|
Well I honestly think if Pato plays as our leading striker things will be different, because he won't be ruining our ball movement by taking on four players at the same time.
Football games are won-and-lost in the midfield and through how a team reacts to losses in possession. Pato losing possession, in itself is not a bad thing, it is how we commit our FBs forward, and if the move is broken down, then our FBs can return to their position, covered by midfielders, to slow down the other team.
I am of the opinion that Ronaldinho will shine for Milan, or at least be useful, as a second-striker. That was basically what he was for Barca, so I'm inclined to think that if he is providing the ammunition for Pato or Huntelaar, then we will score goals.
The team has provided Pato with opportunities to do well. Not typical striker service, but if he is to be a second striker, this was his shot to prove that. He hasn't. He's made poor choices. But I'm not sure if it's about the team not doing that for him. Yes, service has been poor, but, taking Seedorf's first assist to Pippo against Marseille, Pato won possession and Seedorf essentially took the ball from under Pato's nose, and actually did something with it.
Does anyone think that Pato would have made the same play? I doubt it.
This is no criticism of Pato as a player. I think he's fantastic. I just think he needs to get it out of his mind that he's a second striker. It would be like Kaka suddenly believing he is the sort of deep-lying playmaker that Pirlo is. Theoretically it could work, but I doubt it would work on the field, just as I think we've seen Pato doesn't work as a second striker and that Dinho is really not a classic trequartista (at this age).
|