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:
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?

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...
Y

Having read the posting again, you're right. Luke doesn't mention age as such. He does, however, refer to Scholes' "considerably longer career" alluding to his superior age.
My point was simple enough, superior age does not necessarily mean that one player has played more games than another. "considerably longer career" however, does. Why is was felt necessary to dispute what I should have thought was elementary, I have no idea.
Click to expand...
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Parker has marginally fewer bookings than Scholes in around 150 fewer league games.
Click to expand...

Given the original dispute is whether or not Parker is a dirty player, can you accept that you don't need to be dirty to get a booking. An interesting stat would be bookings per tackle. I'd lay my mortgage on the fact that Scholes has more bookings per tackle. Probably about 50% 1 warning then booked <laugh> Then doesn't tackle for the next several games.
 
I don't know who has more bookings for his tackle but I suggest Giggs might need to be in there. <laugh>
 
lennypops said:
That is an excellent point well made. Doing your argument proud.



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.
Click to expand...

This was a thread in praise of Parker and the only contribution LDL can make is negative. The worst thing is that he defends his comment as a "compliment" and that's what really riles me as everyone knows it's not. To claim that saying Parker can be dirty, puts in lots of niggly fouls and picks up lots of bookings is a compliment is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Then there's the fact that he's wrong.

"always seems to be getting booked." Last season Parker got 8 yellow cards in 40 games. In the league he was joint 19th for cards with 9 other players.

"But that's just what Spurs were missing before this season." Nope, we always have a defensive player like him who can break up the play, the difference is he's excellent at his job, whereas the others were good at best, oh and he can play a bit too which helps. Adebayor, a target man who can hold up the ball is something we were missing, Parker was just a huge upgrade on the type of player we always seem to have.

I wouldn't expect a Man Utd fan to get their facts right about Spurs players all the time but I also wouldn't expect them to post so regularly on our board. If Lidls' interest in the Spurs board was matched by his interest in the club then he'd get on a lot better with us all.
 
LDL.

He got no more bookings than 11 other centre mids last season, give it up, his booking record really isn't that bad.

In the first two games, we had Livermore, who was finding his feet and a half fit Huddlestone and Modric, plus Kranjcar whilst we were up against the top two teams. Who did the dm job previously? If you don't think Palacios, Zokora, King, Mendes, Sherwood, Redknapp(to an extent) or my (former) namesake Freund were played as defensive midfielders then we're simply never going to agree because you don't have enough grasp on Spurs players in even very recent history.
 
Seeing as this post has been about "dirty players" and the Suarez article is now closed, this was about the only place for me to add this!

On the subject of dirty challenges, is anyone watching the JPT game between Swindon and barnet?

A barnet player just kneed a Swindon lad in the head, from head height! Straight red card, which begs the question about the deliberate challenge from Suarez last night and how he wasn't sent off!

It was like something from a van damme movie!

He's obviously been watching Suarez carefully and trying to make the headlines himself!

A bit off topic lads, but it's worth seeing!

Anyway, back to how dirty Parker is. Do carry on..
 
Kunniaa Kunniaa said:
Roo said:
Anyway, back to how dirty Parker is. Do carry on..
Click to expand...

Or, as has been successfully proven, how dirty he isn't when compared to other players.
Click to expand...

That was sarcastic, but unfortunately it's sometimes hard for it to come across in text. Refer to page 1 of this article where you'll see my only comment on the "Parker" subject.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Perhaps I'm just able to be more objective, Schteff.

Parker has 6 bookings in 20 league games for Spurs last season ( 8 in 32 for West Ham last season).

A yellow card every 3.33 games ranks him alongside the worst offenders. His career average is not too much better as we've discussed. So it's hardly unfair to observe that he gets booked often. Why does he get booked? Because he commits niggling fouls. I'm not aware of any other reason (dissent? no, violent conduct? no, extravagant celebrations? no, diving? no time wasting? no). He was booked last night and away to City for those kind of fouls- in tough matches where he was doing his job of protecting the defence and breaking up play. Like it or not, he clearly oversteps the mark on occasions; I can't really see how or why you would deny that. I've not disputed that that may be because of his commitment and determination, which is why I've seen it as a positive.

I'm not sure who you think was doing this defensive midfield job in this way previously. The best evidence of what difference Parker has made is to look at Spurs' performances in the first two games of the season. Many Spurs fans here have sought to claim that those results may have been different had Parker been in the side then doing his defensive midfield job. It was apparent to any observer of whatever allegiance that Spurs got overrun in midfield at crucial times in those games. There was nobody doing that job anywhere near well enough, if at all.
Click to expand...

Hardly the point, Luke. Your original allegation was that Parker is a dirty player. He's not. Yes, he niggles, commits professional fouls,when necessary; but he's not essentially a dirty player. In other words, he doesn't deliberately set out to hurt another professional. Unlike a certain Charlie Adam! Now, there's a truly dirty player!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back