Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

All about our First Team

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby UPtheGreen » Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:49 pm

Kentstripe wrote:
UPtheGreen wrote:Reports doing the rounds yesterday we’ve had an offer accepted for Matty Stevens


Where?


Twitter , interesting just looked he was missing from the Peterbrough game yesterday !
UPtheGreen
Reserves
Reserves
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:39 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby Kentstripe » Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:04 pm

michael wrote:McC a bit different-but otherwise-and admittedly, i have not seen them all -are the strikers all a bit similar in style ?

that given-i think i would only class McC , Collins and probably Allen as bona fide strikers .-and agree -whether its 5 or 3 -thats plenty-if they are good enough .

Does that massive IF word come into play though ?


I would imagine the reason that we signed these players in the first place was because we considered them to be good enough, however if they don't get enough playing time it's hard for them to prove it, or to develop/improve with experience.

There is no point in signing all these young attackers and then not giving them a proper chance. Given we will probably only use at most 3 strikers/wingers/no.10's at any one time, including Grubb, signing another attacker would leave us with 7 which seems like overkill to me.

As we saw last season, having too many attackers just leads to players either not getting enough minutes to settle in and show what they can do (McCoulsky) or having to leave the club altogether (Campbell and Reid). Which is a waste.
User avatar
Kentstripe
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby Tommo » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:23 pm

Kentstripe wrote:
There is no point in signing all these young attackers and then not giving them a proper chance. Given we will probably only use at most 3 strikers/wingers/no.10's at any one time, including Grubb, signing another attacker would leave us with 7 which seems like overkill to me.

As we saw last season, having too many attackers just leads to players either not getting enough minutes to settle in and show what they can do (McCoulsky) or having to leave the club altogether (Campbell and Reid). Which is a waste.


I see where you are coming from. I just have a feeling that, of the 6 we have striving for 3 primary attacking roles, we have no-one who is going to score the pedestrian goals that we will need. I think McCoulsky will improve from last season and get a few. I think a fit Williams could get a few from open play and a few free kick goals. Mondal, and maybe Grubb if he kicks on, will chip in too. But will Allen and Collins develop fast enough to get goals on a regular basis? All of these seem pretty inexperienced and while, if we can sustain confidence, we will get some corking goals, I wonder if we will also get enough of the unspectacular ones that will see us challenge for the playoffs.

Brown and Doidge got a hatful of goals last year - we need a midfielder who can score and a striker who will poach and be ruthless in the box. Maybe that requirement is met by those in the squad already but until we are through the PSFs and a few games in, we won't know. By then it may be too late to make much adjustment. I'm happy to see how the young guns up front fare but fear our attack may be a bit fragile and lack a tough, ruthless streak that gets enough goals. A good start and confidence will help of course but I confess that I feel less confident myself than this time last season.
User avatar
Tommo
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 10083
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:56 pm
Location: Horsley

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby michael » Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:58 pm

i'm with you on all of that Tommo .

your point about just 'doing the ordinary' is also well made .

there must be 6 strikers as MC in his interview today says there are ;but by my definition-the strikers are McC ,collins and Allen.

others just supplement from deeper positions/the occasional set piece .

we will never see the type of target man i look for ,or the poacher type that Tommo looks for as thats not the MC way-fair enough -but he can't then complain that FGR are not ruthless enough in the box ,when the style seems to be to pass it in -great play/build up for Allens goal on saturday,but realistically-how often will that be allowed to happen in an EFL match .

Good and great as the passing stuff is-its still Forest green-not Manchester city -and unlikely that it will succeed that often when the competitive stuff starts.
most chances come from set pieces/corners-so need someone good in air, and/or 'poaching' on defensive errors imo.

just do the ordinary very well.
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 7430
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby Chrisgump11 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:02 am

Interesting point Tommo & Michael, but not sure the evidence backs the conclusion

Whilst there is always room for improvement, I recall that we were 4th or 5th highest scorers in EFL2 last term. Unlike the previous year, the goals were spread around as all good teams must do. Defence was even better

In the 2 previous years, Christian was not good when the goal yawned, but find him on the edge of the box and he was excellent He was our top scorer by miles but the team 'played to him'. On his return, he scored his goals from 'point blank' and seemed not to be able to take the chances that were his old trademark

At our best, we move the ball fast and between 2 to 3 attackers in and around the box - Williams, Brown, Campbell, Reid & others all notching important goals. What we lacked (in my opinion) were centre backs who could scored from set pieces, always a strength at Lincoln City. Half a dozen goals from that source and we might have got automatic promotion. Hopefully, the likes of Matt Mills & young Kitchyn will help on that score
Chrisgump11
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby michael » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:23 pm

agree FGR need a few more goals from the central defenders at set pieces -but by the same token, i though Mills and shephard 'over-performed in the goalscoring stakes -would be great if they can repeat that this season.

overall- goalscoring pretty good , since as you say-think FGR were overall 5th top scorers- .

I whilst not seeing as many games as most-i don't recall that many missed easy chances ,and maybe the style of football does not create the goalmouth incidents that lead to those easier/'balls dropped loose' chances/6 yard box ;so you have to rely on your strikers being more clinical/better /refined/accurate ?
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 7430
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby gooseman » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:47 pm

Last seasons improvement for me, was not about the goal scoring but the defending. To me this is key. If we can concede less than 46 goals, then we'll be in the playoffs at least and most likely be in the automatics. When you consider how many penalties we conceded, especially at the start of the season and " howlers ", cut them out and I won't worry about scoring so many.
gooseman
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:59 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby Tommo » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:00 pm

In the League and Carabao Cup I think we scored 70 goals. Of those Doidge got 14 and Brown 11 (that's over 35%) and its those goals I'm concerned that we have to replace. Other players who have left scored a further 17 goals. So, overall, players who have left the club scored 60% of our goals last season. We are, I think, going to need to score a similar number to last season to get into the playoffs even if, as Gooseman says, we can tighten our goals conceded record..

The full/wing backs did do well last season - Shephard and Mills both got 5 goals. They will need to maintain that. I agree that we should be expecting more goals from the centre backs but I can't see them getting loads - maybe another couple on top of Shephard and Mills' 10.

So where will the 40 or so 'missing' goals from the new and existing players come from. My biggest hope is that Williams will have an injury free year and come out firing from week 1. He got 7 last year and maybe he can double that this season. Maybe Grubb can also score 2-3 more than last season too. A full season from Mondal might get us 4-5 more than he got last season too. That leaves us about 25 to find.

I hope McCoulsky and Collins with a few from Allen, Winch and the other midfielders can manage that but I don't see a 20 goal striker in the team (apart from possibly Williams) to break the back of the challenge.

Of course, every team wants one of those and as I have said, I'm trusting in MC to develop one of our guys over the next two years to get to what we need. But I think it may take longer than next season. I hope I'm being pessimistic.
User avatar
Tommo
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 10083
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:56 pm
Location: Horsley

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby michael » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:14 pm

Sorry -I just don't see williams as a strker -or even a deffo starter so i can't see him as a goalscoring source .

If McC gets a good start ,a few early game goals, and gets his confidence up-i think 'he could be the man ' -but its an IF .

Modal-i agree -he will score more as he is simply a very very good player -the next one to get a £200K bid imo-but he is still not a bona fide outright goalscorer .

so yes-there remains a shortage .Maybe Allen or Collins will surprise me
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 7430
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby michael » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:18 pm

gooseman wrote:Last seasons improvement for me, was not about the goal scoring but the defending. To me this is key. If we can concede less than 46 goals, then we'll be in the playoffs at least and most likely be in the automatics. When you consider how many penalties we conceded, especially at the start of the season and " howlers ", cut them out and I won't worry about scoring so many.
.

notwithstanding my post above, i am 100% with you here Mr Goose .

its very simple-don't concede and you don't lose.
don't concede-and you only need score one goal to win.

goalscoring is very very difficult-so why make it even harder.
even the very best teams average under two goals a game.

have the best defence in the league-and almost certainly you will finish top 3

(just to devalue my own point ,my no 1 club remains Margate ,where last season until the last game season (meaningless 4-3 loss romp in the sun) had 2nd best defence , but the worst goalscoring record in the bostik and only finished 12th so arguably that disproves my point-but that really was an exception )
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 7430
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby Chrisgump11 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:36 pm

Well Collins scored 10 (was it) in not very many games. It was the equivalent of a 20 goal season. And why wouldn't we expect a good contribution from Allen (astonished that this outstanding talent is 17!) and Macca who scored a cracka(!) at Swindon - control, pace and lovely finish. Mondal has already showed what he can do and bagged 4 in only a few starts

With respect, we'd always expect the wing backs to get 2 or goals. Remember Stokes, Collins & so on

Dayle Grubb? Hope so, but once the oppos realised his game - run across the box and aim for the far corner - he barely managed a shot. He has to decide more quickly whether to pass or shoot as pace is not an ally. I fear he'll struggle to get starts

Williams has the confidence he missed in the first half of the season. He's the closest we have in our squad to Reece's bag of tricks. He Brown & Campbell were hitting their straps last season and the reshuffle required to re-accommodate Doidge did no one any favours, sadly. I expect Williams to get 10-12.

And the newbie midfielders & centre backs have goals in them I think

Nope, ever the optimist, I think we have what it takes to keep banging them in
Chrisgump11
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby Tommo » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:04 pm

Chrisgump11 wrote:Well Collins scored 10 (was it) in not very many games. It was the equivalent of a 20 goal season. And why wouldn't we expect a good contribution from Allen (astonished that this outstanding talent is 17!) and Macca who scored a cracka(!) at Swindon - control, pace and lovely finish. Mondal has already showed what he can do and bagged 4 in only a few starts

Nope, ever the optimist, I think we have what it takes to keep banging them in


I hope you, not me, are right. I haven't discounted Allen but he's young and making a big step up. One for next season I would imagine but if he is capable, great.

Yes, you are right about Collins and we should hope for the best. He got 8 for Morecambe I believe but in only just over 1,000 game minutes so his scoring rate per minute is even better than Doidge's last season for us. If he can replicate that in a better side than Morecambe were then he will be a 20+ goal striker. Actually he is a bit like Doidge in that he came to us following a tough season in which he got a decent goal haul with a struggling team (Daggers). Maybe MC can work the magic again - much will depend on whether we can create chances and then show the ruthlessness that MC demands but then every team wants that.
User avatar
Tommo
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 10083
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:56 pm
Location: Horsley

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby Kentstripe » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:26 pm

I think some are under estimating just how good Williams can be. You don't get in a national squad that reached a Euro semi final for nothing, and last season he was coming back off a long term injury. He showed during his spell playing alongside Tav up front the sort of levels he can reach, so if he can find that form consistently he will score a lot of goals.

With a year of playing regular football under his belt, I think he can really kick on this season and has the ability to be one of,the best players in the division.
User avatar
Kentstripe
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby voodoobluesman » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:32 pm

I don't think that the problem last season was scoring goals, it was more to do with the penalties that Sanchez gave away.
User avatar
voodoobluesman
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:44 am

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby Chrisgump11 » Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:58 pm

True V. If you take away the rash challenges & howlers (principally goalkeeping), FGR conceded very few goals from open play. Astonishing as this was our weakest area in the previous season. The reward was an excellent goal difference that might have won us automatic promotion (if CD hadn't missed that golden chance when we were 3-1 up at Crewe?)

Unfair CD - sorry! If only, if only ....
Chrisgump11
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby TreeHugger » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:30 pm

Kentstripe wrote:I think some are under estimating just how good Williams can be. You don't get in a national squad that reached a Euro semi final for nothing, and last season he was coming back off a long term injury. He showed during his spell playing alongside Tav up front the sort of levels he can reach, so if he can find that form consistently he will score a lot of goals.

With a year of playing regular football under his belt, I think he can really kick on this season and has the ability to be one of,the best players in the division.


I’m certainly not as convinced as you KS. He scored 7 league goals last season but 3 were in one game (great for that game but not so great for his season’s stats), meaning that he only scored in 5 games. MC has signed and released quite a few players that do a similar thing; run around a lot and threaten to be brilliant, but don’t quite make it. I hope Willo is the exception but he’ll need to be right on it in every game, even if coming on as a sub. No excuses. No more bedding in time.

Wales are not an amazing side. They had a good run.
Trolling the trolls since the internet began...
TreeHugger
Reserves
Reserves
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 7:33 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby michael » Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:41 pm

Unfortunately-i agree with your synopsis THugger .

returning to the main theme of the thread and the good ensuing debate about how many/how good/do FGR need more strikers -is the salient point here ,that MC has felt it appropriate/necessary to make a bid -supported by DV- for another striker-so he obviously thinks FGR do.
Add to that the mild chastising comments after swindon smarine game, and the consistent theme from last season, that FGR forwards must put more chances away .

that said-it is a consistent theme of his tenureship-according to MC-Keiffer Moore needed to put more chances away .

its not actually that easy to score goals in the EFL
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 7430
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby Kentstripe » Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:19 pm

5th top scorers in league 2 last season and also top scorers in the National League two seasons ago.

I would say scoring goals hasn't really been too much of a problem under MC's tenure. I would imagine that the management know what they're doing on that front, and have scouted and recruited players who will score goals if given enough chances.

I also think it is unfair/unrealistic to expect players at this level to be extremely ruthless/clinical every time they get in the box. Scoring 1 in 4 or 5 chances is a good ratio for a league 2 striker.
User avatar
Kentstripe
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby TreeHugger » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:33 pm

Kentstripe wrote:
I also think it is unfair/unrealistic to expect players at this level to be extremely ruthless/clinical every time they get in the box. Scoring 1 in 4 or 5 chances is a good ratio for a league 2 striker.


I wouldn’t disagree. A goal for each 4 or 5 chances would be about right for EFL2, but good strikers get themselves in the position to maximise the number of chances they get. I’m not sure what Willo’s conversion stats are, but it’s the total number of goals in the season that’s the important number. I’m just not sure he’s the central striker that he wants to be. I doubt very much that he’ll get to double figures this season, but if he plays his part in helping others score then that’ll do me.
Trolling the trolls since the internet began...
TreeHugger
Reserves
Reserves
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 7:33 pm

Re: Bid for Peterborough striker Matty Stevens rejected

Postby michael » Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:39 pm

similarly agree about a good striking ratio-thats why i feel creating the chances (from midfield ) is so important.

MC bemoans the fact that the strikers don't take their chances-but i have to say in their defence-FGR never really created many clear cut chances.

My point about the strikers is that they are all a bit one dimensional -similar styles throughout .
In fairness-thats the way MC likes them /plays ;but it does rely on the pretty football stuff ,as opposed to a more robust style of play which i favour .
michael
Top Manager
Top Manager
 
Posts: 7430
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to FGR First Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andymac26, Fartvs Antiqvvs, Google [Bot] and 1 guest

About FGR

We’re a club that looks to the future, but our identity is forged from a rich 128-year history. Founded in 1889, we’re one of the oldest football clubs in the world.

In 2017, we were promoted to the Football League for the first time in our history – which means we can spread our sustainability message to an even bigger audience. FIFA recently described us as the greenest football club in the world. That’s quite an accolade, and it shows how we’ve been able to bring together football and environmental consciousness at the highest levels of the game.