Callum Paterson

[the other bob wilson]

Patterson was probably our most sellable assets last summer because I) he regularly makes a positive impact in this league for all the reasons said in this thread and ii) he wasn't going to be in our starting XI or likely to play a big role going forward for all the reasons said in this thread.

He's young so time for him to develop and make this appear a bigger mistake, but as far as we know only one team put in a serious bid and their ambitions were to fight off relegation rather than fight for promotion. That bid made and agreed to was for some people shockingly low.

My one remaining question is whether than bust-up with Bacuna on the pitch had any sway in us looking to sell? I guess we'll always have that time he stole a free-kick Fulham away in the play-offs for falling over at the slightest of contacts which, if memory serves, he initiated. That's not to say he wasn't a loveable character, just that I think he'd stopped doing what had made him good and was ready to move on even if we had wanted to keep him.

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion you reach in your last sentence, but I do agree that last season was probably Paterson's least effective for the club and yet he still ended up with seven goals.

Interesting to see that some of those who dismiss Paterson, couldn't be bothered to read the analysis done by Johnny Breadhead which backed up the impression I gained of the player during his time here - Paterson is and was a good finisher (look at his goalscoring record at Hearts where he mostly played as a full back).

Reading the arguments against Paterson, it seems that a lot of them are based on the fact that he wasn't a Tomlin type more traditional number ten and he could only play one way as a striker. It reads sometimes as if the critics think that having a player like Paterson as a number nine or ten dictated that we had to play a certain way, yet it seems to me that is a case of putting the cart before the horse.

We played with a number nine or ten like Paterson, because the players behind him were not capable of giving a more traditional number ten the service they would thrive on - yes, a Tomlin in excellent form was still able to be highly effective last year, but, surely, he would have been even moreso if he had been in that form in a team which passed the ball better? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Tomlin was not much more than a passenger for the first hour or so in many of the games he started, because, with our passing, he received so little ball and it was only as opponents tired that he was able to do his best work.

Paterson was not easy on the eye, but how can anyone argue that he didn't do a good job in the number ten role in our promotion season? Similarly, while he wasn't great playing as a striker in the Premier League, did we have anyone who was more effective than him in the number nine role that season? I don't think so.

[AfricanBluebird]

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion you reach in your last sentence, but I do agree that last season was probably Paterson's least effective for the club and yet he still ended up with seven goals.

Interesting to see that some of those who dismiss Paterson, couldn't be bothered to read the analysis done by Johnny Breadhead which backed up the impression I gained of the player during his time here - Paterson is and was a good finisher (look at his goalscoring record at Hearts where he mostly played as a full back).

Reading the arguments against Paterson, it seems that a lot of them are based on the fact that he wasn't a Tomlin type more traditional number ten and he could only play one way as a striker. It reads sometimes as if the critics think that having a player like Paterson as a number nine or ten dictated that we had to play a certain way, yet it seems to me that is a case of putting the cart before the horse.

We played with a number nine or ten like Paterson, because the players behind him were not capable of giving a more traditional number ten the service they would thrive on - yes, a Tomlin in excellent form was still able to be highly effective last year, but, surely, he would have been even moreso if he had been in that form in a team which passed the ball better? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Tomlin was not much more than a passenger for the first hour or so in many of the games he started, because, with our passing, he received so little ball and it was only as opponents tired that he was able to do his best work.

Paterson was not easy on the eye, but how can anyone argue that he didn't do a good job in the number ten role in our promotion season? Similarly, while he wasn't great playing as a striker in the Premier League, did we have anyone who was more effective than him in the number nine role that season? I don't think so.

Yeah I agree.

I think he's a huge loss to our team.

People who think he was limited forget what was being asked of him here. When he was asked to play a no. 10 role he did so as well as he could with such limited pace and movement around him. Which he needed in that role more than Tomlin, who could create something out of nothing. Same when played up front.

Given that we now only have Moore as a physical No. 9, Paterson would be very useful.

[surge]

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion you reach in your last sentence, but I do agree that last season was probably Paterson's least effective for the club and yet he still ended up with seven goals.

Interesting to see that some of those who dismiss Paterson, couldn't be bothered to read the analysis done by Johnny Breadhead which backed up the impression I gained of the player during his time here - Paterson is and was a good finisher (look at his goalscoring record at Hearts where he mostly played as a full back).

Reading the arguments against Paterson, it seems that a lot of them are based on the fact that he wasn't a Tomlin type more traditional number ten and he could only play one way as a striker. It reads sometimes as if the critics think that having a player like Paterson as a number nine or ten dictated that we had to play a certain way, yet it seems to me that is a case of putting the cart before the horse.

We played with a number nine or ten like Paterson, because the players behind him were not capable of giving a more traditional number ten the service they would thrive on - yes, a Tomlin in excellent form was still able to be highly effective last year, but, surely, he would have been even moreso if he had been in that form in a team which passed the ball better? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Tomlin was not much more than a passenger for the first hour or so in many of the games he started, because, with our passing, he received so little ball and it was only as opponents tired that he was able to do his best work.

Paterson was not easy on the eye, but how can anyone argue that he didn't do a good job in the number ten role in our promotion season? Similarly, while he wasn't great playing as a striker in the Premier League, did we have anyone who was more effective than him in the number nine role that season? I don't think so.

Patterson started as a 10 in premier league and skill set was found wanting. He switched to striker and did well because he's annoying to play against and a good (the more you train the luckier you get) finisher, but didn't his effectiveness dry up in the premier league also? How many times did we see him compete for a ball and go down too easily or give away a free-kick over the last 18 months he was with us? Promotion season is a long time ago now.

For me, just to reiterate the point, if he was so good then why didn't Warnock sign him for just 500k for his promotion competing squad? NML was brought back quickly enough but Patterson wasn't needed.

Why isn't he still here? He was a sellable asset in a season where we needed to cut costs. He raised more interest than most our players but we also felt we could sell.