Matty Patison - the next Andy hughes?

[Syteanric 1]

what do u all think? he showed a lot of promise on his loan spell at the club but since signing has run around a lot and showed lots of heart and commitment but, for the most part, hasnt show much ability...

 Is he the next Andy hughes? I hope not.. i think Pattison is a good footballer but perhaps needs a large boot up the backside sometimes.... I dont think he''s "all bubble.. o squeek" like Hughes was though

jas :)

[barclay seats 4849 0]

unfortunate , but I totally agree...................no skill whatsoever, and a damning indictment of roeders choice of player to buy !!

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

what do u all think? he showed a lot of promise on his loan spell at the club but since signing has run around a lot and showed lots of heart and commitment but, for the most part, hasnt show much ability...

 Is he the next Andy hughes? I hope not.. i think Pattison is a good footballer but perhaps needs a large boot up the backside sometimes.... I dont think he''s "all bubble.. o squeek" like Hughes was though

jas :)

[/quote]

How many times have we been here, when we a sign a player who looked good on loan then failed to continue that form. So many have gone that way over the years, thats why i have a problem with loan signings, but there are exceptions and hopefully Matty will be one.

[silver fox 0]

Whatever happens he needs to spend time learning how to shoot.  He has found himself in some good scoring positions recently and wasted all of them.  His passing also leaves a lot to be desired.  This is Roeder''s only signing so I guess he will feature next year.

[DOGGER 0]

Said ages ago he was no good, harsh but true, not top championship material im afraid. We need better quality!

[GJP 79]

I''m still pleased that we''ve signed him. I think we''ll see improvement in his game the more he plays. He''s never really had a good run of games until he came here, he''s still young and learning the ropes.

[King Juan of Spain 0]

This is absolute nonsense. Anyone who''s seen him play more than once will know he''s a good player.

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="King Juan of Spain"]This is absolute nonsense. Anyone who''s seen him play more than once will know he''s a good player.[/quote]If a good player is someone who either passes to the opposition more often than his own or misses the target completely when it''s easier to score then he is a good player.

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

I personally think Patty is a decent player - ok his passes sometimes go astray, but that is the case for all players at this level; on the pitch he gives 100%, adding a huge amount of protection to the back four and I can forgive a few misplaced passes for the number of opposition attacks he breaks down. 

But it is interesting how people don''t continually point out the crappy passes/crosses/shots of say, Huckerby, for example (and I only use him as an example - nothing would please me more than for him to stay for another season).  It does seem that some players we only ever notice the good, and some we only ever seem to notice the bad, but I can remember dozens of shots/crosses of Hucks that have gone nowhere near, yet we seem to let him off....

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]

I personally think Patty is a decent player - ok his passes sometimes go astray, but that is the case for all players at this level; on the pitch he gives 100%, adding a huge amount of protection to the back four and I can forgive a few misplaced passes for the number of opposition attacks he breaks down. 

But it is interesting how people don''t continually point out the crappy passes/crosses/shots of say, Huckerby, for example (and I only use him as an example - nothing would please me more than for him to stay for another season).  It does seem that some players we only ever notice the good, and some we only ever seem to notice the bad, but I can remember dozens of shots/crosses of Hucks that have gone nowhere near, yet we seem to let him off....

[/quote]

Indeed, tis the way of the supporter.

I am happy to keep Patty as a squad player. He aint the sort of player who will get us out of the division, but as a sub or a backup he wouldnt let anyone down.

[viennacanary 0]

for £500k you would hope for more quality.  In Centre Mid, I just can''t see him being effective - he can''t take a touch on the ball, no composure what so ever.  At Left mid he has shown more promise.  Let''s just hope he shows us something more next season.At the end of the day - both Hughes and Pattison cost £500k but Pattison is much better than Hughes at least!

[ca 1]

He was terrible yesterday!

[king canary 7,580]

He gets the Gerrard disorder- the urge to try 50 yard passes rather than play it simple. Think he is great doing the simple things well such as winning the ball adn simple distribution, but he gets over complicated.

[Hardhouse44 261]

Well to the Patterson fans I say it all come down the same thing I''ve said many times before. If everyone is so good why are we so crap. We have to face fact we have lots of poor players.Is Patterson better that Russell or Fotheringham. Answer no is he a winger no are we going to see him in the midfield of a promotion pushing team, no again.The guy isn''t good enough sad thing is neither are Russell and Fotheringham. What we saw this season is what we are.

[Wings 0]

[quote user="viennacanary"]for £500k [/quote]Not sure where you got £500k from. Myfootballwriter suggested £300k at the time of the transfer as he was out of contract this summer.

[viennacanary 0]

FAO Wings - Neil Doncaster confirmed to all in the Gunn Club that we had signed Matty Pattison for £500k.Cheers.

[Peeky-NCFC 0]

he should of scored at least 2 yesterday

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]He was terrible yesterday![/quote]

 

Yep, worst player on the pitch by a mile. Looked like he had another stella hangover, still at least he had his pants on. Get rid in the summer, he is awfal [:D].

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="Trent Canary"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]

I personally think Patty is a decent player - ok his passes sometimes go astray, but that is the case for all players at this level; on the pitch he gives 100%, adding a huge amount of protection to the back four and I can forgive a few misplaced passes for the number of opposition attacks he breaks down. 

But it is interesting how people don''t continually point out the crappy passes/crosses/shots of say, Huckerby, for example (and I only use him as an example - nothing would please me more than for him to stay for another season).  It does seem that some players we only ever notice the good, and some we only ever seem to notice the bad, but I can remember dozens of shots/crosses of Hucks that have gone nowhere near, yet we seem to let him off....

[/quote]

Indeed, tis the way of the supporter.

I am happy to keep Patty as a squad player. He aint the sort of player who will get us out of the division, but as a sub or a backup he wouldnt let anyone down.

[/quote]

Huh? What is the point in keeping him here then Trent? Has it really got that bad that we want to retain crap players? He let everyone down yesterday. He quite simply isnt very good.

[Trent Canary 0]

Because you need backup players and squad players. If you think we can build a whole squad (Ie around 20 players) who are all capable of taking us out of the division then im afraid it wont happen for a variety of reasons (Finance, availability etc) However what we need is a main team of 11 players who are good enough to get us promoted, five bench players who are solid, and then backup players for injury, suspensions etc. I see Patty as a backup player, some may see him as a solid substitute.

Just think back to when we won the league; with the likes of Jim Brennan, Ian Henderson, Mark Rivers and Phil Mulryne getting games.

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="viennacanary"]FAO Wings - Neil Doncaster confirmed to all in the Gunn Club that we had signed Matty Pattison for £500k.Cheers.

[/quote]You trust donkaster. I feel sorry for you...

[viennacanary 0]

Fellas - it is more concrete evidence than anyone else on here would have on his transfer fee.  Why would Doncaster say a different fee to what it actually was?  His only motive for doing so would be to inflate Patterson''s transfer fee so that other clubs, e.g. Birmingham would be given the signal that we did not have much money left with which to pursue other transfer targets, e.g Taylor.  However, if that was his motive, I would suspect he would use a slightly more public forum than the Gunn Club to achieve this.I should very much hope that we did not pay £500k for Pattison, but it looks like we have done that.

[can u sit down please 0]

Nobody has opened there eyes yet and mentioned he played out of position yesterday.

[Hardhouse44 261]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]Nobody has opened there eyes yet and mentioned he played out of position yesterday.[/quote]What is his position exactly. Central, wide?Seen him play both badly.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]Nobody has opened there eyes yet and mentioned he played out of position yesterday.[/quote]Yes, must be difficult when you get used to sitting on the bench.He''s a hard worker, an "honest" footballer, a 100% effort player - and not very good.He would improve his game 50% if he just stopped trying to do the difficult things and concentrated on passes of 10 yards maximum.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="viennacanary"]FAO Wings - Neil Doncaster confirmed to all in the Gunn Club that we had signed Matty Pattison for £500k.

Cheers.




[/quote]

Clearly you are not aware of Neils way of doing things. He once claimed we spent a million on Dave striker when he wanted the board to be seen being ambitious and when everyone realised he was cack and we were getting rid Donkeycaster was delighted in telling us he only actually cost us 100 grand.

[viennacanary 0]

ArthurSimilar to what I said in my reply - if he had wanted to sound ambitious by over-inflating the transfer fee, then he would have done so more publicly than in front of a couple of hundred people in the Gunn Club.I''m fully aware that he wants to make people think the board are ambitious.  We all know they''re not.

[Stavros 0]

he was unlucky not to score yesterday, he forced a terrific save from their keeper. He had another good chance later that he completely wasted though.

 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,778]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

what do u all think? he showed a lot of promise on his loan spell at the club but since signing has run around a lot and showed lots of heart and commitment but, for the most part, hasnt show much ability...

 Is he the next Andy hughes? I hope not.. i think Pattison is a good footballer but perhaps needs a large boot up the backside sometimes.... I dont think he''s "all bubble.. o squeek" like Hughes was though

jas :)

[/quote]I have been thinking the exact same thing lately.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Hardhouse44"]Well to the Patterson fans I say it all come down the same thing I''ve said many times before. If everyone is so good why are we so crap. We have to face fact we have lots of poor players.

Is Patterson better that Russell or Fotheringham. Answer no is he a winger no are we going to see him in the midfield of a promotion pushing team, no again.

The guy isn''t good enough sad thing is neither are Russell and Fotheringham. What we saw this season is what we are.


[/quote]

Maybe everything you say is right HH44 but had they played all season we could well have finished on 70 points.