Greg 6 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) I've become increasingly pissed off with the performances of Scott Parker and more so how we play as a team when Parker is in the starting XI. He only ever seems to stand out when we have a shit game and lose and bar the odd good performance such as against Liverpool at home this season I feel we are a much better side without Scott Parker. So I decided to have a little look at how we have done since he arrived at St James' Park in June 2005. These statistics are for League games only and I have only counted games where Parker starts. Home record with Scott Parker Played 24 Won 12 Drawn 7 Lost 5 Points 43 Average points per game 1.79 Home record without Scott Parker Played 9 Won 6 Drawn 2 Lost 1 Points 20 Average points per game 2.22 Away record with Scott Parker Played 24 Won 4 Drawn 3 Lost 17 Points 15 Average points per game 0.62 Away record without Scott Parker Played 9 Won 5 Drawn 1 Lost 3 Points 16 Average points per game 1.77 Overall with Scott Parker Played 48 Won 16 Drawn 10 Lost 22 Points 58 Average points per game 1.20 Overall without Scott Parker Played 18 Won 11 Drawn 3 Lost 4 Points 30 Average points per game 1.66 Against the top 6 (Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Bolton, Tottenham) With Scott Parker Played 18 Won 5 Drawn2 Lost11 Points 17 Average points per game 0.94 Without Scott Parker Played 4 Won 2 Drawn 0 Lost 2 Points 6 Average points per game 1.5 He has scored 4 league goals at an average of a goal every 12 games. He has two assists, an average of an assist every 24 games. All these stats show that we are better without Scott Parker, away from home especially. We have gained more points away from home without Parker than when he is in 15 less games. There is no doubt he can go in hard and slide tackle and will always give 100% but he is not a great passer of the ball, his touch is not good enough and he often needs a second touch, his positional sense is not as good as it should be and he passes the ball sideways and backwards far too much, and his stupid insistence on turning in circles in the middle of the pitch. He needs to at least be dropped, I'd prefer to see N'Zogbia in central midfield along side Nicky Butt than Scott Parker, but I doubt Roeder has the balls to do that. It was a big mistake making him club captain. Thoughts on Parker? And more so how we play as a team with and without him in the side? Edited February 26, 2007 by Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Have you taken into account the players who he plays alongside in each match? What's the stats when his partner changes? Does he play more often against the top 6 teams or the bottom 6 teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg 6 Posted February 26, 2007 Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 Have you taken into account the players who he plays alongside in each match? What's the stats when his partner changes? Does he play more often against the top 6 teams or the bottom 6 teams? Against the top 6 (Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Bolton, Tottenham) With Scott Parker Played 18 Won 5 Drawn2 Lost11 Points 17 Average points per game 0.94 Without Scott Parker Played 4 Won 2 Drawn 0 Lost 2 Points 6 Average points per game 1.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Have you taken into account the players who he plays alongside in each match? What's the stats when his partner changes? Does he play more often against the top 6 teams or the bottom 6 teams? Against the top 6 (Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Bolton, Tottenham) With Scott Parker Played 18 Won 5 Drawn2 Lost11 Points 17 Average points per game 0.94 Without Scott Parker Played 4 Won 2 Drawn 0 Lost 2 Points 6 Average points per game 1.5 Home or away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg 6 Posted February 26, 2007 Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 Have you taken into account the players who he plays alongside in each match? What's the stats when his partner changes? Does he play more often against the top 6 teams or the bottom 6 teams? Against the top 6 (Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Bolton, Tottenham) With Scott Parker Played 18 Won 5 Drawn2 Lost11 Points 17 Average points per game 0.94 Without Scott Parker Played 4 Won 2 Drawn 0 Lost 2 Points 6 Average points per game 1.5 Home or away? That is both, home and away. So what is your opinion on Parker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia 0 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Nice to see more people are realising that Scott Parker is fucking gash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish Mag 3 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Have you taken into account the players who he plays alongside in each match? What's the stats when his partner changes? Does he play more often against the top 6 teams or the bottom 6 teams? Against the top 6 (Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Bolton, Tottenham) With Scott Parker Played 18 Won 5 Drawn2 Lost11 Points 17 Average points per game 0.94 Without Scott Parker Played 4 Won 2 Drawn 0 Lost 2 Points 6 Average points per game 1.5 Surely thats you using stats purely to back up your argument which anyone can do. Its not really a comparison 18 being compared to 4, and even if it was 18 with being compared to 18 without its still proving feck all as other players etc surely come into it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg 6 Posted February 26, 2007 Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 (edited) Have you taken into account the players who he plays alongside in each match? What's the stats when his partner changes? Does he play more often against the top 6 teams or the bottom 6 teams? Against the top 6 (Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Bolton, Tottenham) With Scott Parker Played 18 Won 5 Drawn2 Lost11 Points 17 Average points per game 0.94 Without Scott Parker Played 4 Won 2 Drawn 0 Lost 2 Points 6 Average points per game 1.5 Surely thats you using stats purely to back up your argument which anyone can do. Its not really a comparison 18 being compared to 4, and even if it was 18 with being compared to 18 without its still proving feck all as other players etc surely come into it.. Yes it is me using stats to back up my argument, I've thought for a while that we play better without Scott Parker in the side so I decided to have a look at it. 18 compared 4 does prove fuck all your right. But the overall statistic shows that we generally do better without Parker. Overall with Scott Parker Played 48 Won 16 Drawn 10 Lost 22 Points 58 Average points per game 1.20 Overall without Scott Parker Played 18 Won 11 Drawn 3 Lost 4 Points 30 Average points per game 1.66 And more notably away playing 15 less games without him than we have with him in the side yet earning more points, then again he has played in most of the away games against top 6 sides. Edited February 26, 2007 by Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 Have you taken into account the players who he plays alongside in each match? What's the stats when his partner changes? Does he play more often against the top 6 teams or the bottom 6 teams? Against the top 6 (Arsenal, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Bolton, Tottenham) With Scott Parker Played 18 Won 5 Drawn2 Lost11 Points 17 Average points per game 0.94 Without Scott Parker Played 4 Won 2 Drawn 0 Lost 2 Points 6 Average points per game 1.5 Home or away? That is both, home and away. So what is your opinion on Parker? I gathered it was both, but we're less likely to win the away games, no? For a team in 11th place in the division, both Parker and Emre are good midfielders. If we want to improve, neither are good enough. What's the stats on Emre by the way? I'd much rather have Parker in the team than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio 0 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I agree with you 100%, Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInspiration 1 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 What annoys me about him is he can't forge a central midfield partnership with anyone. Certainly not with Emre. Slightly more so with Butt, but that means zero creativity. I do think he was really good against Liverpool though, but he was rubbish yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinofbeans 89 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 does he need to play further up the park. can he create goals. is he any good. who knows. he's put in a few good performances but for me he lacks enough vision, awareness and has an average first touch. not good enough at the highest level. would work well in a side that has 5 midfielders however. non stop engine.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2934 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 5th best stats tbh. (besides the fact Parker is average). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 20192 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 i'd sooner we kept hold of emre than parker. if only nicky butt was 5 years younger. he's been our best central midfielder this year by far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 What annoys me about him is he can't forge a central midfield partnership with anyone. Certainly not with Emre. Slightly more so with Butt, but that means zero creativity. I do think he was really good against Liverpool though, but he was rubbish yesterday. That's his problem for me. I quite like him and he certainly isn't 'gash' but I do think we're a better side when he doesn't play as there are other central midfield partnerships at the club which work better. He was class against 'Pool though, I agree. Could it be the poor conditions suited his battling style of play though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Emre and Parker can't play together that's for certain. On form, I'd have Butt in ahead of Parker at the moment with either Dyer or Emre next to him. I think Parker is a very good player, but we're better with Butt in the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 17128 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Emre looks a better player without Parker alongside him, he looks more free. Is that down to the management though? I thought Parkler started well but all he seems to do is dive in at every opportunity, he has real problems staying on his feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Maybe, just maybe, in his arsey roundabout way...Supermac was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInspiration 1 Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 What annoys me about him is he can't forge a central midfield partnership with anyone. Certainly not with Emre. Slightly more so with Butt, but that means zero creativity. I do think he was really good against Liverpool though, but he was rubbish yesterday. That's his problem for me. I quite like him and he certainly isn't 'gash' but I do think we're a better side when he doesn't play as there are other central midfield partnerships at the club which work better. He was class against 'Pool though, I agree. Could it be the poor conditions suited his battling style of play though? I think he often seems like a gritty player under the poor conditions - a constant fighter and has a fantastic attitude. I quite like him myself and certainly don;t want him sold (could swear it did say "sell him" under this thread title before...?), but his ability and captaincy shouldn't have him picked ahead of another midfielder who would forge a great partnership with the other centre-mid. There is no doubting Emre and Butt have been the best pairing, and that happens having both played far less than Emre and Parker and probably Parker and Butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg 6 Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 Goodbye Mr Parker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@yourservice 67 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Scott Parker had one good season with Charlton,then he got the move to Chelsea and was found out,so we came in for the headless chicken. Overrated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now