Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
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.