Is Scott Parker any better than Jamie O'Hara
- Thread starter JimmyG2
- Start date
sim0n
King of Prussia
- Jan 29, 2005
- 7,947
- 2,151
yes,... and before someone goes there, he's better than JJ s well... :razz:
Real_madyidd
The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
- Oct 25, 2004
- 18,802
- 12,479
Yes.
Lots.
Best.Thread.Ever.
Lots.
Best.Thread.Ever.
Spurs_Bear
Well-Known Member
- Jan 7, 2009
- 17,094
- 22,286
For the love of god JimmyG2.
Yes.
Yes.
bomberH
Well-Known Member
- Jun 4, 2005
- 28,472
- 168,312
Scott Parker is a lot better than Jamie O'Hara. That's why we didn't want him and he went to a bottom of the table club who are fighting relegation each season, whereas Parker came to us, who are challenging top 4 each season. Parker is a current England international, player of the year and has regularly bossed midfields for ten years. Parker also has a side parting.
O'Hara is a decent little player and I thought he had a good game yesterday, but he's a class apart from Parker.
O'Hara is a decent little player and I thought he had a good game yesterday, but he's a class apart from Parker.
- Thread starter
- #12
I posted this on the ratings thread after I had described Parker as 'limited'
I think that that would be a fair definition of 'limited'
Your words 'jack of all trades; master of none'
He is one paced; one footed; cannot turn on the ball; rarely makes an incisive pass; his tackling is Palaciosotic at times.
Does have good positional discipline and plays the short return pass well.
He is a decent stop gap and for a first game did well yesterday.
A journeyman footballer which makes him 'limited' to me.
He may indeed be what we need for the time being with the transfer of Palacios and the unavailability of Sandro and until we can sign a genuinely quality player.
The Footballer of the Year claim by the 'Football Writers is a joke award. Most of us spend the year bemoaning the rubbish that they write.
England mainly by default and only just.
That doessn't make O'Hara better though I agree,
But he is more mobile, has a better shot, delivers a good dead ball
and has more 'vision' about the game.
He also does not have a side parting.
I think that that would be a fair definition of 'limited'
Your words 'jack of all trades; master of none'
He is one paced; one footed; cannot turn on the ball; rarely makes an incisive pass; his tackling is Palaciosotic at times.
Does have good positional discipline and plays the short return pass well.
He is a decent stop gap and for a first game did well yesterday.
A journeyman footballer which makes him 'limited' to me.
He may indeed be what we need for the time being with the transfer of Palacios and the unavailability of Sandro and until we can sign a genuinely quality player.
The Footballer of the Year claim by the 'Football Writers is a joke award. Most of us spend the year bemoaning the rubbish that they write.
England mainly by default and only just.
That doessn't make O'Hara better though I agree,
But he is more mobile, has a better shot, delivers a good dead ball
and has more 'vision' about the game.
He also does not have a side parting.
RobinLeonard
Well-Known Member
- May 8, 2008
- 1,143
- 57
He is. He is also a good example of the player Jenas could be. They share alot of the same attributes (jack of all trades, box to box) but Parker has some swagger and a side parting (or does he? :razz
. He seems to be a mentally much, much stronger player than Jenas.
antti19
Finnish *anker
- Jun 26, 2004
- 1,337
- 630
JJ´s playing is so frustrating...I had so big hopes of him.
Spurs_Bear
Well-Known Member
- Jan 7, 2009
- 17,094
- 22,286
If you are talking about comparing his dead ball, shooting etc then you are better off comparing O'Hara with Charlie Adam.
O'Hara is also terribly one footed, a stick that you beat Parker with.
Parker isn't the greatest player, but he's decent, we couldn't even hardly give O'Hara away hardly. He's a trier, but he has very little quality.
TheGreenLily
"I am Shodan"
- Aug 5, 2009
- 12,023
- 8,699
I thought Parker did ok yesterday, but did nothing special, although he did get the toe poke that set Ade up for the first goal yesterday. Is he better than O'hara, I think he plays a little differently and probably is little better.
I thought O'hara played well yesterday against us, but Parker has had only one game.
Is he an upgrade on Sandro, then the answer would have to be no. The thing that worries me is that I think Harry will pick Parker over Sandro and have a midfield of
Lennon - Parker - Modric - Bale
Then have VDV playing with Ade. I would rather have Sandro in the starting 11, but I don't think harry will do that.
I thought O'hara played well yesterday against us, but Parker has had only one game.
Is he an upgrade on Sandro, then the answer would have to be no. The thing that worries me is that I think Harry will pick Parker over Sandro and have a midfield of
Lennon - Parker - Modric - Bale
Then have VDV playing with Ade. I would rather have Sandro in the starting 11, but I don't think harry will do that.
ajspurs
Well-Known Member
- Jul 7, 2007
- 23,278
- 31,702
My reaction too.
DJS
A hoonter must hoont
- Dec 9, 2006
- 31,279
- 21,788
Yeah but O'Hara is shagging Danielle Lloyd which is far worse IMHO.
phil
Well-Known Member
- Oct 25, 2004
- 2,038
- 1,239
I think Harry will play both in a 4-2-3-1 formation, especially away from home.
As to the question in the thread. Yes, Parker is better but not by a wide margin. I was sorry to see Jamie leave but respect the fact that he wanted first team football (wish that JJ and Hudd showed the same hunger). He plays with great heart (remember how he changed the game when coming on a half-time against Burnley in the CC semi-final), is very disciplined and has a great left foot. He is not the best tackler and lacks pace. With Portsmouth and Wolves, he has proved that he can cut it in the EPL. I think he is a very similar player to Charlie Adam.
