The Scott Parker myth

[Zabbasbeard]

An average player, who gets in the England set up because he plays for a London club. Fart in a Spurs shirt and you're in.

My major problem with this overated crab-like plodder is that he broke Kevin Horlock's ankle with a trademark disgraceful tackle just after Christmas 2000. It didn't help our relegation threatened team and it was another nail in our coffin that season. Dirty little sh*t.

 

[kevodevo]

95% od 'Little Spoddy Parker's' game :-

Trot around in front of the back four, receive ball, pirouette once or twice, lay the ball off 10 yards, trot off like 'you da man' with a face like a slapped arse, dive in and tackle occasionally and be seen as a wholehearted player who gives his all.

this - the guy is a nob

 

[GHoddle]

He's average no less, no more. No where near good enough for England's 1st team and shouldn't even be considered for player of the year

Have to agree with this however when Redknapp becomes England manager you can bet that Parker will start every game.

Being a spurs fan I would say, Sandro is twice the player Parker is at least and I was pissed when Redknapp basically cut Sandro out of the first team for Parker.

Backs to the wall against teams like Spain he can be a good option but not the player who can dominate the midfield. Of our players, I rate Huddlestone, Sandro, and Livermore all higher just because of their physicality and greater skill on the ball. Parker gets a bit 'headless chicken' at times.

 

[Speaker]

He's average no less, no more. No where near good enough for England's 1st team and shouldn't even be considered for player of the year

Have to agree with this however when Redknapp becomes England manager you can bet that Parker will start every game.

Being a spurs fan I would say, Sandro is twice the player Parker is at least and I was pissed when Redknapp basically cut Sandro out of the first team for Parker.

Backs to the wall against teams like Spain he can be a good option but not the player who can dominate the midfield. Of our players, I rate Huddlestone, Sandro, and Livermore all higher just because of their physicality and greater skill on the ball. Parker gets a bit 'headless chicken' at times.

In all fairness although I do rate Sandro more highly than Parker, he has had a shocker of a season. When he hasn't been injured he has played very poorly. Thudd is only superior to Parker in terms of passing ability, apart from that he has to be the slowest player in the league. Livermore is far from the finished article, and will turn out to play at a similar level to an O'hara, possibly a Cattermole.

A lot of great sides over the years have had a water carrier, you just have to look at players like Dunga, Makelele, Peter Reid. None of them contributed goals or assists, they did the dirty work.

The vitriol for Parker on this board is quite perplexing. He has still made more tackles in the premier league this season than anyone else, and in an age of prostitute shagging, diving prima-donnas he is a breath of fresh air.

The way some people go on about him on here borders on personal hatred. He's always seemed to be quite a nice bloke who is never in the papers for the wrong reasons.

Calling him "the most overrated player of his generation" is farcical. People have obviously swiftly forgotten about the Neville brothers, Carragher, Brown, O'Shea, Terry, Trezeguet, the list goes on.

 

[GHoddle]

Well Sandro has been injured a lot but he's been totally mismanaged by Harry plus it doesn't help that he's the only player that Harry seems to shout in the face of. In the last few months, Parker has been worse than Sandro. No one has really played well overall so to criticize Sandro out of all of them is not correct imo.

Also Livermore has been our best player in some games that he has played and is a bright prospect for the club. His calmness in possession is head and shoulders above Parker's. I completely disagree that he isn't good enough to play at this level.

Hudd is a good tackler when fit and can do the job of a defensive midfielder well. To say he's only better at passing - well that's the largest part of a midfielder's job isn't it? I would say Hudd is as good as Parker at making interceptions as well tbh. Not as good a tackler but I don't think a player should be in a team only because they can tackle. A great defensive midfielder today needs to be a good passer of the ball or he becomes a useless body in midfield against the teams that can pass around him.

 

[Lavinda Past]

95% od 'Little Spoddy Parker's' game :-

Trot around in front of the back four, receive ball, pirouette once or twice, lay the ball off 10 yards, trot off like 'you da man' with a face like a slapped arse, dive in and tackle occasionally and be seen as a wholehearted player who gives his all.

Add in pretending to be on the brink of exhaustion before picking yourself up, brushing yourself down and carrying on like the british bulldog he is and you've got it spot on.

Good shouts - I was chatting about this thread with a spuds fan at work. He's not a great fan of 'poor Scotty', came out with a phrase that just about sums parker up.... "If he was any good, why did they only have to pay five million for him?"