PARK-A true unsung hero

[Logan!]

Actually I'm finding very tedious your inability to recognise skill in a player you have (for your own purposes) decided has not enough of it.

I recognize his strengths well enough. but I also recognize his limitations as a footballer. It's the latter that people have a problem with. You argue that I'm on one end of a scale with regards to my rating of Park. I could easily argue that some people are at the other end of the scale and severely over rating him.

I actually do think Nani's was the better pass - but the margin is not as much as you claim.

Yes it is. One was a 10 yard flick into the air with the outside of the foot. The other was a 20 or 30 yard curling pass 'around the corner' to an onrushing player that put him through one on one with the 'keeper.

Your earlier description of how much better Nani's pass was than anything Park could do was OTT - like your original post in this thread. You indulge in hyperbole both in describing Nani's skill and downplaying Park's ("Awful touch. Awful passing. Awful player.") - and seem to believe that conceding he's useful in big games balances this out entirely. It doesn't.

We've established (several times in fact) that my initial post was over the top. Why you feel the need to keep repeating it is beyond me. That's why you're tedious, you can't let things go and just end up repeating yourself.

Let's analyze Park's game:

Shooting: Mostly woeful. On target, but very little power behind most of them.
Control: Poor. Too often he gets himself in good positions to score or create a chance but is let down by his first touch.
Strength:
Vision: Good. It's better when he's reacting instinctively. He's great for rapid counter attacks, but when he has time on the ball he makes the wrong decision often.
Passing: Average. Mostly resorts to short passes rather than try anything creative, but sometimes fails at that too.
Crossing: Poor. Or is it? He doesn't beat his man often enough for us to really find out.
Tackling: Great. Wins the ball back often.
Tracking back: Excellent.
Dribbling: Actually not bad, but the fact that he weighs as much as my left bollock means he gets knocked off the ball with ease. If he was stronger he'd be a much better player.

Good squad player? Yes. Great player? Not even close. For a player who plays further up the pitch than all but one other player, and to be known more for his defensive qualities than his attacking, says a lot about him as a player and the type of games he's thrust into.

What I really don't understand is the thread title and how anybody can agree with it. Unsung? He's perhaps the only player in the squad who is not allowed to be criticized and is in fact given far more credit than he deserves. Yes he's great in the big games and in Europe, but for 90% of games we're not playing the big 4 or in Europe and Park is about as useful as Elvis owning a condom. When teams put players behind the ball Park is pretty much ineffective. When we need to break a team down and we need a creative spark to unlock a defence, I wouldn't want Park anywhere near the team sheet. That doesn't mean I hate him or have an agenda against him. It just means I have eyes and a brain.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You do realise your position on Park has changed dramatically over the course of this thread?

Not that this is a bad thing, mind you. Rare enough for people on here to admit they were wrong and I guess this is as close as you're gonna get to doing exactly that.

 

[Brwned]

It just means I have eyes and a brain.

Which goes along nicely with that massive knob on your head.

 

[Logan!]

Which goes along nicely with that massive knob on your head.

I get the distinct impression you don't like me Brwned, which is strange as I've hardly ever talked to you on here.

 

[Decotron]

The funny thing about Park is ( much like Fletcher/O Shea) people seemed obsessed with what they dont bring to the team rather the focus on and appreciate what they do. Park is a very interesting option through the middle. As I believe one day Valencia will be. Fergie has long tried tactical tweaks like this. Long may it continue imo.

 

[Brwned]

Nah, it was only in jest.

But for someone who thinks Park's an average passer it's a bit odd you're so sure of your opinion.

 

[R.N7]

I thought his close control was excellent yesterday, with only the odd heavy touch.

 

[Logan!]

Nah, it was only in jest.

But for someone who thinks Park's an average passer it's a bit odd you're so sure of your opinion.

Park is an average passer.

 

[Shimo]

Good squad player? Yes. Great player? Not even close. For a player who plays further up the pitch than all but one other player, and to be known more for his defensive qualities than his attacking, says a lot about him as a player and the type of games he's thrust into.

One might agree with the above if football is plain black and white; if a player can be pigeon-holed into a great attacking player or a great defensive player.

If your view is this narrow, then your comments make perfect sense.

Park though is great player for any team to have. There are few squads in the world that is entirely made up of out and out starting 11 players for every type of game, more so for clubs like United that compete on 4-5 fronts for trophies.

SAF said it himself, the value he adds is immeasurable. That he can send him out in a given role, with a given set of instructions and he'll carry them out is what every manager can hope for.

Doubt anyone is disagreeing with you on the points where his first touch can be slack at times and is easily brushed off the ball at times but, most everyone can see everything else that he brings to the table with movement, work rate, intelligence, discipline all more than make up for the weaknesses in most cases.

As far as Unsung goes - Rio in the interview had a comment about it. He said that the pundits and the media et all who talk/write about it don't give him much outside of the work rate but, the most important people know how what he means to the team - his teammates. That's what makes him a great player - the value he adds to this United squad.

 

[Brwned]

Park is an average passer.

Is Nani a better passer?

Also that's a tad ironic given the criticism directed at Pogue about repeating the same point, but hey ho ignore all your flaws and focus on pointing out everyone else's since it's been working out brilliantly so far.

 

[Decotron]

One might agree with the above if football is plain black and white; if a player can be pigeon-holed into a great attacking player or a great defensive player.

If your view is this narrow, then your comments make perfect sense.

Park though is great player for any team to have. There are few squads in the world that is entirely made up of out and out starting 11 players for every type of game, more so for clubs like United that compete on 4-5 fronts for trophies.

SAF said it himself, the value he adds is immeasurable. That he can send him out in a given role, with a given set of instructions and he'll carry them out is what every manager can hope for.

Doubt anyone is disagreeing with you on the points where his first touch can be slack at times and is easily brushed off the ball at times but, most everyone can see everything else that he brings to the table with movement, work rate, intelligence, discipline all more than make up for the weaknesses in most cases.

As far as Unsung goes - Rio in the interview had a comment about it. He said that the pundits and the media et all who talk/write about it don't give him much outside of the work rate but, the most important people know how what he means to the team - his teammates. That's what makes him a great player - the value he adds to this United squad.

Good post. Explains thats bit v well.

The thing about Park that everyone (I mean players and the manager) seem to rave about is how intelligent he is. He understands the game very well. Personally Im delighted when I see his name on the team sheet.

 

[Feed Me]

Strength:

Dribbling: Actually not bad, but the fact that he weighs as much as my left bollock means he gets knocked off the ball with ease. If he was stronger he'd be a much better player.

I'm questioning whether you actually do have a pair of eyes.

There was one point yesterday when he came through two or three challenges and then contested a 50-50 shoulder barge where he put Kuyt on his arse.

As you'd expect with someone so fit, he's a very strong lad - perhaps deceptively so.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

One might agree with the above if football is plain black and white; if a player can be pigeon-holed into a great attacking player or a great defensive player.

If your view is this narrow, then your comments make perfect sense.

Park though is great player for any team to have. There are few squads in the world that is entirely made up of out and out starting 11 players for every type of game, more so for clubs like United that compete on 4-5 fronts for trophies.

SAF said it himself, the value he adds is immeasurable. That he can send him out in a given role, with a given set of instructions and he'll carry them out is what every manager can hope for.

Doubt anyone is disagreeing with you on the points where his first touch can be slack at times and is easily brushed off the ball at times but, most everyone can see everything else that he brings to the table with movement, work rate, intelligence, discipline all more than make up for the weaknesses in most cases.

As far as Unsung goes - Rio in the interview had a comment about it. He said that the pundits and the media et all who talk/write about it don't give him much outside of the work rate but, the most important people know how what he means to the team - his teammates. That's what makes him a great player - the value he adds to this United squad.

These are pretty much the areas where I'd agree on Park's 'limitations' - though I'd also emphasise erratic finishing.

Mind you, if I was to do a 'Logan-rational' criticism of Nani's shooting it would undoubtedly concentrate on the likelihood of hitting the upper tier or going out for a throw-in (whilst admitting it tends to be powerful enough).

Logan seems to believe Park lacks any creativity as well as having insufficiently good touch (on retention and passing). Touch-wise yesterday he wasn't at his best, but his movement was often very good.

 

[Logan!]

Is Nani a better passer?

Not consistently, no.

Also that's a tad ironic given the criticism directed at Pogue about repeating the same point, but hey ho ignore all your flaws and focus on pointing out everyone else's since it's been working out brilliantly so far.

My post was in direct response to you repeating something I'd said. You seem to have invented an issue here. I never had a go at Pogue for repeating the same point. My issue with Pogue was that he was repeating the same things that I'd already said myself, as if he was telling me stuff that I didn't already know. That's the problem on here. People post without reading.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

Let's analyze Park's game:

Shooting: Mostly woeful. On target, but very little power behind most of them.
Control: Poor. Too often he gets himself in good positions to score or create a chance but is let down by his first touch.
Strength:
Vision: Good. It's better when he's reacting instinctively. He's great for rapid counter attacks, but when he has time on the ball he makes the wrong decision often.
Passing: Average. Mostly resorts to short passes rather than try anything creative, but sometimes fails at that too.
Crossing: Poor. Or is it? He doesn't beat his man often enough for us to really find out.
Tackling: Great. Wins the ball back often.
Tracking back: Excellent.
Dribbling: Actually not bad, but the fact that he weighs as much as my left bollock means he gets knocked off the ball with ease. If he was stronger he'd be a much better player.

Good squad player? Yes. Great player? Not even close. For a player who plays further up the pitch than all but one other player, and to be known more for his defensive qualities than his attacking, says a lot about him as a player and the type of games he's thrust into.

See above^

I also remember Park's 'outside of the foot' cross as having curve on it to help get round the defenders and towards his colleague - it was rather more than a simple 10yd flick.

I bring up both your initial post and your 'damning by faint praise' re-interpretation of your position because of your insistence that both were made in a rational manner when you were calm. Both therefore can be said to reflect your viewpoints - even if you revealed more than you thought.

 

[Logan!]

These are pretty much the areas where I'd agree on Park's 'limitations' - though I'd also emphasise erratic finishing.

Mind you, if I was to do a Logan-rational criticism of Nani's shooting it would undoubtedly concentrate on the likelihood of hitting the upper tier or going ouit for a throw-in (whilst admitting it tends to be powerful enough).

Logan seems to believe he lacks any creativity as well as having insufficiently good touch (on retention and passing). Touch-wise yesterday he wasn't at his best, but his movement was often very good.

Ok so let's 'do' Nani.

Shooting: Very inconsistent. Has the ability to score from 30+ yards but is more likely to his Mrs. Smith in row Z.
Passing: Can be great, but is also inconsistent. (I sense a pattern will develop here) Tries the killer pass too often when he should keep it simple.
Vision: Ranges from excellent to terrible. Sometimes he'll see things that nobody else does. Other times he'll just choose the wrong pass and lose possession.
Control: Very good.
Crossing: Among the best crossers in the squad.
Tackling: Not bad. Not great.
Tracking back: He's doing it very well this season.
Dribbling: Again, among the best in the squad.

 

[Brwned]

My post was in direct response to you repeating something I'd said. You seem to have invented an issue here. I never had a go at Pogue for repeating the same point. My issue with Pogue was that he was repeating the same things that I'd already said myself, as if he was telling me stuff that I didn't already know. That's the problem on here. People post without reading.

Yes, that's exactly what it is.

You're right and we're wrong. You discuss things perfectly whereas most people have serious flaws when it comes to discussion.

I reckon you're just acting the dick again for whatever reason, otherwise if people actually can't keep a sensible discussion and don't read then you'd have to wonder why you even bother to come on here.

 

[Logan!]

See above^

I also remember Park's 'outside of the foot' cross as having curve on it to help get round the defenders and towards his colleague - it was rather more than a simple 10yd flick.

I bring up both your initial post and your 'damning by faint praise' re-interpretation of your position because of your insistence that both were made in a rational manner when you were calm. Both therefore can be said to reflect your viewpoints - even if you revealed more than you thought.

Half the time I don't even know what you're trying to say. Do you often find that people's eyes glaze over when talking to you?

 

[Logan!]

Yes, that's exactly what it is.

You're right and we're wrong. You discuss things perfectly whereas most people have serious flaws when it comes to discussion.

I reckon you're just acting the dick again for whatever reason.

Oh dear Brwned. Seriously, go back and read through the thread and you'll realize that you've just invented an issue out of thin air.

It's actually quite funny. Rather than admit you misunderstood something you just resort to name calling like Pogue and the rest of your e-gang.

 

[Brwned]

Oh dear Brwned. Seriously, go back and read through the thread and you'll realize that you've just invented an issue out of thin air.

It's actually quite funny. Rather than admit you misunderstood something you just resort to name calling like Pogue and the rest of your e-gang.

The main issue was that throughout this thread all you've done is criticise anything you possibly could - posters, general quality of debate, players from this club...and constant criticism makes you seem like a bit of a dick.

The fact you enjoy things like this just makes it seem even more likely you're just acting the dick, just for the craic. Otherwise if people can't keep a sensible discussion and don't read - or at least don't do these things as well as you do - then you'd have to wonder why you even bother to come on here.

Yeah, I'm well in that gang clearly...

 

[Logan!]

The main issue was that throughout this thread all you've done is criticise anything you possibly could - posters, general quality of debate, players from this club...and constant criticism makes you seem like a bit of a dick.

The fact you enjoy things like this just makes it seem even more likely you're just acting the dick, just for the craic. Otherwise if people can't keep a sensible discussion and don't read then you'd have to wonder why you even bother to come on here.

Yeah, I'm well in that gang clearly...

Actually, I'd argue that it's you who's actively seeking an argument here, and by starting with the childish name calling you're just further proving my point by trying to provoke me.

The only thing I'm guilty of in this thread is giving my opinion. If that differs from yours I could not care less. People have differing opinions on everything, they don't all accuse those who disagree with them of being a dick though.

The only time I've criticized posters or the quality of debate is when they've spat their dummies out and acted like children on a playground.

You carry on with the name calling though. It doesn't make you look pathetic and definitely does make me cry into my pillow at night as I struggle to come to terms with the fact that some people from the internet disagree with me.

 

[Brwned]

The only thing I'm guilty of in this thread is giving my opinion.

Nah, that's clearly not true. You're guilty of being a massive hypocrite for one - calling people tedious being one of the many, many examples of it.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

Ok so let's 'do' Nani.

Shooting: Very inconsistent. Has the ability to score from 30+ yards but is more likely to his Mrs. Smith in row Z.
Passing: Can be great, but is also inconsistent. (I sense a pattern will develop here) Tries the killer pass too often when he should keep it simple.
Vision: Ranges from excellent to terrible. Sometimes he'll see things that nobody else does. Other times he'll just choose the wrong pass and lose possession.
Control: Very good.
Crossing: Among the best crossers in the squad.
Tackling: Not bad. Not great.
Tracking back: He's doing it very well this season.
Dribbling: Again, among the best in the squad.

The Nani comparison was simply to show how easy it is to be dismissive of a player by concentrating on (over-inflated) flaws rather than on what they do bring to the team.

In fact, this thread has been about Park - yet you decided to tell us how we should all love Nani in some pseudo-justification for the overly negative remarks you were making about Park.

Some pages back, PS was vexed that I praised Park's continuity skills, and asked me what I meant by that. In responding to my description he said I was 'just describing a midfielder' (or sim). The thing is that I reckon he may have unintentionally stumbled on the secret:

Park just is very good at a number of crucial things that the midfield (collectively and individually) need to do. He specialises in the essential elements, not in having sublime touch, neat tricks or searing pace (etc.). It would explain why he helps make the side work so well together.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

Half the time I don't even know what you're trying to say. Do you often find that people's eyes glaze over when talking to you?

There were 3 points:

1 You fail to adequately recognise Park's strengths and you exaggerate his weaknesses (see 3 for an example).

2 Your attempts to disguise this failed.

3 You praised Nani's 'curved pass' claiming Park's was just a flick - yet Park's also involved bend produced by spinning off the outside of the foot. Both used the curve to help reach the intended target and avoid defenders.

Is that easier for you?

 

[Plechazunga]

Park's been great recently, best spell of his career I reckon

He was crap yesterday, mind

 

[Anderson Searl]

First i'd like to apologise to Logan!
However Secondly, I stand by my opinion that the Park-Rooney partnership is as good as his partnership with anyone in the squad

 

[Name Changed]

First i'd like to apologise to Logan!
However Secondly, I stand by my opinion that the Park-Rooney partnership is as good as his partnership with anyone in the squad

Park suits Rooney's game more than Berbatov does. Weird.

 

[Anderson Searl]

Park suits Rooney's game more than Berbatov does. Weird.

Wouldn't have predicted that with previous knowledge

 

[Doevle]

Let's analyze Park's game:

Shooting: Mostly woeful. On target, but very little power behind most of them.
Control: Poor. Too often he gets himself in good positions to score or create a chance but is let down by his first touch.
Strength:
Vision: Good. It's better when he's reacting instinctively. He's great for rapid counter attacks, but when he has time on the ball he makes the wrong decision often.
Passing: Average. Mostly resorts to short passes rather than try anything creative, but sometimes fails at that too.
Crossing: Poor. Or is it? He doesn't beat his man often enough for us to really find out.
Tackling: Great. Wins the ball back often.
Tracking back: Excellent.
Dribbling: Actually not bad, but the fact that he weighs as much as my left bollock means he gets knocked off the ball with ease. If he was stronger he'd be a much better player.

Off the ball-movement: Great

 

[hungrywing]

Park suits Rooney's game more than Berbatov does. Weird.

They (Park and Rooney) have similar approaches to the game for one thing. Plus Park fecking ALWAYS looks for Rooney - almost to a fault, like some have mentioned. It certainly can't hurt to have a clearly established pecking order.

But what would really be weird is if this 4-2-3-1 turns into our preferred formation.

 

[Logan!]

The Nani comparison was simply to show how easy it is to be dismissive of a player by concentrating on (over-inflated) flaws rather than on what they do bring to the team.

In fact, this thread has been about Park - yet you decided to tell us how we should all love Nani in some pseudo-justification for the overly negative remarks you were making about Park.

Some pages back, PS was vexed that I praised Park's continuity skills, and asked me what I meant by that. In responding to my description he said I was 'just describing a midfielder' (or sim). The thing is that I reckon he may have unintentionally stumbled on the secret:

Park just is very good at a number of crucial things that the midfield (collectively and individually) need to do. He specialises in the essential elements, not in having sublime touch, neat tricks or searing pace (etc.). It would explain why he helps make the side work so well together.

The reason I brought Nani into it was to show the double standards applied by many on here. I'm probably guilty of it myself in the opposite way. Nani can have good games and put in great crosses, but if the forwards don't finish those chances and he doesn't get an assist he often gets slaughtered on here for being shit. I'd imagine if a poll was ran in January to see how many people would want to see Nani gone the numbers would be quite high. People forget that he started the season very well and at one point had more assists/goals per game than Valencia did. Even so, it was the general opinion that Nani wasn't pulling his weight and that Valencia was one of our best players. I couldn't understand it at all. People also underestimate Nani's work rate. He has always been a hard worker and has always tracked back. Recently he's improved that aspect of his game, along with his productivity and consistency. And we even see players like Giggs saying that Nani is one of the best trainers in the squad and one who often stays late after training to better himself. Then he picked up an injury and didn't get in the team for a while, and the sensationalist media took his absence from the team as a sign that Fergie would be looking to offload him at the first available opportunity. Unfortunately a lot of our fans believe what they read in the papers and on goal.com and bought into the idea that he wasn't in the team because he wasn't playing well, oblivious to the fact that he was injured. As I said, I wanted to show the double standards that were being applied to someone who is essentially one of the most naturally talented wingers in the league with massive potential. Just 23 years old too, not even close to his peak. I do, however, accept that I went about it in the wrong way. I do appreciate Park's role within the squad and I do appreciate the vital role he plays in the big games (amazing how often I've had to repeat that). And there's not an ounce of bitterness from me when he does well. If I was to be bitter about him scoring the winner against our arch rivals I wouldn't be much of a fan. I don't personally see what I've said about Park (my initial post aside) as 'attacking' him. I see it as giving an honest opinion of his strengths and weaknesses. If that's deemed worthy of being called all the names under the sun by the forum's keyboard warriors then it's a little pathetic. I'd rather they told me why they believed I was wrong instead of resorting to playground tactics.

 

[Logan!]

Park suits Rooney's game more than Berbatov does. Weird.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily true(or untrue). I'd say we can't really say whether or not it's true because there isn't currently and probably never will be a direct way of comparing. The roles they play are completely different and the support they get from the midfield and wings also plays a part in our productivity.

For example, when park plays with Rooney it's almost exclusively in a 4-5-1 formation. When Berbatov plays with Rooney it's almost exclusively in a 4-4-2 formation.

They (Park and Rooney) have similar approaches to the game for one thing. Plus Park fecking ALWAYS looks for Rooney - almost to a fault, like some have mentioned. It certainly can't hurt to have a clearly established pecking order.

But what would really be weird is if this 4-2-3-1 turns into our preferred formation.

The formation and his position dictate the way Park plays. Playing behind Rooney but in front of the midfield means if he wants o go forward he has to "look for" Rooney. That's his job; to link Rooney to the midfield. I'd be more surprised if he didn't "look for" Rooney.

 

[UnitedRoadRed]

I'm questioning whether you actually do have a pair of eyes.

There was one point yesterday when he came through two or three challenges and then contested a 50-50 shoulder barge where he put Kuyt on his arse.

As you'd expect with someone so fit, he's a very strong lad - perhaps deceptively so.

I can understand Logan's point, though. He was awful against Villa in December and constantly getting muscled off the ball.

 

[Amir]

I remember people suggesting we use Park in midfield in the Barcelona final last season. Shame we never did.

He didn't really play well yesterday, but there's something about him there that makes us more dynamic because he's always on the move and is good at running into space. I'm not in love with the Fletcher-Carrick-Park trio, mind you, because when we play a midfield three I would like to see at least one of them with not only work ethic, but a true creative spark, Scholes or Giggs like. Hopefully Anderson one day. But Park is an interesting option to have.

 

[Plechazunga]

Yeah I agree with that.

 

[Feedingseagulls]

The reason I brought Nani into it was to show the double standards applied by many on here. I'm probably guilty of it myself in the opposite way. Nani can have good games and put in great crosses, but if the forwards don't finish those chances and he doesn't get an assist he often gets slaughtered on here for being shit. I'd imagine if a poll was ran in January to see how many people would want to see Nani gone the numbers would be quite high. People forget that he started the season very well and at one point had more assists/goals per game than Valencia did. Even so, it was the general opinion that Nani wasn't pulling his weight and that Valencia was one of our best players. I couldn't understand it at all. People also underestimate Nani's work rate. He has always been a hard worker and has always tracked back. Recently he's improved that aspect of his game, along with his productivity and consistency. And we even see players like Giggs saying that Nani is one of the best trainers in the squad and one who often stays late after training to better himself. Then he picked up an injury and didn't get in the team for a while, and the sensationalist media took his absence from the team as a sign that Fergie would be looking to offload him at the first available opportunity. Unfortunately a lot of our fans believe what they read in the papers and on goal.com and bought into the idea that he wasn't in the team because he wasn't playing well, oblivious to the fact that he was injured. As I said, I wanted to show the double standards that were being applied to someone who is essentially one of the most naturally talented wingers in the league with massive potential. Just 23 years old too, not even close to his peak. I do, however, accept that I went about it in the wrong way. I do appreciate Park's role within the squad and I do appreciate the vital role he plays in the big games (amazing how often I've had to repeat that). And there's not an ounce of bitterness from me when he does well. If I was to be bitter about him scoring the winner against our arch rivals I wouldn't be much of a fan. I don't personally see what I've said about Park (my initial post aside) as 'attacking' him. I see it as giving an honest opinion of his strengths and weaknesses. If that's deemed worthy of being called all the names under the sun by the forum's keyboard warriors then it's a little pathetic. I'd rather they told me why they believed I was wrong instead of resorting to playground tactics.

Let's do Nani...

I'm really pleased he's having his best season yet - showing some signs of maturity and a definite development - his defensive work has also improved though you are right he has tended to work hard (when upright) in the past as well.

Crosses generally getting better but the uncertainty about when they are coming in doesn't help the strikers with their runs at times.

I like the guy - did when he first came too.



Let's do 'You on Park'...

I think you'll find a number of people have 'told [you] why they believed [you were] wrong'.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I remember people suggesting we use Park in midfield in the Barcelona final last season. Shame we never did.

He didn't really play well yesterday, but there's something about him there that makes us more dynamic because he's always on the move and is good at running into space. I'm not in love with the Fletcher-Carrick-Park trio, mind you, because when we play a midfield three I would like to see at least one of them with not only work ethic, but a true creative spark, Scholes or Giggs like. Hopefully Anderson one day. But Park is an interesting option to have.

Good point.

There were long periods yesterday where we had an iron grip in midfield but created very little. I was reminded of the Chelsea game actually. When we're up against teams as compact and defensively resolute as Liverpool and Chelsea - who aren't as willing as Arsenal to come out and play - we can sometimes lack something going forwards.

Mind you, I think a lot of that yesterday was down to park and nani not playing quite as well as they did against the gooners. They both worked their socks off but it wasn't happening for them in the final third. Until Park scored, that is. Difficult to know how much of that was down to a bad day at the office and how much was down to being up against a team that defends much better than Arsenal.

 

[Amir]

Mind you, I think a lot of that yesterday was down to park and nani not playing quite as well as they did against the gooners. They both worked their socks off but it wasn't happening for them in the final third. Until Park scored, that is. Difficult to know how much of that was down to a bad day at the office and how much was down to being up against a team that defends much better than Arsenal.

I think it's more of the latter. Park is a very good player to have around. It still doesn't make him a great dribbler or a great creator. He still has his attacking limitations and against better defences he will struggle if he's playing a role that requires him to be creative. Nani's improved, but he's still not 100% confident with his game and what he's supposed to do.

All and all, while we are doing well attacking and scoring the goals, it's sometimes more to do with the masses of attacks and pressure we put on to force a mistake or a moment when the opposition switches off, rather than a great spark or brilliance. We're not quite as fluid as the GREAT United teams and I'd say our wingers becoming more consistent and getting a bit more spark from the middle three are the keys to taking us a big step forward.

 

[hungrywing]

Difficult to know how much of that was down to a bad day at the office and how much was down to being up against a team that defends much better than Arsenal.

I thought it was quite clearly the latter.

And to Amir:

--------Rooney---------
Giggs----Park----Ronaldo
---Carrick---Scholes-----

Beats Barca 9 times out of 10.

The lineup we put out that night is the one and only time I've questioned the lineup in the past five years* and the subsequent progression of that game was like watching someone trying to hammer the nail end of a nail until it was as flat as the head end. Aside from the possibility of fear of upsetting Ronaldo, I will never get why SAF didn't put Ronaldo back on the wing where he could make better use of his pace, and Park in the center where his running/anticipation could have actually been put to good use against the vaunted Barca duo.

*(not including any occasion when Richardson was on the team sheet.)

 

[Gasolin]

I think it's more of the latter. Park is a very good player to have around. It still doesn't make him a great dribbler or a great creator. He still has his attacking limitations and against better defences he will struggle if he's playing a role that requires him to be creative. Nani's improved, but he's still not 100% confident with his game and what he's supposed to do.

All and all, while we are doing well attacking and scoring the goals, it's sometimes more to do with the masses of attacks and pressure we put on to force a mistake or a moment when the opposition switches off, rather than a great spark or brilliance. We're not quite as fluid as the GREAT United teams and I'd say our wingers becoming more consistent and getting a bit more spark from the middle three are the keys to taking us a big step forward.

Park could be a creative player. When he had a free role for PSV, he did score interesting goals (inside and outside the box), and maybe he's trying to get back this status with United.

Meanwhile, he needs more confidence. Park's role against Liverpool was a new one again, different than against Arsenal and against AC Milan.

Park was successful at PSV at the end of his last season because he was confident. Successful means here more offensive work, goals, assists, everything. Usually, we don't give time to players to gather confidence. But currently, SAF is considering more Park for the games that matter, and offensively, he's paying back. Defensively, we always knew he'd be good.

So we don't need to complain .

Seriously I don't know why Park is chosen ahead of many players we have, including Berbatov or... but I think when Rooney partners with Berbatov, Rooney goes back to this shadow striker/offensive midfielder/free role and Park is on the bench.
If you want to use Rooney's energy upfront with someone else with as much energy in the game, you go for Park. Maybe Hargreaves will be there at some point (the 3 shares this kind of continuous running spirit of the game, and they physically challenge the opponents). Imagine you add Fletcher.
With such players, you win the Champions League. Without them, you're just a nice to watch team.