I'll not deny the hype surrounding him from the media is tiresome but he's doing a very effective job for Spurs and is doing it much better than Palacios.
Scotty Parker anyone?
- Thread starter honcho
- Start date
I'll not deny the hype surrounding him from the media is tiresome but he's doing a very effective job for Spurs and is doing it much better than Palacios.
Taking the team to 'the next level' is started by addressing weaknesses in your team and signing players who help address those issues. We have a weakness at DM, Carrick is the only DM we have and he is not combative enough, especially under pressure. Hence our appalling away record. Parker would add determination and discipline to our midfield. That to me would be an improvement. Just because it would not be significant enough to make a huge difference against Barca, is no reason not to improve where we can.
Well this is the point Varun, how often is Parker performing consistently well compared to Fletcher or Carrick or Anderson? Fletcher regularly does not provide anything in particular for our side, not really defensive, not really attacking, not really creative and most importantly not very consistent. Whereas Parker would add something specific to the team and he could be relied upon to provide it regularly. That is the difference.
No we lack any top drawer midfielders Varun, full stop. The only one we had retired last season. We have no top drawer defensive midfielder, no top drawer creative midfielder, no top drawer goalscoring midfielder, no top drawer deep lying playmaker. We don't even have a midfielder who can be trusted to perform a specialist job from one week to the next.
What you are overlooking with Parker, is that he is reliable and performs to a similar standard week in week out. I agree we need more quality, but also more consistency, Parker would be a definite improvement in that regard at least. Improved consistency leads to improved performances surely?
Yes but that is not much of a comfort Varun, we are Utd and we should not be an easy touch for anyone. Nor should we have to make do with sub standard inconsistent midfielders season after season. The few teams you speak of just happen to be those same elite clubs we are competing against for trophies. However you try and slice it, our midfield is not good enough, not consistent enough and is by far the weakest area of our team.
We need to strengthen this area to improve. By how much depends on the quality of the player we sign, but judging by the last few seasons we are not going to sign anyone of real top quality like a Fabregas, so what do we do? Not sign anyone that does not massively improve our first team? I think we have gone down that route already. Would you have said Cleverley's inclusion early season would have improved us so significantly? Probably not, but it did.
For me we have many issues in midfield, signing a player like Parker would have consistently added attributes to our first team that we currently do not have. However slight it may seem, a gradual improvement is surely infinitely preferable to our usual practice of no improvement at all.
Yes. But players of Parker's ability are there in any top 4 and aspiring top 4 club. In Arsenal, he goes by the name of Alex Song.
Alex Song is much better than Parker and still improving. Francis Coquelin was better than Parker when we played Spurs a few weeks back.
So we sort out the fact that we we have no top drawer defensive midfielder, no top drawer creative midfielder, no top drawer goalscoring midfielder, no top drawer deep lying playmaker by signing a players who's also none of these things, and never going to be, based on the fact that he consistently puts in a half decent shift.
That is completely unfair. He does the job he is required to do, so those more talented than he, have the right platform from which to play.
His role at West Ham was not limited, yet his performances were again of a consistently high standard. It is just not right to diminish the contributions of a player, who is consistently performing better than what we have.
How can you have such disregard for the job Parker regularly provides, yet in the same breath make excuses for the performances of Fletcher who has had one great season out of the last 7/8?
Yes because we don't even have players who can be relied upon to perform from one week to the next in any pairing you care to choose. So that in itself is already an improvement.
What you seem to be overlooking Eyepopper, is that we are not going to sign anyone top drawer. So we either stick with the same players who are regularly performing poorly, or we get in players who are reliable.
Consistency is essential to improvement, our players have proved themselves regularly incapable of providing it, so we need players who can be trusted to perform a specific role with determination and discipline. Parker fits the bill more than Fletcher for me. Even Carrick though more especially for games away from OT.
basically yes! it hurts your head less if you ignore them pops
How are you defining better Pete? Technically? Possibly, but there is no way he is as effective a DM as Parker. At present there is no DM playing in the PL who is more consistent at DM than Parker, week in week out you know what you will get from him. Determination, desire and 100% effort, if the likes of Carrick, Anderson and Fletcher could be relied upon to provide the same, i doubt there would be such an urgent need to sign more midfielders.
The fact is they do not, and imo are the main reason we struggle so badly away from OT, and even sometimes at OT against committed and determined opponents.
That's how we are gonna sort it out anyway I fear. Just that it won't be Scotty Parker but some unknown kid.
No on the other hand, we solve it by continuing to use the same players that have underperformed for years.
Our midfield is so good in fact that we now have to play a striker in there to provide at least a regularly competent level of performance, and some technical ability.
What more sobering indication do you need that SAF actually believes that one of our strikers can do a better and more reliable job, and provide more attributes in midfield than our actual midfielders?
I think that belief says it all about our midfield really.
The same players who you deem to not be good enough have served us pretty well, even in the last two years, when they haven't been on top form. At their worst we've still managed a lot of success. Replacing them with the likes of Parker would be pointless.
People seem to have forgotten just how well Fletcher was performing before his illness last season and have written off any chance of him ever getting back to that level.
I'm not denying that our MF needs a spark but if we're not going to sign someone top drawer to address it I'd much rather give some young players we have coming through a shot (even if we have to wait 6 months for some of them be ready) than sign Scott Parker to do what Fletcher does a little bit better than Fletcher's managed to do it for the last while as he's been coming back from illness.
People seem to have forgotten just how well Fletcher was performing before his illness last season and have written off any chance of him ever getting back to that level.
I'm not denying that our MF needs a spark but if we're not going to sign someone top drawer to address it I'd much rather give some young players we have coming through a shot (even if we have to wait 6 months for some of them be ready) than sign Scott Parker to do what Fletcher does a little bit better than Fletcher's managed to do it for the last while as he's been coming back from illness.
He's improving, I'll give you that. But as it stands, he is Arsenal's version of Fletcer/Barry/Parker - a good defensive shield who is limited going forward.
This was never a question of ability though, more of a certain type of player which top clubs these days seem to have.
Underperformed during one of our most successful periods. We also have a slew of young players getting closer to the first team.
Or he could be being played there because Carrick, Anderson, Flethcer, and Cleverly are carrying knocks. 'We had injuries and that is one of the reasons we played him there" - Fergie.
With the choice being between Rooney and Jones to play out of position I'd say the fact that the majority of our preferred RB's (Rafael, Smalling, Fabio) are also injured (or just back in Fabios case) while we have options up front might have played a role in Fergies decision.
It's also Wayne Rooney you're talking about, you could put him in almost any position and he'd be better than a lot of other players in that position, he is after all, a world class footballer.
Parker would have a sidewards step in my opinion, he's in better form than most of our midfield right now but I'd never have in a three man midfield (Carrick holding, Cleverley and Fletcher box to box) because I feel we have better passers than him and I don't feel he offers more than an in form Fletcher. Parker would add depth which is something we could do with at the moment but he's 31 and in 2 years or so would be useless to us. He's great at breaking up play and stuff but I'd prefer to have someone who can help us keep the ball in midfield and dictate play a bit better.
Those same players have done nothing of note in the last 2 years. One PL is not a lot of success. We would not even have won that had Chelsea not gtten rid of 6 players and not replaced them. Just as they benefitted from us not replaing Ronaldo and Tevez's contribution better, we gained similar benefit from Chelsea's inexplicable weakening of the squad. There was no improvement on our part, we finished the season with less points than we had coming second the year before.
Fletcher was the pick of a very poor bunch the season after Ronaldo left. The year chelsea won the double Scholes was by far and away our best player, Fletcher was not playing that well before his virus, he was just playing better than Carrick and anderson, which is not much to shout about really.
If we have a young DM coming through then great, but i don't think we do. Plenty of young attacking options, but a specialist Dm, nah. Fletcher is not a DM though, Eyepopper, this is the point. He started last season with Scholes playing as a DM and we conceded 10 goals in only 4 or 5 games,.He is simply not disciplined enough to be a DM. Tbh for the amount of people who seem to class him as such, personally i cannot remember a single run of games at any time when he has ever excelled in that role.
Winning the league and getting to a CL final is not that much success? I think I'm out of this discussion now.
Oh, and cue the bit where you point to the MF being the reason Barca tore us apart, which I'm not even denying but thats not something Scott Parker will fix.
Oh, and cue the bit where you point to the MF being the reason Barca tore us apart, which I'm not even denying but thats not something Scott Parker will fix.
As I said originally when I started this thread he would have been a good signing IMO,as a stop gap player for a couple of years, while a couple of the young promising midfielders got a bit more experienced.
Well that's Fletcher and Carrick out of the equation then.
What does an in form Fletcher offer by the way? Does he offer the versatility to play him as a DM or an AM? Does he provide tackling and discipline? How about passing accuracy and technical ability?
The answer is none of the above. He is quite simply a decent honest player who is not good enough in too many areas. If he had the discipline to sit in front of the back 4 and offer them protection, whilst keeping possession simply,' then that would be enough for me. but he can't and he doesnt, because he is not a naturally defensive minded player.
He is inconsistent because he is not particularly good at anything. Very difficult to gain consistency when you have so many limitations as a player.
I want players who are reliable and perform a specific job on a regular basis.
Fletcher regularly does not provide that while Parker regularly does.
No it was great success for this team, but you have to put it in context. Chelsea finished 15 points lower than they had the year before as double winners. We finished 5 points less than we had coming second the year before, it was a devolution of chelsea than anything we did which was my point.
The CL run was great but extremely favourable, Marseille, a Chelsea team who had been struggling all season, and Schalke.
It's not something that is broke Eyepopper it is something that can be improved upon. Having Parker in there would give us a bit of steel and determination that we lack. No it probably would not have helped us against a Barca team that is out on it's own at present, but it would have improved us which is all we can look to do.
Had we had Scott Parker last season, i very much doubt we would have struggled to only 5 away wins in the PL last season. This midfield is too regularly outfouhgt away from OT for my liking. Imo someone with Parker's attitude would have helped us in that regard more then what we have.
How is an in form Fletcher limited, he's much better passer than Parker just as strong in the tackle, strong in air too. He was 59/62 in passing yesterday Fletcher, so what he's not a holding midfielder or an attacking midfielder, he is on his day an excellent box to box midfielder. He was absolutely superb on the run to the Champions League final in 08-09 and I am certain he'd have made difference of sorts in the final. For someone so limited and unreliable I find it difficult to understand how he's managed to play for a us 300 times. I disagree with the notion that he lacks the positional discipline to play the holding role too, he played there in the 2nd half against Everton and how many Everton attacks went down the middle?
We don't need to fight, we need to keep the ball better, Scott Parker would add depth but he would not improve our midfield significantly.
Exactly, its not a lack of the ball in MF thats our problem, its a lack of creativity going forward.
Of course you need to fight. There is a battle that has to be won before earning the right ot play football. We lose that battle because we do not have a midfielder capable of imposing himself on the opposition.
He would improve our midfield significantly in terms of protecting the defence.That fact alone improves the ability of the team to deny opponents chances on the counter, which we have been very susceptible too.
Fletcher is not as good as Parker at tackling, that is simply ridiculous. If you like you stats check out how many times we have played him as the most defensive player and see how many goals we concede. the start of last season paired with Scholes, 10 goals in 4/5 games, the rot only stopped when Carrick came back.
There is absolutely no evidence that Fletcher has ever been effective as a DM. Never mind as effective as the consistently reliable Parker.
I wouldn't even say that we just need someone in the middle who control the pace of the game, our ball retention is much better when Cleverley's on the pitch for instance. This provides a platform for our wingers and forwards, the quicker you are moving the ball the more space you have to run into, the longer you hold the ball the quicker the other team get organised. You need to find a balance though to ensure you are in control of the ball. Scholes was excellent at dictating the pace, mixing short sharp passes with 60 yard diagonals to switch the play, Anderson can do this but is very inconsistent. Pogba has shown ability in the levels he plays at to do such a thing too, Morrison is also another player who looks very confident on the ball, our midfield situation will improve. A signing like Parker would depth and a bit more fight but not more quality in my opinion.
Did we have alack of creativity in our opening 5 games?
Not from where i was sitting. But what did we have then? That's right a midfield pairing that provided energy, determination, pace, mobility with the ball, an ability to receive the ball under pressure.
Basically a pairing that did not include Carrick or Fletcher. We were actually better with no defensive players in our midfield at all, which should say something about Fletcher and Carrick's regular contributions.
What we need is players who regularly provide more attributes than the likes of Park, Carrick, Fletcher and Giggs. Clev and Ando gave us a tantalising but all too brief glimpse of what this team is actually capable of with a different dynamic at it's core. The subsequent change in fortunes of the Rooney, Young, Nani and Anderson since that pairing was broken up, and we have been forced to revert back to the serial underperformers, should speak for itself really.
Ok hold up now, fight for possession all the time? Do Barca fight for possession or do they look after it well once the opposition waste theirs, teams we play in this league aren't brilliant in possession the focus is always on moving the ball quickly as possible. In doing such a thing you will give the ball away. Parker isn't a better holding midfielder than Carrick either, he's more combative but he's not as good at reading the game and recycling possession. You will counteract this by saying Carrick's not good under pressure, to be fair to Carrick in those games where he's been pressed often we should have been playing 3 man midfields, this would have helped him greatly.
As for the Fletcher role next to Scholes, well he was doing all of Scholes' running this leaves us defensively open comparative to having Carrick sitting deep next to Scholes. Fletcher is as equally combative as Parker on his day, this season he hasn't been as combative due to his recovery from his mystery illness which took a lot out of him, that's not to say he'll never return to his usual self though is it? Take the City 4-3 from 2 season ago for example, Fletcher won 7/10 tackles, De Jong won 6/8, Barry won 2/10.
So what there's no conclusive evidence Fletcher's a good DM, he's very rarely played there for us and shouldn't need to with the presence of Michael Carrick. To say his positional discipline is poor is unfair though, I remember the Stoke game away this season Fletch was always covering for Evra.
Of course if you do not give the ball away then obviously the need to win the ball back is lessened. But most tellingly imo, look at Barca's attitude when they do lose the ball, they employ a system that attempts to win the ball back within a 6 second window. So it becomes a question of what emphasis is placed on the regaining of the ball, once possession has been relinquished. Look at our approach compared to Barca, when we lose the ball, more often than not a player can run 60yards down the centre of the pitch before being challenged round our box. When do you see that happening with Barca? Very rarely is the answer considering how open they play. this is why they can often play with no recognised CB's. Not only because of how well they keep the ball, but much more due to how they protect the Cb's when they lose possession.
If they were constantly being put in positions where they have to defend difficult situations, as ours too often have, then they would be very vulnerable. But the fact that they are not, proves how much effort they place on stopping the danger before it amounts to anything significant.
Well then how come Carrick and Scholes were still so effective for so long?
I'll answer that for you. Fletcher does unnecessary running in areas he should not even be occupying, especially in that pairing. Carrick didn't do it, yet he and Scholes were a much better pairing than Fletcher and Scholes could ever hope to be.
Fletcher in that pairing should have done what Carrick did, stay disciplined and when the he receives the ball give it simply to a better player than him.As opposed to flying around the pitch leaving huge gaps and trying to contribute in areas where he is not particularly effective.
Yes he is, but not as effective with it. Parker is combative in the areas he needs to be combative, but it is only combined with his discipline that it becomes of greatest benefit to his team.
He's rarely played there because he is not very good there. He shouldn't be there when Carrick is fit, but when he isn't, according to many on here, he should be a shoe in for that role. His positional discipline is naive at best, he covers ground granted, i would never knock him for lack of effort. But my gripe is that for so much effort the team should gain greater benefit from it. The fact he uses up his energy in all the wrong areas and leaves us badly exposed at the back, despite often being the most defensive of the pairing is not beneficial to the team, irrespective of how hard he works.
The fact Barcelona are so good at winning the ball back without having any particularly combative midfielders should show that Parker isn't necessarily needed to make our midfield stronger. A change in mindset and system can achieve a lot too.
Why do keep on insisting Fletcher's a DM he's not, he's played there a few times for Scotland and twice for us, he's done a decent job. 90% of the time he's played for us he's played as a box to box midfielder. Carrick and Scholes was effective for so long because they both sat deep. Fletcher with Scholes was never told to do that, he's a box to box midfielder so he's going to cover ground. Winning a tackle is winning a tackle in my book, Fletcher can do this and he can pass the ball. His positional discipline is good as well, next time you watch him in midfield pay attention to how much organising and gesticulating he's doing. I think from now however we should agree to disagree because it's obvious you don't rate Fletcher and after 300 games for United I don't think I'm going to change your opinion much am I?
It wasnt meant to be a slight on him. i thought what i intended was pretty clear. Spurs play with 2 strikers(VDV is more or less a striker in that formation) and another CM in modric who is predominantly an attacking player. this being the case, parker doesnt have much else to do other than sit back and break opposition attacks. he doesnt have to contribute on the other end of the pitch because his midfield partner is great at it.
We dont really have a modric in midfield. we need players who can contribute to the overall play. i dont think parker is good enough overall to solve what we lack. He's perfect for spurs though.
Regarding fletcher, this is what i said earlier in the thread
This is what i think of fletch. he's a good player to have. at his best, he offers quite a lot but as with most of our CMs, he isnt really at his best for a consistent period of time. on an average, he's GOOD.
As it is, had fletch been a spurs player, he wouldnt be the signing i would want to improve our midfield either. I dont think its players of parker's or fletch's quality that we should be looking for in midfield to take us to the next level. we need better players than that.
Now, its pretty evident that you rate parker very highly. fletch, you dont. as far as am concerned, they're both decent to good midfielders. neither truly great CMs. but at their respective bests, i think fletch is comfortably the better player because has more to his game.
Of course, that is true, but you can't change your point now. You asked why get Parker instead of Fletcher? Not why can we not defend better as a unit?
Because you and others keep comparing him with Parker, who is a specialist DM. I am explaining why i feel that the reasoning behind that comparison, is based on an inaccurate premise.
No you are going off track. What i do not agree with is attempting to use Fletcher's inconsistent contribution's as a CM, as justification for not buying a specialist and reliable DM in Parker. It is you and others who have made the comparison between the 2,and the subsequent justification for not signing him on those grounds. I am simply contesting both the comparison as inaccurate, and therefore the justification based upon it.
It is not a question of changing my mind. We have started with a comparison of 2 different players, one being used to justify not buying another. We have now established that the comparison is an inaccurate one, therefore i am simply back where i started, still confused how people think having a reliable Parker would be of less benefit, than using the same old inconsistent pairings.
Haven't changed my point at all by suggesting we can achieve more with the same players.
The comparison was borne more out of the fact that they are quite similar in style of play rather than role. If you want a role comparison I'd still argue Parker wouldn't offer us any better protection than Carrick.
Just out of interest do you watch Parker week in week out?
Parker does a limited job for Spurs because he is a specialist DM. Your terminology implied he is only good because his role is so limited, that is what i disagree with. His role was much more varied at West Ham and he contributed effectively in many areas of the pitch, and he did so regularly.
He is good on occasion, he is not good every week. Most importantly he is not reliable every week and he does not fulfill any specific role.
Had we judged Fletcher's general level of performance over his Utd career as a Spurs player, the vast majority would be slagging him off as completely shite. Pretty much like we do every other player who performs well at teams outside the Top 4 and who get linked with Utd. Parker has played consistently well for the last 2 seasons at least, and he is still slagged off on here. If he had produced regular performances for us like he has for West Ham and Spurs, we would be touting him up there as one of the best about. Yet Fletcher and Carrick have played nowhere near his level of effectiveness and yet many continue to look for excuses to justify their poor form, while in the same breath attempting to diminish Parker's performances with little justification imo.
I still don't get your point. No-one will disagree that we need top quality players to improve dramatically and challenge Barca. But the fact is we are not going to improve at all by keeping faith with players who have regularly underperformed and produced inconsistent form. Some improvement is better than none imo. Clev and Ando would not have been predicted to be that good a pairing, but the multitude of attributes they brought to the table between them, give the team a whole new dynamic. That is what a diifferent pairing gave the team.
Where is the logic in continuing to use the same old pairings whose general performances have brought us to the point where almost everybody is in agreement they are both collectively and individually not good enough is inexplicable to me.
Some improvement would be better than none whatsoever.
No completely wrong again. I am contesting the notion on here that the potential benefits of signing Parker was negated because we have Fletch. They are 2 completely different players so having one cannot reasonably be used as justification for not signing the other.
I wanted Parker because our away record is shocking, because Carrick and Fletcher are too easily and too often outfought away from home. Parker would be an alternative DM option to Carrick. Fletcher's presence within the squad has nothing to do with Parker's role imo. Parker has the discipline and determination to give us another option in DM as the only other option we have is Carrick, who is far better suited to CL games and playing at OT.
I think Parker's only made the transition to a specialist DM in the last year or so, before that he was a similar type of midfielder to Fletcher. I agree if we signed Parker he'd have added some depth but for me it's too much of a stopgap, that could be what we need to allow the youngsters to develop but I'd rather we went out there and spent to buy a good quality midfielder who can help us control the pace of the game in midfield, our ball retention is poor for a top side sometimes, that too however is easier said than done.
Arsenal sure could use a player of Parker's grit and leadership.
So your criticism is of Fergie's use of our players, more so than the players themselves? He has had the same group since 2007, we still have no complimentary partnership that is regularly effective. So is it the players do not contribute enough, or that the manager is not getting the best out of them? It's one or the other really, there has to be some explanation for consistently poor performances, i prefer the former assessment. SAF has managed to keep us competitive despite this midfield, not because of it.
How can you reasonably argue that? Carrick is much better suited to playing at OT and in the CL than away from home. What is wrong with having a player like Parker for games when you need a bit more steel? Parker has been regularly effective for 2 years! Have Carrick or Fletcher? This is my point, consistency breeds confidence and good form, confidence and good form breeds improved performances and therefore better results. How you could mount an argument that someone who may or may not perform well, can possibly be of as much benefit as someone who performs well week in week out is beyond me?
No more than i watch anybody else, but it is not just me who appreciates the job he does. I really don't know why he gets so much stick on here. He has performed really well for at least 2 seasons. He makes the teams and players he plays with more effective, and that is all you can ask of a midfielder imo.
Ask yourself what have fletcher or Carrick provided to benefit the team this season. I would argue strongly that the Clev and Ando partnership showed us significantly more. Parker behind Clev and Ando would have been ideal in my view and the extra determination and security his presence would provide, could only be of benefit to the way we play imo.
All silk and no steel is the reason Arsenal hav won feck all for 5 years. Possession and technique are important, but so is determination and consistency.
Wasn't a slight on SAF at all, I'd just like to see a midfield three of Carrick, Cleverley and Ando/Fletch, I feel that's a three that can prove to be quite successful. See my post above yours too. Also I thought Fletcher was very good yesterday. How much of a difference do you think Parker would have made to our results so far this season? The Arsenal lack of success is more down to the mentality of the players Wenger brings in, SAF makes a point of considering the mental side of the game in regards to each player he buys. Parker would fit in here though definitely in terms of mentality.
Parker just isn't for United. We don't have anyone who would partner him and handle all the playmaking like Modric can. So if we get a Parker we'd have to get a Modric.
Instead, we could do with a holding midfielder who is technically gifted on the ball and hence let's Anderson/Cleverly get on with bombing forwards or someone who can run the game completely from midfield ala Modric, all depending on what you think we need more.
Instead, we could do with a holding midfielder who is technically gifted on the ball and hence let's Anderson/Cleverly get on with bombing forwards or someone who can run the game completely from midfield ala Modric, all depending on what you think we need more.
Armchairs point about a 3 man midfield is a valid one. Although i see Cleverley being able to fulfill Modric's role of keeping possession, carrying the ball and supporting the attackers while still maintaining the capacity to get back and defend.
So in effect we need a different midfield providing more specific and varied attributes than we have currently, who would have thought it?
Who knows? But i am certain he would have provided discipline and determination in an area where we have been regularly exposed this season.
No Arsenal's problem was and is too much emphasis on buying players who are good on the ball, rather than complimenting that ability with some physicality and tenacity.