Fair enough. Valid points.
Micah's development suffered badly because of injuries. And as a result he was in and out of the team and shoved to full back. I've always thought he should have always been a centre half. Also it's clear Micah doesn't have a football brain whereas I think Stones clearly does.
A lot of Stones fee is down to potential but I firmly believe he would be ready to play in Peps system when comparing him to Pique and Boateng.
He's had two full premier league seasons at the age of 20 and 21 and has made a few mistakes granted. You could name me a dozen better centre halves but I will be able to show you mistakes for each and everyone of them I'm certain. All footballers make mistakes. He's still learning a position in which players don't perform until mid to late 20's.
Anyway name your 12. I'm curious :)
Re Micah, injuries didn't help his progression, but I think that serves to whitewash the fact that he just peaked early, and never ironed out inherent flaws to his game.
Micah garnered so much hype because he had a man's physique when he was 16. He had flaws to his game but he was hungry and everyone believed they could be ironed out.
They couldn't, and they weren't, they were inherent flaws. And they were rooted in a fundamental lack of footballing IQ, and with all due respect, actual IQ. His potential wasn't as great as people believed it to be,
He didn't nail down a position and he didn't learn his trade, then he was just an adult who had superb natural gifts - which were then dampened by injury.
You need to cut through the the hype and recognise that it amounts for very little.
Micah actually had a much more impressive CV than John Stones at his age, he'd achieved much more, and actually had some very impressive individual performances and seasons up to that point.
Stones hasn't, he's shown great footballing ability for a centre half consistently, but that's about it. Everyone is presuming he'll iron out similar footballing IQ flaws that Micah had, and become a top centre half, and that's far from a given. He's yet to even become a very good centre half, let alone a top one.
I don't know, I'd just be very very cautious with him, and I'd sooner we just trusted Denayer, personally. I don't think Stones is worth the gamble at circa £45m.
Re the dozen centre halves in the PL who are currently better than Stones, in no particular order:
Kompany
Smalling
Cahill
Otamendi
Reid
Huth
Morgan
Koscielny
Van Dijk
Alderweireld
Williams
Vertongen
Zouma
That's 13, all currently better than Stones as of right now, could probably name more but they'd be more debatable.
Stones has the potential to be better than most of those according to some, but the question is, will he realise it? And is he worth the gamble that he will at circa £45m?