Toast Mathew Stokes

[Sttew]

But he's still a shit 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

He did win their B&F in 2012, and has played 130 games

 

[Cattery]

Great work TC, nice to see a discussion about Stokes without all the usual histrionics (though I doubt that will last long unfortunately)

All the unsubstantiated stridency has been on the part of the baggers.

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

[Partridge]

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).

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.

 

[Partridge]

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.

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.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

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.

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.

 

[dazbroncos]

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.

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

 

[Art Vandelay_]

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.

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.

 

[Teriyakicat]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

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.

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.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

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

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

 

[Teriyakicat]

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.

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

 

[Teriyakicat]

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

Lol
I'm guessing that your handpassing hasn't improved to the extent that you'd want to be proud of that fact?

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

Lol
I'm guessing that your handpassing hasn't improved to the extent that you'd want to be proud of that fact?

Just call me "Polly"

On Stokesy I recall him not making the distance from 40M on a couple of occasions despite giving it a fair roost

 

[catempire]

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?

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.

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

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).

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).

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.

 

[catempire]

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.

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.

 

[year of the cat]

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.

What else could it be?

 

[catempire]

What else could it be?

The only other thing I can think of is preferring to give the opportunity to someone else, in this case Smedts.

 

[you pick one]

This is not the first year Mathews kicking has shortened up as the seasons gone on.Love him to death but to go on for one more he would need to except more of a depth role and help out with some tuition in the VFL,similar role to that taken on by David Wojcinski to his credit in 2012?

 

[catempire]

 

[Teriyakicat]

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.

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.

 

[year of the cat]

The only other thing I can think of is preferring to give the opportunity to someone else, in this case Smedts.

But not dissimilar to your previous argument, if Stokes' form was satisfactory he wouldn't be the one making way for Smedts

 

[year of the cat]

So another week in the magoos for Stoker.

 

[Teriyakicat]

So another week in the magoos for Stoker.

 

[Lester Burnham]

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.

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.