Paterson.
Looks like we might have found a new McNaughton
Printable View
Paterson.
Looks like we might have found a new McNaughton
I think I know what you mean, but McNaughton was crap in the opposing half, which is supposed to be Paterson's forte.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Gillis
You don't half talk some crap. Did you ever watch him play?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
For many seasons. A great tackling fullback with pace (until he was injured) that was also a more than decent centre back was McNaughton.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandy
As an attacking wingback he was shite. He said so himself. Defence was his game, not attack. You can count his assists on one hand.
Patterson looked excellent. One poor pass aside he was faultless. Strong, aggressive, physical, but comfortable on the ball , quick and good in the air.
Has to start on Tuesday.
Any news on Bennett- as the left is the big worry.
Peltier never lets us down, but we are very limited with him as left back and I believe Richards is still injured
I take the point that his attacking game was definitely his weaker area but it was probably still good enough to get into the majority of league one and league two sides as an attacking full-back. Not sure I'd call it crap therefore.
If Patterson can make it into the majority of championship sides for his attacking game and defensive game then he'll be a better player and certainly worth the wait.
That first cross to set up David J was top draw, think our Kev would have found rowZ if he had attempted it. If Paterson can stay fit we have a premier league player on the books.
2 nd bright spot was Etheridge was excellent again today.
Making up for the mistakes of those in front of him.
Made the jersey his own now
7 home games unbeaten?
Another bright spot, we’re 2 points off the top. 👍
Load of bollocks as usual Eric. One of the ccmb perpetuated myths, he was decent going forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
posted in error.
Average. Tried though to be fair but end product was poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
I can see Patterson as an excellent wing back and Peltier as a full back but not vice versa.
If we play Patterson as a fullback in a flat back 4 he will have to learn to curtail his forward runs.
If we play three centrebacks with Peltier as one of the wing backs, we are, effectively playing four at the back and, for someone who is decent going forward, Bennett is disappointingly defensive in the role as well, so it could be argued that we started with five at the back on Saturday in a home game against opponents who have only scored twice in seven away matches now.
I believe that playing with wing backs and wingers is not compatible and, given that we still seem to have just the one specialist striker when we play with three centre backs, I'd like to see Mendez-Lange used on the left if Peltier is playing on that side of the pitch and Hoilett used in the more central role he filled very effectively at times last season.
In the warm up yesterday Blackwell was working with Peltier, Morrison, Manga and Bamba as if they were a back four - with Bennett not involved at all. I have seen that at least once before this season where we appear to be playing with a back three/five but prepare as if it is a four. I doubt that is down to mind games to confuse the opposition, but what it does say to me is that if Peltier is playing in that system he is expected to perform as a full back not a wing back.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Interesting and, I suspect, correct on your part. What we need now is for Paterson and Bennett to be available to play as wing backs in the same team. Apparently, Bennett was withdrawn as a precaution on Saturday, so he may be fit for tomorrow, but I suspect a place would still be found for Peltier (I suppose the possibility that he could be part of a back three tomorrow cannot be ruled out in view of Manga's display on Saturday).Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959