Is Scott Parker As Good As They Say? Really?

[Slim]

He used to be a bit quicker, which imo made him a lot better. Now, he could do a job in our team if we had injuries but would be a last resort when everybody else is injured.

I was thinking that, Parker or Hargreaves?

No brainer for me.

[Ted Hughes]

He used to be a bit quicker, which imo made him a lot better. Now, he could do a job in our team if we had injuries but would be a last resort when everybody else is injured.

I was thinking that, Parker or Hargreaves?

No brainer for me.

Well it depends on if Hargreaves can actually play or not. If he starts to play games & even gets 70% of what he was, then he's better than DeJong or Barry imo but these little injuries could keep happening time & again followed by a big one. We'll have to wait & see.

[LookMumImOnMCF.net]

Yeah he's pretty good. The points you've used to attack him are really weak.

[Ted Hughes]

Aren't you the guy who says stats don't tell the whole story?

I think I'm the guy who says that you can prove pretty much anything with stats.

I would be interested in seeing some stats that show he deserves the accolades that he receives.

Pre Scott Parker. 0-3 and 1-5

Post Scott Parker. 7 wins and a draw and looking good.

Post Adebayor ?

[CityGer]

He's been top drawer for Spurs this season, Caught my eye every time I've seen them. To suggest that he is a poor player who doesn't work hard is ridiculous.

Winning this award and various other acolades seems to have brought him a lot of undeserved stick. It seems a lot of people aren't happy with it and are having a pop at him for it. Perhaps he doesn't deserve all the recognition he's getting but that shouldn't cloud people's judgement on a player who is clearly very good at what he does.

Does the dirty work well but offers far more than your everage water carrier. He makes some other players in his position at the top clubs look like pub team players. I'd have him ahead of Song, Lucas, Feltcher and Mikel any day of the week.

He's running Spurs' midfield and is a huge factor in the run they're on.

[ronk]

Aren't you the guy who says stats don't tell the whole story?

I think I'm the guy who says that you can prove pretty much anything with stats.

I would be interested in seeing some stats that show he deserves the accolades that he receives.

Pre Scott Parker. 0-3 and 1-5

Post Scott Parker. 7 wins and a draw and looking good.

Post Adebayor ?

Adebayor is a sub for the Sky Sports team. 3 goals and all that.

Same as Aguero, ahead of Balotelli and Dzeko.

[Ted Hughes]

Aren't you the guy who says stats don't tell the whole story?

I think I'm the guy who says that you can prove pretty much anything with stats.

I would be interested in seeing some stats that show he deserves the accolades that he receives.

Pre Scott Parker. 0-3 and 1-5

Post Scott Parker. 7 wins and a draw and looking good.

Post Adebayor ?

Adebayor is a sub for the Sky Sports team. 3 goals and all that.

Same as Aguero, ahead of Balotelli and Dzeko.

That's fair enough, he now plays for Spurs, as does Parker thus both are 50% better than they would be if they played for us.

[Douglas Higginbottom]

Aren't you the guy who says stats don't tell the whole story?

I think I'm the guy who says that you can prove pretty much anything with stats.

I would be interested in seeing some stats that show he deserves the accolades that he receives.

Pre Scott Parker. 0-3 and 1-5

Post Scott Parker. 7 wins and a draw and looking good.

Post Adebayor ?

Adebayor is a sub for the Sky Sports team. 3 goals and all that.

Same as Aguero, ahead of Balotelli and Dzeko.

Maybe I have missed something and should read back but what does "Same as Aguero, ahead of Balotelli and Dzeko" mean?

Is that a sensible comment suggesting that Ade is ahead of, i.e better than Dzeko and Mario?

[Ted Hughes]

It's in relation to a thread I started on Sky Sports 'team of the season' so far.

Adebayor gets on the subs bench, our players don't. There are 3 Spurs players in the team, 2 City.

[Hazy2]

Scott Parker is possibly [highlight]THE most overrated player in the history of football[/highlight]. Beyond laughable.

Surely that accolade should go to Dirk Kuyt ?

Nah, I quite like Dirk Kuyt. Obviously not nearly as good as some Scousers will tell you but he is hard working feller who gives his absolute everything for the cause. It's just not always enough. Scott Paker isn't even hard working player.

Funny that, maybe our WHUFC guest will confirm that is bollocks, my father in law tells me Scott was outstanding when wearing his clubs shirt when others were looking for the exit door he won games and scored goals and was true pro loved by the fans. What do they know they only watched him week in week out in a crap team.

[brite blu sky]

When you are struggling to find 11 decent players to put on the pitch.. say like England or Spurs for example, he kind of springs to mind as someone to fill a space in the middle of the park.

[Ted Hughes]

When you are struggling to find 11 decent players to put on the pitch.. say like England or Spurs for example, he kind of springs to mind as someone to fill a space in the middle of the park.

This is correct.

When up against quality players he rarely looks good enough to play for their team but often looks the best player on the day in his team (albeit too slow to really stop the oppo & not quite good enough to really trouble most of them).

[Hazy2]

When you are struggling to find 11 decent players to put on the pitch.. say like England or Spurs for example, he kind of springs to mind as someone to fill a space in the middle of the park.

This is correct.

When up against quality players he rarely looks good enough to play for their team but often looks the best player on the day in his team (albeit too slow to really stop the oppo & not quite good enough to really trouble most of them).

His last two games for England with Barry have been very good put Wilshire in front of them and England have a midfield add Johnson on form not bad for me better than Lampost and Stevie Gone missing.

[Goaters 103]

Thought he was greatly overrated last season at West Ham. This year, every time Ive seen him he's looked a good player and has given Spurs just what they needed in midfield, as a defensive presence and a leader.

Have a couple of good mates who are Spurs fans and they also speak highly of him, and to be honest I do wish we'd gone for him instead of Supercrock, but as he's a cockney and wants to play every week Spurs was the right move for him.

Good, solid Pem player who has shone this year and raised his teams level as well. The press do go a little overboard on him, but he also warrants some credit for the impact he's had at Spurs.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

He's been top drawer for Spurs this season, Caught my eye every time I've seen them. To suggest that he is a poor player who doesn't work hard is ridiculous.

Winning this award and various other acolades seems to have brought him a lot of undeserved stick. It seems a lot of people aren't happy with it and are having a pop at him for it. Perhaps he doesn't deserve all the recognition he's getting but that shouldn't cloud people's judgement on a player who is clearly very good at what he does.

Does the dirty work well but offers far more than your everage water carrier. He makes some other players in his position at the top clubs look like pub team players. I'd have him ahead of Song, Lucas, Feltcher and Mikel any day of the week.

He's running Spurs' midfield and is a huge factor in the run they're on.

So would I (apart from Mikel maybe....that's a close contest). Thing is none of the players you mentioned are really that good either imo.

[Dameerto]

He's a more versatile de Jong. I would be very happy to have him in the squad as our token oldie if we didn't already have Hargreaves. Haven't seen many Spurs games this season but I gather he's a large factor in their sustained success.

[brite blu sky]

He does a job for Spurs that no-one else in their squad can apparently do -which beggars belief- which very predictably improves a very porous Spurs side, that obviously means he is good for Spurs. It does not make him any better a player. Against top class midfielders he will still disappear/struggle. His main asset is his experience and workrate, beyond that though he seems remarkably similar to a piece of wood.

As for appearing for england, I'm afraid the only thing that shows is just how poor the competition is.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

He's a more versatile de Jong. I would be very happy to have him in the squad as our token oldie if we didn't already have Hargreaves. Haven't seen many Spurs games this season but I gather he's a large factor in their sustained success.

Still, they are both what I would call "profile players". De Jong is miles better in his basic duty. Parker offers LITTLE more going forward but doesn't dominate nearly as much as De Jong.

Big question is that is there really demand for players like this in TOP clubs anymore. I mean, strikers are asked to be creative and aggressive and defenders are expected to join attacks in top clubs. No matter how good you are doing one thing isn't good enough overall anymore.

[CityGer]

He's been top drawer for Spurs this season, Caught my eye every time I've seen them. To suggest that he is a poor player who doesn't work hard is ridiculous.

Winning this award and various other acolades seems to have brought him a lot of undeserved stick. It seems a lot of people aren't happy with it and are having a pop at him for it. Perhaps he doesn't deserve all the recognition he's getting but that shouldn't cloud people's judgement on a player who is clearly very good at what he does.

Does the dirty work well but offers far more than your everage water carrier. He makes some other players in his position at the top clubs look like pub team players. I'd have him ahead of Song, Lucas, Feltcher and Mikel any day of the week.

He's running Spurs' midfield and is a huge factor in the run they're on.

So would I (apart from Mikel maybe....that's a close contest). Thing is none of the players you mentioned are really that good either imo.

Fair point. However, these players are regularly selected by some of the best managers in the game to play for some of the best teams in the game in the best league in the world. If we agree that Scott Parker is better than them then he can't be all that bad a player, can he?

[Dameerto]

He's a more versatile de Jong. I would be very happy to have him in the squad as our token oldie if we didn't already have Hargreaves. Haven't seen many Spurs games this season but I gather he's a large factor in their sustained success.

Still, they are both what I would call "profile players". De Jong is miles better in his basic duty. Parker offers LITTLE more going forward but doesn't dominate nearly as much as De Jong.

Big question is that is there really demand for players like this in TOP clubs anymore. I mean, strikers are asked to be creative and aggressive and defenders are expected to join attacks in top clubs. No matter how good you are doing one thing isn't good enough overall anymore.

i agree no one touches Nige when he's in his backyard for us, but since our formation has evolved a bit this season into a more attack-minded one, I think Parker could do what Yaya does for us when Yaya plays instead of Nige (or rather in the position that would have been given to Nige) - which is basically a transition role.