Toast Mathew Stokes

Remove this Banner Ad

Spazz Cat said:
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
Click to expand...

He did win their B&F in 2012, and has played 130 games
 
Great work TC, nice to see a discussion about Stokes without all the usual histrionics (though I doubt that will last long unfortunately)

FredLeDeux said:
All the unsubstantiated stridency has been on the part of the baggers.
Click to expand...

FredLeDeux said:
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).
Click to expand...

Those two posts explain exactly why I've been jumping to his defence, quite a lot of the criticism of him has been absurd quite frankly.

catempire said:
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.
Click to expand...

Measured appraisal of him like the one above I have no problem with, and I even agree with it to an extent, he is in my opinion not quite the player he was last year, but still a good, solid contributor who sits comfortably within our best twenty two.
 
FredLeDeux said:
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).
Click to expand...

The most important fact (or even 'factoid') is the match committee were the ones who dropped him. So they saw something in his performances they weren't happy with. He may come straight back in, and may retain his spot for the rest of the year. But if he isn't included, it's the same match committee who are trusted (and defended) in plenty of other selection decisions who are responsible.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sttew said:
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.
Click to expand...

True. He definitely has. But his last year as a goal sneak was in 2012, and he only kicked 15 goals that season. With his decline in pace I'm not sure he'd be as effective as he was in years past.
 
Sttew said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wrote him off a few seasons ago but he has been fantastic since.
However the end is nigh - if not this it will be next seasons end.
One big issue is the severe drop in kicking penetration , there's an element of Scott West syndrome whereby he can't make the distance for goal over 35M out - that's going to limit his effectiveness as a small forward.
 
Farmer2Goggin said:
I wrote him off a few seasons ago but he has been fantastic since.
However the end is nigh - if not this it will be next seasons end.
One big issue is the severe drop in kicking penetration , there's an element of Scott West syndrome whereby he can't make the distance for goal over 35M out - that's going to limit his effectiveness as a small forward.
Click to expand...

This is one point I was remiss in adding. His kicking has shortened a lot in the games I've seen of late. Not sure if its entirely physical or just poor choices trying to be too cute with the passes - but that would need to abate and his kicking at least stabilize for him to go again.

I should have added that to me earlier post.

GO Catters
 
Partridge said:
The most important fact (or even 'factoid') is the match committee were the ones who dropped him. So they saw something in his performances they weren't happy with. He may come straight back in, and may retain his spot for the rest of the year. But if he isn't included, it's the same match committee who are trusted (and defended) in plenty of other selection decisions who are responsible.
Click to expand...
Dropped him not because of form, but because being sub in the last month he needed match time.

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/video/2015-07-25/chris-scott-postmatch-r17

Around the 5 minute mark.
 
catempire said:
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.
Click to expand...
What do you mean you can see Stokes being passed on "likely" outputs? And of course if he's no longer at the club, his output of zero will be passed by any number of players.
I think you're projecting output forward for the young players and comparing it with Stokes' projected output in 2016- is that right?

From my observations, that is a very risky and dartboard way to assess a player or to compare players.

I didn't mean to start a Stokes war with the OP. I really think he's likely to put the club first when the time is right but I also think he'd be happy to play VFL in 2016- stay on the AFL list- and play games as needed when his form or the form or injury of teammates opens up a place on the team. Having him as a backup would be so much better than pushing an 18-year old pick 88 into the seniors to fill a hole. He has a very durable player- playing >20 games each year since 2007, (exceptions being 19 games in 2009 and 18 in 2010 when he was suspended).
 
year of the cat said:
Swings and roundabouts. If his form was that good he wouldn't have been made the sub. Just a convenient excuse from Scott I think.
Click to expand...
Possibly, possibly not. I know one that will agree with you on this though...

I'm sure the problem was compounded by no Adelaide game, who know they may not have intended for him to be sub that game. So I'd say it contributed. Was his form great no but I wouldn't say it was awful for that long. His three most recent games pre bye were good so that to me suggests the extended bye has played a part here. His last two games weren't great though, granted.
 
dazbroncos said:
This is one point I was remiss in adding. His kicking has shortened a lot in the games I've seen of late. Not sure if its entirely physical or just poor choices trying to be too cute with the passes - but that would need to abate and his kicking at least stabilize for him to go again.

I should have added that to me earlier post.

GO Catters
Click to expand...

I speak with some authority on this matter dazbroncos
I've really enjoyed having a kick with my son over the years , however he's now 18 and whilst he still indulges me my hammies have tightened to such an extent that I can handpass as far as I can kick:straining::eek:
 
Farmer2Goggin said:
I wrote him off a few seasons ago but he has been fantastic since.
However the end is nigh - if not this it will be next seasons end.
One big issue is the severe drop in kicking penetration , there's an element of Scott West syndrome whereby he can't make the distance for goal over 35M out - that's going to limit his effectiveness as a small forward.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's understandable- I hadn't noticed him trying to kick too far- but there is still value in him if he's creating opportunities for others.
Maybe he can just tie himself to Tom Hawkins in the goalsquare ;)
 
Farmer2Goggin said:
I speak with some authority on this matter dazbroncos
I've really enjoyed having a kick with my son over the years , however he's now 18 and whilst he still indulges me my hammies have tightened to such an extent that I can handpass as far as I can kick:straining::eek:
Click to expand...
Lol :D
I'm guessing that your handpassing hasn't improved to the extent that you'd want to be proud of that fact? :p
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Teriyakicat said:
What do you mean you can see Stokes being passed on "likely" outputs? And of course if he's no longer at the club, his output of zero will be passed by any number of players.
I think you're projecting output forward for the young players and comparing it with Stokes' projected output in 2016- is that right?
Click to expand...
That's right. It's the only way it can be done really. Unless we are willing to rotate older players out of the team for decent periods to assess whether younger players can match or better output of older players, I don't see how else we can make calls between players at opposite ends of their careers. It has to be done on future expectations of output.

Teriyakicat said:
From my observations, that is a very risky and dartboard way to assess a player or to compare players.
Click to expand...
I don't see it as dartboard at all. It's really the only way and it is what has happened in the past with several of our older players who finished their time in the VFL and then who pulled the pin rather than fighting on another year (Mooney, Milburn).

Teriyakicat said:
I didn't mean to start a Stokes war with the OP. I really think he's likely to put the club first when the time is right but I also think he'd be happy to play VFL in 2016- stay on the AFL list- and play games as needed when his form or the form or injury of teammates opens up a place on the team. Having him as a backup would be so much better than pushing an 18-year old pick 88 into the seniors to fill a hole. He has a very durable player- playing >20 games each year since 2007, (exceptions being 19 games in 2009 and 18 in 2010 when he was suspended).
Click to expand...
Agree with the first bit of this. Stokes has always presented as a team/club first person. I don't expect he will dig his heels in and outstay his welcome, whoever is the ultimate judge of that.
 
year of the cat said:
Swings and roundabouts. If his form was that good he wouldn't have been made the sub. Just a convenient excuse from Scott I think.
Click to expand...
Even if you give Scott the benefit of the doubt, the fact is if you drop a player to the VFL to give them more game time you are transparently saying if they played AFL they would not be getting that game time. With Stokes, the reason for that is probably form.
 
catempire said:
That's right. It's the only way it can be done really. Unless we are willing to rotate older players out of the team for decent periods to assess whether younger players can match or better output of older players, I don't see how else we can make calls between players at opposite ends of their careers. It has to be done on future expectations of output.


I don't see it as dartboard at all. It's really the only way and it is what has happened in the past with several of our older players who finished their time in the VFL and then who pulled the pin rather than fighting on another year (Mooney, Milburn).


Agree with the first bit of this. Stokes has always presented as a team/club first person. I don't expect he will dig his heels in and outstay his welcome, whoever is the ultimate judge of that.
Click to expand...
I think with the cyclical nature of output from both vets and young players, the averages will probably be similar in the later years of the vets as the early years of the young 'uns. What I think could be done is - if there is room on the list - keep both and use the better player for periods of time when the other is out of form, rather than say "sorry mate- you're old, he's young, your average output's the same and we're choosing youth over age." So, pretty much what I expect would've been said to Chappy but a bloke like Stokes would be more likely to accept that. I may be wrong, however, and perhaps the club doesn't see a place for him on the team at all- not even minor.

I called the measurement of output as being dartboard because anything can happen- and it invariably does- to stuff up the best laid plans. ("Dartboard" was probably a poor description, despite the result maybe being similar.) Injuries or even minor niggles, have been known to have long term effects on players' form. Assuming an upward trajectory for a young player, then ditching the older player, can lead to all sorts of trouble (eg Varcoe's poor form after returning from his broken collarbone, GHS's form this season, etc) - just as much trouble as pushing a young bloke out of the team by not rewarding their efforts and good form when we play the vets all the time (eg. Hamling, also if we lost Kolo or Walker- who's a slightly different case).

The list management would be crunching all the numbers for months before they make their decisions on who to keep and who to hand the pink slips out to each year. They will make mistakes, they'll get some right. You're right though- there would be no other way to do it.
 
NSFB said:
Possibly, possibly not. I know one that will agree with you on this though...

I'm sure the problem was compounded by no Adelaide game, who know they may not have intended for him to be sub that game. So I'd say it contributed. Was his form great no but I wouldn't say it was awful for that long. His three most recent games pre bye were good so that to me suggests the extended bye has played a part here. His last two games weren't great though, granted.
Click to expand...

He's had a few games this season where he has been in the votes. Then his games since the bye have been -
North Melbourne - he had a bad game and was subbed off. Quite a few of our players also had bad games that day.
Western Bulldogs - came on as sub and did well.
Essendon (VFL) - had 32 possessions, 10 more than any other player, plus five clearances.

So really he's just had one bad game then responded in the right way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top