Is Scott Parker any better than Jamie O'Hara

[Spurs1960]

Yes.

Parker is an England international, how many squads has O'Hara been in if he is that good?

He is a decent player, no more, same goes for Charlie Adams who is a dodgy defender.

 

[Real_madyidd]

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.




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.

Your opinions are what makes you unique. Being unique is not always a good thing.

 

[sim0n]

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.

However, Parker is not better than Modric, Sandro, or THudd. These are the CMs in front of him - good squad signing. Since VDV plays basically as a striker, I do not compare them. Kranky and Pienaar are not really CMs as well. Decent signing who's played well already - no more, no less.

 

[ajspurs]

Well Adam can pick out balls that O'Hara wouldn't even see or be able to produce, IMO, would still certainly pick Adam over him. I loved O'Hara's work rate more than anything but I don't think he was anywhere near consistently good and effective enough to hold down a place in our team but Parker on the other hand I think can.

I disagree also sim0n, I'd rather have Parker over Huddlestone. I'd possibly put the issue up for debate if Huddlestone picks up form though.

 

[TheGreenLily]

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.

I really don't think he will. We had the chance to play a 4-2-3-1 today, but instead he went for a 4-4-2 with bale on the right :duh: Even then if he wanted play bale on the right, he could have played modric on the left with Parker and Livermore in centre.

Still that's my opinion, and I honestly think he will pick Parker over Sandro, but I so happy if he doesn't.

 

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

I used to really rate Parker in his Charlton days and early Chelsea period. O'Hara's never got anywhere near that. Having said that Parker has definitely lost a yard or two over the years. I'd still have him in my side over O'Hara any day of the week but then again I'd rather Diarra than both. He's far more dynamic. I'm still gutted about that.

 

[walworthyid]

Not bothered, one doesn't play for us and the other will be understudy to the mighty Sandro within a few months!

O'Hara is a very good player, I always liked him and have seen him turn in some really good performances. He just doesn't have that extra little something.

Parker on the otherhand can grow into games, he has the ability to rise to the occasion and have monstrous games where he is involved in everything from start to finish.

Like I say, I like both players and you always need one in your squad, but Sandro has even more. He is physically and technically superior to both players and has the aggression and tenacity. He can score, dribble pass, has great pace, a great engine, he can shoot, cross, good in the air. I'm hoping that if they play together Parker will sit leaving Sandro free to go and play.

We have missed him as much as any player except King.

 

[CrazyConrad]

I cant believe we even have a thread about this...

 

[mil1lion]

I think a better question is whether he's an upgrade on Palacios. He's no doubt better than O'Hara

I really don't think he will. We had the chance to play a 4-2-3-1 today, but instead he went for a 4-4-2 with bale on the right :duh: Even then if he wanted play bale on the right, he could have played modric on the left with Parker and Livermore in centre.

Still that's my opinion, and I honestly think he will pick Parker over Sandro, but I so happy if he doesn't.

We may have had chance to play 4-2-3-1 but we had Huddlestone and Sandro out, not to mention VDV.

It will be interesting to see how Harry lines up when all are fit. He clearly rates both Sandro and Huddlestone highly as well as Parker.

Hopefully he has learnt from the Champions League about squad rotation. It's a new lesson for Harry having never had a squad like ours to rotate.

 

[SpurSince57]

I cant believe we even have a thread about this...

Yes, even after eight years SC still has the capacity to take your breath away.

 

[Krafty]

Parker has a bit more technical quality in general, plus he his positional sense is better and he covers the defence better. O'Hara could learn that as he plays more. O'Hara has a better long range shot.

I think O'Hara is a touch underrated, but Parker is the better player right now.

 

[$hoguN]

Have made quite a few comments on the qualities of Scott Parker and yesterday's game gave us the opportunity to watch Parker and O'Hara in close proximity.
My question is;
Is Scott any better than Jamie'

IS this a joke question as the answer is most obviously yes, a lot better.

 

[CrazyConrad]

Yes, even after eight years SC can still has the capacity to take your breath away.

After eight years of reading SC almost everyday this must be one of the worst threads ever.

I rate O'Hara and I really like the guy. He is a hard working player and always gives 110% but he is no where near Parker.

Fair enough this is a forum for discussion but some things are so far off it should not be allowed to even mention it.

 

[thfc1989]

However, Parker is not better than Modric, Sandro, or THudd. These are the CMs in front of him - good squad signing. Since VDV plays basically as a striker, I do not compare them. Kranky and Pienaar are not really CMs as well. Decent signing who's played well already - no more, no less.

He is significantly better than Huddlestone, and his inclusion in England squads helps demonstrate this

 

[Donki]

Have made quite a few comments on the qualities of Scott Parker and yesterday's game gave us the opportunity to watch Parker and O'Hara in close proximity.
My question is;
Is Scott any better than Jamie'

Its comments like this that just prove that some supporters watch little or no other football outside their own team. Parker is on a different planet to Jamie, how can you even ask that question without laughing?

 

[Donki]

However, Parker is not better than Modric, Sandro, or THudd. These are the CMs in front of him - good squad signing. Since VDV plays basically as a striker, I do not compare them. Kranky and Pienaar are not really CMs as well. Decent signing who's played well already - no more, no less.

I think you will find that is not the case, Parker will start the majority of the time under Harry. Also you cant compare Hudd, Modric and Parker they all witll fit in different roles in different set ups.

 

[#1 Spur]

No he's not. That's why Jamie O'Hara let him win the Football Writer's Player of the Year award.

 

[chrissivad]

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.

Not true though, sounds like we wanted to Keep O'Hara (as part of the squad) but O'Hara wanted to move to get more game time.

Also Scott Parker Joined West Ham, they finished just above then just below us. The following 2 seasons they just avoid relegation and then get relegated.

But Scott Parker is the better of the two.
Looks like O'Hara had a great game last night (only saw highlights) but he was against his former and boy hood club. Wont put in performances like that week in week out

 

[johno]

can't believe this even needs to be debated tbh

 

[alfiespurs]

I always liked Jamie, lots of potential, but limited. Scott is class, even going back to his Charlton days ......