2024/25 Nathan Patterson

Lanolin said:
Nah I know what you're saying, I just think at some point you have to look at what the likelihood of certain situations is. Managers get things wrong, of course they do, but the reality of the situation is that with Patterson we'd be talking about loads of managers getting it wrong. It's still possible, but it's not likely. I've said before, I don't think he's absolutely hopeless and a disgrace to the shirt, I just haven't seen anything that makes me think he's good enough to be a first choice right back in the PL. It seems the managers he's had here agree, and - as we'd undoubtedly accept any half decent bid for him and you'd expect he'd jump at the chance to go - you'd have to assume the managers of all the other PL clubs agree too.

As an aside in relation to your last point, if you can name me a player who has done as little for the club in 3 1/2 years and yet has as many people jumping to his defence every time someone says something mean about him, then I'll be absolutely amazed.
Click to expand...
That’s fair. I just think it’s reasonable to look at all the factors as to why it hasn’t worked. And why he hasn’t yet fulfilled the potential we saw in him to buy him.

Sometimes it’s as simple as if play well you stay in the team. But sometimes it isn’t. And with the state we’ve been in since he joined it’s definitely not been that straight forward.

I’m not jumping to his defence by claiming he is the Scottish Cafu, all I’m doing is expressing my anger at people going all in on him every time he wears the shirt. Having an opinion on a player is one thing but there’s a way to go about it and some don’t know how. Ultimately it’s self defeating because players read social media. But that’s for another day.
 

RyanGordon said:
That’s fair. I just think it’s reasonable to look at all the factors as to why it hasn’t worked. And why he hasn’t yet fulfilled the potential we saw in him to buy him.

Sometimes it’s as simple as if play well you stay in the team. But sometimes it isn’t. And with the state we’ve been in since he joined it’s definitely not been that straight forward.

I’m not jumping to his defence by claiming he is the Scottish Cafu, all I’m doing is expressing my anger at people going all in on him every time he wears the shirt. Having an opinion on a player is one thing but there’s a way to go about it and some don’t know how. Ultimately it’s self defeating because players read social media. But that’s for another day.
Click to expand...
He's the forum whipping boy. If and when he leaves, a new sacrifice will be chosen.

He should deffo move on though. He's had three managers now and still hasn't nailed down a spot. It's in everyone's interests for him to leave.
 

I actually think he is pretty decent as a wingback. He has a terrible shot but a decent cross. So him maurauding down the wing for that overlap and cross isn't too bad an option. I hope he fulfills his potential and has an injury free season. If Charly continues to feature as a wide right player, Patto will do well this season.
 

People keep saying some variation of "four managers didn't rate Nathan Patterson." But that's not true. At all.

Patterson joined Everton in January 2022. The FSW was technically his manager at the time, but he was sacked just twelve days after Patterson's transfer was finalized. So, right off that bat, we can dispense with the "four managers didn't rate him" nonsense, because he effectively didn't play under Benitez at all.

So what about the other three managers?

Lampard took over on January 31, 2022. Patterson was just 19 years old at the time, we were in a relegation battle, and Seamus was healthy, so absolutely no one expected that he'd get significant playing time. He was looked at as one for the future and that's exactly how Lampard treated him at the time, starting him only in an FA Cup game on March 3. He then injured his ankle in April and was out for the rest of the season.

Then the 2022-23 rolled around and Patterson started every preseason game and every one of Everton's first 8 league matches through the September international break. Clearly Lampard did rate him, and likely would have kept playing him, except he injured his ankle again while playing for Scotland and was out until the end of October. When he came back, he got playing time in Everton's next 7 matches, starting 5 of them. A January knee injury sidelined him again, and while he was out, Lampard was sacked and replaced with Dyche.

So we can also dispense with any talk that "three managers didn't rate him," because clearly Lampard did rate him, and deservedly so, because he was excellent at the start of the 22-23 season:



Dyche clearly didn't care for him. But that's not saying much because (1) Dyche, and (2) Patterson once again missed significant time in the Dyche era. But, even still, Dyche did give him playing time at the start of the 23-24 season, before Patterson was again derailed by injury. He played in 19 of the first 22 league matches that season, starting 9 of them.

Moyes took over on January 11, 2005. Patterson was healthy at the time, but lacked match fitness from all the time he'd spent in Dyche's doghouse after he returned from the lengthy thigh injury. Moyes gave him playing time in 3 of his first 4 league matches in charge (though admittedly not much, starting O'Brien over him) before Patterson went down with another injury on February 3. We were all but safe when he returned from injury and Moyes started him three more times in the last month of the season.

We simply don't have enough evidence right now to say whether Moyes rates him or not, except we do know that, back in January and February in the thick of a relegation battle, Moyes did prefer Jake O'Brien to him.

So looking over his entire tenure at Everton, we can really only draw three conclusions for sure:
  1. Frank Lampard loved him.
  2. Sean Dyche hated him.
  3. He's been injured a [Poor language removed]-ton
I have no idea whether he'll come good. And his injuries are obviously worrying. But if I read "four different managers didn't rate him" one more time I'm going to bash my head in. Because that's not remotely true.
 
Boston Blue Sox said:
People keep saying some variation of "four managers didn't rate Nathan Patterson." But that's not true. At all.

Patterson joined Everton in January 2022. The FSW was technically his manager at the time, but he was sacked just twelve days after Patterson's transfer was finalized. So, right off that bat, we can dispense with the "four managers didn't rate him" nonsense, because he effectively didn't play under Benitez at all.

So what about the other three managers?

Lampard took over on January 31, 2022. Patterson was just 19 years old at the time, we were in a relegation battle, and Seamus was healthy, so absolutely no one expected that he'd get significant playing time. He was looked at as one for the future and that's exactly how Lampard treated him at the time, starting him only in an FA Cup game on March 3. He then injured his ankle in April and was out for the rest of the season.

Then the 2022-23 rolled around and Patterson started every preseason game and every one of Everton's first 8 league matches through the September international break. Clearly Lampard did rate him, and likely would have kept playing him, except he injured his ankle again while playing for Scotland and was out until the end of October. When he came back, he got playing time in Everton's next 7 matches, starting 5 of them. A January knee injury sidelined him again, and while he was out, Lampard was sacked and replaced with Dyche.

So we can also dispense with any talk that "three managers didn't rate him," because clearly Lampard did rate him, and deservedly so, because he was excellent at the start of the 22-23 season:



Dyche clearly didn't care for him. But that's not saying much because (1) Dyche, and (2) Patterson once again missed significant time in the Dyche era. But, even still, Dyche did give him playing time at the start of the 23-24 season, before Patterson was again derailed by injury. He played in 19 of the first 22 league matches that season, starting 9 of them.

Moyes took over on January 11, 2005. Patterson was healthy at the time, but lacked match fitness from all the time he'd spent in Dyche's doghouse after he returned from the lengthy thigh injury. Moyes gave him playing time in 3 of his first 4 league matches in charge (though admittedly not much, starting O'Brien over him) before Patterson went down with another injury on February 3. We were all but safe when he returned from injury and Moyes started him three more times in the last month of the season.

We simply don't have enough evidence right now to say whether Moyes rates him or not, except we do know that, back in January and February in the thick of a relegation battle, Moyes did prefer Jake O'Brien to him.

So looking over his entire tenure at Everton, we can really only draw three conclusions for sure:
  1. Frank Lampard loved him.
  2. Sean Dyche hated him.
  3. He's been injured a [Poor language removed]-ton
I have no idea whether he'll come good. And his injuries are obviously worrying. But if I read "four different managers didn't rate him" one more time I'm going to bash my head in. Because that's not remotely true.
Click to expand...


Moyes doesn’t rate him mate. It’s why he played a centre half there. None of our managers have rated him.

Lampard ‘loves him’ so much, he’s just spent £4 million on a new right back for Coventry from Villa. Had no interest whatsoever in Patterson.
 
MACCA75 said:
Moyes doesn’t rate him mate. It’s why he played a centre half there. None of our managers have rated him.

Lampard ‘loves him’ so much, he’s just spent £4 million on a new right back for Coventry from Villa. Had no interest whatsoever in Patterson.
Click to expand...
And Potter clearly doesn't rate Cucurella, because he hasn't bought him for West Ham.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top