Josh parker

[MK_Cobbler]

After reading all of this he sounds like a class act  . Another poor signing from Sammo, the money for his wages should have gone towards a bloody striker!

[DrillingCobbler]

I didn't go yesterday but it is obvious that you cannot measure a players ability on one single game, particularly when he was involved in such a terrible team performance.

If he is good enough to be on the fringes of the QPR team then he should be a decent player.

[auntie]

I think the point is, is that Josh Parker was signed on loan the day before the game. I'm assuming he wouldn't have had time to train with the squad and was put straight into the starting XI at the expense of a player who has, all said and done, been on fine form. We are all aware of Paul Rodger's limitations but his style would have suited yesterday's game. I just cannot see the logic.

[The Hask]

I didn't go yesterday but it is obvious that you cannot measure a players ability on one single game, particularly when he was involved in such a terrible team performance.

If he is good enough to be on the fringes of the QPR team then he should be a decent player.

He should though however have been on the bench first of all

[Insider]

If he is good enough to be on the fringes of the QPR team then he should be a decent player.

Like Ramone Rose?

[The 12th Marquis of Sixfields]

After reading all of this he sounds like a class act  . Another poor signing from Sammo, the money for his wages should have gone towards a bloody striker!

I get the impression we're not paying him

[Erith_Cobbler]

Speaking of Ramon Rose, i found this:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23496143-qpr-youths-face-tube-death-charges-after-new-evidence.do

[guest47]

I think the point is, is that Josh Parker was signed on loan the day before the game. I'm assuming he wouldn't have had time to train with the squad and was put straight into the starting XI at the expense of a player who has, all said and done, been on fine form. We are all aware of Paul Rodger's limitations but his style would have suited yesterday's game. I just cannot see the logic.

I'm completely with Mr Paul on this one. How can you justify dropping a player that gives his all every game - and produces the goods, to an untried loanee?

[Alfred]

Parker was poor .. but IMHO was the best of a very bad front 6.  to single him out and claim Rodgers would have been better is complete BS.  I notice that Thornton and Jacobs who we equally as poor didnt get any stick.

to be fair to the lad he only joined on friday AM.  He is clearly quicker than Rodgers and has better technical ability.  Over course of his 1 month loan he will,  again IMO prove a much better attacking option than Rodgers.  He played all the way across the front 3 so lets cut him some slack.
His teams mates and manager did very little to help him out.

Its easy to jump on the lad after 1 game .. but anybody who knoes football and actually went to the game will know that all 11 were poor not just one player. 

Wouldnt worry 2 much that we were offered him,  i guess this was just QPR following up a previous enquiry and asking if we still wanted him.

Quite simply we were tactically out done and the narrow pitch did us no favours
 

[Insider]

the narrow pitch did us no favours
 

We've blamed tiredness and now the narrowness of the pitch.  Whatever next?  The price of bread?  And you miss the point with Parker: why play him when he had only joined the squad on Friday, and why invest in a loanee ahead of Rodgers and one might also argue Konstantinou who looked good in pre-season?

[Insider]

And just to nail that statistic, the two widest pitches we've played at this year (Torquay with 75 yards and Shrewsbury with a whopping 77 yards) we lost 3-0 and 3-1 respectviely.  But we got a draw at Alderhsot with a paltry 74 yards and Bury with 73.  Perhaps our performances are a function of the total surface area...I'm intrigued.  Of our upcoming games Cheltenham has 72 yards and Oxford 78 (!). We've a great record at Cheltenham (not), but hammered Oxford on our last outing there.  Help me out here, Alfred.

[Alfred]

And just to nail that statistic, the two widest pitches we've played at this year (Torquay with 75 yards and Shrewsbury with a whopping 77 yards) we lost 3-0 and 3-1 respectviely.  But we got a draw at Alderhsot with a paltry 74 yards and Bury with 73.  Perhaps our performances are a function of the total surface area...I'm intrigued.  Of our upcoming games Cheltenham has 72 yards and Oxford 78 (!). We've a great record at Cheltenham (not), but hammered Oxford on our last outing there.  Help me out here, Alfred.

The narrow pitch worked perfectly for their game plan and you could argue limited technical skills ... did you goto the game ?.  If you didnt i can understand your point of using the above stats.  If you went you would have seen that we couldnt get any space to get davis or johnson overlapping.  everytime KT got the ball he was closed down.

Im not blaming the pitch as we were very, very poor.  But what i am saying is that it helped their game plan as they were able to close us down and press us hence making us look very poor and leaving us without a plan B to counter their tactics.  We couldnt move them around the pitch as we didnt get any time to play anf just looked lost and uninterested. 

at Torquay and Shrewsbury (went to the later) we got out played but did manage to pass the ball around.  Yesterday we just didnt know how to cope with a league 2 approach to winning games ... and fair play to Macc they pulled it off perfectly.   

D

[The 12th Marquis of Sixfields]

We'd have scouted them surely and I imagine we have a list of all of the pitch sizes in the division?

[Insider]

The narrow pitch worked perfectly for their game plan and you could argue limited technical skills ... did you goto the game ?.  If you didnt i can understand your point of using the above stats.  If you went you would have seen that we couldnt get any space to get davis or johnson overlapping.  everytime KT got the ball he was closed down.

Im not blaming the pitch as we were very, very poor.  D

Sorry, but you are blaming the pitch.  what you mean to say is that their game plan worked perfectly for the narrow pitch.  And no, I didn't go and have not plans to spend 100 notes on Saturday to watch an unfit Ryan Gilligan work a narrow 40 yard trench between our D and their edge of the centre circle.  But you cannot argue that a nawrrow pitch works against when the stats show exactly the opposite.  If your argument held any water we would have won all the other away games on wider pitches.  At Torquay and Shrewsbury my rose tints must have slipped because I thought we were bloody awful.

I'm also biting my tongue about Thornton. Sammo had another dig at him after yesterday's game; Sammo should keep that for the dressing room. But that dig equally applied IMO against Chesterfield: his delivery in is poor and gets worse as a game goes on.  To fail to clear the first man from a corner or free kick is criminal and KT is too often guilty of it. The answer to that is simple, let others like Jacobs take them. and leave the dangerous, edge-of-the-area opportunities between them.  I think we've all got a bit carried by KT in what is currently a very poor team.  Furthermore the sum of the parts (and to a large extent I agree with Nut) is greater than the whole at the minute, and that is down to Crosby and Sammo.

Last but not least, Wedderburn is the best closer I've seen in a long time, so why isn't his name one of the first on the sheet?

[TbananaG]

Parker was poor .. but IMHO was the best of a very bad front 6.  to single him out and claim Rodgers would have been better is complete BS.  I notice that Thornton and Jacobs who we equally as poor didnt get any stick.

to be fair to the lad he only joined on friday AM.  He is clearly quicker than Rodgers and has better technical ability.  Over course of his 1 month loan he will,  again IMO prove a much better attacking option than Rodgers.  He played all the way across the front 3 so lets cut him some slack.
 

Can't agree - he was much the poorest of the front six and slower and technically poorer than Rodgers. Thornton and Jacobs were poor, but better than Parker, which is why they're getting less stick. He played across the front three because he was a headless chicken. I'm not interested in cutting him any slack because he's not our player, we didn't ask for him and we don't need him. Now, if QPR had a big centre forward or a centre back going spare...

[GrangeParkCobbler]

Just to add to the pitch stats......so much for the narrow pitch suiting their gameplan.....it was their first league win at home this season at the 5th time of asking.....and in the previous 4 home games they'd scored 1 goal!!

[Dr Feelgood]

  the narrow pitch did us no favours
 

[Marvo]

Just to add to the pitch stats......so much for the narrow pitch suiting their gameplan.....it was their first league win at home this season at the 5th time of asking.....and in the previous 4 home games they'd scored 1 goal!!

Yeah but they hadn't played us before!

If there's any team in the league you want to play when trying to get rid of a terrible record it's us.

[oldbloke]

Whether he is a good signing or not and more than one game will give him a chance, from what I heard on the radio commentary, Macclesfield won everything in the air in their own box and eberything in the air in ours. The Problem ain't necessarily the winger.

[TbananaG]

No, the winger wasn't the only problem, but that doesn't mean the winger wasn't a problem.