Scott parker

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Definitely a point gained rather than two dropped. Spurs were without key attacking players and so needed to play far more defensively to work to their strengths. As a defensive unit, they hardly put a foot wrong. Walker played brilliantly against Bellamy and rarely allowed Bellamy to get the better of him. King and Dawson, the latter in particular, were exceptional in handling Carroll. BAE was the worst of a pretty good back line. Livermore and Parker were immense. I can only recall one stray Livermore pass and he is developing into a fierce, competitive DM.

I think Kranjcar deserves a lot of plaudits too because he's been having such a hard time getting into the squad, but today he played very well defensively and his distribution was excellent. He must have made half a dozen key tackles and spread the ball better than Modric did. The front 3 (Bale, Modric and Ade) had off days. Bale was awful and his poor performance was summed up with his ridiculous dive and strange follow up reaction. Ade was anonymous and Modric only showed flashes of his usual immense self.


I think Parker was MoM, closely followed by Livermore, although most of our defensive 8 had a stake in getting it.


I can understand the point LDL is trying to make. I don't think Parker is dirty, but he is aware of what he can get away with in terms of little niggles and kicks or minor fouls. It is a quality that, whilst can be a little unfair, is essential to every good DM who is there to break up play and protect the back four. It is something Spurs need and the previous 3 occupants of that role (Davids, Zokora and Palacios) all had limited success in.
 
Spurs or Sex? said:
Wasn't a bad dive, could've given a few rolls to add a bit of emotion lol. Admittedly it was poor and no Spurs fan will back him for that, baring in mind the amount of times we see opposition players at the Lane do their best to impersonate Tom Daley, we understand how frustrating and pathetic it is.

As I said previously, I love Scott Parker :D

Walker was a lot better defensively last night, one of his best defensive displays in my eyes, Bellamy has been on fire and I think Walker dealt with him really well, perhaps why he wasn't keen on being on the attack so much due to the pace Bellamy has on the counter.

Spearing played well, though I wouldn't say he muted Modric, more of a case of Modric's options were muted (Bale & Adebayor), think I read Luka had something like a 94% and to be honest the movement (or non-movement should I say) of the front lot meant Modric couldn't release the killer passes.

Agreed, the point for us was more a point gained than two dropped, even if we could have snatched a late winner but Bale summed up his night with the poor shot straight at Reina.

Overall I'm happy, 4 points from Liverpool is fantastic in my eyes and that's without conceding too.
Click to expand...

Bale was diving out of the way of a very poor Martin Kelly(?) challenge to me, that's why he reacted straight away when he got up, before anyone had suggested it was a dive.

I haven't seen it again this morning but that's certainly how I saw it at the time.
 
superal said:
I am just glad that Charlie Adam failed yet again to injure him despite taking him out high with studs showing - what is wrong with that guy! I worry every time we have to play against him - dirty ****

Anyway, Parker is a superb player and is instrumental in our success so far this season. He gets everywhere and is always sweeping up loose balls around the defence. Surprised he hasn't scored yet considering the great goals he has scored for west ham in the past.
Click to expand...


Totally agree. I still remember what he did to Bale at WHL last season, when he was at Blackpool. Something should be done about that sack of ****e before he cripples somebody
 
i dont blame Bale for diving..the ref cant do his job in protecting a star player against thugs like Adams and skrtel....couldnt play football so resorted to dirty fouls....bin dippers got to love them..
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
He's also played a lot more games.

But Scholes doesn't play the same role as Parker. And Scholes having two more bookings and the same number of red cards in a considerably longer career doesn't really assist Parker in this argument, does it?
Click to expand...


its pathetic when you argue for the sake of it...yellows or not....scholes is and was and has always been a durty player...just admit it...nobody is doubting his ability...its sad when you lose your voice because your too busy defending someone who couldnt give a **** about you...
 
Didn't Luke say that Parker was " a dirty player at times"?

"At times" would suggest intent at some point, which I would disagree with, Parker is not sly, does not eye gouge on the blind side of the ref, does not retaliate when fouled/kicked/pushed, he is just a committed no fuss, no nonsense player. Roy Keane was all that...and dirty, Scholes was all that...and dirty.
 
Yid Vicious said:
You seemed confused, that's why I clarified it for you.
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point well made. Doing your argument proud.

Yid Vicious said:
In the first post "lots of niggling fouls; always seems to be getting booked." - can't be backed up because it's a nonsense. It's the usual, boring, negative crap that we get from him.
Click to expand...

Well no - that's not at all true. It can be backed up. This was exactly my view of Parker before he joined Spurs. To be honest, seeing him week in week out, he is not as bad as I thought before. But still LDL's description is one I recognise.

I would suggest that you, along with the rest of the people who went into mob-panic mode just weren't really focussing on what was actually being said. This is shown by the number of comments that are basically "Yeah - but what about Scholes, what about Keane?..." when LDL had already said that player who had that little bit of mettle are invaluable and any club wold want them. And (as LDL said) Parker is not a vicious or nasty player, like Keane.

Sorry - this is sort of weird being LDL's defence lawyer here but I honestly can't stand to see such a massive pile of wrong-headedness go almost unchallenged by the vast majority of posters, many of whom have seemed quite sensible in the past, yourself included.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
He's also played a lot more games.

But Scholes doesn't play the same role as Parker. And Scholes having two more bookings and the same number of red cards in a considerably longer career doesn't really assist Parker in this argument, does it?
Click to expand...

Has he played that many more games? Age doesn't come into the equation, does it
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
He's never been able to time a tackle; if that makes him a dirty player, he's a dirty player. I don't think he's malicious, but I don't think Parker is either.
Click to expand...


Bull...Scholes knew exactly what he was doing. He just hoped that the officials would be naive enough to buy into this"poor schlolesy can't tackle bollocks"
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
He's also played a lot more games.

But Scholes doesn't play the same role as Parker. And Scholes having two more bookings and the same number of red cards in a considerably longer career doesn't really assist Parker in this argument, does it?
Click to expand...

Actually given the role he plays (he's not meant to be the enforcer is he) it is astonishing that Scholes has more bookings. Parker's job is to tackle and break up play. Scoles is supposed to spray passes and score goals. Or am I wrong?
 
I *suspect* a number of Scholes bookings should have been red, and in fact he has benefited from the 'can't tackle' label. I don't believe in labels (and refs certainly shouldn't), each incident should be treated separately to a much greater degree ... but not claiming this is easy, I would still want common sense to be a major concern.
 
vimhawk said:
I *suspect* a number of Scholes bookings should have been red, and in fact he has benefited from the 'can't tackle' label. I don't believe in labels (and refs certainly shouldn't), each incident should be treated separately to a much greater degree ... but not claiming this is easy, I would still want common sense to be a major concern.
Click to expand...

he should have been sent off for every leg breaker..i bet you he would have all of a sudden developed the skill of tackling....and we wonder why England never win anything...having a central midfielder that is celebrated because he cant tackle<doh>
 
lennypops said:
Well it's quite simple to check and to find that Scholes has played 470 league games whereas Parker has only played 332.

Of course age comes into the equation. Because the older you are the more games you will have played. The more games you will have played the more bookings you will have got.

Paul Scholes is a dirty twat, though. Much dirtier than Parker.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, Lenny. However, I would still maintain that age is not really a factor, here. It doesn't necessarily follow that the older you are, the more games you have played. Also, how many of the appearances were only for a short period as a sub, etc comes into it.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
Thanks for the info, Lenny. However, I would still maintain that age is not really a factor, here. It doesn't necessarily follow that the older you are, the more games you have played. Also, how many of the appearances were only for a short period as a sub, etc comes into it.
Click to expand...

Er...You're the one who mentioned age - no one else. I believe LDL had mentioned "career length".

And anyway the dis ingenuousness necessary to say "it doesn't necessarily follow that the older you are, the more games you have played..." is breath-taking. I'm struggling to know where to even begin with that one. I mean - you do acknowledge that there is a correlation between age of a footballer and the number of games he could possibly have featured in, right? I mean you do acknowledge that a player who is 18 is very unlikely to have made more appearances than a player who is 32, right?

I can't believe I'm even typing this...
 
Scholes has got away with numerous fouls and should have been red carded far more than he has been

I'll never forget a game at the Lane when he should have been off before half time, but was allowed to stay on the pitch and scored one of the goals as Utd won.

One of many injustices against us over the years from UTD/refs.
Re Parker, he's great for us, but sometimes does get carried away and do too many bad tackles, often silly ones on the edge of the area, for example.

But his tackles aren't as dangerous as Scholes', in general.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
He's also played a lot more games.

But Scholes doesn't play the same role as Parker. And Scholes having two more bookings and the same number of red cards in a considerably longer career doesn't really assist Parker in this argument, does it?
Click to expand...

Scholes has played for Man Utd for his whole career. Even if you leave aside the leniency that this gives him from officials, he'll have been in the superior team for most games.
This should have lead to him making far less challenges on the whole, compared to Parker, who spent a lot of time at West Ham and Charlton.
Then you have to factor in the different roles that they play, as you've suggested.
This means that Scholes has a far, far worse record than Parker and we all know that it should've been worse still, if it wasn't for the whole 'he knows not what he does' bollocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back