Chelsea's on-loan striker Alexandre Pato has plenty in common with Ricardo Quaresma. Too much for the Brazilian's liking, one suspects.
Any Chelsea fans asking "Ricardo Who?" will have good reason. Like Pato now, the Portuguese midfielder arrived at Stamford Bridge on a temporary transfer in the winter window of 2009, but he did very little to justify the move.
Quaresma featured five times in a Chelsea shirt in his six-month spell; just one of those appearances he started the match, appearing as a substitute in the others.
His last appearance came on March 21 of that season, and Chelsea fans never saw him again.
Now the concern is something similar is going to happen with Pato. We're close to March, and despite being a Chelsea player for close to a month, Pato is still to even appear on the bench, let alone make an appearance.
Former New York Red Bulls defender Matt Miazga signed in the same week as Pato, but he's already been among Guus Hiddink's substitutes.
Losing Kurt Zouma and John Terry to injury since Miazga arrived has meant he's been fast-tracked, but the fact Pato has remained anonymous still doesn't look good on him given that both players were in a similar position with their match fitness.
Pato's loan was supposed to inject some life into Chelsea's ailing campaign. Outside of Diego Costa, Chelsea's strikers have done nothing all season; Loic Remy has suffered from being on the fringes, and Radamel Falcao's move from Monaco has been a total disaster.
With the next few months vital in Chelsea rebuilding ahead of next season, Pato was needed to add some spark to ensure Hiddink's side could salvage something from the wreckage.
Where has he been, though? To date, nowhere is the answer.
It's why the comparison with Quaresma is apt. Both were players of significant renown in their youth, playing for major clubs in Europe. For Quaresma, it was Barcelona, while Pato made headlines at AC Milan.
Neither fully delivered on that potential and in Quaresma's case, joining Chelsea when he did was his Last Chance Saloon with a major European side.
After failing at Stamford Bridge—coincidentally under Hiddink, Pato's manager now—Quaresma went back to his parent club Inter. Following a year of not playing under Jose Mourinho, Quaresma was shipped off to Turkey, where he spent four years with Besiktas.
He returned to former club Porto for a season, but he is now back at Besiktas, who he re-signed for last summer.
It's been a massive waste of talent, as Quaresma should've achieved so much more with his career. Given how his stint at Chelsea has started—or hasn't, in this case—the worry for Pato is that he isn't going to have the impact he or Chelsea desire.
When the news first broke of Chelsea's interest in him, the reaction was one of bafflement. Why were, and are, Chelsea willing to leverage their season by taking another substantial risk on a striker whose reputation has been tainted?
Had Pato been fit and ready to make an instant impact, the logic would have been clear. He hasn't played competitive football since November, however, so as the days tick by without him featuring for Chelsea, the signs aren't looking good.
Pato has another problem in that Bertrand Traore's form may have just made things a bit more difficult for him. The Chelsea youngster has scored three times since Pato joined the club and with every cameo he's made in the Brazilian's absence, Traore's looking stronger.
Hiddink would have probably used Pato in the same way he has Traore, throwing him on in games that have already been put to bed. Pato's fitness has dictated that he's not been available, and Traore has benefited significantly.
It's not even in the short term that Pato should be concerned with Traore, either. It's next season and beyond that should make him worry how this move will play out.
When Pato arrived at Stamford Bridge, the fact his transfer was a loan outlined Chelsea's hesitancy. They weren't quite sure what they were getting, so they didn't fully commit, as Pato must prove himself capable. If Traore is doing that instead, what incentive will Chelsea have to spend millions on making Pato's move permanent? There isn't one.
Pato's role was always going to be as back-up to Costa. If Traore continues to prove he's capable of being just that, the money to make Pato's move permanent will be set aside for Chelsea to invest elsewhere in a squad that is desperate for a shake-up.
It's not fair to write Pato off before he's even made his debut for Chelsea, but it remains a big concern that the surprise transfer of January is already looking to end in failure just like Quaresma's did.
Should that happen, where next for Pato?
Garry Hayes is Bleacher Report's lead Chelsea correspondent. All quotes were obtained firsthand unless otherwise noted. Follow him on Twitter @garryhayes