Alexandre Pato

[OhForAGreavsie 5,869]

18 minutes ago, LAM09 said:

 

That's what I was thinking. Home game would be the better choice to play Remy/Pato or Traore.

Agreed although I've lost interest in Remy now so would rather see Pato used instead. All things being equal, I'd give Pato forty-five to sixty minutes at Southampton tonight and then start him as an AM on Saturday with Bertie up top. That would also rest Tammy Abraham from what has been a hectic schedule so he can prepare for the 21s semi-final on Friday.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,869]

Pato is not involved in tonight's 21s game.

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

He is our secret weapon, unleashed at the right moment. No need to rush as our team are doing well at the moment.

[Unionjack 7,531]

Ive not seen any reports saying Paots not playing tonight - yet!

We really dont know just why we have been told hes 'not fit' all this time. Theres been occasions when Id certainly have risked playing him (unfit or not) than lads that we had playing. So Guus must either not think hes upto much or the lads knackered.

Me Im  still really open minded about him and just like Bertan/Kennedy Id like to see each get a fair crack of the whip.

 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,869]

He's on the bench against Norwich tonight.

[Milan 17,848]

Pato's song to introduce himself

http://www.thesportbible.com/articles/watch-alexandre-pato-s-chelsea-initiation-ceremony-is-extremely-embarrassing-010316

[Unionjack 7,531]

10 minutes ago, milan.cech said:

Pato's song to introduce himself

http://www.thesportbible.com/articles/watch-alexandre-pato-s-chelsea-initiation-ceremony-is-extremely-embarrassing-010316

All new lads should have to sing Blue is the cour and then do The Liquidator. Give them some Chelsea spirit from the off.

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

Any sensible reason why we brought him?

[OneMoSalah 8,753]

Just now, xPetrCechx said:

Any sensible reason why we brought him?

Is this serious? Hes not even played a minute for Chelsea yet people are doubting why we signed him/whether there was any reason? Might as well write off every player who we have on loan who hasn't played for us either at this rate. Smh

[LAM09 6,687]

Surprised he didn't get some minutes. I expect him to start on Saturday

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

2 minutes ago, OneMoSalah said:

Is this serious? Hes not even played a minute for Chelsea yet people are doubting why we signed him/whether there was any reason? Might as well write off every player who we have on loan who hasn't played for us either at this rate. Smh

What? it's not the same at all.
all around talked about bring pato back to europe, to try to lift up his career and get at least 50% from the old pato...
but how can he impress if he even can't play? when he will play? in the last match of the season? or when he will get 10 minutes as a sub...
it's ridiculous.

[OneMoSalah 8,753]

Just now, xPetrCechx said:

What? it's not the same at all.
all around talked about bring pato back to europe, to try to lift up his career and get at least 50% from the old pato...
but how can he impress if he even can't play? when he will play? in the last match of the season? or when he will get 10 minutes as a sub...
it's ridiculous.

 

He has been doing pre-season training since he came here and today was the first time he was in the match day squad, hes maybe still lacking fitness? Maybe not but if he is lacking fitness he can't be far off as he was on the bench. Just because he didn't get on when we had to really roll our sleeves up and defend our 18 yard box from high crosses doesn't mean anything actually, it was more about how we managed the game considering we made two subs early on in he second half too and then brought on a defender for Kenedy. If we were 3 or 4-0 up he would probably have gotten on. 

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

6 hours ago, OneMoSalah said:

 

He has been doing pre-season training since he came here and today was the first time he was in the match day squad, hes maybe still lacking fitness? Maybe not but if he is lacking fitness he can't be far off as he was on the bench. Just because he didn't get on when we had to really roll our sleeves up and defend our 18 yard box from high crosses doesn't mean anything actually, it was more about how we managed the game considering we made two subs early on in he second half too and then brought on a defender for Kenedy. If we were 3 or 4-0 up he would probably have gotten on. 

Lacking Fitness?

So ffs why in the middle of the season, we got a striker that can't play for more than a month ?

[The Skipper 20,593]

7 hours ago, xPetrCechx said:

Lacking Fitness?

So ffs why in the middle of the season, we got a striker that can't play for more than a month ?

Maybe as an insurance policy in case we sold Remy. 

[cfcs most wanted 657]

Maybe we bought Pato because the board wanted to show they are doing something.

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

35 minutes ago, cfcs most wanted said:

Maybe we bought Pato because the board wanted to show they are doing something.

Instead, they showed that they are stupid than ever.

[LondonsFinest 692]

Another knee jerk reaction. Norwich scored for 2-1. We needed defensive stability and Baba brought just that and was great. Pato will get game time. There is still 2 whole months and 10 matches, JUST in the PL.

[manpe 10,861]

What's the excitement over Pato anyway? At the moment I couldn't care less if he plays or not. I seriously doubt he brings more quality to what we already have. I'd rather Kenedy and Traore be ahead of him in pecking order, which seems to be the case fortunately.