Toast Mathew Stokes

[Teriyakicat]

Mathew Stokes has been one of my favourite players for many years. I just love watching him get around his teammates after a goal, to celebrate with them. His bond with teammate, Mooney, was something special.


Stokes' journey at the club has been one of terrific highs and terrible lows- from premiership wins, to not making the GF team in 2009, to the drug scandal of 2010. Throughout these times, Stokesy has shown himself to be made of pretty tough stuff, hardened in the fires of adversity, run through with threads of humour, threads of compassion for the disadvantaged indigenous kids, threads of determination to be the best footballer that he can possibly be and with an overwhelming love of the club that drafted him when he'd been passed over during the drafts of the previous three consecutive years.

Three-time winner of the GFC Community Champion Award (2009, 2013, 2014), Stokesy seems to have his finger in every pie and said, when he received his third CC award, "I actually feel embarrassed that I've won more community awards than footy awards". Thousands of kids whose lives he's touched, would no doubt tell him that he has nothing to be embarrassed about.

Dropped from the seniors last week, Stokes again held his head high and showed why he is so well loved by all at the club.

“Stokesy’s attitude to the day was first-rate,” Cats VFL coach Paul Hood said.

“Talking to Mat (I asked), ‘What do you want to get out of the game?’ and he said, ‘Don’t worry about me, you just do whatever’s necessary for the team’, which shows why he’s been such a good player for the Cats for so long.”

The full article- http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...-puts-club-first/story-fnjuhrxq-1227458912623 - elaborates on what makes Stokesy such a good clubman.

More praise for Stokes- this time from Brian Cook (in 2014):

Geelong chief executive Brian Cook said Stokes had made a profound impact on the club during his nine seasons.

“There is no doubt Stokesy has made a difference at our footy club,” Cook said.

“He is forever giving. He gives back to the indigenous community and tries to act as an example to his Aboriginal people and it’s been fantastic for us.”

This article- http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...f-cultural-stuff/story-fnjuhqx6-1227381116794 - tells us what he hopes his legacy will be at the GFC and where Stokesy will be, post-retirement.

We don't know when he will retire but, judging by his behaviour to date, Mathew Stokes is sure to put the club first and retire gracefully at the right time. He's got far too much to do to be hanging around in Geelong longer than he's needed!

 

[dazbroncos]

Its this kind of stuff that makes me happy to give him another year on the list. He knows his selections will be form based and he has played some good stuff this year - but he fighting of this spot with the younguns. It just means he has to work harder. And when he's in the VFL, he teaches.

That for mine is worth one more year.

Being on 186 games this week, he could easily get another 14 over the next 30 games ( this and next year).

Fine with that.

Go Catters

 

[Bobby_]

Fine with that.

I'm not.
He's cooked.

Those 14 games could be incredibly fortuitous to a player like Jansen or Horlin-Smith who must get a look in in order to start building on their careers.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I'm not.
He's cooked.

Those 14 games could be incredibly fortuitous to a player like Jansen or Horlin-Smith who must get a look in in order to start building on their careers.

If Stokes is "cooked", it might be time to stick quite a few of the younger players on the spit for a while, until they start to produce at least half as much as Stokes does.

And on the basis of his performances so far, it wouldn't just be "fortuitous" for Jansen to get those 14 games, it would be Tattslotto-lucky.

 

[catempire]

The strident defence of him by FredLeDeux and Cattery is admirable, but as good a player he has been for us over the journey from his limited physical attributes and abilities, I think he has come to the end.

Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean he has gone from good AFL player to useless overnight; I'm sure he could still play some useful AFL football for us.

At his best he was an evasive, prolific, important link up player who kicked and created goals. I'm just not seeing that anymore and I'm seeing his physical limitations exposed more and more.

Given where we are at and what we need to achieve with turning over our list I think Stokesy is in the cross hairs.

 

[FredLeDeux]

The strident defence of him by FredLeDeux and Cattery is admirable, but as good a player he has been for us over the journey from his limited physical attributes and abilities, I think he has come to the end.

Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean he has gone from good AFL player to useless overnight; I'm sure he could still play some useful AFL football for us.

At his best he was an evasive, prolific, important link up player who kicked and created goals. I'm just not seeing that anymore and I'm seeing his physical limitations exposed more and more.

Given where we are at and what we need to achieve with turning over our list I think Stokesy is in the cross hairs.

Our defences of Stokes have been very factual and reasoned. All the unsubstantiated stridency has been on the part of the baggers.

 

[catempire]

Our defences of Stokes have been very factual and reasoned. All the unsubstantiated stridency has been on the part of the baggers.

I don't take issue with your view - it's an arguable position to take. It's just not what I'm observing.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I don't take issue with your view - it's an arguable position to take. It's just not what I'm observing.

That's fine, no worries.

In previous posts, Cattery has done a comprehensive job of setting out the facts and, as far as I'm concerned, they are both unanswered and unanswerable, so I'll not bother doing it again. People are perfectly entitled to take contrary opinions, as many have done, regardless of the facts. There's not even a rule against people inventing their own factoids to justify (seemingly) predetermined opinions, as some have done (in my opinion).

I think, however, that it's good for the team that Scott said on Saturday that he's "looking forward to having him back quickly". Provided, of course, that he meant it and acts upon it.

 

[catempire]

That's fine, no worries.

In previous posts, Cattery has done a comprehensive job of setting out the facts and, as far as I'm concerned, they are both unanswered and unanswerable, so I'll not bother doing it again. People are perfectly entitled to take contrary opinions, as many have done, regardless of the facts. There's not even a rule against people inventing their own factoids to justify (seemingly) predetermined opinions, as some have done (in my opinion).

I think, however, that it's good for the team that Scott said on Saturday that he's "looking forward to having him back quickly". Provided, of course, that he meant it and acts upon it.

Where as I think it's the right thing for Scott to say as long as he didn't mean it and doesn't act upon it!

By the way, the facts as you describe them - I take it you mean the statistics? They cannot be disputed for what they are but, equally, I haven't seen a fact to refute the popular (and correct IMO) view that Stokes is not as damaging a player with his possessions as he once was, he's not as quick as he once was and he makes more ball handling errors than he once did. These are things I'm observing which underpin my view of him. I don't argue that he's not getting the ball enough - that is not at issue.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Where as I think it's the right thing for Scott to say as long as he didn't mean it and doesn't act upon it!

By the way, the facts as you describe them - I take it you mean the statistics? They cannot be disputed for what they are but, equally, I haven't seen a fact to refute the popular (and correct IMO) view that Stokes is not as damaging a player with his possessions as he once was, he's not as quick as he once was and he makes more ball handling errors than he once did. These are things I'm observing which underpin my view of him. I don't argue that he's not getting the ball enough - that is not at issue.

That might be said of any of our older players - but it's not as important as the fact that all they need to do is outperform their potential replacement each week.

 

[catempire]

That might be said of any of our older players - but it's not as important as the fact that all they need to do is outperform their potential replacement each week.

True to an extent. But I can't see Enright being passed by anyone yet or SJ or Mackie or Kelly or Lonergan. I can with Stokes, if not on actual outputs then on likely outputs and very likely 2016 and beyond outputs when Stokes won't be here.

 

[Spazz Cat]

True to an extent. But I can't see Enright being passed by anyone yet or SJ or Mackie or Kelly or Lonergan. I can with Stokes, if not on actual outputs then on likely outputs and very likely 2016 and beyond outputs when Stokes won't be here.

Dunno. Who's likely to provide more output than him next year.
GHS is playing some solid VFL footy but still not even close to Stokes.
Cockatoo is realistically a couple of years away.
Gore hasn't come on as quickly as first thought.
Jansen is just no where near it.

Don't see the point of just cutting Stokes.
We'll have enough players leaving at the end of the year.
Some people want 8 picks in next years draft or something.

 

[catempire]

Dunno. Who's likely to provide more output than him next year.
GHS is playing some solid VFL footy but still not even close to Stokes.
Cockatoo is realistically a couple of years away.
Gore hasn't come on as quickly as first thought.
Jansen is just no where near it.

Don't see the point of just cutting Stokes.
We'll have enough players leaving at the end of the year.
Some people want 8 picks in next years draft or something.

I'm going by Brian Cook's 5-7 departures. Stokes will be one of those in my view. Some of the young players you mention will overtake Stokes.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I'm going by Brian Cook's 5-7 departures. Stokes will be one of those in my view. Some of the young players you mention will overtake Stokes.

Can see a few of them getting games but not being best 22.
Also we're relying on Lang and Gregsons form not dropping off, as well as not losing Motlop, as well as no injuries.
We've got 2 players already gone (Hartman, Toohey.) 2 saying their definitely going (Rivers, HMac) plus a lot of others who are iffy.
We'll get our 5 departures without losing any of our premiership vets.
Who we gonna replace Stokes with, a fifth round pick. Apparently it's a weak draft this year.
We've got nothing to lose by keeping him and nothing to gain by cutting him.

 

[dazbroncos]

I'm not.
He's cooked.

Those 14 games could be incredibly fortuitous to a player like Jansen or Horlin-Smith who must get a look in in order to start building on their careers.

And if they get 32 touches in the VFL and play the away coach asks, then they'll get them.

Until that point, and if Stokes is doing it, he gets the nod for mine. If they are both, or all three doing it, then I could see the younger player getting the nod but only if the output was being matched.

Go Catters

 

[catempire]

Can see a few of them getting games but not being best 22.
Also we're relying on Lang and Gregsons form not dropping off, as well as not losing Motlop, as well as no injuries.
We've got 2 players already gone (Hartman, Toohey.) 2 saying their definitely going (Rivers, HMac) plus a lot of others who are iffy.
We'll get our 5 departures without losing any of our premiership vets.
Who we gonna replace Stokes with, a fifth round pick. Apparently it's a weak draft this year.
We've got nothing to lose by keeping him and nothing to gain by cutting him.

I'm taking Cook's 5-7 at face value. I think 5 is the minimum if we only get 1 free agent. Seven is the upper end if we get a few FAs.

So it's Hartman, McIntosh, Rivers and 2-4 others.

Next cab off the rank is Blease who is on a one year deal and Scott said is still a way off where he needs to be to play seniors. That leaves 1-3 more.

On the next rung I put Simpson and Cowan for different reasons along with the uncertain veterans: Steve Johnson, James Kelly, Andrew Mackie and Mathew Stokes. I'm now assuming that Boris and Bartel play on.

In my view, as long as we can replace Simpson the queue at the door is:

1. Simpson
= 2. Cowan (fitness pending), Stokes
4. Kelly
5. Johnson
6. Mackie

I think Stokes is in a bit of trouble, not because he's been awful or anything but he just appears to be the most expendable among the doubtful group. Kelly will be marginalised if we add Dangerfield and Selwood. Johnson and Mackie reasonably safe but will be on reduced contracts for 2016.

 

[Sttew]

Its not like the first time Stokesy has experienced a slump in form. Granted he is older.

So maybe his days in the midfield are over. He has proven to be a handy goal sneak.

 

[year of the cat]

Our defences of Stokes have been very factual and reasoned. All the unsubstantiated stridency has been on the part of the baggers.

He wasn't dropped for no reason Fred. His lack of a defensive game against North was woeful at times. One particular play was unforgivable.

For what it's worth I'm of the view he should retire at years end. We need to be continuing to stagger our ageing players retirements, and to me, Stokes's form is below that of Enright, Kelly and a few others that are in that position where their immediate futures are uncertain.

He's been a terrific servant for us and has exceeded what we would have expected from a player taken so low in his draft year having been overlooked the 2 years prior.

 

[Spazz Cat]

I'm taking Cook's 5-7 at face value. I think 5 is the minimum if we only get 1 free agent. Seven is the upper end if we get a few FAs.

So it's Hartman, McIntosh, Rivers and 2-4 others.

Next cab off the rank is Blease who is on a one year deal and Scott said is still a way off where he needs to be to play seniors. That leaves 1-3 more.

On the next rung I put Simpson and Cowan for different reasons along with the uncertain veterans: Steve Johnson, James Kelly, Andrew Mackie and Mathew Stokes. I'm now assuming that Boris and Bartel play on.

In my view, as long as we can replace Simpson the queue at the door is:

1. Simpson
= 2. Cowan (fitness pending), Stokes
4. Kelly
5. Johnson
6. Mackie

I think Stokes is in a bit of trouble, not because he's been awful or anything but he just appears to be the most expendable among the doubtful group. Kelly will be marginalised if we add Dangerfield and Selwood. Johnson and Mackie reasonably safe but will be on reduced contracts for 2016.

We'll probably lose Motlop and Walker is a good chance to go.
But Yeah. If we replace Simpson and get Danger that is how it will probably go.
If we get Scooter though this type of argument will start up again I think.
He played a ripper half season a few years ago. Bar that he's been really ordinary.
He'll be another player keeping a young midfielder from getting a game.
Different types of players but Stokes had been way better than him the last couple of years and probably would be next year too

 

[Sttew]

He wasn't dropped for no reason Fred. His lack of a defensive game against North was woeful at times. One particular play was unforgivable.

For what it's worth I'm of the view he should retire at years end. We need to be continuing to stagger our ageing players retirements, and to me, Stokes's form is below that of Enright, Kelly and a few others that are in that position where their immediate futures are uncertain.

He's been a terrific servant for us and has exceeded what we would have expected from a player taken so low in his draft year having been overlooked the 2 years prior.

As much as I love the way Stokes reinvented himself and has been a fiercely loyal servant of the club, I tend to agree. He could turn this around , though, and Boris or Kelly could have the next form / confidence slump. Either way, over the next 2 - 3 years the club has a painfully necessary job to do in retiring the veterans. You can't sugar coat it.

 

[catempire]

We'll probably lose Motlop and Walker is a good chance to go.
But Yeah. If we replace Simpson and get Danger that is how it will probably go.
If we get Scooter though this type of argument will start up again I think.
He played a ripper half season a few years ago. Bar that he's been really ordinary.
He'll be another player keeping a young midfielder from getting a game.
Different types of players but Stokes had been way better than him the last couple of years and probably would be next year too

I think the difference is Scooter is more inside and negating which we can't get so much from Stokes.

 

[Sttew]

I think the difference is Scooter is more inside and negating which we can't get so much from Stokes.

Not to mention 5 - 6 years in age difference

 

[Spazz Cat]

Not to mention 5 - 6 years in age difference

But he's still a s**t player. Doesn't matter what age or how inside he is.
He's only classed as inside cause he's not good enough to play outside as well.
He's only a negater because he's not that skillfull with the ball

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I'm going by Brian Cook's 5-7 departures. Stokes will be one of those in my view. Some of the young players you mention will overtake Stokes.

He also said there'd be 2-3 over 30 players move on this year and the same the following year etc. So you'd be of the view that it should be Enright, Rivers and Stokes? Not counting Hamish.

It's possible he won't be here next year but I'm not so ardent on that. Definitely on the fence with this one. Daz's POV is also valid to me.

Good thread btw Teriyakicat

 

[catempire]

He also said there'd be 2-3 over 30 players move on this year and the same the following year etc. So you'd be of the view that it should be Enright, Rivers and Stokes? Not counting Hamish.

It's possible he won't be here next year but I'm not so ardent on that. Definitely on the fence with this one. Daz's POV is also valid to me.

Good thread btw @Teriyakicat

I am assuming Enright plays on. If he doesn't perhaps that opens the door for Stokes to stay.