Scotty Parker anyone?

MrMarcello said:
Oh dear. Obviously Lampard and Essien are world class. You just like to moan and spout shit it seems.
Click to expand...

What about the world beaters that are Tiago and Geremi?

Tiago played twice as many games for Chelsea as Parker.

Geremi played twice as many as him in 03/04

So, he wasn't good enough...... he ranks alongside Smertin in terms of what he achieved at Chelsea, glad we cleared that up.
 
The same Tiago who appeared 58 times for Portugal and has played for the likes of Benfica, Lyon, Juventus and Atletico Madrid. Essien's signing forced Tiago out as well (and Parker and Smertin and Jarosik).

No shame is "losing out" to a quality player. Also helped by the fact Parker suffered a nasty injury and Mourinho brought in his preferred foreign player in the same position. It's not that difficult to comprehend. As said before, Chelsea was not the correct move but who can blame the player for taking the paycheck and signing for a club that was on the up. He's a quality player.
 
Yep, Jarosik, Smertin, Geremi.... now we're talking about the level Parker was for Chelsea.

Just not quite good enough.

I dont really blame him for signing for them too, it just didnt work out for him there because he wasn't quite good enough (granted he was also unlucky with injury).

Its the story of his career to date, decent player, who for the most part of his career has been a valuable player for average teams.

He's started pretty decently for Spurs but I'd like to see how he'd handle having to play champions league football alongside premier league for them, I dont think he'd be up to it.
 
Eyepopper said:
... On his best form he might be slightly better than Carrick or Fletcher when they're on their worst form.
Click to expand...
Your comment under-rates Parker by a considerable margin.

Quite apart from anything else, why do you imagine that Parker is now way ahead of Carrick in the England team pecking order?

IMO the Parker-Modric CM combo is as good as any in the Prem and better than most.

What's even better is that we have Sandro, who is still only 22 years old, waiting in the wings. Sooner or later he will supplant Parker in the Spurs first XI and make our CM combo even more formidable.
 
Nice post change (282). Alter your post after another responds. Typical.

You hate Parker, that's evident. I suppose he wronged you somehow. Perhaps he shagged your mom. Or perhaps his haircut evokes hidden homosexual tendencies inside you. :)
 
:lol: I dont hate Parker at all, I actually quite like him, I just dont want him at Utd and I dont think he'd 'walk into our team'...

Its all getting a bit hysterical now.
 
He's been doing very well for Spurs.I was among the ones who wouldn't have hated his presence at Old Trafford.He would not THE solution to all our midfield problems but he'd have been a decent player to have.
There is a lot of hypocrisy going on with all the "he's an average/decent player" comments, I mean he is no worse than all of our current midfielders and he wouldn't have cost much.
He wouldn't have been a bad player to have
 
It'd be interesting to ask how many Spurs fans would swap him for Carrick or Fletcher. Or ask neutrals which they'd prefer.
 
They'd probably take Carrick back without hesitation but that's also the fanatical/sentimental side as he did play for them.

How many outside United/Scotland supporters rate Fletcher?
 
Eyepopper said:
Parker got injured in Dec 2004.

He'd been at Chelsea for almost a year and had managed a total of about 12 appearances in the league before that.
Click to expand...
He had injury problems through out his stay at Chelsea. On top of being used out of position as cover for Lampard rather than for Makelele. His first season ended well for him there and then it all went down hill from there for he could hardly stay fit or play well. The broken foot was just the death knell to his stay.
 
kouroux said:
He's been doing very well for Spurs.I was among the ones who wouldn't have hated his presence at Old Trafford.He would not THE solution to all our midfield problems but he'd have been a decent player to have.
There is a lot of hypocrisy going on with all the "he's an average/decent player" comments, I mean he is no worse than all of our current midfielders and he wouldn't have cost much.
He wouldn't have been a bad player to have
Click to expand...
He'd have been a like for like type replacement for Hargreaves. But we clearly didn't need that type of player, going by Pogba's promotion and our Sneijder interest.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
He'd have been a like for like type replacement for Hargreaves. But we clearly didn't need that type of player, going by Pogba's promotion and our Sneijder interest.
Click to expand...

Sneijder? I can see Pogba as he plays a similar role but Sneijder and Parker are miles apart in style.

Are you saying that the interest in Sneijder meant SAF didn't want to find a Hargreaves replacement?
 
MrMarcello said:
They'd probably take Carrick back without hesitation but that's also the fanatical/sentimental side as he did play for them.

How many outside United/Scotland supporters rate Fletcher?
Click to expand...

Nope, its because Carrick is still a very good player.

As for Fletcher, the reason he's not playing week in week out is because he's not good enough.

Gibson was the same.

Park also the same.

Anderson also the same.

None of the players above are/were defensive midfielders (with the exception of Carrick who can fill the roll with merit), so comparing them with Parker is apples and oranges.

As for the argument as to whether Parker would walk into the team, he would. As he is arguably one of the best defensive midfielders in the Prem and we have coveted a great DM for years. Hargreaves fitted the bill but was a gamble on medical grounds, we tossed the coin and lost.

As to the argument as to who is the better player, there isn't one, they are not the same, so the whole debate is moot.

However, IF i had to choose one player that "I personally believe" would benefit Manchester United the most between Parker, Park or Fletcher.It would be Parker hounds down as he is the "type" of player we need the most and not because he is the best.
 
I'm just saying that he's not such a bad player.When you look at who plays for us in midfield (good players but not anything special), Parker wouldn't have looked out of source.However it's a pointless debate tbh
 
Eyepopper said:
Didn't pretty much every pundit point to his absence being a crucial factor against Barca?
Click to expand...

You could also say Hargreaves not being fit that year as well. If fit, Hargreaves is starting that match not Fletcher if he were available (or Anderson or whomever).

I highly doubt Fletcher alters that match. But it would have been nice to have him in the side considering the weakness in midfield. I could also counter Parker would have had the same role as Hargreaves or Fletcher in that match. And none of them probably would have made a difference, though it's arguable that any one of them could have shut down Messi (or have been sent off as it's against FIFA rules to "foul" Messi).
 
MrMarcello said:
Sneijder? I can see Pogba as he plays a similar role but Sneijder and Parker are miles apart in style.

Are you saying that the interest in Sneijder meant SAF didn't want to find a Hargreaves replacement?
Click to expand...
Your second question captures my point. IF we had wanted to replace Hargreaves we'd have been in for a player like Parker. Me thinks SAF instead was looking for a new Scholes and a new Carrick. Thus far Cleverly has proved a pleasant surprise.
 
MrMarcello said:
How many outside United/Scotland supporters rate Fletcher?
Click to expand...

Rate him as what?

A top drawer CM? Very few, if any. But then, an objective United fan would rate him the same. Fletch is a great squad player to have. At his best, he is a very good CM. But over the course of a certain period of time, he varies around the good range. Never has and never will be a truly fantastic CM.

Neither is parker though. Lets not get carried away by his performance vs QPR. Parker like fletch, is an good player who tends to have his great games in between the average and good ones. He is no better than fletch, actually, at his best, fletch is perhaps the better player.

The Parker of old was a real talent. But the move to chelsea did him more harm than good. lots of bench time, injuries etc. never really fulfilled his initial promise.

Spurs can afford to have him, actually, they kinda need a player like him. He has modric with him who's great at orchestrating play and doing damage upfield so parker can just sit there and keep things simple. We dont really have a modric in CM and hence a limited player like parker in a midfield 2 would mean far too much pressure on his partner to create things, something not many of our CMs are capable of.

He's a good player. Limited but good at what he does. But, he wont walk into our starting 11 by any stretch of imagination. he isnt that good.
 
I think Parker would do a job for us, enough of job anyway because by the time his number would be up Pogba would be ready to make the step up. An in form Fletcher though would do what he does but better, I still think Fletcher can rediscover his form of 08-09 and he showed some of this when he was next to Cleverley against Everton especially in the opening half an hour where we played well. Parker's better at the moment because he's in form and he's got a bit more confidence, I'm not losing any sleep over us not signing him though.
 
kouroux said:
He's been doing very well for Spurs.I was among the ones who wouldn't have hated his presence at Old Trafford.He would not THE solution to all our midfield problems but he'd have been a decent player to have.
There is a lot of hypocrisy going on with all the "he's an average/decent player" comments, I mean he is no worse than all of our current midfielders and he wouldn't have cost much.He wouldn't have been a bad player to have
Click to expand...

That sums it up for me.

He's never going to be world player of the year but frankly the current crop of central players, excepting Cleverly who has been impressive seem to be beyond reproach, despite the fact that for whatever reason (injuries noted) they simply havent performed to the level that is expected of United players.

The fact that a player like Scott Parker would have been a viable option highlights the fact that we are lacking real quality in midfield.
 
its only QPR, heck even Gibson look good for us in the odd game for us doesn''t say much.
 
Varun_Utd said:
Neither is parker though. Lets not get carried away by his performance vs QPR.
Click to expand...

Its hardly just QPR is it? He has been one of thebetter midfielders in the PL for over a year.

Yes his performances at West Ham were a tad overrated, but he was very, very good. He already looks like one of Tottenhams most important players and he looks like he belongs in the England midfield too.

Like I said earlier he would have been few peoples 1st choice, but for a small fee and a player who would improve our squad (in fact he would start us quite often) we could have done a lot worse than Parker.
 
World class. I've changed my mind after his single handed destruction of the Rangers of Queen's Park.

Seriously, he just isn't much better than average.
 
On current form, he'd probably get into our midfield ahead of Fletcher. He's been very good when I've watched him this season, and does what he does very well.

I think Fletcher, when on form, offers everything Parker does and more though, so there really wouldn't have been much point in signing him, his age taken into consideration.

Great signing for Spurs though, but it will be interesting to see what happens when Sandro is fully fit, as he's got more in his locker than Parker in my opinion.
 
Randall Fagg said:
Its hardly just QPR is it? He has been one of thebetter midfielders in the PL for over a year.

Yes his performances at West Ham were a tad overrated, but he was very, very good. He already looks like one of Tottenhams most important players and he looks like he belongs in the England midfield too.

Like I said earlier he would have been few peoples 1st choice, but for a small fee and a player who would improve our squad (in fact he would start us quite often) we could have done a lot worse than Parker.
Click to expand...

Is he really the kind of player we should be looking at to take the team to the next level? Is he going to be of much help in winning the kind of important games we've lost in recent years?

We are already a fantastic squad. A very good 1st team too that lacks a genuinely top drawer midfielder. Parker, whatever he is, isnt that. He'd definitely be an improvement on fletch but thats because fletch is just returning back from a lengthy lay off whereas parker is in great form. At their respective bests, i dont think even you'd say that parker is better.

See, i've maintained this for my entire stay here on the caf. IF we sign a CM, it has to be someone of real quality that genuinely improves our 1st 11. We have enough of good squad players, parker would be in the 2nd bracket. We have enough of those guys.

There are very few teams that are capable of beating us even with our supposedly mediocre midfield. Parker, wouldnt change that. If we really want to take the next step as a 1st 11, we need to look at players better than parker even if at his best, he might be a marginal improvement considering that our other CMs arent on form.
 
2Bullish said:
Nope, its because Carrick is still a very good player.

As for Fletcher, the reason he's not playing week in week out is because he's not good enough.

Gibson was the same.

Park also the same.

Anderson also the same.

None of the players above are/were defensive midfielders (with the exception of Carrick who can fill the roll with merit), so comparing them with Parker is apples and oranges.

As for the argument as to whether Parker would walk into the team, he would. As he is arguably one of the best defensive midfielders in the Prem and we have coveted a great DM for years. Hargreaves fitted the bill but was a gamble on medical grounds, we tossed the coin and lost.

As to the argument as to who is the better player, there isn't one, they are not the same, so the whole debate is moot.

However, IF i had to choose one player that "I personally believe" would benefit Manchester United the most between Parker, Park or Fletcher.It would be Parker hounds down as he is the "type" of player we need the most and not because he is the best.
Click to expand...

Yes can't argue with any of that, it just surprises me that more people don't see it that way.
 
The biggest problem we have with Fletcher and Carrick is that we don't have Ronaldo.

Anyway Scott Parker is slowly making me change my mind about him, very slowly.
 
He'll probably be outplayed by the 67-year-old Danny Murphy later on.
 
You may like to diss him Pete but he's been brilliant for Spurs. He's not a great player but gives Spurs just what they need to allow their better players to function.
 
He hasn't been any better than Palacios or the other average DMs Spurs have used over the last few years. It's Barry-syndrome all over again, a midtable plodder gets a few England caps any suddenly is ridiculously overhyped in the media.
 
He's perfect for Spurs. With a player of modric's quality to partner him, he'l always do well because he has a limited job to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.