Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Summer 2022 transfer rumours (Gilbey loan confirmed p513, a signing falls through last minute p541)
Comments
-
In some way I'd be surprised if we didnt expand on our loanees... Its a easy way to climb the table, if done correctly.SELR_addicks said:Currently only have 2 on loan also, could we not explore that window a little more?
In another sense I'm quite glad we've only got two loanees at the moment
Each summer we instantly have to think about having to find and replace five players, regardless of how useful they've been. As things stand, regardless of what League we're in next term, we currently only have to find two replacements, so we're making lives easier for ourselves in that respect.1 -
Doesn’t it depend who is available ? I would rather take a Gallagher or Cullen for a year than sign a 2020 Ben Watson on a perm . ( Extreme example )ForeverAddickted said:
In some way I'd be surprised if we didnt expand on our loanees... Its a easy way to climb the table, if done correctly.SELR_addicks said:Currently only have 2 on loan also, could we not explore that window a little more?
In another sense I'm quite glad we've only got two loanees at the moment
Each summer we instantly have to think about having to find and replace five players, regardless of how useful they've been. As things stand, regardless of what League we're in next term, we currently only have to find two replacements, so we're making lives easier for ourselves in that respect.9 -
See, I dont get this. Why would you "strengthen in January" when you are half way through the season when you could strengthen now (or even in July) and give yourself a whole season to get promoted instead of playing catch up in the new year.RonnieMoore said:Even if the moves don’t work out .. and we go with what we got till think this group will keep us in and around top 6 then we strengthen again in Jan for a final push …. it’s all down to what injuries and who gets injured and more important length of time but more luck and we deserve luck in this area and think we would be ok …
23 -
His strength,as with most strikers is attacking the ball,but he does not do it.He is nearly always in the area when the ball comes over and is usually underneath it when it arrives.He needs to start his runs right at the back or corner of the penalty area and be at the top of his jump when the ball comes in.(show him some Alan Shearer videos)_MrDick said:
It’s not happening for Stockley but in his defence he’s not getting any service whatsoever. We now have plenty of width - JRS and Kirk had plenty of the ball today - but there’s no quality crosses coming into the box. He’s always got his back to goal when the ball comes into him. His strength is attacking crosses.MrBurns said:I'd happily try and move stockley on and get two attackers with the money.2 -
Spot on @Sage. Ironically, yesterday, Stockley would have been much better suited to Wycombe's more direct style of play. He has his good qualities but the only way to really showcase them is abandoning Garner's very clear style of play.Sage said:This team is crying out for another striker and one who is better than Stockley.
When it’s not working he looks like a pub player. Yes the service into him hasn’t been good and that’s not fair, but it’s not like he even offers us anything to combat that. He’s not great with his feet, he’s not a monster in the air, he doesn’t run in behind and stretch a defence, his link play is okay but not something that can take us up a league.
If he’s not getting quality crosses to attack, he’s useless in this formation. And as our captain, he sure does moan a lot.
There I’ve said it. Allowed my opinion and this is it. I just don’t think we will ever be strong enough for a promotion side with Stockley leading the line on his own. We need better.2 -
Stockley and McLeary would make a dangerous pairing for Wycombe.1
-
They already have Sam Vokes to lead their line.
Massive bonus for us that he was injured yesterday.7 -
I suppose the point there is it may become more apparent where you need to strengthen in January so you can target signings for best effect. Things can change in that a youngster goes up a few notches etc... But whilst I say that, I actually agree with you. It is pretty clear where we are short and where we are going to have issues in October, November and December already.golfaddick said:
See, I dont get this. Why would you "strengthen in January" when you are half way through the season when you could strengthen now (or even in July) and give yourself a whole season to get promoted instead of playing catch up in the new year.RonnieMoore said:Even if the moves don’t work out .. and we go with what we got till think this group will keep us in and around top 6 then we strengthen again in Jan for a final push …. it’s all down to what injuries and who gets injured and more important length of time but more luck and we deserve luck in this area and think we would be ok …
In fact we already are having the issues in some games now.3 -
His problem is a lack of what in greyhound racing they call ‘early pace’. You need it to get a yard ahead of the defender, or even a foot ahead of the defender, so you can divert the ball into the net, of play it to a team mate.thickandthin63 said:
His strength,as with most strikers is attacking the ball,but he does not do it.He is nearly always in the area when the ball comes over and is usually underneath it when it arrives.He needs to start his runs right at the back or corner of the penalty area and be at the top of his jump when the ball comes in.(show him some Alan Shearer videos)_MrDick said:
It’s not happening for Stockley but in his defence he’s not getting any service whatsoever. We now have plenty of width - JRS and Kirk had plenty of the ball today - but there’s no quality crosses coming into the box. He’s always got his back to goal when the ball comes into him. His strength is attacking crosses.MrBurns said:I'd happily try and move stockley on and get two attackers with the money.So many times yesterday he turned 50/50 passes into 60/40 passes in their favour, by lacking the zip to get to them. It also means players won’t play through balls into his path, as defenders would just mop them up.It makes it much harder for midfielders, as he’s not really an effective out ball, so they’re out under more pressure.3 -
His problem is that when he is on top of a defender he is very effective. But a few defenders get on top of him, whether that is beacuse they double up or because of their individual attributes. I think yesterday was Stockley's worst game for a very long time though and as a defender of him, I couldn't really say anything positive about that performance. He lost absolutely everything he competed for.2
- Sponsored links:
-
Been muted earlier about selling Stockley and getting a couple of replacements in with a bit of pace about them, must say I can see the logic there and after yesterday, which was not a good day for him, he was a liability with again no finished product.
Thought it was strange when Ben made him captain, and not sure where he sits in the grand scheme of Garnerball, at times he can hold up the ball and play in someone, but the ball has to be on a tanner for him or he invariably ends up losing the ball, really like Stockley as an honest player, but his limitations could end up being his downfall..
1 -
Stockley is a victim of circumstances in many respects. Playing with the responsibility of being captain in a system that doesn’t suit his attributes, which he definitely has. It must be hard to maintain your form when you’re under that type of pressure. In an ideal world we’d be better off moving Jayden on and getting in a couple of players that fit Garnerball better. We haven’t and now we’re between a rock and a hard place. I think unless we get someone in before the window closes who offers what we need then it’s quite possible that our season fizzles out before it’s actually started.14
-
He doesn't get a fair deal from a lot of refs. Players foul and are very physical against him but seem to get away with a lot of it. Look at that foul on him in the first half which had me laughing out loud that the ref missed it. But when he is a little bit physical, fouls get given against him, even in the cases where they are not fouls.21
-
Agreed. I also think their GK went straight through him and got a FK when it should have been a Penalty.MuttleyCAFC said:He doesn't get a fair deal from a lot of refs. Players foul and are very physical against him but seem to get away with a lot of it. Look at that foul on him in the first half which had me laughing out loud that the ref missed it. But when he is a little bit physical, fouls get given against him, even in the cases where they are not fouls.
6 -
I don't think many refs would give a penalty for that though. Not the ones we get at this level. I think it was one, but Stockley was blocking the keeper off. The question was whether he was obstructing him unfairly, but I don't think he was so the keeper effectively went through him as you say and a defender couldn't do that so why can a keeper? But the fact you can ask the question means most refs will take the easy way out which I do understand.0
-
The penalty shout I'd liked to have seen more of was when Mawson deflected Fraser's effort.
Stockley was left sprawling on the floor just beforehand, which Garner thought was a penalty - Couldn't decide myself if it was just a clumsy coming together between Stockley and the Defender, but looked suspect.
5 -
I don’t think most refs would give a penalty either, but giving them a FK was taking the piss. I think most refs would have given us the corner.MuttleyCAFC said:I don't think many refs would give a penalty for that though. Not the ones we get at this level. I think it was one, but Stockley was blocking the keeper off. The question was whether he was obstructing him unfairly, but I don't think he was so the keeper effectively went through him as you say and a defender couldn't do that so why can a keeper? But the fact you can ask the question means most refs will take the easy way out which I do understand.0 -
DOUCHER said:
exactly right - which is why if we can't afford to bring in another striker, the logical solution this summer has been to offload stockley and replace himSimonsen said:Stockley and McLeary would make a dangerous pairing for Wycombe.
But we’re not going to play with two strikers in a 4-4-20 -
i know which is why we need to replace him if we can't afford to have him sitting on the bench as a bit partRothko said:DOUCHER said:
exactly right - which is why if we can't afford to bring in another striker, the logical solution this summer has been to offload stockley and replace himSimonsen said:Stockley and McLeary would make a dangerous pairing for Wycombe.
But we’re not going to play with two strikers in a 4-4-20 - Sponsored links:
-
Rather the money went on someone who would probably take Kirk’s place, and then I’m happy with that 3, but someone mobile enough to be central if/when Stockley is out. And that’s not McLearyDOUCHER said:
i know which is why we need to replace him if we can't afford to have him sitting on the bench as a bit partRothko said:DOUCHER said:
exactly right - which is why if we can't afford to bring in another striker, the logical solution this summer has been to offload stockley and replace himSimonsen said:Stockley and McLeary would make a dangerous pairing for Wycombe.
But we’re not going to play with two strikers in a 4-4-21 -
you're misunderstanding - stockley would suit wycombe's system, i didn't say i wanted us to sign mcleary - just that stockley would have a value in a different system, like wycombes for instanceRothko said:
Rather the money went on someone who would probably take Kirk’s place, and then I’m happy with that 3, but someone mobile enough to be central if/when Stockley is out. And that’s not McLearyDOUCHER said:
i know which is why we need to replace him if we can't afford to have him sitting on the bench as a bit partRothko said:DOUCHER said:
exactly right - which is why if we can't afford to bring in another striker, the logical solution this summer has been to offload stockley and replace himSimonsen said:Stockley and McLeary would make a dangerous pairing for Wycombe.
But we’re not going to play with two strikers in a 4-4-23 -
The other way round probs. Garner wants his own players inForeverAddickted said:
His message to Garner will probably be... "Let me sell X player for Y amount, you can have two players from that"RonnieMoore said:
He will let Garner decide ..ForeverAddickted said:I get the impression that no one is overly "unsellable" this summer.
If an offer comes in for anyone in this squad, that Sandgaard agrees with, then I think they'll be off.1 -
Garner’s said any player could go if the right offer comes in. I wonder if he’d be happy for Stockley to be sold if it meant we signed a replacement more suited to the system. It’s so obvious a quicker striker would make a big difference - Garner will be aware but he’s never going to say it in public.
He’s mentioned they have lists of potential signings for each position, there’s no chance the strikers are traditional target men like Stockley. At Swindon he had Simpson and then Davison, both more like Leaburn physically in that they have height, pace and strength.
1 -
It was pretty obvious we should have moved Stockley on months ago. Selling him in the next couple of days would pretty much guarantee that we have to pay well over the odds for replacements because everyone will know how desperate we are.3
-
It isn't going to happen with five days to go. We would need to sell Stockley for a decent amount and target two useful replacements. And then get them when the selling club knows we are desperate. Better IMO to hope to lose a couple of midfielders and offer £250k for Stockton. Yes a risk, but we are late in the window and it could pay off.Scoham said:Garner’s said any player could go if the right offer comes in. I wonder if he’d be happy for Stockley to be sold if it meant we signed a replacement more suited to the system. It’s so obvious a quicker striker would make a big difference - Garner will be aware but he’s never going to say it in public.
He’s mentioned they have lists of potential signings for each position, there’s no chance the strikers are traditional target men like Stockley. At Swindon he had Simpson and then Davison, both more like Leaburn physically in that they have height, pace and strength.3 -
👀5 -
Well we haven't built our team around him! That's why he looks like a horses head on a flamingo.23
-
That’ll do Donkey, that’ll do…
Door will probably knock him over on the way out!
0 -
As much as selling Stockley at the start of the window may have been sensible, selling him now would be madness.
Trying to sign 1 quality forward that would fit our system at this stage is difficult, 2 would be impossible.
Our best hope is that we pick up a back-up and that Stockley adapts to Garners style of play. Obviously there are limitations in terms of mobility but he isn't the donkey some would make out imo.
2
