Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

2023/24 Nathan Patterson

Status
Not open for further replies.
SJB said:
He gets anything from 5-7 out of 10 in the media for last night's showing - maybe rather than "true colours" or "agendas" he's just one of those players that some people rate highly and some don't?
Click to expand...
All I have seen is 7s in media.

BBC had him 2nd best rated behind Harrison.

He was mentioned several times by the match commentators as having a really good game.

The boy could score a winner in the derby and you and a few others would still moan.
 
BurghToffee said:
All I have seen is 7s in media.

BBC had him 2nd best rated behind Harrison.

He was mentioned several times by the match commentators as having a really good game.

The boy could score a winner in the derby and you and a few others would still moan.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the main articles show a mixture of 6s and 7s, but the mean score is around that mark anyway. As you said, the BBC have him as the second highest.

@SJB, you mention those who rate him and those who don't, the point however is yesterday's performance should not be biased by pre-judged opinions.

Last night, he did not have a bad game - the media scores you mention show that. However, there are people on here suggesting he was awful, again.

I don't think he's a particularly amazing player (probably the correct middle ground rather than the polars you mentioned), but right now he's doing okay.

Last night, he did in my personal opinion more than okay: not stellar, but good.
 

PhilM said:
To be fair, the main articles show a mixture of 6s and 7s, but the mean score is around that mark anyway. As you said, the BBC have him as the second highest.

@SJB, you mention those who rate him and those who don't, the point however is yesterday's performance should not be biased by pre-judged opinions.

Last night, he did not have a bad game - the media scores you mention show that. However, there are people on here suggesting he was awful, again.

I don't think he's a particularly amazing player (probably the correct middle ground rather than the polars you mentioned), but right now he's doing okay.

Last night, he did in my personal opinion more than okay: not stellar, but good.
Click to expand...
Playing the World Champions - he was MOTM .....
 
SJB said:
Imagine every time you posted your opinion on him someone accused you of having ulterior motives.
Click to expand...
Well, I presume the person posting it wouldn't like or agree with it, but that's not the point. What we're talking about her is potentially unjustified criticism.

I'll refer back to when you said about him being a player, "...some people rate highly and some don't?", when I talk about Harrison as an analogy.

If you look on here, I've not been sold by him: I thought he'd done some things well, and admittedly he's had Young behind him, but I've questioned his output.

In layman's terms, I haven't really rated him across his time here. However, others may disagree based on their perspective, and that's part of football.

Still, I'm objective (and magnanimous) enough to acknowledge and say he played well yesterday; he's had some other good performances for us too.

My issue is that there are some people who criticise Patterson, and are arguably so subjective that they will not acknowledge when he plays well.

It's preconceived bias. So I'd say there are some people on here who, on the balance of probability, do have ulterior motives, perhaps even nefarious ones.

So let's be clear: everyone has their right to an opinion, however if those opinions appear clearly wayward and in absence of evidence, people will question it.

People who criticise Patterson for yesterday's performance will bring attention to themselves, and as the saying goes... if that hat fits.
 

Marius57 said:
If you watch every corner they had, we would push out to pressure the man with the ball, when they passed it along, our player would get back into position and our next player would push out. Which is exactly what Patto did except when he went back into position to pick up 2 city players, no one else pushed out
Click to expand...
Exactly that. It looked like the game plan was to cut off the passing lanes and force them to shoot from distance. We were unlucky that Foden hit an absolute belter. Other than that a dodgy pen and a mistake. The game plan worked well up until that point, other than the early Pickford double save, but City are always capable of finding a way, and they did
 
Marius57 said:
If you watch every corner they had, we would push out to pressure the man with the ball, when they passed it along, our player would get back into position and our next player would push out. Which is exactly what Patto did except when he went back into position to pick up 2 city players, no one else pushed out
Click to expand...

McNeil went out to double the wide player, which probably wasn't necessary. Instead of Garner helping Patterson, he pointed.

Patterson did the right thing by dropping to the player closest to goal.

I am glad that we finally stopped letting teams have odd man situations on short corners, was a nice change. This one didn't work for us however, someone botched it (either McNeil for doubling or Garner for not helping).
 
pfim said:
McNeil went out to double the wide player, which probably wasn't necessary. Instead of Garner helping Patterson, he pointed.

Patterson did the right thing by dropping to the player closest to goal.

I am glad that we finally stopped letting teams have odd man situations on short corners, was a nice change. This one didn't work for us however, someone botched it (either McNeil for doubling or Garner for not helping).
Click to expand...
Good analysis, spot on.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top