Parker Out

[HV71]

All hypotheses are simply theories and can be based on everything or nothing, and so to discount the simple fact that top managers have never had to deal with the problem of developing talent from nothing is a valid addition to a massively long list of attempts to explain why something didn't go the way the theory claimed it should have gone. 

Parker was given a much better balanced squad than possibly any other head coach/manager since the Khans took over from the off pitch professionals and determined that data is king.  He was even allowed to join in.  And wow what did that give us after so many false dawns.  A decent and fit defender or two, a very good goalkeeper, a half way decent fullback on the right flank, a possible future fullback for the left, a better version of Arter, and a couple of apparently disaffected attacking midfielders.  All that was needed was a coach capable of constructing a team for every third of a football pitch.  And that is where Parker has failed for three seasons now.  He can cope with up to two thirds of his job but I regret to say he is third rate defective.     

When you say he was given a much better balanced sqaud can I ask who you would regard as the better striker(s) and the creative midfielder(s) in that squad?

To be clear, I have edged into the Parker should leave group but I think that far too many of the arguments and assertions are binary and absolute.  It's either all SP's fault or not his fault at all.  To my mind it's far more nuanced.  I don't think TK provided a decent balanced squad and neither did he get players in quickly enough (plus he was far too reliant on loanees). None of this was SP's fault.

However, it can't be denied that our style has been diifcult to watch and ineffective; we have persisted with Cav as a central striker and continued to play RLC long after it became obvious he wasn't improving post injury, our reliance on possession for the sake of it hasn't worked and we haven't shown signs of changing.  I could just about cope with a turgid style if it kept us up but it hasn't.  The lack of learning and adaptation is my biggest concern.  These things are SP's fault and for these reasons I fear he needs to move on.

Not sure if any replacement will fare much better under TK though!

Twig's post is spot on and is a balanced view of the current situation (in my opinion ) . I think we are in a bit of a mess . Relegation isn't the worst thing - what is is the lack of strategy to get us to return and consolidate our place. This, coupled with a manager who makes decisions that simply do not make sense and has a playing style that is coma inducing, is potentially extremely toxic.
Surely something has to give ? The manager or DOF - or both have to either go or radically change their modus operandi.
It's very Fulhamish  to have a great owner, who is investing heavily both on and off the pitch, only for those who work for him creating something that resembles a car crash.
Almost forgot didn't he make his money in replacing parts? Time to get to work on us

[toshes mate]

When you say he was given a much better balanced sqaud can I ask who you would regard as the better striker(s) and the creative midfielder(s) in that squad?

To be clear, I have edged into the Parker should leave group but I think that far too many of the arguments and assertions are binary and absolute.  It's either all SP's fault or not his fault at all.  To my mind it's far more nuanced.  I don't think TK provided a decent balanced squad and neither did he get players in quickly enough (plus he was far too reliant on loanees). None of this was SP's fault.

However, it can't be denied that our style has been diifcult to watch and ineffective; we have persisted with Cav as a central striker and continued to play RLC long after it became obvious he wasn't improving post injury, our reliance on possession for the sake of it hasn't worked and we haven't shown signs of changing.  I could just about cope with a turgid style if it kept us up but it hasn't.  The lack of learning and adaptation is my biggest concern.  These things are SP's fault and for these reasons I fear he needs to move on.

Not sure if any replacement will fare much better under TK though!

I agree that the demise of FFC has been the culmination of a large number of changes (of which personnel are essentially the greater part) all involving the choices made by senior officials in the Club.  Where it started is anybody's guess but I personally believe the greatest damage occurred immediately after the Wembley defeat of Villa.   But Parker was, IMO, blessed with reasonable squads this season and last season. 

Of the strikers at the Club at the start of this season we had Mitrovic as the only one but that has been true throughout the TK recruitment reign, and so Parker was not alone in having to suss out how you score goals with one striker on your books.   We could also factor in how you play characters like Kamara, Kebano etc. to best effect (which Jokanovic achieved) and once again we see Parker exercised similar judgement to those he showed in constantly playing Cavaleiro and Knockaert in the Championship without looking to give others longer spells in the side to greater affect. 

In midfield there was always a problem without Cairney which was, like Mitrovic, suffered by everyone.  Piazon and Ayite could both move around and pick out passes and were allowed to go without serous attempts to replace like for like.  Seri and Anguissa are not playmakers and nor was Arter and I just don't see why we didn't get back up for Cairney long ago. 

Hence with the addition of Mitro and Cairney et al the side was full of much greater possibility than ever before.  There was also some real quality in defence for the first time under TK. But Parker doesn't do experiments because he isn't a risk taker.  I have moaned about the flanks until I am sick of hearing myself doing so but you have to try things and not just play the same old stuff and expect different outcomes.   Parker should have constructed better from what he was given to be worth a £5m contract IMO and he just has to go if the Khans don't want to be guilty of yet another costly error of judgement. 

And it hurts me to say it because I just don't trust the Khans to hire good coaches but more of this is going to damage the Club beyond repair IMHO, and so I don't feel they have any choice.  I don't think Parker is going to be any better than he briefly was earlier this year, and my fear is he is going to get worse.

[dgnffc]

One other thing to remember is that when we came up under Slav, R. Sess had scored a lot of goals in the Championship - he (or at least his goal threat) has also not been replaced.

[ScalleysDad]

what a load of rubbish spouted on thos thread.

i went to the game and what I saw was a team lacking quality. you copuld have played any tactics but the total abscence of quality was in evidence in abundance.
if you get the next manager and he plays a different style we are doomed to failure/
personally I think parker sets the team up in  a pragmatic manner getting lots from the squad. but we are men against boys, us being the boys.

It is total nonsense to blame the manager and I find may of the posts difficult to cope with from putprported honest hulham fans. that was not the opinion in the grround from real supporters.

Oh come on. This is surely a wind up? The gap in the quality of the players between ourselves and the likes of Newcastle is not that high. To call these seasoned internationals - many of whom have commanded price tags of 20-30 million pounds "boys" is just ridiculous. In Areola we had probably the best keeper we have ever had. A French international in his prime who has played for Real Madrid and PSG. Probably in the top 3 in this division. Andersen is a 30m euro danish international centre back. He's the best we've had since Hangeland who will be in demand from Champions League teams this summer. A few others:

Tete - starting right back for Holland
Aina - 17 Nigeria caps, £10m from Chelsea in 2019
Robinson - Only nabbed him as his move to AC Milan fell through on medical grounds
Lookman - Leipzig paid £23m last year
Mitrovic - Championship Top Scorer 2020, Serbia all time top scorer. Banging in goals for country all season!
Anguissa - bossed the Spanish league. Cost £20m 2 seasons ago & worth more now. 27 Cameroon caps
Ream - 42 USA caps
Cav - we paid £15m for him
RLC - £150k per week wages, 10 England caps
Lemina - 18 international caps, former Juventus and cost Sthmpn £16m
Kongolo - another Dutch international who cost Huddersfield £20m (albeit injured most of the season)

For gods sake, Dwight Gayle came on for them today! The idea that we didn't have a squad capable of competing with the likes of Newcastle, Burnley and Brighton is ridiculous.

Neat post, Klopp, Guardiola could work wonders with those players. The thing is that those two managers want to win matches, rather then not lose matches. There is obviously a 'gulf' in experience. But Parker is in 'loop mode'.

This just shows what a competitive league the Prem is.

To  talk of what Klopp and Guardiola would do with these players is just unfounded hypothesis, because thy only work with top elite players.

We all thought Ranieri would do a good job at Fulham, after what he'd achieved at Leicester.

To compare us to Newcastle. Who do we have to compare as attacking, scoring players with St Maximin, Elmira, Wilson, or creatives like  Ritchie and Shelby? Willock, a top loan too.

I think we would have scored goals , and got points, under Parker with these players in the team, just as Bruce was criticised for being too defensive, and losing games without them - his team was transformed  getting these players back from injury.

As it was  came close in so many games, but just weren't able to put the  ball in the net, despite creating a lot of chances in most games.

Such players as Newcastle's, mean you can take attacking risks, throw men forward, knowing they will create so many chances, that some are bound to go in, and you don't have to worry so much about not conceding.

A crucial difference in the attacking quality of the two sides is shown by Gayle - who we really wanted and tried hard to get in the Jan window, offering him a high wage and  guaranteeing him fist team football, but he decided to go to Newcastle, where he was mostly on the bench , hardly featuring as final few minutes sub, even when their main strikers were still out injured.

Whereas, at Fulham, we would have been thrown straight into the first team, and been our main striker.

Steady on. Way too much accuracy in your thought process. A scary notion. Shelvey takes a lot of flak but puts in the yards, has a decent shot and free kick, can tackle so you stay tackled and will put his face in the way of a goal bound toe punt. Now who in yesterday's midfield could displace him?
By the way how do I become 'a creative' and will it hurt?

[Whitesideup]

Looking at his body language I think he's gone.

Unfortunately having listened to his post match interview I think we have him at the helm for next season. Just shows how out of touch the Khans are with the feeling of the fans ...

I do cringe when I read this kind of thing on a board.
I'm not sure where the evidence for this lies concerning even the majority of fans on this board, let alone worldwide! It's not those who shout the loudest, or write the most disparaging things about SP, that counts. Just from looking at the responses on this thread alone shows there is a definite split in the discussion, I always encourage people to speak their minds but please, refrain from claiming anything on behalf of all fans, because I, for one of many on this board, do not agree with you, or the OP.

Good points Logicalman, well made.

And there is a big divide of opinion. I agree with Alg01 - for me the decisive factor was a lack of real quality particularly in the final third.  Of our attacking players, I see very few good sides coming in for any of them. I'm afraid there were times when even Mitro did not look like a premier league striker. Teams like Burnley found it quite easy to contain him and in that game we did try knocking the ball to him, but long balls were just lost balls .. and most Premier league teams will cope quite easily with that.

I thought yesterday summed it up. In the second half I thought we had several very good attacking opportunities - most didn't even end with an attempt on goal. I don't know how the set-up works at Fulham, or how much influence Parker has on player selection etc, but he and scouting staff must share some of the responsibility - I don't think it is TK identifying the targets and making sole decisions on who to buy or get on loan. But without the attacking quality we needed, I suspect the task of keeping us up would have been beyond most managers.

[Matt10]

At the start of the season, Parker's system was a 4-2-3-1 and no wingbacks, in particular not placing our wingers from the championship as wingbacks (Cav, BDR). We were built for a high possession 4-2-3-1 that had an identified playmaker in Cairney, and even StefJo towards the end of the champ season.

Parker shifted the tactical goalposts AFTER the first transfer window finalized, immediately wanting a more mobile striker than Mitro - hence...enter Cavaleiro. We went from a 4-2-3-1 to a 5-4-1/3-4-2-1 counter-attacking team. Even if fit, there was no longer room for our creative playmaker in Cairney. Parker then received his mobile striker in Maja and chose not to start him consistently. He rarely placed Maja and Mitro together when we needed goals - and both these players had more than 1 goal to their name. Other than RLC and Lemina, our central midfielders could not score goals.

It's a bit hard for me to blame recruiting this year. The quality was there, the goalposts were shifted by the manager, and recruiting ends up looking bad because he forced players into a system that he did not have any experience using. I've said it before, but if players were as bad as people say, then Parker would know to keep things very simple and focused on 1 player = 1 position = attack/defend task. Why he complicated such simple tasks is inexcusable.

[Whitestone]

At the start of the season, Parker's system was a 4-2-3-1 and no wingbacks, in particular not placing our wingers from the championship as wingbacks (Cav, BDR). We were built for a high possession 4-2-3-1 that had an identified playmaker in Cairney, and even StefJo towards the end of the champ season.

Parker shifted the tactical goalposts AFTER the first transfer window finalized, immediately wanting a more mobile striker than Mitro - hence...enter Cavaleiro. We went from a 4-2-3-1 to a 5-4-1/3-4-2-1 counter-attacking team. Even if fit, there was no longer room for our creative playmaker in Cairney. Parker then received his mobile striker in Maja and chose not to start him consistently. He rarely placed Maja and Mitro together when we needed goals - and both these players had more than 1 goal to their name. Other than RLC and Lemina, our central midfielders could not score goals.

It's a bit hard for me to blame recruiting this year. The quality was there, the goalposts were shifted by the manager, and recruiting ends up looking bad because he forced players into a system that he did not have any experience using. I've said it before, but if players were as bad as people say, then Parker would know to keep things very simple and focused on 1 player = 1 position = attack/defend task. Why he complicated such simple tasks is inexcusable.

Recruitment is the one single issue that tied Parker's hands. You can talk tactics and formations all day long but most of the offensive players available to the manager were just weren't good enough. Neither were those sent out on loan. I'm not criticising individuals because most gave everything for the cause. The one thing you can't criticise this team for is effort. If the quality was there as you have suggested  I would expect our  offensive players to be linked with moves away this summer. Well they weren't good enough for the division so I expect they will still be with us in August.

[Matt10]

At the start of the season, Parker's system was a 4-2-3-1 and no wingbacks, in particular not placing our wingers from the championship as wingbacks (Cav, BDR). We were built for a high possession 4-2-3-1 that had an identified playmaker in Cairney, and even StefJo towards the end of the champ season.

Parker shifted the tactical goalposts AFTER the first transfer window finalized, immediately wanting a more mobile striker than Mitro - hence...enter Cavaleiro. We went from a 4-2-3-1 to a 5-4-1/3-4-2-1 counter-attacking team. Even if fit, there was no longer room for our creative playmaker in Cairney. Parker then received his mobile striker in Maja and chose not to start him consistently. He rarely placed Maja and Mitro together when we needed goals - and both these players had more than 1 goal to their name. Other than RLC and Lemina, our central midfielders could not score goals.

It's a bit hard for me to blame recruiting this year. The quality was there, the goalposts were shifted by the manager, and recruiting ends up looking bad because he forced players into a system that he did not have any experience using. I've said it before, but if players were as bad as people say, then Parker would know to keep things very simple and focused on 1 player = 1 position = attack/defend task. Why he complicated such simple tasks is inexcusable.

Recruitment is the one single issue that tied Parker's hands. You can talk tactics and formations all day long but most of the offensive players available to the manager were just weren't good enough. Neither were those sent out on loan. I'm not criticising individuals because most gave everything for the cause. The one thing you can't criticise this team for is effort. If the quality was there as you have suggested  I would expect our  offensive players to be linked with moves away this summer. Well they weren't good enough for the division so I expect they will still be with us in August.

I don't think Parker was helpless with attacking choices. There are plenty of championship teams that get promoted with the same players and manage just fine. It's the manager who changes things drastically and expects that these square pegs will fit into round holes. The obvious choices were there, but Parker got over-creative and over-coached our players to something they weren't.

The players not being of quality is a convenient argument to the result of our season. At the time, however, most were feeling good with the likes of Mitrovic, Lookman, RLC, Cairney and even Cav. I also don't buy into Parker having his hands tied when his hands were supposed to be involved in the process - which is something that was reported when we hired the man.

Recruiting has their one shot, one window, to get the players the manager wants. The manager then has 7 days a week for 38 (more or less) weeks to find answers to the questions.

If Parker had consistently set up players in their obvious positions, and the results were the same, then I'd put my hand up and say - give him another chance - but he didn't. He did so much tinkering to the point that no one could isolate what the true problem was with the team.

[Nero]

At the start of the season, Parker's system was a 4-2-3-1 and no wingbacks, in particular not placing our wingers from the championship as wingbacks (Cav, BDR). We were built for a high possession 4-2-3-1 that had an identified playmaker in Cairney, and even StefJo towards the end of the champ season.

Parker shifted the tactical goalposts AFTER the first transfer window finalized, immediately wanting a more mobile striker than Mitro - hence...enter Cavaleiro. We went from a 4-2-3-1 to a 5-4-1/3-4-2-1 counter-attacking team. Even if fit, there was no longer room for our creative playmaker in Cairney. Parker then received his mobile striker in Maja and chose not to start him consistently. He rarely placed Maja and Mitro together when we needed goals - and both these players had more than 1 goal to their name. Other than RLC and Lemina, our central midfielders could not score goals.

It's a bit hard for me to blame recruiting this year. The quality was there, the goalposts were shifted by the manager, and recruiting ends up looking bad because he forced players into a system that he did not have any experience using. I've said it before, but if players were as bad as people say, then Parker would know to keep things very simple and focused on 1 player = 1 position = attack/defend task. Why he complicated such simple tasks is inexcusable.

Recruitment is the one single issue that tied Parker's hands. You can talk tactics and formations all day long but most of the offensive players available to the manager were just weren't good enough. Neither were those sent out on loan. I'm not criticising individuals because most gave everything for the cause. The one thing you can't criticise this team for is effort. If the quality was there as you have suggested  I would expect our  offensive players to be linked with moves away this summer. Well they weren't good enough for the division so I expect they will still be with us in August.

I don't think Parker was helpless with attacking choices. There are plenty of championship teams that get promoted with the same players and manage just fine. It's the manager who changes things drastically and expects that these square pegs will fit into round holes. The obvious choices were there, but Parker got over-creative and over-coached our players to something they weren't.

The players not being of quality is a convenient argument to the result of our season. At the time, however, most were feeling good with the likes of Mitrovic, Lookman, RLC, Cairney and even Cav. I also don't buy into Parker having his hands tied when his hands were supposed to be involved in the process - which is something that was reported when we hired the man.

Recruiting has their one shot, one window, to get the players the manager wants. The manager then has 7 days a week for 38 (more or less) weeks to find answers to the questions.

If Parker had consistently set up players in their obvious positions, and the results were the same, then I'd put my hand up and say - give him another chance - but he didn't. He did so much tinkering to the point that no one could isolate what the true problem was with the team.

also, end of the season in the championship Parker said we don't want wholesale changes and getting in a load of players repeating the same mistakes, he got what he wanted

[toshes mate]

Recruitment is the one single issue that tied Parker's hands. You can talk tactics and formations all day long but most of the offensive players available to the manager were just weren't good enough. Neither were those sent out on loan. I'm not criticising individuals because most gave everything for the cause. The one thing you can't criticise this team for is effort. If the quality was there as you have suggested  I would expect our  offensive players to be linked with moves away this summer. Well they weren't good enough for the division so I expect they will still be with us in August.

Recruitment ties all our hands if we are responsible for running a business.  You make a business attractive by having a clear objectives, a strategy/plan to achieve them, and then invite people to participate in the task of making it all come together.   If you do not get the fine detail right in your plan you will not attract the right people to help fulfill the plan.  For a football team the easy bit is to make it obvious what you are aiming to do and show commitment by having the right people in the right jobs already.  If that is a fail then why would a good person want to risk failure by choosing you over a better prospect?  The fine detail of a business sells itself when it can be seen shining through all the other dross that is around and you don't need a third rate salesperson giving you spiel.

A head coach whether involved in recruitment or not has to work with what they have and solve problems as they go along.  Jokanovic proved it can be done but the poorer the recruitment is the harder and longer it proves to solve the problems.  Parker had two whole seasons where he didn't solve more than two thirds of the issues and actually made matters worse because he kept doing the wrong things.  Jokanovic never blamed recruitment for failure he simply commented upon the fact that he was told it was nothing to do with him.  He turned the Martin loan into a success.  He improved many players and didn't waste time on those he believed were not going to make themselves better professionals.  He had a much tougher time than Parker and he was up to the task in ways Parker can only dream about.

[Skatzoffc]

Well I am obviously in the minority here, but I cannot see Big Sam as a step in the right direction. I vote: keep Scott.

Maybe a tad controversial, but I'd go to Big Sam over Parker any day of the week.
Since he arrived at WBA they've played their best football for two seasons imo

[bobby01]

At the start of the season, Parker's system was a 4-2-3-1 and no wingbacks, in particular not placing our wingers from the championship as wingbacks (Cav, BDR). We were built for a high possession 4-2-3-1 that had an identified playmaker in Cairney, and even StefJo towards the end of the champ season.

Parker shifted the tactical goalposts AFTER the first transfer window finalized, immediately wanting a more mobile striker than Mitro - hence...enter Cavaleiro. We went from a 4-2-3-1 to a 5-4-1/3-4-2-1 counter-attacking team. Even if fit, there was no longer room for our creative playmaker in Cairney. Parker then received his mobile striker in Maja and chose not to start him consistently. He rarely placed Maja and Mitro together when we needed goals - and both these players had more than 1 goal to their name. Other than RLC and Lemina, our central midfielders could not score goals.

It's a bit hard for me to blame recruiting this year. The quality was there, the goalposts were shifted by the manager, and recruiting ends up looking bad because he forced players into a system that he did not have any experience using. I've said it before, but if players were as bad as people say, then Parker would know to keep things very simple and focused on 1 player = 1 position = attack/defend task. Why he complicated such simple tasks is inexcusable.

  Strangely as we have had many differences of opinion I agree with you Matt. I know TK is inexperienced and made mistakes, as I know the majority of those on here who are pro Parker blame everything on Tk.
  At the start of this season no one can dispute the priority was the defence. It may have been late, for whatever speculative reasons people may wish to believe, but recruitment delivered with a far better defence than we have had for a while.
  As Matt says the system was set up for 4-2-3-1, which had Mitro as the spearhead, I for one thought that looked pretty good, but the it was all changed to a formation that would never suit Mitro.
  The clamour then was for a forward to be bought in the January window, I am sure I read we made a bid for moussa dembele 2 that was turned down. In fact during the January window all over football there were few deals completed probably due to circumstance.
  Therefore suddenly this board has all the blame down to recruitment,of which Parker is a part, for our relegation. I really do believe we had a squad capable of staying up, I put the majority of the blame on a manager who does put square pegs in round holes and is stifled by his fear of losing, this has led him to a catch 22 situation whereby his thought process is stopping him winning games.
  If we are to move forward I feel the major decision now is 1/ decide what pattern of play we intend to adopt. 2/ then as we know we have to rebuild ,buy players that will suit the style we decide to play.
  I see no point in keeping Parker on a 10 game look see as has been suggested as a new manager will no doubt wish to play a different way. They all like buying players.
  Personally I think we need a change as I really do not want to watch the style of football Parker gives me, I agree with many we should rebuild to stay rather than rush to go up and yoyo back down again.
  As well as a forward or 2 if Mitro and Zambo goes , boy are we in trouble in midfield, only really Reed, Cairney who I cannot see playing a season injury free and the other project Onomah, fills me with dread.
  Just an opinion trying to be as fair as I can.

[Jules]

Well I am obviously in the minority here, but I cannot see Big Sam as a step in the right direction. I vote: keep Scott.

Maybe a tad controversial, but I'd go to Big Sam over Parker any day of the week.
Since he arrived at WBA they've played their best football for two seasons imo

I am not a big Sam fan but what he does is make his team's aggressive. By this I mean attack, get balls in the box and people in the area. Pace and strength, playing direct. This always creates problems for opposition. WBA lacked quality and conceded a lot as well which led to their relegation. However, we could learn some lessons and adjust tactics. Other teams are more successful with similar. Look at Burnley, Brighton and Leeds and the way they play the ball forward early. We are slow moving the ball and play sideways and backwards. This definitely needs to change if we are to push for promotion again. I would like to see us more direct and attack minded. A lot of this comes down to our manager and the way he sets us up.

[Skatzoffc]

Well I am obviously in the minority here, but I cannot see Big Sam as a step in the right direction. I vote: keep Scott.

Maybe a tad controversial, but I'd go to Big Sam over Parker any day of the week.
Since he arrived at WBA they've played their best football for two seasons imo

I am not a big Sam fan but what he does is make his team's aggressive. By this I mean attack, get balls in the box and people in the area. Pace and strength, playing direct. This always creates problems for opposition. WBA lacked quality and conceded a lot as well which led to their relegation. However, we could learn some lessons and adjust tactics. Other teams are more successful with similar. Look at Burnley, Brighton and Leeds and the way they play the ball forward early. We are slow moving the ball and play sideways and backwards. This definitely needs to change if we are to push for promotion again. I would like to see us more direct and attack minded. A lot of this comes down to our manager and the way he sets us up.

Agreed

My point exactly.

I have been saying for months we move the ball forward too slowly.
You cannot win a game if you don't score!

[Carborundum]

He should depart.  Next season we will rely on players who he consistently overlooked in a 28 point season.  They aren't daft and will know that three early losses will see the back of him, a man who doesn't rate them.  Better to have a shot at redemption with a new man before we start dropping points.

When Parker was interviewed after promotion he reflected that the first thing he needed to do was restore a culture of winning into a side on a dreadful run.  He's just presided over his own dreadful run.  There are surely better candidates for achieving the culture shift we hope for.

[Mickeyboro]

If Parker hadn't agreed to be Tony's stooge he would still be coaching Spurs U18 or at best Stevenage.

He knew what he was signing up to and everything in the last 6 months, including coached TV interviews spouting the same disconnected jargon, has been to promote 'Brand Scotty'. Hence the media love-in and demand from Bournemouth, etc.

In reality he is no more adept than, say, Woodgate. His experience has been gained at Fulham's expense and he should continue his education elsewhere...

[Nick Bateman]

Parker made his statement for his continuence as manager of Fulham F.C., by laying down and going out the Premier League with a miserable whimper.

He is not fit to manage Fulham - I would opt for a Jokanovic return, if not "Big Sam".

[Twig]

If Parker hadn't agreed to be Tony's stooge he would still be coaching Spurs U18 or at best Stevenage.

He knew what he was signing up to and everything in the last 6 months, including coached TV interviews spouting the same disconnected jargon, has been to promote 'Brand Scotty'. Hence the media love-in and demand from Bournemouth, etc.

In reality he is no more adept than, say, Woodgate. His experience has been gained at Fulham's expense and he should continue his education elsewhere...

It isn't any replacement going to be just another stooge if they are to last under Tony?

[Logicalman]

If Parker hadn't agreed to be Tony's stooge he would still be coaching Spurs U18 or at best Stevenage.

He knew what he was signing up to and everything in the last 6 months, including coached TV interviews spouting the same disconnected jargon, has been to promote 'Brand Scotty'. Hence the media love-in and demand from Bournemouth, etc.

In reality he is no more adept than, say, Woodgate. His experience has been gained at Fulham's expense and he should continue his education elsewhere...

I'm not certain how SP is both a stooge for TK AND the cheerleader for 'Brand Scotty', that appears to be a conflict in itself. Unless, of course, TK's plan all along was to promote 'Brand Scotty', which I would doubt very much so.

[Mickeyboro]

If Parker hadn't agreed to be Tony's stooge he would still be coaching Spurs U18 or at best Stevenage.

He knew what he was signing up to and everything in the last 6 months, including coached TV interviews spouting the same disconnected jargon, has been to promote 'Brand Scotty'. Hence the media love-in and demand from Bournemouth, etc.

In reality he is no more adept than, say, Woodgate. His experience has been gained at Fulham's expense and he should continue his education elsewhere...

I'm not certain how SP is both a stooge for TK AND the cheerleader for 'Brand Scotty', that appears to be a conflict in itself. Unless, of course, TK's plan all along was to promote 'Brand Scotty', which I would doubt very much so.

He has used this as a leg up to launch his career at a higher level than he deserved.

Working with Tony was a stone in his stylish shoe that became a boulder.