Steven Fletcher to Stoke City

[Weshallovercome]

We paid Fletcher the best part of 6m plus any signing on fee, so yes his time with us is tainted in my eyes for not just helping us out in our time of need, but mocking us for coming on for 10 seconds then feigning injury.

 

Can fully understand why he did it, but he's a selfish tw@

Edited August 15, 2020 by Weshallovercome

[DJMortimer]

10 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Spot on, the same people slagging him off for not playing in July are probably among those who would be happy to sign Lyle Taylor. 

 

The way his Wednesday career ended was disappointing but we shouldn't be deluded into thinking the majority of players wouldn't do the same. Fox has received praise in this thread yet he also decided not to play in July when we resorted to playing players out of position at the back. 

Fletcher is 33 years old and has a history of injury problems. If he had picked up an injury playing in July then it could possibly have been his last significant action as a professional. He has now secured himself around £2M over the next 2 years, a significant sum to run the risk of missing out on. 

Like I say, it was a disappointing way to end and not something I would have advocated but sometimes you have to look at it from their perspective. I think all players should have played on to the end of the season but the power has been with the players for many years and plenty went down this route.

The last month shouldn't completely detract from the fact that over the last 4 years Fletcher was willing to put his body on the line more than many for us.

 

I agree with this in all respects.

 

My only reservation with Fletcher would be if he really did pretend to be injured in that last appearance. That would be a sh*thouse thing to do.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Bulgaria said:

He is a mid table championship striker with a pendant for getting injured.

 

He will not be firing Stoke to promotion.

 

Although he had a good spell with us last year, I also thought he was the reason our play was so slow.

 

No big loss imo.

 

His injury record isn't great it's true but as said, some of his injuries for us came from putting his head in where others wouldn't. Since he signed for us he has been part of the squad with these strikers - Forestieri, Rhodes, Nuhiu, Winnall, Joao, Hooper - guess who played the most games in the period since he joined. Doesn't say much for the availability/ability of the rest.

 

As for being part of the reason our play was too slow, did we play much quicker after he got injured in January? Don't think so but I am 100% sure it didn't improve results.

[deano]

2 hours ago, stocksyuto said:

Under used? He was used loads but he only managed to play about 10 games before he was injured for months

I recall Hooper and FF were usually first choice but maybe that's my memory. 

[gurujuan]

1 hour ago, parajack said:

Here we go again....all Monks fault...have a look at Fletcher's scoring record through his career,at his multiple Clubs......he has never been a prolific goal scorer, hardly 'Monks' tactics..

I never said he was a prolific scorer, I just suggested looking for his head all the time was a limiting tactic, and that Fletcher himself was capable of playing a more all round game

[Guest]

Just now, DJMortimer said:

 

I agree with this in all respects.

 

My only reservation with Fletcher would be if he really did pretend to be injured in that last appearance. That would be a sh*thouse thing to do.

 

I agree and it was incredibly strange, but why put yourself in a situation like that? Come on and then come off within 5 minutes - it would have been obvious to him and his agent how that would look, surely he would have been better off saying beforehand that he felt an injury and didn't want to be included in the squad?

The club said it was a hamstring strain, why would they cover it up with no prospect of him staying with us? It was all a bit bizarre.

[cowl]

1 minute ago, DJMortimer said:

I agree with this in all respects.

 

My only reservation with Fletcher would be if he really did pretend to be injured in that last appearance. That would be a sh*thouse thing to do.

 

It's why I have my doubts that he feigned injury.

 

If for no other reason than it would've been completely unnecessary for him to do so. If he really didn't want to play he could have just done what those at other clubs did and say so. Seems like such a convoluted way to go about getting out of a contractual obligation to play - when it seems as though all the players had already been offered the opportunity to declare whether they were prepared to play or not.

[parajack]

1 minute ago, gurujuan said:

I never said he was a prolific scorer, I just suggested looking for his head all the time was a limiting tactic, and that Fletcher himself was capable of playing a more all round game

You referenced Monk's tactics mate,& in my view implied that was a cause of Fletcher not being as effective as was possible.

[edinburghowl]

12 hours ago, wednesdaywizard said:

 

Well yeah.

 

Celtic... on the verge of their 10th consecutive title.  Champions League football but can't/won't stump up 18k a week and a 2 year contract so Stoke it is.

 

Not sure I can get on board with it.  ME personally...  and that means sod all dunnit?  Short career though isn't it.  He's got to think about his future (without selling his Lambo)

I think a big thing that people are overlooking too is the fact he will start and play regular football at Stoke. He wouldn’t get that at Celtic. That’s a big thing when a footballer is at his stage of his career. 
 

The Celtic fans were up in arms about the prospect of him signing too, they weren’t keen on him at all and didn’t think he was good enough. It would have been an uphill battle for him from the off, he would have scored goals and been decent enough for Celtic as a squad player though no doubt about it.

[Costello 77]

He'd be perfect for the system that Monk seems to want to play but he costs too much.

That's the reality imo..

[Costello 77]

1 minute ago, edinburghowl said:

I think a big thing that people are overlooking too is the fact he will start and play regular football at Stoke. He wouldn’t get that at Celtic. That’s a big thing when a footballer is at his stage of his career. 
 

The Celtic fans were up in arms about the prospect of him signing too, they weren’t keen on him at all and didn’t think he was good enough. It would have been an uphill battle for him from the off, he would have scored goals and been decent enough for Celtic as a squad player though no doubt about it.

He'd more than than hold his own at Celtic..their fans are misinformed.

[edinburghowl]

Just now, Costello 77 said:

He'd more than than hold his own at Celtic..their fans are misinformed.

Agreed. He would have been a good signing. He wouldn’t have been a main starter for them but he’d score goals no bother in the SPFL.

[parajack]

22 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Spot on, the same people slagging him off for not playing in July are probably among those who would be happy to sign Lyle Taylor. 

 

The way his Wednesday career ended was disappointing but we shouldn't be deluded into thinking the majority of players wouldn't do the same. Fox has received praise in this thread yet he also decided not to play in July when we resorted to playing players out of position at the back. 

Fletcher is 33 years old and has a history of injury problems. If he had picked up an injury playing in July then it could possibly have been his last significant action as a professional. He has now secured himself around £2M over the next 2 years, a significant sum to run the risk of missing out on. 

Like I say, it was a disappointing way to end and not something I would have advocated but sometimes you have to look at it from their perspective. I think all players should have played on to the end of the season but the power has been with the players for many years and plenty went down this route.

The last month shouldn't completely detract from the fact that over the last 4 years Fletcher was willing to put his body on the line more than many for us.

ABBA.........Eh?......MONEY,MONEY,MONEY,its a rich mans world.....Not see any issue at all with a Player collecting full wages over the shutdown period,without even kicking a ball,to than not be prepared to help the Club who have paid him allegedly Millions potentially stay in the Championship? 'he has secured a contract to pay him maybe 2 Million quid,over 2 years' well i guess thats all that matters than eh?....Good old Steven.....'Fletch' 'Hutch' 'Fessi''Hoops'...our Hero's   Where would we'allegedly' be without you?

[parajack]

8 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

He'd be perfect for the system that Monk seems to want to play but he costs too much.

That's the reality imo..

Fletcher simply doesnt score or assist enough goals,in my view to be 'perfect'....Yes others must 'chip in' too,but we really need someone that can play regularly,and consistently over a Season & score 15 to 20 goals+

Fletcher has never fallen into that category since his earliest days in Football.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, parajack said:

ABBA.........Eh?......MONEY,MONEY,MONEY,its a rich mans world.....Not see any issue at all with a Player collecting full wages over the shutdown period,without even kicking a ball,to than not be prepared to help the Club who have paid him allegedly Millions potentially stay in the Championship? 'he has secured a contract to pay him maybe 2 Million quid,over 2 years' well i guess thats all that matters than eh?....Good old Steven.....'Fletch' 'Hutch' 'Fessi''Hoops'...our Hero's   Where would we'allegedly' be without you?

 

You seemingly read what you want and ignore the other points. I'll copy the bit out again for your benefit in which I clearly stated it is not something I agree with, hope this helps.

 

Like I say, it was a disappointing way to end and not something I would have advocated but sometimes you have to look at it from their perspective. I think all players should have played on to the end of the season but the power has been with the players for many years and plenty went down this route.

 

I never referred to anyone as 'heroes' and as said previously, the players do not control our finances, no player put a gun to the head of the club saying we must agree to pay them this or else, we could have said no.

[Lawrie Madden]

13 hours ago, Ronio said:

Good player yes,  good attitude and good professional? I have question marks over that.  

 

If he was a good professional, he would have played for us after the restart.  That is what good professionals like Lee and Nuhiu did.

 

He's just another mercenary footballer looking for the next big pay cheque.  I'm glad he's gone.  We need less players with that attitude at the club.  

Would you have put at risk a move to another club to play 7 games for a club you had no future at ?

 

Of course you would ................except of course you wouldn't because you would be mad to 

 

It always amazes me the high dudgeon that football fans get into when players put their careers first reflect it back on yourself you've never ever made a decision just for your own benefit ?

[Lawrie Madden]

He's not a Wednesday player but he was our best striker for most of his time here so good luck to the lad

[Penfold]

1 hour ago, DJMortimer said:

 

You need to use the reply function if you're responding to a particular post. 

 

What's being contradicted? You've fallen for the myth that there is a strict correlation between a 20 goal striker and success. That simply isn't the case and is something I've looked at many times in the past. You only have to go back a fortnight to see some examples of this. The Championship's 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th highest scorers played for the teams that finished 7th, 18th, 13th and 24th. At the same time, the team finished 2nd had no one who even mustered a dozen.

 

No need for a strop.

Cheers for the heads up and cheers for your stats again . Not sure if I replied or quoted again, pretty new to this 

[parajack]

1 minute ago, Lawrie Madden said:

Would you have put at risk a move to another club to play 7 games for a club you had no future at ?

 

Of course you would ................except of course you wouldn't because you would be mad to 

 

It always amazes me the high dudgeon that football fans get into when players put their careers first reflect it back on yourself you've never ever made a decision just for your own benefit ?

 

1 minute ago, Lawrie Madden said:

Would you have put at risk a move to another club to play 7 games for a club you had no future at ?

 

Of course you would ................except of course you wouldn't because you would be mad to 

 

It always amazes me the high dudgeon that football fans get into when players put their careers first reflect it back on yourself you've never ever made a decision just for your own benefit ?

No future at? Wasnt Fletcher offered a further contract at Wednesday? & turned it down? Plenty of Players have spent their entire career at one Club...it  is a choice

[gurujuan]

13 minutes ago, parajack said:

You referenced Monk's tactics mate,& in my view implied that was a cause of Fletcher not being as effective as was possible.

Yeah, and I stick by that. Nothing to do with Fletcher’s goals output though. If it wasn’t Monk’s tactics, the only other explanation is that the players were ignoring the managers instructions. That can happen of course, when players are lacking in confidence, they will often take the easy way out. Either way though, it’s down to Monk to change that