Pattison

mad saint guy · Sat 03 Apr 2010 11:11pm

I thought he looked very, very ordinary tonight. Couldn't hold a mark, tackles slipped through, poor in the ruck, fumbled at ground level and shanked a shot a goal.

Don't see why he should play when two or more of Gardiner, McEvoy, King, Kosi and Stanley are available.

Thoughts?

Goose is king · Sat 03 Apr 2010 11:17pm

Showed little didn't he.

Big Mac wasn't any better.

Gards was good though.

Stanley at least has the ability to have a flash of brilliance unlike all of our ruckmen (excluding Gards).

skeptic · Post: # 899985Post **skeptic** » Sat 03 Apr 2010 11:20pm

i thought he was barely ok...

It's a very tough gig to play alongside Riewoldt on a night like tonight.

Several times he presented well but was over looked for big Roo and why wouldn't he have been.

He struggled in the forward line in regards to where to position himself and really struggled with the running zone.

On the positive side, he skills by hand were good and he had a few nice handballs and a few important touches/slap forwards etc.

I'll have to disagree with you in the ruck; thought some of his tap work was quite good. Looks to me like he'll pbly hold up well against most opposition's 2nd string rucks.

His shanked shot was disappointing but i think the guy was really feeling the pressure as he just didn't sem to be able to get in the game.

I'll say that while his game was ok at best, i saw something there to work with though i can't necessarily tell u what... will def need more time to learn to play saints football

bigred · Post: # 899987Post **bigred** » Sat 03 Apr 2010 11:26pm

Average.

Looked slow to be honest.

Would be lucky to hold his spot surely.
'

plugger66 · Post: # 899990Post **plugger66** » Sat 03 Apr 2010 11:27pm

bigred wrote:Average.

Looked slow to be honest.

Would be lucky to hold his spot surely.
'

I dont know what people actually expected. That is his ability. Winning by 100 means he probably plays next week.

Animal Enclosure · Sat 03 Apr 2010 11:29pm

Patto's job was to keep Scott Thompson away from Roo.

He did that.

Whether he plays next week with a smarter Collingwood backline is the question. I'll not sure that he'll get the respect he got tonight.

North should have told Thompson to ignore Patto & play the extra man against the Mega Star.

Do Sandy play tomorrow?

bigred · Post: # 899993Post **bigred** » Sat 03 Apr 2010 11:29pm

I dont expect anything of him.

Seriously, this guy is worst case scenario...

And I still doubt he would hold his spot.

Nick_Stone29 · Sun 04 Apr 2010 12:08am

Would have been way better to develop Lynchy or even a Cahill /Gaertner IMO with Rhys obviously not 100% right .

Patto was there i guess as back up in case Gardi couldnt get through the game . Gaertner could have played that role as well...baffling

Bernard Shakey · Sun 04 Apr 2010 12:08am

Cahill, Lynch or Heyne next week for mine.

Pattison gave us nothing tonight.

skeptic · Post: # 900051Post **skeptic** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 12:30am

Bernard Shakey wrote:Cahill, Lynch or Heyne next week for mine.

Pattison gave us nothing tonight.

See i reckon that's a bit harsh

as a midfielder, under pressure as if u'd bomb it towards Patto instead of Roo

Moccha · Post: # 900053Post **Moccha** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 12:31am

Depending how King went for Sandy I reckon he'll be a straight swap for McEvoy

ace · Post: # 900054Post **ace** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 12:36am

Goose is king wrote:Showed little didn't he.

Big Mac wasn't any better.

Gards was good though.

Stanley at least has the ability to have a flash of brilliance unlike all of our ruckmen (excluding Gards).

McEvoy was pathetic.
Before boundary throw ins he insists on running away from the boundary until he gets behind his opposing ruckman.
He then proceeds to shove his opponent in the back to challenge him to a physical contest.
Only thing is his opponent has lined up so far from the boundary that when the umpire throws the ball in, Mc Evoy's opponent runs to the ball leaving McEvoy in his wake.
Easy hitout win to his opponent.

Someone needs to teach McEvoy that the aim in a ruck contest is to win the hit out.
Until he learns that McEvoy belongs in the Sandringham reserves.

Pattison on the other hand seemed to have far less ground time (I don't where to find the stats for that), did not ruck, but he at least got more touches other than hits outs than McEvoy.

Pattison was obviously selected in case North's midfield dominated and kicked long to their giant forwards like last year.
Lyon need not have worried, North failed to get a senior coach for their team over summer.
Instead they got a Scott.
Scotts should stick to golf.

skeptic · Post: # 900056Post **skeptic** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 12:42am

ace wrote: Pattison was obviously selected in case North's midfield dominated and kicked long to their giant forwards like last year.
Lyon need not have worried, North failed to get a senior coach for their team over summer.
Instead they got a Scott.
Scotts should stick to golf.

As a north supporter u'd be very worried by the choice of coach on that performance.

They made Gilbert look so so good by kicking it to him on a 2on1 all night and their extra man couldn't get near Roo

Moods · Post: # 900057Post **Moods** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 12:42am

ace wrote:
Goose is king wrote:Showed little didn't he.

Big Mac wasn't any better.

Gards was good though.

Stanley at least has the ability to have a flash of brilliance unlike all of our ruckmen (excluding Gards).
McEvoy was pathetic.
Before boundary throw ins he insists on running away from the boundary until he gets behind his opposing ruckman.
He then proceeds to shove his opponent in the back to challenge him to a physical contest.
Only thing is his opponent has lined up so far from the boundary that when the umpire throws the ball in, Mc Evoy's opponent runs to the ball leaving McEvoy in his wake.
Easy hitout win to his opponent.

Someone needs to teach McEvoy that the aim in a ruck contest is to win the hit out.
Until he learns that McEvoy belongs in the Sandringham reserves.

Pattison on the other hand seemed to have far less ground time (I don't where to find the stats for that), did not ruck, but he at least got more touches other than hits outs than McEvoy.

Pattison was obviously selected in case North's midfield dominated and kicked long to their giant forwards like last year.
Lyon need not have worried, North failed to get a senior coach for their team over summer.
Instead they got a Scott.
Scotts should stick to golf.

Have to admit - our rucks are a bit of a worry. Gardi was good, but the others...... I refuse to dwell on it and ruin a good night.

It's good to have the old style saints back. Can't wait for Friday night.

saint-stu · Post: # 900078Post **saint-stu** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 1:09am

I still don't see what King has done wrong. He's a pretty good second ruckman to Gardy.

SaintSimmo · Post: # 900096Post **SaintSimmo** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 2:18am

He has showed us why he is the 5th ruckman (gardi,mac,king,kosi before him). What were richmond smoking when they picked him at #16 in 2004.

realdeal · Post: # 900104Post **realdeal** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 2:27am

Give me a break.. yeah you wanna improve but geez pattison was in to crash packs etc but it wasn't needed because we dominated so much..

Really, no need to be so negative, Kanga's were out of the game after 10mins..

It's about team balance and thats why Pattison was in there, he didnt do alot but Roo was marking everything, im sure he will still be in the team next week..

Go Saints!

jackal · Post: # 900108Post **jackal** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 2:28am

Didn't watch the game (not shown in Perth) but listened on the web.The stats indicated an average performance by Pattisson.

Would add that a few 'ordinary' players from other clubs have turned into serviceable or even gun players by the current coaching staff. Wouldn't right him off after one game. Even Peake seemed effective today and who would have thought we would have a team that lost 3 games for a total of 4 goals last year boasting Jones, Ray, Blake, Clarke and Dawson 12 months ago.

Give the man time I say.

chook23 · Post: # 900120Post **chook23** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 2:35am

Big Mac was as bad as Patto

lewdogs · Post: # 900157Post **lewdogs** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 4:54am

Some pretty pathetic stuff getting getting said on this thread.

Pattison had nothing to do in that match but create space, he tried hard in the 5 or so times he went near it, so what if he didn't get 10+ touches or didn't quite hole the marks? It's his first game!

McEvoy was great around the ground, rucked very well, created loads of space, and assisted in us completely dominating a match. Maybe not his best game for the club, but everyone is happy to write him off for not having a blinder...

Honestly, we win a match by 100 points, completely dominant all over the ground, and people come on here and pay out our players. Some of you need to have a good hard look at yourselves.

meher baba · Post: # 900171Post **meher baba** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 7:47am

Pattison was presumably selected because Lyon didn't feel that any of Stanley, Lynch, Cahill, Heyne or whoever were physically, mentally or skillswise up to playing on the forward line in an AFL game.

Pattison didn't show great skills to say the least, but he's big and tough and he played his positional role as decoy for Roo better than Kosi does.

I reckon he'll keep his spot.

McEvoy has had two shockers in a row. I don't know what the matter with him is - he was much better last year - but I think King should play vs the Pies.

cwrcyn · Post: # 900173Post **cwrcyn** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 7:52am

Pattison is a ruckman. A ruckman who's never before played as a key forward for a whole game.

Are we at all suprised by his performance?

He kept his opponent away from Riewoldt. Job done. For us to expect any more of him would have been foolish. He can go back to Sandy and work on his ruck skills and hopefully be of some use to us down the track.

Stanley will get his chance when Lyon thinks he's physically and mentally ready for it.

.

thejiggingsaint · Sun 04 Apr 2010 8:57am

I think that we should give these guys (Pattison & Mc Evoy) the opportunity to improve. Maybe I'm wrong, but thought that our performance in dismantling North Melbourne last night came as the result of a TEAM effort

and I can't at the moment go searching-out negatives from such a sound performance as that one. But everyone has a right to an opinion.

bobmurray · Post: # 900198Post **bobmurray** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 9:05am

SaintSimmo wrote:He has showed us why he is the 5th ruckman (gardi,mac,king,kosi before him). What were richmond smoking when they picked him at #16 in 2004.

#16 draft picks are a nightmare.....

ace · Post: # 900200Post **ace** » Sun 04 Apr 2010 9:12am

lewdogs wrote: Honestly, we win a match by 100 points, completely dominant all over the ground, and people come on here and pay out our players. Some of you need to have a good hard look at yourselves.

Already done.
I will not play all season, instead I will remain seated in the crowd where I belong.

Unfortunately the ultimate test in AFL is not about how you beat weak opponents but how you play against strong opponents especially in that crucial game in September.
That is why we want only the best performance out of EVERY player.