Callum Paterson

[Eric the Half a Bee]

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.

Thinking about it, he did cut a bit of a frustrated figure in the run in to the playoffs. Whether that was due to a lack of playing time or other things, I dare say we'll never know.

[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.

[FormerlyJohnnyBreadhead]

also the formatting of that post is a right headache, well done to anyone who has managed to read and understand it

I can only apologize for that, there is no option to create a table and even though I spaced everything out when writing it, it automatically turned into that awful jumble when I posted it.

The TLDR is that, since 2017, only Danny Ward, Kieffer Moore and Bobby Reid were more clinical finishers based on their goals to shots ratio while at Cardiff. And that this season, Paterson has a (far) better goals to shots ratio than Moore (not a criticism of Moore who is a far better striker, but we're talking about finishing here).

[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.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I can only apologize for that, there is no option to create a table and even though I spaced everything out when writing it, it automatically turned into that awful jumble when I posted it.

The TLDR is that, since 2017, only Danny Ward, Kieffer Moore and Bobby Reid were more clinical finishers based on their goals to shots ratio while at Cardiff. And that this season, Paterson has a (far) better goals to shots ratio than Moore (not a criticism of Moore who is a far better striker, but we're talking about finishing here).

it was a very good read , thank you

Paterson is exactly the sort of player we need at the moment

Its all about getting points now , not pretty little step overs

Defend well , get stuck in and put the ball in the net

Get the basics right

[LeningradCowboy]

If you directly compare Paterson and Moore this season:

Mins Gls Sh SoT SoT% G/Sh G/SoT
Callum Paterson 1843 7 28 15 0.54 0.25 0.47
Kieffer Moore 1858 11 68 24 0.35 0.16 0.46

While Kieffer has scored more goals, Paterson hits the target a lot more frequently, and is more clinical. In fact he's been more clinical there than he was in his time at City.

Bottom line: Callum Paterson is a very good finisher.

This also shows that Paterson is averaging 1.4 shots (and 0.7 shots on target) per 90 minutes, whereas Moore is averaging 3.3 shots (and 1.2 shots on target) per 90 minutes, so Paterson is an efficient finisher, but he has considerably fewer attempts on goal.

I don't think many people would disagree that Paterson has a useful habit of being in the right place at the right time in and around the six-yard box, but Championship teams need more than that from their strikers if they have play-off aspirations.

[LeningradCowboy]

Thinking about it, he did cut a bit of a frustrated figure in the run in to the playoffs. Whether that was due to a lack of playing time or other things, I dare say we'll never know.

He started 4 of our first 6 matches after lockdown, but he wasn't scoring or contributing anything else, and was deservedly dropped after the 2-0 defeat at Fulham.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

This also shows that Paterson is averaging 1.4 shots (and 0.7 shots on target) per 90 minutes, whereas Moore is averaging 3.3 shots (and 1.2 shots on target) per 90 minutes, so Paterson is an efficient finisher, but he has considerably fewer attempts on goal.

I don't think many people would disagree that Paterson has a useful habit of being in the right place at the right time in and around the six-yard box, but Championship teams need more than that from their strikers if they have play-off aspirations.

At the moment we have staying up aspirations , he's a clumsy fox in the box and was no chopra but he was a menace

[J R Hartley]

At the moment we have staying up aspirations , he's a clumsy fox in the box and was no chopra but he was a menace

Weve got Kiefer up front who is just as physical and a much better player you fool.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Weve got Kiefer up front who is just as physical and a much better player you fool.

you are very abusive today

Go and have a lie down

[The Hooded Claw]

Scored again.

Effective

So’s a condom.

[NYCBlue]

it was a very good read , thank you

Paterson is exactly the sort of player we need at the moment

Its all about getting points now , not pretty little step overs

Defend well , get stuck in and put the ball in the net

Get the basics right

How about passing? Is that basic enough for you?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

How about passing? Is that basic enough for you?

Well it seems that we are doing that

Tick

[surge]

I haven't seen this posted yet:

https://twitter.com/nancyfrostick/st...90682156068865

Yesterday’s game was not a good result for #SWFC but Callum Paterson was on the score sheet again for his 5th in 8 matches. Analysis of his form since Pulis was sacked, which is on par with some of the Championship’s best strikers (https://theathletic.com/2366941/2021...shared_article)

I'm still more in favour of selling him than keeping him mind.

[Cyclops]

Reading that article reminded me of Paul Warhurst of The Owls who was converted from defender to striker in 1995, hit a purple patch and played for England.

Lest we forget: