn't good enough.

I don't think United should or will be in for Parker but to be fair, in Lampard, Makelele, Veron, Petit, Tiago, Jarosik, and even Joe Cole and Geremi, he faced considerably more of a challenge getting a game than he'd likely face at United currently.

Seems unfair on Parker that he always gets that period at Chelsea used as evidence against him - Chelsea 2003-05 had arguably one of the strongest squads seen in the PL so not becoming a regular is hardly a damning indictment.

 

[Eyepopper]

I'm not saying its a damning indictment, Chief pointed to him having experience of playing for a big team as a differentiator when compared to the likes of Barton etc.... he played 15 games for Chelsea....

Personally I think he's quite decent, but so are about 50 players, thats not to say we should buy them.

Every year we get this, someone has a decent season for a small club and we get a load of people saying we should buy them..... it never happens and the reasons always the same.... in Fergies own words (from the Sneijder thread) "I could pick three or four players to come in but they wouldn't be good enough for us, so there is no point."

Scott Parker - Not good enough for Utd, and not just because he wasn't good enough to get a game ahead of Jarosik and Geremi at Chelsea 7 or 8 years ago.

 

[BaldwinLegend]

Scott Parker - Not good enough for Utd, and not just because he wasn't good enough to get a game ahead of Jarosik and Geremi at Chelsea 7 or 8 years ago.

I think it was more a well established Lampard and Makelele (at their peaks) he struggled to get past - the others just illustrate the strength in depth Chelsea enjoyed at the time, something we lack in that area currently.

 

[golden_blunder]

that doesn't mean we should pay good money to fill our squad with players like Parker

 

[Eyepopper]

Exactly.....

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Oh and in case you missed this one Chief, we let a fit Hargreaves go....

Because he hadn't proved his fitness for 3 years.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

....I'm not going to explain it to you, if you can't see it we'll have to agree to differ, I've a sneaking suspicion the club will see things my way though.

It won't be because they saw it your way. They just wont be looking at that type of player simply because they have an obvious preference for younger talent. This he is not good enough line is utter bollocks. Especially not when a Gibson was getting games for us last season, even in Europe.

 

[golden_blunder]

Gibson is a completely different player to Parker, i wish people would give that one up

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Gibson is a completely different player to Parker, i wish people would give that one up

There is nothing to give up on. If Gibson is good enough for us as cover, a person can't turn around and claim Scott Parker would not be. Especially when Parker is much better and more experienced. It makes no sense at all to think that way.

 

[Kaos]

Just when we were saved from Charlie Adam, the Scott Parker rumours start to flood in.

 

[Eyepopper]

It won't be because they saw it your way. They just wont be looking at that type of player simply because they have an obvious preference for younger talent. This he is not good enough line is utter bollocks. Especially not when a Gibson was getting games for us last season, even in Europe.

You're right Chief, when we don't sign Parker it will be because he's too old and not because he's not good enough.

I mean we all know Fergie would never sign older players even if he thinks they can do a job from us, whether they're good enough or not...

Scott Parker - Good enough, just too old.

 

[johnmufc]

parker has looked ok over the last ten years as he has played for poor teams who far the majority of games spend alot of time without the ball.

playing for us parker would play in a team who for 30 league games per season will have 60% of possession. united players must offer more than desire and an engine. its why many on here thought so highly of hargreaves as he had the engine and desire of parker.....put was also usfull on the ball. i understand fletcher is going through some fitness probems due to this strange virus but assuming fletcher is fit for the season......how would parker offer an improvement on fletcher....who is not only a similar type of player to him but also in my opnion uniteds "poorest" midfielder.

i dont want him!!! we are manchester united not bolton. loaning a 31 year old midfielder from a championship side would not be a move i would like to see us make.

the transfer divs who talk about silly unrealistic signings get alot of fully deserved stick about the threads they start. in my personal opinion........this thread is worse......atleast the transfer wallies have a bit of ambition.

scott parker?????? ffs.......what about lee catermole?? or why ot try to tempt rory delap or maybe push the boat out and go for styllian petrov!??

I agree. It is weird. People seem to want us to sign players just for the sake of it.

Players who would actually improve our team, or young players with the potential to do so are the only players who should be signed.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

You're right Chief, when we don't sign Parker it will be because he's too old and not because he's not good enough.

I mean we all know Fergie would never sign older players even if he thinks they can do a job from us, whether they're good enough or not...

Scott Parker - Good enough, just too old.

1. Blanc was brought in at a time United didn't have a confirmed policy of not spending large fees on player over 25 due to resale value. Unless they were of the ilk of a Berbatov or a Sneijder if we do sign him.

2. Larsson was a short term loan and Owen a free transfer.
We won't be getting a Parker on a free and I doubt we have ever signed a first team midfielder on a short term loan under Fergie either.

In short. I suggest you try much harder to justify your position. Rather than using straw men.