Scotty Parker anyone?

Enigma_87 said:
yet Tiago got into the lineup twice as much compared to him. Tiago would be a nice backup, should we buy him as well?
Click to expand...

What makes you think I think we should buy Parker? I've only said twice in this thread I think we shouldn't and won't.

For what it's worth, I'd say Parker has looked a far better bet than Tiago has the last couple of years.

I agree with what Vuc said earlier - good player with a lot of fight.

He probably got the PotY award for sentimental reasons - managing to have the best season of his life the year his Dad died - but I share their admiration for him, playing on as he did.

Doesn't mean I think he's right for United, but I'd like to see him play out his career with 2 more good seasons in the PL, rather than get sucked down by the Gold/Sullivan circus at West Ham.
 
BaldwinLegend said:
What makes you think I think we should buy Parker? I've only said twice in this thread I think we shouldn't and won't.

For what it's worth, I'd say Parker has looked a far better bet than Tiago has the last couple of years.

I agree with what Vuc said earlier - good player with a lot of fight.

He probably got the PotY award for sentimental reasons - managing to have the best season of his life the year his Dad died - but I share their admiration for him, playing on as he did.

Doesn't mean I think he's right for United, but I'd like to see him play out his career with 2 more good seasons in the PL, rather than get sucked down by the Gold/Sullivan circus at West Ham.
Click to expand...

Well you are making an excuse for Parker that he didn't succeed at Chelsea due to competition for places. Sure this is true to some extend, but when Tiago is ahead of him in the pecking order I can't see this being the only reason.

We shouldn't be anywhere near him, not even consider it. We don't just need bodies in the team sheet, we lack quality in the first team in that position. Parker would get in neither top table team, let alone in our midfield. When you look back in his career it's the definition of average - failed at the big stage and playing some good seasons for relegation battlers.

Regarding the PoTY award - if he deserves it for his outings, same can be said about Brunt, Tiotte,Adam and the likes - neither we should touch with barge pole as well.
 
Eyepopper said:
How about your own opinion that he was far better before he went to Chelsea?.
Click to expand...
What about it? At Charlton he had the potential to be world class. He moved to the wrong club and lost his way for 2 years. By the time he recovered at most he could become a good player.

Eyepopper said:
Never recovered from signing for the wrong club..... yet good enough for Utd.
Click to expand...
Yes. United is a club that also employs the likes of John O'shea as cover. A player who Parker is superior to.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Yes. United is a club that also employs the likes of John O'shea as cover. A player who Parker is superior to.
Click to expand...

Erm, the one is defender, who can play in midfield, full back, CB, even a keeper. One of his main strengths is that. How is Parker compared to O'Shea is beyond me.

Parker is better than O'Shea as midfielder that's for sure, but that's not Sheasy natural position. He fills up there...
 
John O'Shea pretty much came through our ranks, and was a dependable player for the guts of ten years, getting plenty of games even when faced with lots of quality opposition (something Parker couldn't do at Chelsea).

He cost us nothing, are you suggesting we should be paying 5-8million for players like O'Shea, Gibson etc (only older) just to fill out the numbers?

Scott Parker has never been good enough to play for a top 4 club, its as simple as that, thats not to say he's not decent and probably as good as some of the fringe players at the likes Utd, but the difference is that the fringe players he's as good as are younger and cheaper than him.
 
Lets sign Robbie Keane, he's better than Diouf & Macheda and has bags of experience.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Well you are making an excuse for Parker that he didn't succeed at Chelsea due to competition for places. Sure this is true to some extend, but when Tiago is ahead of him in the pecking order I can't see this being the only reason.

We shouldn't be anywhere near him, not even consider it. We don't just need bodies in the team sheet, we lack quality in the first team in that position. Parker would get in neither top table team, let alone in our midfield. When you look back in his career it's the definition of average - failed at the big stage and playing some good seasons for relegation battlers.

Regarding the PoTY award - if he deserves it for his outings, same can be said about Brunt, Tiotte,Adam and the likes - neither we should touch with barge pole as well.
Click to expand...

I haven't said we should be 'anywhere near him'.

Carry on though.
 
Eyepopper said:
Lets sign Robbie Keane, he's better than Diouf & Macheda and has bags of experience.
Click to expand...

Hardly a perfect comparison - Keane's been in serious decline for a long time now, Parker looks to have finally reached his potential and has a good two years of quality service to offer a PL club.

One of them was hopeless for West Ham last year and one of them was very good.
 
Fair enough, Jamie O'Hara then, pity we didn't move for him before Wolves made him permanent, he looked quite decent for them last year.
 
In my opinion, Scott Parker would be a decent short term buy. He would do a good job.

I'd still prefer we signed young up and coming players like Ganso, Javi Martinez or M'Vila.
 
Name Changed said:
In my opinion, Scott Parker would be a decent short term buy. He would do a good job.

I'd still prefer we signed young up and coming players like Ganso, Javi Martinez or M'Vila.
Click to expand...

He could certainly fill the gap left by Hargreaves departure adequately enough but yeah, I'd like to see someone with a bit more potential upside take up that role.

It's strange, actually, for all the talk about a Scholes replacement there's been very little mention of who Fergie might be looking at to replace Hargreaves. Granted, he contributed feck all last season (and not a whole lot the season before) but he was obviously signed for a reason and now we've cut our losses you'd think Fergie would be looking at replacing him.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
He could certainly fill the gap left by Hargreaves departure adequately enough but yeah, I'd like to see someone with a bit more potential upside take up that role.

It's strange, actually, for all the talk about a Scholes replacement there's been very little mention of who Fergie might be looking at to replace Hargreaves. Granted, he contributed feck all last season (and not a whole lot the season before) but he was obviously signed for a reason and now we've cut our losses you'd think Fergie would be looking at replacing him.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and to be fair, Parker would fit the bill. He may not have the quality of Hargreaves at his best, but he can certainly do a good job in the PL. He would be a good squad player to have, and I would suggest that he would play more often than not if we kept the same midfield personnel as we have now.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
He could certainly fill the gap left by Hargreaves departure adequately enough but yeah, I'd like to see someone with a bit more potential upside take up that role.

It's strange, actually, for all the talk about a Scholes replacement there's been very little mention of who Fergie might be looking at to replace Hargreaves. Granted, he contributed feck all last season (and not a whole lot the season before) but he was obviously signed for a reason and now we've cut our losses you'd think Fergie would be looking at replacing him.
Click to expand...

Name Changed said:
Exactly, and to be fair, Parker would fit the bill. He may not have the quality of Hargreaves at his best, but he can certainly do a good job in the PL. He would be a good squad player to have, and I would suggest that he would play more often than not if we kept the same midfield personnel as we have now.
Click to expand...

That is true and the one major upside of signing someone like Parker would be that in a couple of years time, players like Pogba etc might get their chance. Stop gap signing, as opposed to spending 20-30M on the likes of potential like Martinez etc, which could in turn hinder some of the academy/youth team players.

It would be ideal to replace both Scholes and Hargreaves, but I cannot see that happening, especially with the prices of potential replacements. Parker could do a job and offer something similar to Hargreaves for us, I wouldn't be against getting him for a decent enough price.
 
What signal would it send to the fans if we got him? (even though we won't) It's not going to be a good one.
 
Wayne_Rooney said:
What signal would it send to the fans if we got him? (even though we won't) It's not going to be a good one.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think it will actually send out the wrong signal, not at all - especially if the reasons for getting him are justified. We've spent close to 50M already this season, so it won't be a question of money, IMO.

If SAF came out and said player X and Y were his initial targets but we couldn't get them (overpriced, not for sale etc) than it will be understandable signing a "Owen" - another stop gap. Panic buying just for the sake of panic buying and over paying in the process on a player who wasn't even the initial target would actually end up being counter productive, especially if it is done to "send the message to the fans". SAF won't operate under that basis.

I do understand that we've lost a ton of quality in midfield though, so I do expect us to fill some of the open spaces, but we have to trust in SAF to do his best for the club.
 
raisa84045 said:
Well, I don't think it will actually send out the wrong signal, not at all - especially if the reasons for getting him are justified. We've spent close to 50M already this season, so it won't be a question of money, IMO.

If SAF came out and said player X and Y were his initial targets but we couldn't get them (overpriced, not for sale etc) than it will be understandable signing a "Owen" - another stop gap. Panic buying just for the sake of panic buying and over paying in the process on a player who wasn't even the initial target would actually end up being counter productive, especially if it is done to "send the message to the fans". SAF won't operate under that basis.

I do understand that we've lost a ton of quality in midfield though, so I do expect us to fill some of the open spaces, but we have to trust in SAF to do his best for the club.
Click to expand...

whilst he could be decribed as an all action type midfielder his ability on the ball is actually limited so he is more of a defensive type midfielder. carrick (ultimatley our first choice midfielder takes than position), fletcher who albeit it plays the position differently would be second choice "defensive" midfielder. leaving anderson and giggsy (and also rooney depending how we set up) as the attacking options in midfield.

that is exactly the same as how we stood in terms of midfielders last year....wit the exception of paul scholes. This is what i am failing to grasp.......how the fecking hell can scott parker replace paul scholes.....short term, long term or stop gap.....?????? he isnt the same type of player and as long as he has got a hole in his arse he will never be the same class of player.

i totally agree with the idea of an owen/larsson/blanc stop gap solution but it has to be like for like....or even similar. also the player in question has to be united qaulity.

our stop gap players which have been mentioned in this thread are owen, larsson, blanc and to a certain extent vds. now if anybody on this forum tries justify that scott parker is the same class of player as those (never mind scholsey) then they want banning from the forum until they can form a more educated opinion.
 
ben_foster said:
whilst he could be decribed as an all action type midfielder his ability on the ball is actually limited so he is more of a defensive type midfielder. carrick (ultimatley our first choice midfielder takes than position), fletcher who albeit it plays the position differently would be second choice "defensive" midfielder. leaving anderson and giggsy (and also rooney depending how we set up) as the attacking options in midfield.

that is exactly the same as how we stood in terms of midfielders last year....wit the exception of paul scholes. This is what i am failing to grasp.......how the fecking hell can scott parker replace paul scholes.....short term, long term or stop gap.....?????? he isnt the same type of player and as long as he has got a hole in his arse he will never be the same class of player.

i totally agree with the idea of an owen/larsson/blanc stop gap solution but it has to be like for like....or even similar. also the player in question has to be united qaulity.

our stop gap players which have been mentioned in this thread are owen, larsson, blanc and to a certain extent vds. now if anybody on this forum tries justify that scott parker is the same class of player as those (never mind scholsey) then they want banning from the forum until they can form a more educated opinion.
Click to expand...

Well Mr Foster, if you read a little higher up, the idea of signing Parker stems more from a "replacing Hargreaves" perspective, as opposed to replacing Scholes, because as you mentioned, we all know that he cannot do that. I don't see much wrong with that, tbh. Also, the "stop gap" signing is more in retaliation to NOT finding a suitable replacement for Scholes, not at least in this transfer window. Do we just go out and sign anyone, for the sake of it? I'd rather not, and in that case I'd rather take Parker (proven PL quality player) to add some (cheap) bodies in midfield until the right player becomes available.

Also, am I the only one who really doesn't see/rate Fletcher as a "DM" type player? I've always thought his best work is done box to box and chasing/applying pressure to opponents higher up the field. That surely leaves us only really with Carrick, who is ideally suited for that position.
 
raisa84045 said:
Well Mr Foster, if you read a little higher up, the idea of signing Parker stems more from a "replacing Hargreaves" perspective, as opposed to replacing Scholes, because as you mentioned, we all know that he cannot do that. I don't see much wrong with that, tbh. Also, the "stop gap" signing is more in retaliation to NOT finding a suitable replacement for Scholes, not at least in this transfer window. Do we just go out and sign anyone, for the sake of it? I'd rather not, and in that case I'd rather take Parker (proven PL quality player) to add some (cheap) bodies in midfield until the right player becomes available.

Also, am I the only one who really doesn't see/rate Fletcher as a "DM" type player? I've always thought his best work is done box to box and chasing/applying pressure to opponents higher up the field. That surely leaves us only really with Carrick, who is ideally suited for that position.
Click to expand...

You mean replacing a seat on the first row in the crowd and having essentially 24 man squad? What's to replace in Hargreaves who kicked a football couple of times in 4 years?

If this is the case we should buy Saha back for a more competent Hargreaves replacement..
 
Enigma_87 said:
You mean replacing a seat on the first row in the crowd and having essentially 24 man squad? What's to replace in Hargreaves who kicked a football couple of times in 4 years?

If this is the case we should buy Saha back for a more competent Hargreaves replacement..
Click to expand...

What's to replace is the player Fergie thought Hargreaves might be when he signed him.

He obviously saw a role for a player like Hargreaves when we bought him. In the absence of any similar players joining the club since (or coming through the ranks) chances are SAF could still find a use for a player of that ilk.
 
Enigma_87 said:
You mean replacing a seat on the first row in the crowd and having essentially 24 man squad? What's to replace in Hargreaves who kicked a football couple of times in 4 years?

If this is the case we should buy Saha back for a more competent Hargreaves replacement..
Click to expand...

I honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make? Yes, Hargreaves didn't participate much, if even at all over the last 2 seasons but I am pretty sure SAF WANTED him to be fit and bought him for a reason.

Scholes is a much much more important and talented player, of course but that also means it will be MOST difficult (aka impossible) to replace him. So the point I was making is that I'd rather SAF waited if he couldn't get his preferred targets this summer.

I also said that I wouldn't mind terribly if we added Parker to the squad, as opposed to adding no one. Is there anything terribly wrong in saying that?
 
Enigma_87 said:
Erm, the one is defender, who can play in midfield, full back, CB, even a keeper. One of his main strengths is that. How is Parker compared to O'Shea is beyond me. ....
Click to expand...
If United could have players of O'shea's calibre on our books as squad cover and it served us very well.. You can't claim Parker isn't good enough for United. As squad cover he most certainly is good enough.
 
Name Changed said:
Exactly, and to be fair, Parker would fit the bill. He may not have the quality of Hargreaves at his best, but he can certainly do a good job in the PL. He would be a good squad player to have, and I would suggest that he would play more often than not if we kept the same midfield personnel as we have now.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
ben_foster said:
........
that is exactly the same as how we stood in terms of midfielders last year....wit the exception of paul scholes. T.....
Click to expand...
Come on. Last season we spent all year trying to bring Hargreaves back in to the fold. Plus we also had Gibson and O'shea to turn to, whilst Fletcher was out and Carrick needed a rest.

It is so obvious we do not have the same numbers in midfield we had last season. As it is also obvious a Parker type wouldn't be brought in to help compensate for the loss of a Scholes. Such a thing shouldn't have to be spelt out to anyone.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
If United could have players of O'shea's calibre on our books as squad cover and it served us very well.. You can't claim Parker isn't good enough for United. As squad cover he most certainly is good enough.
Click to expand...

O'Shea is whole different matter - the key in him is versatility. Add to that he's born and bred in our academy, he spend his entire career at the club. Parker, although Premiership proven still has to adapt to a club of our stature. He couldn't do it in his peak at CHelsea, what makes you think he could do it now at 31, without regular football?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
What's to replace is the player Fergie thought Hargreaves might be when he signed him.

He obviously saw a role for a player like Hargreaves when we bought him. In the absence of any similar players joining the club since (or coming through the ranks) chances are SAF could still find a use for a player of that ilk.
Click to expand...

he obviously did, but that was 4 years ago. Hargreaves obviously fitted well in some games, and obviously when fit is a quality player, player Parker has never been.

If we can bring injury free Hargreaves to the club I'd gladly take him, but Parker is certainly not the one.

Either way, replacement for Hargreaves seems odd. What's to replace? We have moved on with our formation since Hargo came, and he hardly played a part in out formation that needs to be replaced.

If it's pure name on the team sheet we could do better than Parker for the fee he'd possibly come.

raisa84045 said:
I honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make? Yes, Hargreaves didn't participate much, if even at all over the last 2 seasons but I am pretty sure SAF WANTED him to be fit and bought him for a reason.

Scholes is a much much more important and talented player, of course but that also means it will be MOST difficult (aka impossible) to replace him. So the point I was making is that I'd rather SAF waited if he couldn't get his preferred targets this summer.

I also said that I wouldn't mind terribly if we added Parker to the squad, as opposed to adding no one. Is there anything terribly wrong in saying that?
Click to expand...

My point is that we moved on since we got Hargreaves. WHat's to replace. Can you tell me the role Hargo played in the last 3 years?

I can't see Parker being better than Fletcher, Carrick, Anderson, 37 years old Giggs. We would better put a youngster like Tunnicliffe or James in there.

My initial point remains the same - we need quality in the middle of the park, not bodies. To buy someone for just the sake of it, I'd rather keep Gibson - he at least costs nothing.
 
Enigma_87 said:
he obviously did, but that was 4 years ago. Hargreaves obviously fitted well in some games, and obviously when fit is a quality player, player Parker has never been.

If we can bring injury free Hargreaves to the club I'd gladly take him, but Parker is certainly not the one.

Either way, replacement for Hargreaves seems odd. What's to replace? We have moved on with our formation since Hargo came, and he hardly played a part in out formation that needs to be replaced.

If it's pure name on the team sheet we could do better than Parker for the fee he'd possibly come.
Click to expand...

I'm not keen on signing Parker at all, just pointing out that we could do with someone like him in our squad. I'm not sure I agree with your point about him playing a part in our formation that doesn't need replacing. I would put down our atrocious away form last season down mainly to missing Fletcher's usual energetic performances in midfield and not having anyone else capable of playing the same role.
 
Keep hearing that Parker failed at Chelsea - so what? That was 6 years ago. He wasn't at his peak. It's not unheard of that players that players that perhaps don't shine for one club for whatever reason, that they don't move on to become very good players at other clubs. It's such a silly argument - that because he failed to make it at Chelsea, that he wouldn't be able to cope at United.

It's not like if we were to even get him, that it would be a long term solution. He has been playing well for the last couple of seasons. If he were to put in the type of performances he did last season were he to play for any club, that certainly would do a job.

We may not get him, more than likely won't go for him but, kidding ourselves if think we have cover for Fletcher or Carrick in our team - unless Jones pulls a Smalling.
 
It's a fact that Parker had a better season last year than any of our central midfield players over the 38 games and was the driving force in a shite west ham side

It's stupid to refer to his 'failure' at Chelsea as a reason not to sign him

Example that comes to mind is morientes - excellent for Madrid - didn't work out at Liverpool - excellent for Monaco - does his time at Liverpool make him a bad player??

Is Parker or should he be a primary target or even in a top 10 list of midfielders we could sign? No

Would he improve our midfield? Yes

Would he be a good short term solution with other better options unavailable? Yes

Will we sign him? I doubt it (I think we will get a better, younger player on board)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.