Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Cole Stockton - Morecombe
Comments
-
Rotherham and Wigan both have 2 (or more) big strikers. There is absolutely no reason why it couldn't work.FishCostaFortune said:
Of course you are allowed players with similar attributes, and absolutely no one has said you cannot. What seems to be the clear consensus is that the money that Stockton will command would be better used elsewhere - especially when we have Aneke already in the team. With a budget we will inevitably have to work towards, we can't be using a large chunk of that on a player who may not be first choice or who is not a necessity.MuttleyCAFC said:I am staggard why in League One, you are not allowed to have players with similar attributes, especially when they have different characteristics too. Say our opponents decide to put their big strong defender on Stockley, who do they put on Stockton?
Also how many teams across the whole football league routinely play 90 minutes with two players like Stockley and Stockton up front? If that was the current football meta, and was what was got results, then absolutely use the budget to bring in another player like that. However, they don't, and we already have a striker (on good wages no doubt) who fulfils that role very very well, and a back up (who when fit and also on good wages no doubt) can play that role and be a little more dynamic whilst doing it.
But you couldn't plug Stockton into a Washington shapped hole and expect it to work. I suspect, and hope, that the roles have already been cast and its a case of filling them, not reinventing the wheel. Else the last 3 months have been a waste of everyone's time.
For thst reason I would be supprised if we signed a Stockton but who honestly knows?
2 -
Of course you play to the players you have, even within the same formation. Saturday was a good example how Washington is useful as Rotherham played high up the pitch and allowed us to get in behind them although that did not lead to the goal it was a threat that would have held them back. It is horses for courses and a way you can even change your threat within a game.0
-
Do they play at the same time, consistently? Because having a quick browse of their line ups, that does not seem to be the case, but I don't pay attention enough to football outside of Charlton to really be that informed.Cafc43v3r said:
Rotherham and Wigan both have 2 (or more) big strikers. There is absolutely no reason why it couldn't work.FishCostaFortune said:
Of course you are allowed players with similar attributes, and absolutely no one has said you cannot. What seems to be the clear consensus is that the money that Stockton will command would be better used elsewhere - especially when we have Aneke already in the team. With a budget we will inevitably have to work towards, we can't be using a large chunk of that on a player who may not be first choice or who is not a necessity.MuttleyCAFC said:I am staggard why in League One, you are not allowed to have players with similar attributes, especially when they have different characteristics too. Say our opponents decide to put their big strong defender on Stockley, who do they put on Stockton?
Also how many teams across the whole football league routinely play 90 minutes with two players like Stockley and Stockton up front? If that was the current football meta, and was what was got results, then absolutely use the budget to bring in another player like that. However, they don't, and we already have a striker (on good wages no doubt) who fulfils that role very very well, and a back up (who when fit and also on good wages no doubt) can play that role and be a little more dynamic whilst doing it.
But you couldn't plug Stockton into a Washington shapped hole and expect it to work. I suspect, and hope, that the roles have already been cast and its a case of filling them, not reinventing the wheel. Else the last 3 months have been a waste of everyone's time.
For thst reason I would be supprised if we signed a Stockton but who honestly knows?
Have you right on what you say here though, and is slightly similar to my point. If we are going to pay big money for a striker, that fits into our system, it is much more important to replace Washington, whether he goes or not.
We already have Aneke as the big, dynamic, impact sub who can cause issues coming on late in a game.
1 -
Rotherham often play both Lapado and Smith, Wigan play Keane deeper behind either Magginis now or Wyke earlier.FishCostaFortune said:
Do they play at the same time, consistently? Because having a quick browse of their line ups, that does not seem to be the case, but I don't pay attention enough to football outside of Charlton to really be that informed.Cafc43v3r said:
Rotherham and Wigan both have 2 (or more) big strikers. There is absolutely no reason why it couldn't work.FishCostaFortune said:
Of course you are allowed players with similar attributes, and absolutely no one has said you cannot. What seems to be the clear consensus is that the money that Stockton will command would be better used elsewhere - especially when we have Aneke already in the team. With a budget we will inevitably have to work towards, we can't be using a large chunk of that on a player who may not be first choice or who is not a necessity.MuttleyCAFC said:I am staggard why in League One, you are not allowed to have players with similar attributes, especially when they have different characteristics too. Say our opponents decide to put their big strong defender on Stockley, who do they put on Stockton?
Also how many teams across the whole football league routinely play 90 minutes with two players like Stockley and Stockton up front? If that was the current football meta, and was what was got results, then absolutely use the budget to bring in another player like that. However, they don't, and we already have a striker (on good wages no doubt) who fulfils that role very very well, and a back up (who when fit and also on good wages no doubt) can play that role and be a little more dynamic whilst doing it.
But you couldn't plug Stockton into a Washington shapped hole and expect it to work. I suspect, and hope, that the roles have already been cast and its a case of filling them, not reinventing the wheel. Else the last 3 months have been a waste of everyone's time.
For thst reason I would be supprised if we signed a Stockton but who honestly knows?
Have you right on what you say here though, and is slightly similar to my point. If we are going to pay big money for a striker, that fits into our system, it is much more important to replace Washington, whether he goes or not.
We already have Aneke as the big, dynamic, impact sub who can cause issues coming on late in a game.
Of course they all aren't the same but they are all big lads.
Bromley actually play a big center foward deeper which is quite effective, if that's what your trying to do.0 -
Why would he leave Peterborough to come to us?Covered End said:
Clarke-Harris would definitely be a very good signing and he's possible as he does seem to move clubs a fair bit.ValleyOfTears said:Pay Peterborough whatever it costs to land Clark,-Harris. Confident if he was our only signing in the summer we would all be certain of promotion
Has 2 years left on his contract and Peterborough are not a club who sell strikers cheaply either.0 -
Stockley missed a large chunk of games due to injury, it's interwebz belief he isn't 100% fit still. There's just as a much a need for a Stockley alternative as there is a Stockley partner. Would happily bring in coal from moorcombe.
Anke is possibly bit of a JFC situation last summer, you want the player and have a clear space for them in the team but injury messes up recruitment a bit, Washington brings a lot to the side so would like him back.... Are we going to sign 2 (Stockton/ pacey forward) and resign Washington with Aneke around for a couple more seasons and of course, Stockley?
0 -
That’s the point people have been making. How much money do you think Sandgaard would be willing to pay a back-up?MuttleyCAFC said:I would say people have absolutely said they are too similar to play together. I would imagine most League One clubs would find it hard to have a Stockley and a Stockton playing together for financial reasons. Both Stockton and Stockley score goals in league One, that is similar. Stockton scores a fair few from outside the box and apart from Saturday, that is something we have missed. But people also get too fixed on the first eleven. We should be looking at the bench and injuries and how many points have injures cost us this season?
Absolutely two physical players can play together, but if one is injured, you still have that physical presence. Also how you set up will depend on horses for courses as well as circumstances.
Stockley, Stockton, Aneke. That’s three large lumps up front. I would be worried that we become heavily dependant on long ball if these are the only types we will have in the squad.
Most L1 clubs are going to have big defenders. What do you do when one takes Stockley and the other takes Stockton? Neither of them will have the pace to outmove them.
1 -
So it sounds like Stockton is going to be the latest Charlton obsession whereby if we sign him, "everything will just click".
0 -
Nobody is saying that. The question is whether he would improve the side, and other players would of course be needed to improve the side too. That is sort of what you have to do to get promoted at the end of the day.0
-
Alfie May has impressed me all season, we don’t have anybody that plays in a similar way at the club, maybe Washington, but that would be that.
Alfie May is a very different player than Leko.5 -
Sponsored links:
-
If we spent more effort in getting decent crosses in as opposed to the lazy, half hearted, hoof in the general direction of Stockley.......Callumcafc said:
That’s the point people have been making. How much money do you think Sandgaard would be willing to pay a back-up?MuttleyCAFC said:I would say people have absolutely said they are too similar to play together. I would imagine most League One clubs would find it hard to have a Stockley and a Stockton playing together for financial reasons. Both Stockton and Stockley score goals in league One, that is similar. Stockton scores a fair few from outside the box and apart from Saturday, that is something we have missed. But people also get too fixed on the first eleven. We should be looking at the bench and injuries and how many points have injures cost us this season?
Absolutely two physical players can play together, but if one is injured, you still have that physical presence. Also how you set up will depend on horses for courses as well as circumstances.
Stockley, Stockton, Aneke. That’s three large lumps up front. I would be worried that we become heavily dependant on long ball if these are the only types we will have in the squad.
Most L1 clubs are going to have big defenders. What do you do when one takes Stockley and the other takes Stockton? Neither of them will have the pace to outmove them.
We aren't dependant on long balls by design. I bet it frustrates Jackson as much as it did Adkins.
0 -
Very likey we will go after Pigott again given we tired for him late in Jan not sure Ipswich wanted to sell
us two players …0 -
I always thought Nathan Byrne was a very good crosser of the ball.
He will be 30 in June, and plays for Derby County.
Trouble is he is a bit old, an ex player, and would block a youngster coming through.0 -
Or he could be perfect if that youngster is 12-18 away from being ready?seth plum said:I always thought Nathan Byrne was a very good crosser of the ball.
He will be 30 in June, and plays for Derby County.
Trouble is he is a bit old, an ex player, and would block a youngster coming through.
Bring kids through is great but chucking them in before they are ready does no one any favours.3 -
Aneke is a different player to Stockley though, in that he likes to play deeper and use his strength to run through defences towards the goal. He was more a No 10 before he joined usCallumcafc said:
That’s the point people have been making. How much money do you think Sandgaard would be willing to pay a back-up?MuttleyCAFC said:I would say people have absolutely said they are too similar to play together. I would imagine most League One clubs would find it hard to have a Stockley and a Stockton playing together for financial reasons. Both Stockton and Stockley score goals in league One, that is similar. Stockton scores a fair few from outside the box and apart from Saturday, that is something we have missed. But people also get too fixed on the first eleven. We should be looking at the bench and injuries and how many points have injures cost us this season?
Absolutely two physical players can play together, but if one is injured, you still have that physical presence. Also how you set up will depend on horses for courses as well as circumstances.
Stockley, Stockton, Aneke. That’s three large lumps up front. I would be worried that we become heavily dependant on long ball if these are the only types we will have in the squad.
Most L1 clubs are going to have big defenders. What do you do when one takes Stockley and the other takes Stockton? Neither of them will have the pace to outmove them.1 -
Exactly @Cafc43v3r look at the way Rotherham play with two big lads up front. They get their wide players bombing up the wing and putting decent crosses in. It works pretty well for them. Stockton, despite being a big fella doesn't seem like a traditional target man. I mean those goals show very special technique to be fair. I'd be pretty happy with a signing like this, but we need to sort out the wide areas.1
-
A Yann-type player alongside Stockley? Give me strength. Yann was an absolute monster at winning headers, to the point where teams had to put one player on him to mark him and another to block his run. Stockley's best asset is his ability to win headers. Not a scrap of pace between them and no ability to beat a man. They'd be winning knockdowns for no-one, praying our wing-backs have got forward so they could wait for the attackers to lumber into the box. If you think we're predictable now just wait until we're entirley reliant on punting the ball upfield and no-one is even running the channelsSELR_addicks said:Stockton isn't the answer.
We need a technical striker to link the midfield, wingers and Stockley.
Washington tries but isn't good enough to be that.
We need a Kermorgant-esque link player.
2 -
Look at this tweet I just found. Incredible work
4 -
Is the misspelling of 'Morecambe' ironic?Leuth said:Look at this tweet I just found. Incredible work
I note the same error in the title of this thread. Maybe it has changed?0 -
Covered End said:
I think it unlikely that Wilks would choose to move from The Championship to Charlton.Athletico Charlton said:Malik Wilks is a good shout.
My Peterborough supporting mate says Wilks to them is pretty much a done deal.
Will be linking up with McCann for the third time.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
We need someone to link the midfield with the attack.Garrymanilow said:
A Yann-type player alongside Stockley? Give me strength. Yann was an absolute monster at winning headers, to the point where teams had to put one player on him to mark him and another to block his run. Stockley's best asset is his ability to win headers. Not a scrap of pace between them and no ability to beat a man. They'd be winning knockdowns for no-one, praying our wing-backs have got forward so they could wait for the attackers to lumber into the box. If you think we're predictable now just wait until we're entirley reliant on punting the ball upfield and no-one is even running the channelsSELR_addicks said:Stockton isn't the answer.
We need a technical striker to link the midfield, wingers and Stockley.
Washington tries but isn't good enough to be that.
We need a Kermorgant-esque link player.
Stockley isn't technically good enough to do that.
Whether it's a decent #10 or a technical striker, we need someone to do it.
We can use the pace on the wing in CBT and 'insert LWB here' to unlock the opposition and open up the play a bit.2 -
This x1000000SELR_addicks said:
We need someone to link the midfield with the attack.Garrymanilow said:
A Yann-type player alongside Stockley? Give me strength. Yann was an absolute monster at winning headers, to the point where teams had to put one player on him to mark him and another to block his run. Stockley's best asset is his ability to win headers. Not a scrap of pace between them and no ability to beat a man. They'd be winning knockdowns for no-one, praying our wing-backs have got forward so they could wait for the attackers to lumber into the box. If you think we're predictable now just wait until we're entirley reliant on punting the ball upfield and no-one is even running the channelsSELR_addicks said:Stockton isn't the answer.
We need a technical striker to link the midfield, wingers and Stockley.
Washington tries but isn't good enough to be that.
We need a Kermorgant-esque link player.
Stockley isn't technically good enough to do that.
Whether it's a decent #10 or a technical striker, we need someone to do it.
We can use the pace on the wing in CBT and 'insert LWB here' to unlock the opposition and open up the play a bit.0 -
Surely Alfie May? He’s from Dartford and bagging goals for fun. I work with his brother so have a vested interest.4
-
Will Cheltonham let him go so easily though?0
-
Probably not but money talks.Leuth said:jWill Cheltonham let him go so easily though?1 -
I certainly didn't expect May to outshine Elliot Lee this season.0
-
Totally agree. Some say we’re obsessed with signing ex players but we’re way more obsessed with blooding youngsters. I’m really pleased we’ve got so many out on loan at the minute getting experience of mens football. It’s much more effective than chucking ours in.Cafc43v3r said:
Or he could be perfect if that youngster is 12-18 away from being ready?seth plum said:I always thought Nathan Byrne was a very good crosser of the ball.
He will be 30 in June, and plays for Derby County.
Trouble is he is a bit old, an ex player, and would block a youngster coming through.
Bring kids through is great but chucking them in before they are ready does no one any favours.2 -
SELR_addicks said:
We need someone to link the midfield with the attack.Garrymanilow said:
A Yann-type player alongside Stockley? Give me strength. Yann was an absolute monster at winning headers, to the point where teams had to put one player on him to mark him and another to block his run. Stockley's best asset is his ability to win headers. Not a scrap of pace between them and no ability to beat a man. They'd be winning knockdowns for no-one, praying our wing-backs have got forward so they could wait for the attackers to lumber into the box. If you think we're predictable now just wait until we're entirley reliant on punting the ball upfield and no-one is even running the channelsSELR_addicks said:Stockton isn't the answer.
We need a technical striker to link the midfield, wingers and Stockley.
Washington tries but isn't good enough to be that.
We need a Kermorgant-esque link player.
Stockley isn't technically good enough to do that.
Whether it's a decent #10 or a technical striker, we need someone to do it.
We can use the pace on the wing in CBT and 'insert LWB here' to unlock the opposition and open up the play a bit.
Yes, but that should be a midfielder, not one of the strikers. Up front we're playing with a player whose main attribute is his strength and aerial ability, and he needs a partner. If we make the link player a striker then we may have linked the midfield with the attack but there's nowhere for the play to go from there. The WBs can get forward where they can but ultimately they have too much defensive responsibility to be entirely relied on to support every single attack when it runs out of places to go with the strikers, and then we're asking the midfielders to constantly run beyond the two strikers to give an option, which is just leaving yourself totally exposed in the middle if the attack breaks down. If we're going to play with a strong but slow striker and a 10 then we'd need to play more like a 4-2-3-1 and demand less defensively of our wide men, who would have to play as advanced wingers. I was under the impression that Fraser was brought in to be the link player, but he hasn't shown us much yet. If we're going to play the way we are currently then alongside Dobson in the holding role we need a technical midfielder who can offer both solidity and the ability to keep the ball moving, and a creative player to, as you say, link midfield and attack. In front of them we need a player with pace and finishing capability to play off Stockley. Washington works hard but he's lacking in the consistent finishing department, and while he's quick he doesn't quite have the pace to carve out enough opportunities for himself to offset his finishing. On paper Fraser, JFC and Dobson with a bit of pace and power in front of them should be the way to get more out of this shape Jackson is insistent on, but this team hasn't reflected its potential on the pitch all season. Having actual wing backs as well would be a help. Kane Wilson would be perfect but he's done so well this season he's likely going to attract attention from teams higher up than us.
0 -
Disagree.Garrymanilow said:SELR_addicks said:
We need someone to link the midfield with the attack.Garrymanilow said:
A Yann-type player alongside Stockley? Give me strength. Yann was an absolute monster at winning headers, to the point where teams had to put one player on him to mark him and another to block his run. Stockley's best asset is his ability to win headers. Not a scrap of pace between them and no ability to beat a man. They'd be winning knockdowns for no-one, praying our wing-backs have got forward so they could wait for the attackers to lumber into the box. If you think we're predictable now just wait until we're entirley reliant on punting the ball upfield and no-one is even running the channelsSELR_addicks said:Stockton isn't the answer.
We need a technical striker to link the midfield, wingers and Stockley.
Washington tries but isn't good enough to be that.
We need a Kermorgant-esque link player.
Stockley isn't technically good enough to do that.
Whether it's a decent #10 or a technical striker, we need someone to do it.
We can use the pace on the wing in CBT and 'insert LWB here' to unlock the opposition and open up the play a bit.
Yes, but that should be a midfielder, not one of the strikers. Up front we're playing with a player whose main attribute is his strength and aerial ability, and he needs a partner. If we make the link player a striker then we may have linked the midfield with the attack but there's nowhere for the play to go from there. The WBs can get forward where they can but ultimately they have too much defensive responsibility to be entirely relied on to support every single attack when it runs out of places to go with the strikers, and then we're asking the midfielders to constantly run beyond the two strikers to give an option, which is just leaving yourself totally exposed in the middle if the attack breaks down. If we're going to play with a strong but slow striker and a 10 then we'd need to play more like a 4-2-3-1 and demand less defensively of our wide men, who would have to play as advanced wingers. I was under the impression that Fraser was brought in to be the link player, but he hasn't shown us much yet. If we're going to play the way we are currently then alongside Dobson in the holding role we need a technical midfielder who can offer both solidity and the ability to keep the ball moving, and a creative player to, as you say, link midfield and attack. In front of them we need a player with pace and finishing capability to play off Stockley. Washington works hard but he's lacking in the consistent finishing department, and while he's quick he doesn't quite have the pace to carve out enough opportunities for himself to offset his finishing. On paper Fraser, JFC and Dobson with a bit of pace and power in front of them should be the way to get more out of this shape Jackson is insistent on, but this team hasn't reflected its potential on the pitch all season. Having actual wing backs as well would be a help. Kane Wilson would be perfect but he's done so well this season he's likely going to attract attention from teams higher up than us.
One attacker should be capable of having the ball at his feet and playing the wing backs into the game. Direct play up to Stockley is great, he can't pass though. We need the other striker to be able to bring the ball down and be someone Fraser + F-C can look to link play with.
Otherwise we're stuck like we have been this season, either lumping it to Stockley or lumping to to a channel for the 'quick one'. Neither of them are difficult to break down and stop.0 -
He wouldn't if we had signed him...mendonca said:I certainly didn't expect May to outshine Elliot Lee this season.2
