Park : USEFUL or USELESS

I'm sorry, but if you think he's useless, you don't understand football.

Originally Posted by 24hr Leavesey

I'm sorry, but if you think he's useless, you don't understand football.

he is a winger.

a winger that is as much of a goal threat as vds.
a winger who cannot shoot.
a winger who can not pass accurately longer than 5 yards.
a winger who has never put in a succesful cross in two years at the club


if park played for the opposition would you condiser him a genuine threat?

He's so bad I would rather see Richardson play.

I know. Richardson.

Originally Posted by violater™

he is a winger.

a winger that is as much of a goal threat as vds.
a winger who cannot shoot.
a winger who can not pass accurately longer than 5 yards.
a winger who has never put in a succesful cross in two years at the club


if park played for the opposition would you condiser him a genuine threat?

Read the thread title boys.

Useful or Useless.

Nowhere did I type Genuine Threat.

Violater, if you're going to disagree, thats fine, I knew you, and other people would.

Just don't put words into my mouth.

I bet you're a @#%&! in the real world.

A highly useul chap. Only people with deep deep divots in the brain think he is useless.

Definetly usefull. He wasn't great when he first came back from injury, but who is?

His workrate is his best asset.

Originally Posted by carlosartorial

He's so bad I would rather see Richardson play.

I know. Richardson.

See, I disagree.

Richardson's complete lack of application is unforgivable, considering he has considerable talent. More than Park certainly, I won't try to argue that.

All I can say is

I'd relish playing against Richardson.

I'd hate to play against Park.

he runs round like a mad dog chasing a ball around in the park...and when he gets it....he stops and doesnt know what to do with it


if he had a brain....he'd be dangerous

We are getting there.

Richardson = talent, no effort

Park = effort, no talent

Conclusion: experiment with lobotomy procedure before £#%&!ing them both off.

I don't think Richardson has any talent aside from a decent shot. He can't beat his man, has poor movement and positional sense and the wrong attitude.

Park is poor in front of goal. No argument. But there's more to it than that.

He finds space superbly, Is a constant outlet, full of energy, makes intelligent runs and has an eye for a pass.

There's a lot of anxiety in his play which often results in him making rash decisions and snatching at chances........but he contributes. He has something to offer the side.

He was a constant pain in the arse for Portsmouth at the weekend and brought a lot to the game.

He's no world beater, he's squad player. You need players like him. He'll never make the first 11, but he knows that. He works hard when called upon and is able to step into the pace of a game quite quickly.

Also, no one has acknowledged that he's been out for 3 months. For a player who hardly ever plays, imagine how difficult it must be to get match fit.

How he gets lumped in the Fletcher/O' Shea/Richardson list is beyond me.

He's not a winger either.

Originally Posted by 24hr Leavesey

I'm sorry, but if you think he's useless, you don't understand football.

That settles that, then. No need to discuss it any further.


In fact, there was clearly no need to start this thread at all.

Park's treated unfairly, on here and RI in my opinion.

In fact, I can't remember a player as unfairly vilified as Park for a long while.

I just don't understand ? What are people expecting from him, he's an energetic, honest, seemingly tireless midfielder (Winger my arse Vio - he can play there, but he ain't no winger in the traditional sense) who doesn't hide.

All teams need a Ji Sung Park.

so... if you're looking for dogshit, he'd be useful.

Originally Posted by Tropical

That settles that, then. No need to discuss it any further.


In fact, there was clearly no need to start this thread at all.

And there was certainly no need to be a smart arse Trop.

You did it because you wanted to, and I did the same.

Headless. Chicken.

Your concern for his welfare is sweet but I think most people have seen enough to make their own decision about whether they rate him or not.

Originally Posted by 24hr Leavesey

And there was certainly no need to be a smart arse Trop.

every need.


Why bother starting a discussion on the premise that anyone who differs from you is a £#%&!wit?


Of course, if your intention was simply to announce that anyone who differs from you is a £#%&!wit, fair enough; but then why drag Park into it?

Originally Posted by carlosartorial

I think most people have seen enough to make their own decision about whether they rate him or not.

Of course you're right.

I doubt the majority shares your opinion though.

Having said that, can I retract the statement about not rating park = knowing nothing about football ? Wish I hadn't posted that bit.

who disagrees with me is a £#%&!wit.

there'll be a 101 uses for park thread along any minute now.

Originally Posted by Tropical

every need.


Why bother starting a discussion on the premise that anyone who differs from you is a £#%&!wit?


Of course, if your intention was simply to announce that anyone who differs from you is a £#%&!wit, fair enough; but then why drag Park into it?

Trop, wind your neck in.

It's easy being a smart @#%&! on the internet.

Read my earlier post retracting that comment and kindly £#%&! off.

You posted your retraction *after* I posted the above, to which you're now objecting.


Perhaps coincidentally. But still. You can't blame me for not seeing it, given that, um, it wasn't there.


And I'm not being a smartarse for the sake of it. Not that I'm averse to that either (and I did rather expect jem to post what he just did, too.) I was making a genuine point about the level of discourse we can and should expect on this lovely new-ish forum of ours. Except, of course, from the people who actually *are* £#%&!wits. But you're not one of them, are you? So it's worth picking you up on it.