Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Jayden Fevrier Signs On Loan from Stockport County
Comments
-
A league one player and a very odd signing3
-
Not actually sure what our recruitment team saw in him that made them think 'yeah let's get this guy in and offload Apter'. He wasn't even getting in the Stockport team.
Now don't get me wrong, i'm not implying that Apter is incredible but i'd much rather we gave minutes to our own player who at least has some pace instead of getting this guy in. Seems a sideways move at best.2 -
I thought he was going to be a better Small. Not as frustrating perhaps but not yet seen defenders obviously shitting themselves like they do when TC gets the ball0
-
Thought his little cameo was only the real positive about today.
Did more in five minutes than Doc did all game.2 -
Filling a gap of a sub winger so Apter and to a lesser extent Olaofe could go on loan.
Has had some good cameos but I expect us to aim for better in the summer.13 -
Was an odd one today. At times appeared more interested in step overs than anything else but he did end up carrying the ball into some decent positions. I wouldn’t advocate signing him for one second but I can see now their might be a player in there if he got his head up a bit moreScoham said:Filling a gap of a sub winger so Apter and to a lesser extent Olaofe could go on loan.
Has had some good cameos but I expect us to aim for better in the summer.1 -
I called him a Thierry Small re-gen with less technical and defensive ability on the post-match thread and I stand by it.
I actually think it's a clever bit of business from January as he provides LWB cover and runs at people on the right, both of which we needed. Not saying we sign him permanently, but I think it was a clever little bit of business.3 -
Not bad not great considering he came in to be squad depth and the expectations based on Stockport reviews from a league below been better than I thought. No chance we look to make it permanent but hasn’t been a bad move at all0
-
Still wonder why we didn’t try harder to keep the Small devil we knew 🤷🏻♀️4
-
If you look at Preston fans comments online about him you would see why.Weegie Addick said:Still wonder why we didn’t try harder to keep the Small devil we knew 🤷🏻♀️0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I think he's done a job as people have said in terms of backup for a few gaps in the squad depth, but the main thing I take from him is how Apter can fit in if we progress the way we want to and if Apter can be brought back into the fold.
A lot of people (me included) have been keen to see the 4-2-3-1 and I thought it looked very decent today for a spell, both when Ibby was out wide and when Fevs came on. Both Fevs and Ibby caused problems out right, and TC looks a different player as an out and out winger with threat on the other side.
Sounds very much like Apter wasn't willing to play the waiting game for those opportunities this season and wanted regular football but if we can get to be that side he could fit in very nicely.
0 -
He created our best chance of the game on his own, so fair play to him4
-
I was thinking yesterday that Apter would have been much more suited to the way we played than Clarke. Clarke was so high up the entire game, he was ahead of Kelman at times pushed right up against the left back but he did it all while being a defender who fluffs every good chance he gets. He's a very good player and I like him but if you're going to make your RWB play so high that he's just a winger who has to track back then I don't know why we didn't go with Fevrier from the start. Clarke was pretty ropey defensively as well yesterday which was unlike him but we had a lot of opportunities for something to be created down our right in the first half and Clarke couldn't get anything going and spanked a shot over the bar.PeaksAndValleys said:I think he's done a job as people have said in terms of backup for a few gaps in the squad depth, but the main thing I take from him is how Apter can fit in if we progress the way we want to and if Apter can be brought back into the fold.
A lot of people (me included) have been keen to see the 4-2-3-1 and I thought it looked very decent today for a spell, both when Ibby was out wide and when Fevs came on. Both Fevs and Ibby caused problems out right, and TC looks a different player as an out and out winger with threat on the other side.
Sounds very much like Apter wasn't willing to play the waiting game for those opportunities this season and wanted regular football but if we can get to be that side he could fit in very nicely.0 -
Who in our squad though would actually play better in a 4231 than 352. TC obviously but even then you have fans who think he’s so bad they abuse him when he misses a chance, Fevrier but he’s not a championship player, Chambers and Maybe Clarke that’s it.Garrymanilow said:
I was thinking yesterday that Apter would have been much more suited to the way we played than Clarke. Clarke was so high up the entire game, he was ahead of Kelman at times pushed right up against the left back but he did it all while being a defender who fluffs every good chance he gets. He's a very good player and I like him but if you're going to make your RWB play so high that he's just a winger who has to track back then I don't know why we didn't go with Fevrier from the start. Clarke was pretty ropey defensively as well yesterday which was unlike him but we had a lot of opportunities for something to be created down our right in the first half and Clarke couldn't get anything going and spanked a shot over the bar.PeaksAndValleys said:I think he's done a job as people have said in terms of backup for a few gaps in the squad depth, but the main thing I take from him is how Apter can fit in if we progress the way we want to and if Apter can be brought back into the fold.
A lot of people (me included) have been keen to see the 4-2-3-1 and I thought it looked very decent today for a spell, both when Ibby was out wide and when Fevs came on. Both Fevs and Ibby caused problems out right, and TC looks a different player as an out and out winger with threat on the other side.
Sounds very much like Apter wasn't willing to play the waiting game for those opportunities this season and wanted regular football but if we can get to be that side he could fit in very nicely.The formation isn’t the issue having 2 wingbacks not allowed to get forward and 2 sitting CM’s with no technical ability is which comes down to style of play over system.0 -
My lil boy asked me who he was when he came off the bench. I said "hes just some bloke who looks like he's won a competition to be a professional footballer for a season". He then whipped in one of the best crosses of the game! What do i know? I thought he played well in his little cameo tbf.paulsturgess said:He created our best chance of the game on his own, so fair play to him3 -
I would go for Alli…the Pompey loanee…been very good every time I see him3
-
Pompey fans didnt seem impressed with him yesterdayct_addick said:I would go for Alli…the Pompey loanee…been very good every time I see him0 -
He's a good sub to bring on when chasing a game. I love his positivity, even if a lot of what he tries didn't come off. I would still hope/expect us to bring in better this summer though.3
-
ForeverAddickted said:
Pompey fans didnt seem impressed with him yesterdayct_addick said:I would go for Alli…the Pompey loanee…been very good every time I see him
If Pompey don't survive I'd be after Terry Devlin not Ali
0 -
I agree we need to address the lack of creativity through the middle regardless of what formation we play. But I think that switch in formation addresses a lot of other issues, including the lack of width (don't need to rely on WBs to provide it), lack of service to the striker(s), inability to link through from defence to forwards, getting the best out of TC, pressure off Cov/Doc to try to protect the defence and provide forward play, getting overrun in midfield defensively etc etc. The question is whether we can maintain our defensive solidity without five at the back but I would like to see it tried a bit more to shift the balance towards more attacking playCrispywood said:
Who in our squad though would actually play better in a 4231 than 352. TC obviously but even then you have fans who think he’s so bad they abuse him when he misses a chance, Fevrier but he’s not a championship player, Chambers and Maybe Clarke that’s it.Garrymanilow said:
I was thinking yesterday that Apter would have been much more suited to the way we played than Clarke. Clarke was so high up the entire game, he was ahead of Kelman at times pushed right up against the left back but he did it all while being a defender who fluffs every good chance he gets. He's a very good player and I like him but if you're going to make your RWB play so high that he's just a winger who has to track back then I don't know why we didn't go with Fevrier from the start. Clarke was pretty ropey defensively as well yesterday which was unlike him but we had a lot of opportunities for something to be created down our right in the first half and Clarke couldn't get anything going and spanked a shot over the bar.PeaksAndValleys said:I think he's done a job as people have said in terms of backup for a few gaps in the squad depth, but the main thing I take from him is how Apter can fit in if we progress the way we want to and if Apter can be brought back into the fold.
A lot of people (me included) have been keen to see the 4-2-3-1 and I thought it looked very decent today for a spell, both when Ibby was out wide and when Fevs came on. Both Fevs and Ibby caused problems out right, and TC looks a different player as an out and out winger with threat on the other side.
Sounds very much like Apter wasn't willing to play the waiting game for those opportunities this season and wanted regular football but if we can get to be that side he could fit in very nicely.The formation isn’t the issue having 2 wingbacks not allowed to get forward and 2 sitting CM’s with no technical ability is which comes down to style of play over system.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Only 22. Looks older. Think we should sign him. Holds the ball up well and has more ability than 2 thirds of the squad.4
-
Very good player should be given a start and preference over Campbell when sub6
-
Depends on what you believe about when he struck his deal with Preston, what his demands were and what we offered him…Weegie Addick said:Still wonder why we didn’t try harder to keep the Small devil we knew 🤷🏻♀️4 -
Yeah I've heard all kinds of stuff , most of it indicating that we never really had a chance of keeping him with what was on the table from Preston and his mind was made up a long time before the playoffs.Callumcafc said:
Depends on what you believe about when he struck his deal with Preston, what his demands were and what we offered him…Weegie Addick said:Still wonder why we didn’t try harder to keep the Small devil we knew 🤷🏻♀️
Don't think I'd keep Fevrier if we really want to push on. Shown flashes that there's a player there but feels like someone that's more top end of L1. Wingback is obviously very high on the shopping list regardless but I don't think even as a squad player he'd be someone I'd look to sign permanently.
4 -
I'd sign him. Do a swap deal for Tanto.MarcusH26 said:
Yeah I've heard all kinds of stuff , most of it indicating that we never really had a chance of keeping him with what was on the table from Preston and his mind was made up a long time before the playoffs.Callumcafc said:
Depends on what you believe about when he struck his deal with Preston, what his demands were and what we offered him…Weegie Addick said:Still wonder why we didn’t try harder to keep the Small devil we knew 🤷🏻♀️
Don't think I'd keep Fevrier if we really want to push on. Shown flashes that there's a player there but feels like someone that's more top end of L1. Wingback is obviously very high on the shopping list regardless but I don't think even as a squad player he'd be someone I'd look to sign permanently.
As a squad player, as back-up for Edwards.
Josh has earned the right to see if he can perform in the Championship...0 -
He’s a good gap filler but we need significantly better additions than him this summer. No way we should be bringing him back imo
9 -
Sign new starters with current starters becoming squad players should generally be the way.11
-
There’s absolutely no way this fella should be anywhere near a championship squad. By no means the worst we’ve had on loan but no way we should be looking to make it permanent.8
-
Very disappointed with his first few appearances, although think it was more reading overly positive comments about his pace and trickery on here and taking it at face value.
But his last few appearances he's certainly added something to us, maybe he came to us massively unfit or un motivated not featuring much for Stockport who knows. I would have him over tanto if it was a swap deal as he covers both wings and at a push both wb positions, do I think he's got the required quality to improve our hopefully better first 11, no but as a bench option covering multiple positions then yeah.1 -
Got to say, I haven't seen a great deal in him. We should definitely be aiming to sign better and if someone like him is the limit of our ambition/budget in the summer then it could be a long season next year.4
