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!
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...

Scholes is 37 and played his first league game at the age of 20; 470 / 17 = 27 games per year.
Parker is 31 and played his first league game at the age of 17; 332 / 14 = 24 games per year.

Parker doesn't score or get credited with assists. He leaves that to the guys up front, what Parker does instead is win games. He does this not by punctuating the match but by controlling it. He smothers oncoming attacks. He forces opponents off the ball. He orchestrates distribution out of the back, setting in motion a Spurs onslaught that will culminate 60 yards downfield ... you can't watch the game up close without noticing Parker.
Click to expand...
 
lennypops said:
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...[/QUOTE

Quite why you find something so obvious breathtaking, I have no idea. Of course age can be an indicator of a larger number of games played. However, as I pointed out it is no certainty. So, "No" not right. If you care to read Luke's posting again, you will see that he mentioned the disparity in ages and cited that as the reason Parker's record was worse than Scholes'
Quite frankly, I can't believe you bothered typing it either!!
Click to expand...
 
Kunniaa Kunniaa said:
See if you can work it out all by yourself - if you get stuck I'll draw a picture and upload it for you <ok>
Click to expand...


No - I honestly wanted to know what your point is. Total numbers of games is what people have been talking about. Now you mention averages. I just wondered where you were going with that, since you were changing the subject.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
lennypops said:
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...[/QUOTE

Quite why you find something so obvious breathtaking, I have no idea. Of course age can be an indicator of a larger number of games played. However, as I pointed out it is no certainty. So, "No" not right. If you care to read Luke's posting again, you will see that he mentioned the disparity in ages and cited that as the reason Parker's record was worse than Scholes'
Quite frankly, I can't believe you bothered typing it either!!
Click to expand...

If there are two men, one poor the other wealthy, and they're standing next to their two cars. One car is a Ferrari and one is a Ford. Now it doesn't necessarily follow that the wealthy man owns the Ferrari, does it?

One man is eight feet tall and super-fit. the other is four feet tall and only has one arm. It doesn't necessarily follow that the taller one will be better at basketball, does it?

Likewise if you have two pro footballers, one 18 and one 32 it doesn't necessarily follow that the older one will have played more games.

Now if you want to think that there's a good chance that the poor man owns the Ferrari or that the one-armed midget is better at basketball or that the 18 year-old has played more games then good luck to you. Cos you'll need it. I however, think there is a good chance that the wealthy man owns the Ferrari, the tall man is better at basketball and that the 32 year-old has played more games.

I know - it's a position that really needs arguing against. It is, after all, highly contentious. But then I'm a very bold man.

Please point to the post where LDL mentioned disparity in ages. Because I can't find it. Though I'll be happy to stand corrected.
Click to expand...
 
lennypops said:
No - I honestly wanted to know what your point is. Total numbers of games is what people have been talking about. Now you mention averages. I just wondered where you were going with that, since you were changing the subject.
Click to expand...

If you extrapolate the figures and factor in the amount of games Parker has missed due to injury then their appearances made are very similar.

I don't think that me quoting appearances can be construed as me "changing the subject" as it was you that brought it up - likewise someone else had brought up age <doh>

lennypops said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
lennypops said:
NowsufferinginSpain said:
If there are two men, one poor the other wealthy, and they're standing next to their two cars. One car is a Ferrari and one is a Ford. Now it doesn't necessarily follow that the wealthy man owns the Ferrari, does it?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't - the wealthy man might be wealthy because he is prudent with his money whilst the poor man is someone who believes that the trappings of success and looking flash are more important than having money in the bank. Then again it could mean that they are in a public car park standing next to two different cars.

lennypops said:
One man is eight feet tall and super-fit. the other is four feet tall and only has one arm. It doesn't necessarily follow that the taller one will be better at basketball, does it?
Click to expand...

Again no it doesn't. Not all tall people are good at basketball, not all super-fit people are good at sports. Likewise a one armed midget may well be a gold medal winning paralympian.

However comparing a 31 year old Parker and a 37 year old Scholes with an 18 year old and a 32 year old is distorting the argument a little, would you not agree?
Click to expand...
 
Kunniaa Kunniaa said:
If you extrapolate the figures and factor in the amount of games Parker has missed due to injury then their appearances made are very similar.

I don't think that me quoting appearances can be construed as me "changing the subject" as it was you that brought it up - likewise someone else had brought up age <doh>
Click to expand...

Look, mate: I don't want to get into an argument with you but I honestly can't see a consistent line of argument from you here. I don't even know what:

"If you extrapolate the figures and factor in the amount of games Parker has missed due to injury then their appearances made are very similar"

has to do with the subject in hand. In this thread (for some stupid reason) we are now comparing Parker's number of yellow card with Scholes'. So maybe an average of games per card might have been relevant. The number of games per career-year is not, as far as I can see. Unless someone was arguing about how many games per season each of them played but I'm pretty sure they weren't.

Also you do realise that when I said "You're the one who mentioned age" I was talking to NowSufferinginSpain, right? And that is correct, right?

I mean I'll repeat that I think Parker is an excellent player and that Scholes is a dirty little twat. Cos as long as people understand I'm saying that they might not want to make quite such weird/unsustainable/weak arguments against what I'm saying.
 
King - a defender and one of the cleanest that the league's ever seen.
Cattermole - worse and seems to have spent most of his career banned.
Adam - not a holding player and played most of his games in Scotland for Rangers.
Scholes - not a holding player and was never suitably disciplined.
Whelan - no reputation and played the vast majority of his games outside of the top-flight.
Henry - again, he's played most of his football outside of the Premier League.

Great comparisons there, Lidls.
 
Kunniaa Kunniaa said:
lennypops said:
No it doesn't - the wealthy man might be wealthy because he is prudent with his money whilst the poor man is someone who believes that the trappings of success and looking flash are more important than having money in the bank. Then again it could mean that they are in a public car park standing next to two different cars.



Again no it doesn't. Not all tall people are good at basketball, not all super-fit people are good at sports. Likewise a one armed midget may well be a gold medal winning paralympian.

However comparing a 31 year old Parker and a 37 year old Scholes with an 18 year old and a 32 year old is distorting the argument a little, would you not agree?
Click to expand...

That is all so incredibly thought-provoking. I really hadn't thought of any of that. You're right - it really is equally likely that the poor man owns the Ferrari, isn't it? And that the midget is better at basketball?

You must be a betting man.

(In case I have not made myself clear: Just because one thing does not necessarily follow from another does not mean that there is not a general correlation. Rich people are more likely to own Ferraris, tall, fit people with both arms are more likely to be better at basketball. And older players are more likely to have played more games than ones six years younger than them).

I can't decide whether this thread is evidence that philosophy should be taught in school or whether this thread is evidence that philosophy should not be taught to contrary-minded teenagers at school. Tough to say. I can't help but err on the side of thinking that ability to follow arguments and turn premises into conclusions are skills that should be learned at school.
Click to expand...
 
Being poor is a relative term, as is being wealthy. Let's not forget that in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

Do you spend a lot of time with contrary-minded teenagers?
 
lennypops said:
And older players are more likely to have played more games than ones six years younger than them).
Click to expand...

Forgive me but did your original comment mention 18 and 32 year olds? Perhaps more time spent on maths and less on philosophy might have been a benefit. ;-)

I agree that Parker is, when compared to Scholes, an angel.
 
Kunniaa Kunniaa said:
Being poor is a relative term, as is being wealthy. Let's not forget that in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

Do you spend a lot of time with contrary-minded teenagers?
Click to expand...

I tutor a few of them.

You might notice that the wealthy man was wealthy relative to the guy next to him. And the poor guy was poor relative to the guy next to him. The necessary context was there.
 
Kunniaa Kunniaa said:
Forgive me but did your original comment mention 18 and 32 year olds? Perhaps more time spent on maths and less on philosophy might have been a benefit. ;-)

I agree that Parker is, when compared to Scholes, an angel.
Click to expand...

Yes it did. Oh my God - I can't have taken an extreme example to demonstrate my point could I? I must have thought that Parker was 18 years old. Yep - reckon that was it.

I do actually tutor maths. No ****.
 
lennypops said:
I tutor a few of them.

You might notice that the wealthy man was wealthy relative to the guy next to him. And the poor guy was poor relative to the guy next to him. The necessary context was there.
Click to expand...

I assumed that was what your intended to convey however it was open to misinterpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back