I
Incredible Schalk
Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
I dont have any "huge inaccuracies" its just your opninion on Parks. Im a Scot and Paterson is second best to Parks at 10. Paterson has played there a couple of time and it was a f***ing disaster, like being taken off after 20 minutes against NZ, his kicking from hand is poor aswell. Parks every time for me.
[/b]
No, it is a huge inaccuracy. And it isn't my opinion on Parks, its the opinion of most Scots. Paterson has only been given a couple of chances at number ten, they wern't all were a "f***ing disaster". Matt Williams simply wanted as negative game plan as possible and thus, Dan Parks fitted that plan perfectly and thus Paterson never got a proper chance at fly-half that he should of. This was a coach by the way who loved to tell the Scottish team how crap they were and how they all had to play within their limits. Quite possibly the worst era for Scotland in the last 20 years and Parks is a relic of that.
Paterson is a very versatile player and superior to Parks in every department (not that it would take much to be better than Parks in every department mind you).
[/b][/quote]
:lol: I was one of the daft Scots who thought Williams was starting to do a good job before he was sacked. Parks didnt play at 10 in 04, which was Scotlands worst year. It was Laney,Paterson and Ross. When he played in 2005 Scotland improved considerably.
Anyway by no means am i saying that Parks is a great player, i just think he is more dependable than Patersn in that position. Paterson is a better runner and goal kicker but neither are particularily physical.