I read A Storm of Spears a couple months ago, and I found it very compelling in how systematically Matthews examined every facet of hoplite combat. With that being said, I have wondered if other historians have generally accepted his work. The book did have blurbs on it by other historians, and the few reviews I read were favorable, but I feel that a work that goes so much against the old accepted model of hoplite warfare must have some detractors.
Responses have been mixed. Matthew's topic is a bit myopic for the tastes of the academic community, which probably explains why there are (to my knowledge) no reviews in major academic media like the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, the Journal of Hellenic Studies or The Classical Review. Modern historians of Greek warfare tend to focus more on the social, economic and religious context of warfare at large, rather than the technical details of combat. For comprehensive reviews of the book, we need to look in the grey area between academia and popular history. See for example the balanced review by /u/JoshoBrouwers, editor of Ancient Warfare Magazine, here; this review highlights both the parts of A Storm of Spears that have appealed to academic scholars and the reasons (specifically, a lack of transparency about Matthew's material evidence) why they might nevertheless be hesitant to accept his conclusions. The appraisal of the Michigan War Studies Review, posted here, is more positive about the book, but actually considers it too academic, finding little merit in Matthew's attempts to present his research as empirical and thorough.
/u/JoshoBrouwers' review actually links to a very fruitful discussion we had on Matthew's work right here on AskHistorians a few months ago; the thread is here. Greek warfare experts Paul Bardunias (/u/PMBardunias) and Fred Ray (/u/NebraskaFred) explained in detail why they are extremely sceptical of Matthew's arguments, and offered links to their alternative view of the subject.
It's worth noting that their criticism isn't born out of conservatism and a desire to defend the 'orthodox' model of hoplite combat, but rather out of disagreement over the particular way in which our understanding of hoplite combat can move forward from this old model. As far as I'm aware, there has been no attack on Matthew's views from the remaining champions of orthodoxy (although if it were to come from anyone, it would be from Adam Schwartz).