Nathan Paterson

[G51]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Playing, not playing well.

Nah, I’d stick with playing well. He did really well against Jordan Lukaku in the Antwerp game (as well as scoring of course). Also did fine against Sima in the Slavia game, and that’s a guy that’s going to the EPL this summer. We talked about it before, he needs games to improve his decision making, but the talent is clearly flashing at this level.

Just now, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

I'm no even sure if he is.  We've got Cammy Logan at Hearts who's been outstanding at youth level and for Scotland u17/18 and is a wee bit younger.  And I have little idea what other 18-19 year olds are out there at other clubs.

He might be great, he might no be - surely at this stage it's too early to tell.

Is this the same Cammy Logan that’s also 19 and is now on loan at Cove Rangers?

come on man

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

1 minute ago, G51 said:

Nah, I’d stick with playing well. He did really well against Jordan Lukaku in the Antwerp game (as well as scoring of course). Also did fine against Sima in the Slavia game, and that’s a guy that’s going to the EPL this summer. We talked about it before, he needs games to improve his decision making, but the talent is clearly flashing at this level.

Is this the same Cammy Logan that’s also 19 and is now on loan at Cove Rangers?

come on man

He's on loan at Cove to get games.  Well that was the plan anyway - he's behind Smith atm and we only have 27 games.  It's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that Patterson could have spent the whole season on loan at somewhere like Ayr, is it?

[G51]

1 minute ago, Insert Amusing Pseudonym said:

He's on loan at Cove to get games.  Well that was the plan anyway - he's behind Smith atm and we only have 27 games.  It's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that Patterson could have spent the whole season on loan at somewhere like Ayr, is it?

Yes it is, because the players at Rangers who are considered worse prospects than him (Maxwell, Kelly, Dapo etc) are already playing at the same or a better level.

No prospect is a sure thing, much like in the NFL Draft, they’re betting slips. But Patterson is clearly a better bet to come good than some lad playing in the third tier.

[DukDukGoose]

Paterson shouldn't be near the Scotland team. Hopefully his time comes.

If we weren't living in the world of Covid then I'd like to have seen guys like Gilmour, Paterson, Hornby etc taken along like we used to do under Craig Brown. They're not quite there yet but this is what will be expected of you if you do make it.

[G51]

11 minutes ago, Baptiste Bourgeois said:

"Patterson is playing well in the knockout stages of European football aged 19" is very, very debatable. 

 

I don't think he played well at all last week. 

 

And BTW, at the same age Tony Ralston had started games in thr Champions League groupstage. So what's your point exactly? 

Already discussed the performance last week in a post above.

Tony Ralston has only ever started 1 game in the CL group stage, an embarrassing 5-0 drubbing in which he was terrible.

The point is that everyone knew Tony Ralston wasn’t good, he was never thought of as an elite prospect. Patterson is already much better than Ralston has ever been, and has a much greater chance of making it than Ralston did. It doesn’t mean he will, but his chances are much better. The comparison is really lazy because it isn’t based on the skill sets of the two players. It’s based on some of their circumstances.

[HalfCutNinja]

59 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Playing, not playing well.

He was excellent against Slavia in the first leg. Couple of mistakes early but got better and better as the game went on.

That's why Steven Gerrard said after the game he 'became a man tonight'.  He was quality.

Not ready for Scotland yet though after ten games.

[G51]

4 minutes ago, Baptiste Bourgeois said:

He still played in the Champions League twice, and had more career appearances than Patterson all at a younger age before he joined United. 

So its a incredibly misleading and dishonest argument you were making. 

“Tony Ralston isn’t good” is misleading and dishonest now

[G51]

8 minutes ago, Baptiste Bourgeois said:

Trying to misrepresent my point. More dishonesty. 

Arguing Tony Ralston isn't good is fine. Arguing that Patterson is better is fine. I don't disagree with either point. 

Arguing that Patterson is better because he's playing Europa League at the age Ralston was at United is dishonest nonsense, because you're wilfully and deliberately ignoring the fact that Ralston had played at a higher level, and played more career games overall, all at a younger age. 

Simple. That's all I have to say about it really. 

So your argument is "You're right, Patterson is a better prospect than Ralston, but you can't say that because Tony Ralston started one CL group game which coincidentally was one of the biggest drubbings in Celtic's history"

Thank you for your contribution.

[velo army]

Good to see you again Pep.

 

[RandomGuy.]

2 hours ago, G51 said:

But Patterson is clearly a better bet to come good than some lad playing in the third tier.

In 2012/13 Andy Robertson was playing in the 4th tier, after Celtic dumped him for Joe Chalmers. The same season Joe Chalmers played for Celtic in the top flight, was handed a bumper new deal, and was "highly rated" by both their coaching staff and all levels of Scotlands youth set up.

Should Scotland have chucked Chalmers into the senior set up at that stage since he was so clearly destined for the top? 

Looking back on Chalmers will make it easy for you to claim its somehow different, but Pattersons potential is entirely unknown until he actually plays senior games regularly, his arse could completely collapse and see him end up at Falkirk or something in 5 years.

[G51]

14 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

In 2012/13 Andy Robertson was playing in the 4th tier, after Celtic dumped him for Joe Chalmers. The same season Joe Chalmers played for Celtic in the top flight, was handed a bumper new deal, and was "highly rated" by both their coaching staff and all levels of Scotlands youth set up.

Should Scotland have chucked Chalmers into the senior set up at that stage since he was so clearly destined for the top? 

Looking back on Chalmers will make it easy for you to claim its somehow different, but Pattersons potential is entirely unknown until he actually plays senior games regularly, his arse could completely collapse and see him end up at Falkirk or something in 5 years.

To be clear, at no point have I said "Clarke should have called up Patterson to this squad/the Euros". And Andy Robertson's career is clearly the exception rather than the rule. Long shots make it sometimes.

Chalmers is another daft comparison. Chalmers played 59 minutes in the Premiership for Celtic against Inverness, and another 54 minutes in a Scottish Cup game against Arbroath. There was absolutely nothing about Chalmers skillset that indicated he was going to be anything other than a jobber, which is what he turned out to be. And I don't remember anyone thinking that he was going to be any good at any point.

A young players potential is set by their technical abilities and physical qualities. Whether Patterson fulfills that or not will come down to whether he avoids injuries and builds on the mental side of the game. But a players potential is very clearly possible to deduce before they play first team games, otherwise why would clubs compete to try and sign the same young players?

 

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

5 hours ago, G51 said:

Don’t really get the Tony Ralston comparisons tbh, other than the usual lazy stuff about them both being right backs at Old Firm clubs. 

Patterson is playing well in the knockout stages of European football aged 19. At the same age, Tony Ralston was playing in a struggling Dundee Utd side that couldn’t get out of the Championship.

I think it’s an extremely lazy comparison.

The last few decades are littered full of Pattersons and similar players who were hyped by fans of the OF and then failed to last in Glasgow, or at any decent level elsewhere.

The nature of comparison and metaphors is that they are imperfect.  A player does not need to be identical in age or position to highlight consistent, and indeed - persistent - "lazy" claims that they are the second coming of [insert Messi/Cafu/Beckenbauer as needed]

Yes.  I'm being deliberately flippant.

Even taking Rangers alone, how many established internationals have they created for the Scotland squad in the last decade?

I *want* Patterson to be the next Tierney/Robertson.  The reality is that he's played well in a couple of games, and is such, still utterly unproven.  I've seen this film before.  Repeatedly.

Edited March 18, 2021 by HuttonDressedAsLahm

[G51]

6 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

Yes.  I'm being deliberately flippant.

 

6 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

Even taking Rangers alone, how many established internationals have they created for the Scotland squad in the last decade?

i dunno, i think there may have been some mitigating circumstances there, idk idk

 

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

24 minutes ago, G51 said:

 

i dunno, i think there may have been some mitigating circumstances there, idk idk

 

And extending it to 2000 includes who exactly?  Alan Hutton and McGregor? Maybe Charlie Adam?

The prospects in that period?  Wylde, Ross, Fleck, Bates, Wilson, Ness, McLeod, McKay?

The reality is Rangers don't create young Scottish talent and haven't for a while.  Being in the Championship for a couple of years didn't eradicate the academy did it?  The visible abject failure to bring on youth was amplified by their time in the lower leagues, not depressed by it. 

I'd love the reality to be different...

Edited March 18, 2021 by HuttonDressedAsLahm

[G51]

19 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

Being in the Championship for a couple of years didn't eradicate the academy did it? 

i dunno, i think there may have been bigger issues than just what league the club was playing in, maybe something to do with the overall dysfunction rampant throughout the club, idk idk

[Bing.McCrosby]

4 hours ago, G51 said:

Already discussed the performance last week in a post above.

Tony Ralston has only ever started 1 game in the CL group stage, an embarrassing 5-0 drubbing in which he was terrible.

The point is that everyone knew Tony Ralston wasn’t good, he was never thought of as an elite prospect. Patterson is already much better than Ralston has ever been, and has a much greater chance of making it than Ralston did. It doesn’t mean he will, but his chances are much better. The comparison is really lazy because it isn’t based on the skill sets of the two players. It’s based on some of their circumstances.

Funnily enough I watched that game and thought Ralston did very well. Considering he was just a kid taking on Neymar.

Next time I seen him was when he was at Dundee utd against morton, and he was absolutely awful. Just back from a long term injury tho.

Its fair to say he's went backwards massively since his early days.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

And extending it to 2000 includes who exactly?  Alan Hutton and McGregor? Maybe Charlie Adam?

The prospects in that period?  Wylde, Ross, Fleck, Bates, Wilson, Ness, McLeod, McKay?

The reality is Rangers don't create young Scottish talent and haven't for a while.  Being in the Championship for a couple of years didn't eradicate the academy did it?  The visible abject failure to bring on youth was amplified by their time in the lower leagues, not depressed by it. 

I'd love the reality to be different...

The thing i couldn't understand with rangers at that point was they had the opportunity to play all the young players. Maybe buy a couple of prospects. And still be winning their leagues.

And by the time they got up, had a decent young experienced squad.

Maybe a few of those players, could have had better careers if they had been given the chance at the time. (I dont mean all the players listed, cos only some where there)

Instead they spend piles of cash on some absolute haddys. Earning fortunes in comparison to the rest of the league.

They did it all wrong.

Edited March 18, 2021 by BingMcCrosby

[craigkillie]

Look at the career the young players at the club have gone on to have since then. They probably wouldn't have won League 2 with them.

[Bing.McCrosby]

Just now, craigkillie said:

Look at the career the young players at the club have gone on to have since then. They probably wouldn't have won League 2 with them.

I thought it was fairly obvious that I was saying was perhaps their careers could have been different.

In fact that was exactly what I said.

Edited March 18, 2021 by BingMcCrosby

[HalfCutNinja]

Big game for Patterson tonight. The guy he's up against Sima is good so a big test.

Interested to see how he gets on.  From the little I've seen there's no doubt he's the real deal and the answer to our problems at RB, but he isn't ready yet and a night like this will be a big test for him.