Dan Parks; a flawed general or a fallen king?

As we all know, Dan Parks’ international retirement has hit the fan, not that I’m likening him to another substance which usually does the fan-hitting. However, now that the dust has somewhat settled and hopefully certain fans have allowed themselves to calm following the Scotland vs England match last Saturday, I think it’s time to have a good look at not just his recent games, but what he has offered in the past, what he has delivered, and whether or not he is the real reasoning behind Scotland’s poor performances.

So in at the deep end, let’s look at his last international match, the 13-6 defeat they faced at the hands of the auld enemy. Since the final whistle blew the media, the fans, almost the entire rugby community, has laid the blame squarely at the door of a certain Mr Parks. Ignoring the obvious mistake of a charged down kick, as that’s something which to me is a freak occurrence and not a fair representation of his entire game, I’d like to look at how he helped and hindered the rest of his team. Is his blame deserved? Or should Andy Robinson or Parks’ teammates take the flack for a poor loss. Looking at the statistics from the game, Parks kicked nine times, made 36 passes and ran with the ball three times. This doesn’t seem particularly relevant when taken alone, but let’s look at the facts surrounding his inside centre, Sean Lamont, who passed the ball just once. One pass from your inside centre in an entire 80 minutes of international rugby, alongside 14 carries, with only 19 metres gained. Surely this is causing a massive problem for the outside backs, who on a cold Scottish afternoon must’ve been frozen on near the touchline, to have a centre who doesn’t pass the ball, and as such fails to unleash his outside men.

If we look at the entire team stats between the two sides, Scotland completed 24 kicks from hand compared to the English 28, 219 passes to 58, 153 runs to 64 and 483 metres gained against just 223. Now, this clearly shows that Scotland have the intent, the spirit and the attacking ability to dominate a game, the possession and territory stats show this, and yet they seem incapable of scoring a try. Obviously a fly half must take responsibility for his teams inability to flow and score, but how much responsibility is fair? The backs outside him lacked the ability to score tries, as individuals they can but as a team they are failing. Scotland lacked composure and intelligence when presented with a scoring chance. A Rennie break led to a delayed pass and an English knock on, a Richie Gray run led to an over eager offload and subsequent drop by the supporting player, and a huge overlap in their own half which could’ve made some great ground was squandered by Max Evans carrying into contact. None of these things are the fault of the fly half, but of the players involved. A fly half is a conductor, but if you’re orchestra is made of out of tune instruments, it’s never going to sound great. However, we all know Dan Parks has limitations, he is not an attacking player, he is employed for tactical kicking and game control, and on Saturday he seemed to lack that, he was far from abysmal, but he was not up to par with his usual kicking self. A few aimless kicks killed momentum and his positioning in some attacks led to them being more than a bit flaccid, so he in no way played an outstanding game. However, the result of this game can not be entirely the fault of Parks’ playing style and ability. Though his flaws and limitations are rather unhelpful when you need to score tries, you can’t expect an experienced international fly half to change, Robinson should have made the bold decision to play somebody else. If you had been offered an international game would you ever turn it down? Probably not, and as we know, Dan Parks can be a very effective fly half at times. His three 2010 Man of the Match performances are testament to that.

And now we’re there, his golden season, his golden tournament, the 2010 Six Nations. Three man of the match awards out of four is very impressive, but what did he do in those games so well? His drop goals were as common as ever, with him kicking five in four games, and Scotland did fall back on penalties frequently, with him kicking 14 in the tournament. Their try scoring was poor then as well, with only three tries in the entire tournament, whereas they scored twice as many in the 2011 championship. So it appears that the reason Dan Parks has fallen out of favour with Scotland’s passionate rugby fans is not because his performances have changed dramatically, but that the supporters now realise that they do have quality backs who just need refining and to get into a habit of scoring five pointers, and they don’t believe Parks is the man to orchestrate that. So looking at his retirement from that angle, it becomes a sadder tale of him being cast aside due to changes in others than changes within himself. We can't forget that his game style can be effective, just ask South Africa.

It’s never a good thing to find joy in a player’s retirement, and whilst his rugby may not have been exciting or one which ignited backlines, he would do what he said on the tin and what was asked of him, and for that, I feel he deserves respect from those who he played for week after week, season after season. If anyone’s to blamed it’s the management for selecting him. And all this is coming from a Blues fan, so you can guess how I personally feel about him. But we should remember he is not the first nor the last to fall on his sword in a Calcutta battle.

(All statistics from ESPN and the Official Six Nations Championship website)

Because of his predictability and slowness in attack it means he is easy to defend against and thus the backs outside him end up with no time or space with the ball.

Its not his fault he was the best we had for years - but now we have better players an they should have been playing

I thought Scotland as a whole were poor. They didn't attack and exploit our deficiencies ruthlessly. They failed to build pressure through poor decision making and weak execution skills.

To single out Dan Parks as solely responsible is wrong, but then he must have known that retiring straight after the loss would do nothing to dispel the impression that he was accepting responsibility. Secondly, playing that position you tend to be unfairly vilified for losses and unfairly aggrandised after victories. Look no further than Stephen Donald for proof of that.

Ironpaw- That's my general view as well. Whilst a ten is a crucial position it shouldn't be a case of a weak attack being their entire fault when in most sides there are star players who ignite attacks at precise times or can capitalize on opposition mistakes. And I agree that Scotland should have exploited England's flaws more effectively, as looking back at the statistics it's almost embarrassing that they failed to do so.

great article - so good it was published!

http://v2journal.com/dan-parks-career.html

The one big error Parks made in the game was the charge down - he took too long and kicked too low (as he often does). However, the failings in Scotland's attack were not primarily his - OK, he isn't exactly Stephen Larkham or Dan Carter when it comes to getting an attack moving, but Scotland did cut through our defence on a few occasions and then failed to take advantage of the opportunity they created:
1 - Rennie carrying the ball at least two steps too far and letting Foden make the 'man and ball' tackle when a simple pass to Blair(?) on his left could have led to a walk in try.
2 - Rennie again (iirc) failing to pick up the off-load from Gray; I thought the pass was OK considering it was out of contact and should have been within the skillset of an international back row to collect at pace.
3 - Failing to get a support runner in the right place a couple of times when Denton made breaks.

None of these were Parks's fault, but were simply a lack of executing the skills that top players should have. The interesting thing is that the players involved show the ability to do these things at club level, so why do they fail so often when representing Scotland? I think it's almost become a case that they've had so many occasions over the last 3 or 4 years where half chances or better have gone begging that the players all get a bit tight and try to force things rather than just doing the basic things well.

I've had the feeling with Scotland for a while that one or two good performances could really see a resurgence in confidence and them starting to take their chances so much better.

I always thought of Parks as being the poor mans ROG.

Both had same strenghts and weaknesses, just ROG is better at both there strengths and weaknesses.

Rem he got those 3 MoTM awards in 2010, I always thought he was/is made a bit of a scapegoat by Scotish and Blues fans.

I still think that he fairly decent, I mean you want two different styles of out half in a team, on that can run and attack, the other who can ping the ball into the connor and keep the score board ticking over, that way you can change your teams style as suits. Parks was/is a score board ticking over outhalf.

In relation to the England game Scotland problem wasn't the outhalf, it was everytime they got in Englands 22 they knocked it on. Thats a team problem not an outhalf problem. If Scotland had got 2 tries from those Parks wouldn't be praised, but when Scotland lose Parks is blamed.

But to sum up, as a poor mans RoG he does well enough at what he does.

Kingshu
The ROG comparison is reasonable - ROG is a bit better (particularly as a distributor), but has had a far better career because he has the good fortune to have played with a good 12 and great 13 for most of his caps, so the limitations in his game are less exposed. By comparison, Parks has had the likes of Morrison or Laney outside him...

Neither of them could tackle worth a damn, although again O'Gara did a better job of being a speed bump rather than just a revolving door, so making it easier for his back row colleagues to complete the defensive duties.

TJ wrote:Because of his predictability and slowness in attack it means he is easy to defend against and thus the backs outside him end up with no time or space with the ball.

Its not his fault he was the best we had for years - but now we have better players an they should have been playing

Did you actually watch the match TJ?................. as all the others have said on here HE SINGLE HANDEDLY WASNT TO BLAME

Yes I did watch teh match. there was other fault as well for sure but that was my answer to this

Parks kicked nine times, made 36 passes and ran with the ball three times. This doesn’t seem particularly relevant when taken alone, but let’s look at the facts surrounding his inside centre, Sean Lamont, who passed the ball just once. One pass from your inside centre in an entire 80 minutes of international rugby, alongside 14 carries, with only 19 metres gained. Surely this is causing a massive problem for the outside backs, who on a cold Scottish afternoon must’ve been frozen on near the touchline, to have a centre who doesn’t pass the ball, and as such fails to unleash his outside men.

Everytime he got the ball he got a defender as well - thats why he could do damn all with the ball apart from his own limitations. the ruck before the chargedown Parks shovelled rubbish on and left the man outside him with nothing to do but to catch the ball and take a tackle setting up a ruck 20 yards back fromteh original one.

Parks is so slow and predictable he makes the entire back division easy to defend against

Parks distributed enough ball in open space for both centres to have made opportunities............ mixing it up from the two centres time and time again

Ryan Jones with Spikey Phillips had immense games to close off the options to run from the 10 channel (not that Desperate would have run mind but that isnt the point) ............ obviously with your tunnel vision you couldnt see that if it was replayed time and time again

He didnt have a good game, but then again, he didnt drop the ball time and time again in the contact area or muck up 3 on 1 opportunities.... he was 1 of 22 players who had a bad day at the office

Parks (MOM 3 out of 5 2010 6Ns games) is "slow and predictable"............. say it with passion a 100 times and it must be true

I have been thinking about Parks since he decided to end his retirement,
it was not "ALL HIS FAULT" That Scotland lost to England on saturday. There was 14 other players on that pitch at any onen time.

Scotland had most of the possesion on saturday but got no where near to score a try at all.

After all rugby is suppose to be a team, team, game and not a one man game.

I just want now to wish him luck for the future.

I think there have been OTT comments on both sides of the divide regarding Parks post his retirement, but I find those that mention 'respect' of particular interest - we need to differentiate between DP the man, and DP the player. Critics of his abilities are comments on DP the player, and I am perfectly sure that he is a very nice bloke. It is interesting that his team-mates have come out and said how well-liked he was in the dressing-room and how much he will be missed - but after his man sausage-up on Saturday afternoon, DP was left to stand in isolation and contemplate the disaster that had befallen his team. In contrast, DP was always one of the first to gee his team-mates up, with his trademark tap on the erse, and one imagines he would never have left a player in the same situation in which he found himself. That is the man.

But what of DP the player? Well, I'm not about to rewrite history and tell you what a great player he was. Sure he may not have deserved all the criticism he got, but he was a limited player - is it his fault that coaches selected him in this knowledge, no, of course not? Was he the best available for much of that time? Quite possibly, particularly after we'd ballsed up any hope of Mossy becoming our established 10. I don't agree that he gets more criticism cos he's Australian - Scots have traditionally welcomes with open arms numerous overseas expat/loosely qualified players, Hines in the era, the Leslie brother in days gone past, Lineen etc., but where we felt they weren't up to standard, ie DP or Chainsaw, then they take stick, but their nationality is simply not relevant. It is disingenuous of Telfer to bring up treatment dished out to Gav Hastings after his miskick meant that we didn't progress to a RWC final - at the time, I can remember cursing Hastings to the moon and back again.

DP was a limited player, one that you could choose to execute a particular gameplan, that involved territorial kicking, but he couldn't do much else to international standard. Great kicker from hand (most of the time), pretty good from the tee (altho with Mossy on board he was never truly tested), but game-manager (to any gameplan other than tactical kicking), no he was not. Nor was his defence up to much, there's a reason that successive club and national coaches tucked him away on the wing - you could see a mile off that he didn't like contact (btw, this is no comment on DP the man, simply DP the player). His distribution wasn't great either - his preference for lying deep had become less and less effective as the game has evolved over the last half dozen years, and he had a tendency to run across the pitch before realeasing. Did he rescue Scotland from time2time? Yes, he did, and was toasted for it - the kick at Croke park to ruin Ireland's last game is a favourite that sticks in mind, but be honest, he had more shockers than good games. He simply wasn't an attacking threat in his own right, 4 tries in 67 tests in testament to that, a particularly poor return for a modern day pivot, nor was he particularly swift. His 2010 season should have been his swansong - recalled for the Wales match, he played a stormer, winning 3 MOTM awards (perhaps somewhat generously). Just because he's retired tho, I'm not about to brainwash myself into forgetting those other games where his performance didn't meet the mark.

What about Saturday in particular, was it all his fault? By no means, and I've seen very few that have actually said that it was all DP's fault. However, once again, as the pivot, he must take a chunk of the responsibility. OK, the coach will determine the tactics, but if you can't execute them from 10, then that is simply not good enough. Firstly you should look to change them, but he couldn't, he had no other weapon than territorial kicking in his armoury. Secondly, he was naive to imagine that his form for the Blues, woeful at best, entitled him to postpone retirement and have one more crack at the auld enemy when he must have not that Weir and Laidlaw were pushing for a place mighty hard (again he can't be blamed for Robinson turning his head or selecting him, but it was DP's decision not to go after our inglorious RWC). His tactical kicking game abandoned him at the weekend, in anaysing just the first half and frst couple of minutes of the second, he turned the ball over far too many times, passed to space, ran sideways with ball in hand before passing giving less room for players outside him, etc. He wasn't the only man at fault tho, by any stretch, S Lamont had a poor game at 12, and there were individual mistakes elsewhere too.

He has my respect as a man - he never appeared to give anything less than 100% for his country (tackling aside); but he doesn't as a player - he simply wasn't one of the greats, and to his misfortune, he played in an era of weak Scottish teams. Neither a flawed general, nor a fallen king. He's retired now, time to move on. Enjoy it, Dan.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:I think there have been OTT comments on both sides of the divide regarding Parks post his retirement, but I find those that mention 'respect' of particular interest - we need to differentiate between DP the man, and DP the player. Critics of his abilities are comments on DP the player, and I am perfectly sure that he is a very nice bloke. It is interesting that his team-mates have come out and said how well-liked he was in the dressing-room and how much he will be missed - but after his man sausage-up on Saturday afternoon, DP was left to stand in isolation and contemplate the disaster that had befallen his team. In contrast, DP was always one of the first to gee his team-mates up, with his trademark tap on the erse, and one imagines he would never have left a player in the same situation in which he found himself. That is the man.

But what of DP the player? Well, I'm not about to rewrite history and tell you what a great player he was. Sure he may not have deserved all the criticism he got, but he was a limited player - is it his fault that coaches selected him in this knowledge, no, of course not? Was he the best available for much of that time? Quite possibly, particularly after we'd ballsed up any hope of Mossy becoming our established 10. I don't agree that he gets more criticism cos he's Australian - Scots have traditionally welcomes with open arms numerous overseas expat/loosely qualified players, Hines in the era, the Leslie brother in days gone past, Lineen etc., but where we felt they weren't up to standard, ie DP or Chainsaw, then they take stick, but their nationality is simply not relevant. It is disingenuous of Telfer to bring up treatment dished out to Gav Hastings after his miskick meant that we didn't progress to a RWC final - at the time, I can remember cursing Hastings to the moon and back again.

DP was a limited player, one that you could choose to execute a particular gameplan, that involved territorial kicking, but he couldn't do much else to international standard. Great kicker from hand (most of the time), pretty good from the tee (altho with Mossy on board he was never truly tested), but game-manager (to any gameplan other than tactical kicking), no he was not. Nor was his defence up to much, there's a reason that successive club and national coaches tucked him away on the wing - you could see a mile off that he didn't like contact (btw, this is no comment on DP the man, simply DP the player). His distribution wasn't great either - his preference for lying deep had become less and less effective as the game has evolved over the last half dozen years, and he had a tendency to run across the pitch before realeasing. Did he rescue Scotland from time2time? Yes, he did, and was toasted for it - the kick at Croke park to ruin Ireland's last game is a favourite that sticks in mind, but be honest, he had more shockers than good games. He simply wasn't an attacking threat in his own right, 4 tries in 67 tests in testament to that, a particularly poor return for a modern day pivot, nor was he particularly swift. His 2010 season should have been his swansong - recalled for the Wales match, he played a stormer, winning 3 MOTM awards (perhaps somewhat generously). Just because he's retired tho, I'm not about to brainwash myself into forgetting those other games where his performance didn't meet the mark.

What about Saturday in particular, was it all his fault? By no means, and I've seen very few that have actually said that it was all DP's fault. However, once again, as the pivot, he must take a chunk of the responsibility. OK, the coach will determine the tactics, but if you can't execute them from 10, then that is simply not good enough. Firstly you should look to change them, but he couldn't, he had no other weapon than territorial kicking in his armoury. Secondly, he was naive to imagine that his form for the Blues, woeful at best, entitled him to postpone retirement and have one more crack at the auld enemy when he must have not that Weir and Laidlaw were pushing for a place mighty hard (again he can't be blamed for Robinson turning his head or selecting him, but it was DP's decision not to go after our inglorious RWC). His tactical kicking game abandoned him at the weekend, in anaysing just the first half and frst couple of minutes of the second, he turned the ball over far too many times, passed to space, ran sideways with ball in hand before passing giving less room for players outside him, etc. He wasn't the only man at fault tho, by any stretch, S Lamont had a poor game at 12, and there were individual mistakes elsewhere too.

He has my respect as a man - he never appeared to give anything less than 100% for his country (tackling aside); but he doesn't as a player - he simply wasn't one of the greats, and to his misfortune, he played in an era of weal Scottish teams. Neither a flawed general, nor a fallen king. He's retired now, time to move on. Enjoy it, Dan.

This. You saw my post on the other thread, which was a shorter version of the above. The last paragraph sums it up quite well.

I feel some people have suddenly had a massive guilt trip and are now having a knee jerk change of heart. Especially journos.

I feel the most upsetting thing here is not that people are saying he had a bad game or that he was a limited player (both are true) but that he has been made a scapegoat by many, Robinson seemingly included, for Saturday. He is right to retire and nobody should big up his skills but being booed by your own fans for anything other than acts that display poor character, gamesmanship or foul play is utterly unacceptable. Especially as if he's play poorly and clearly low on confidence then lowering his confidence by making it clear that he doesn't have any support is only going to make him play worse anyway. Then Robinson's actions in this seem a little suspect; at best he is being very fickle in his support of a player even if he had nothing else to do with it. It's just impossible not to be upset by a situation where a man becomes a laughing stock and clearly can't handle it any more

And thus, although they were only in jest, I feel bad about the couple of Dan Parks jokes I made because this kind of mockery as well as vitriol has clearly caused another person deep upset and that's never something to be proud of

I agree with chequered, its not because we thought he was a bad player, he was, but when a man has to put up with that much and then a horrible resignation, especially one who was considered such a nice person, people get upset. Robinson was terrible in how he dealt with it, and should be held at least in part accountable.

Nice piece about Dan, but just one small correction, Dan only played 4 games in the 2010 6 Nations (he was left out of the opening game against France). Which makes for an even more impressive 3 MOM awards out of 4 games played

GLove39 wrote:Nice piece about Dan, but just one small correction, Dan only played 4 games in the 2010 6 Nations (he was left out of the opening game against France). Which makes for an even more impressive 3 MOM awards out of 4 games played

Yeah mate I'm surprised I wrote 5. I initially wrote the higher number, then went to the stats and whilst looking failed to acknowledge the fact that he only played four games, and I only realised my mistake after it was published and wasn't near a computer so couldn't make the edit. I was hoping nobody would notice.

dummy_half wrote:The one big error Parks made in the game was the charge down - he took too long and kicked too low (as he often does). However, the failings in Scotland's attack were not primarily his - OK, he isn't exactly Stephen Larkham or Dan Carter when it comes to getting an attack moving, but Scotland did cut through our defence on a few occasions and then failed to take advantage of the opportunity they created:
1 - Rennie carrying the ball at least two steps too far and letting Foden make the 'man and ball' tackle when a simple pass to Blair(?) on his left could have led to a walk in try.
2 - Rennie again (iirc) failing to pick up the off-load from Gray; I thought the pass was OK considering it was out of contact and should have been within the skillset of an international back row to collect at pace.
3 - Failing to get a support runner in the right place a couple of times when Denton made breaks.

None of these were Parks's fault, but were simply a lack of executing the skills that top players should have. The interesting thing is that the players involved show the ability to do these things at club level, so why do they fail so often when representing Scotland? I think it's almost become a case that they've had so many occasions over the last 3 or 4 years where half chances or better have gone begging that the players all get a bit tight and try to force things rather than just doing the basic things well.

I've had the feeling with Scotland for a while that one or two good performances could really see a resurgence in confidence and them starting to take their chances so much better.

On the charge down, I am not so sure Parks took too long to kick, his Scrumhalf took a step before he passed and that gave England time to start the charge. If anything he should have lloked around to see where the chargers are coming from, but then again his tactic of kicking a ball is to keep your head down and he did that. So in my view perhaps he stood a little too flat and the Scrumhalf took too long to clear the ball from the ruck.

As far as the rest of what you said I agree.

Biltong, very true, the pass wasn't the best, but we should never have been in that position. Immediately after the restart, the ball came back to DP and it should have been hoofed into touch. Instead he tried to run it, offloading to Ross Rennie, presumably in the hope of gaining a few yards, perhaps leading a breakout, or maybe just getting a better angle. Whatever the motive, Rennie was scythed down for a loss behind the gain line, and the pressure mounted - next phase, charge down

dummy_half wrote:The one big error Parks made in the game was the charge down - he took too long and kicked too low (as he often does). However, the failings in Scotland's attack were not primarily his - OK, he isn't exactly Stephen Larkham or Dan Carter when it comes to getting an attack moving, but Scotland did cut through our defence on a few occasions and then failed to take advantage of the opportunity they created:
1 - Rennie carrying the ball at least two steps too far and letting Foden make the 'man and ball' tackle when a simple pass to Blair(?) on his left could have led to a walk in try.
2 - Rennie again (iirc) failing to pick up the off-load from Gray; I thought the pass was OK considering it was out of contact and should have been within the skillset of an international back row to collect at pace.
3 - Failing to get a support runner in the right place a couple of times when Denton made breaks.

None of these were Parks's fault, but were simply a lack of executing the skills that top players should have. The interesting thing is that the players involved show the ability to do these things at club level, so why do they fail so often when representing Scotland? I think it's almost become a case that they've had so many occasions over the last 3 or 4 years where half chances or better have gone begging that the players all get a bit tight and try to force things rather than just doing the basic things well.

I've had the feeling with Scotland for a while that one or two good performances could really see a resurgence in confidence and them starting to take their chances so much better.

dh, pretty sure that it was Stroks on your point 2, not Rennie