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.
See if you can work it out all by yourself - if you get stuck I'll draw a picture and upload it for you
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.
I'm surprised Luke doesn't want Parker red carded for trying to hurt Suarez's foot with his "lower stomach"
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ****.
