You should go watch Evertons last 10 games. Only bad game against Liverpool?? He's been poor for 13 goals in the last 10 games.
John Stones
- Thread starter capiloton
- Start date
- Status
You should go watch Evertons last 10 games. Only bad game against Liverpool?? He's been poor for 13 goals in the last 10 games.
Again, it is a fallacy that Stones can't defend. He can. He gets beat fewer times a game than any of our current defenders. Makes as many tackles as any of them bar Otamendi. Doesn't intercept the ball as well as Mangala or Otamendi. But comparable to Kimpany. Starts more attacks, than any of them. There is nothing about his game that is uniquely bad.
Folks see a goal scored, want someone to blame, and point at the guy they know had a really bad error a month ago, because he was around the play, or he lime 5 other guys in the sequence all compounded the issue to allow a goal.
The fact is Kompany is out of position as often as Stones, Otamendi and Mangala more so. Our weaknesses at fullback doesn't help. Our soft pressure upfront makes it even worse. Our best midfielders also being our weakest defensively minds (Siva and Yaya) compounds the issue. Some of our best tacklers often being our weakest ball possessors (Delph, Mangala, Sagna and Clichy) doesn't make possession easy to achieve. Kolarov is a whole nother problem. Poor at everything (even though people pretend he is good offensively). All of these form a larger cause of our haphazard defending. Yet it is worse at Everton.
Stones is a solid defender. On a team that cherishes possession and plays team defense, he'd be just fine defending. He is better than Savic, who looks fantastic playing for Athletico. He is better than Morgan and Huth, who both look better because of Vardy and Okazaki's work upfront.
These things are all connected. Great defense starts at striker and possession. Not at last ditch tackles or chasing down runners in the box.. Those are often just consequences of team's overall bad defending.
And for what it's worth, Stones is a fine defender. Again, I implore folks to watch United's winning goal in the FA cup semi. The error is often attributed to Stones. But pay attention to the scorer. Pay attention to the guy who leaves him in the final seconds of a game for no reason before he became Stones responsibility. Had that guy stayed with his man, that goal never gets conceeded. Stones simply makes an easy recovery.
It doesnt surprised me that Pep is interested in Stones. And it's not hype, as really all he has now is negative press. So if you weren't watching him constantly, you'd conclude he is shit. He isn't.
Hope we get him, and a year from now we can come uneargh this thread.
If it is a price issue, then sure. We should probably go with the kid who replaced Toby whatshisname at Spurs, Virgil Van something. He too is great. Probably a better defender than Stones, and likely cheaper.
Again, why are you under the impression I haven't watched these games? I have detailed explanations of how a good number of those goals were wrongly attributed to him. Those are team errors. I believe we've had this discussion already.
Unless it was with someone else. Besides, who is at fault for a goal is often a silly way to judge a player. It is better to determine how often does he do the right thing, and how often does he do the wrong thing? And what kinds of right or wrong things does he do? What is the effect of the system on his decisions. Was he commiting errors in spite of the good work of others around him? Or are these errors caused by a system that creates indecisions inherently? Similarly, this applies to defenders playing well too.
Let's be more detailed about our analysis than lapping up commentary speak as fact of a players ability or production.
Thaksinssoldier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 10,416
If we followed your logic we wouldn't be in the market for a centre half.
How so?
Thaksinssoldier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 10,416
Because on that basis there's nothing wrong with the ones we have.
Well it depends. Do they do everything the incoming coach wants well? I'd they do, and the problem is simply systemic, then sure. If he determines they don't, then he'll analyze their performances and determine if we need upgrades.
By the way just coz a player does more things right than wrong doesn't mean he is good. Every defender is in position more often than they are not. The analysis is inherently in comparison to other defenders at that position.
Thaksinssoldier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 10,416
And therein lies my problem with Stones. Looks a great player, until you watch the amount of goals he's done for. Flatters to deceive I'm afraid.
Because you said only 1 goal was his fault which is completely false. I've totally ignored what's said in the press. There singing his praises as the next beckenbauer in the main.... I'm not. And fair enough, more detail below...
Villa away. Comes on as sub with 17 minutes left with Everton 3 up. they concede as Stones is out jumped easily (common theme) late on
West Ham home. Out jumped twice and out of position for the other goal
Chelsea clean sheet
Arsenal not at fault for any goals
United in the league. Possibly could of cut the ball to martial out
Watford. Horrific back pass from him caused corner to be given away. Goal conceded
Palace not at fault for any goals
Southampton. Goes walk about and Mane scores right in the middle of the goal where stones should of been
Liverpool. Out jumped by Origi, stood at left back while sakho has a free header middle of the goal where he should of been. And gives the ball away when passing out on the sturridge goal
United. Doesn't see Fellani 6 yards out which gives him an easy finish. Switches off in last seconds to leave marshal in space to score..
The evidence is there....
bluesince76
Well-Known Member
Personally hope he stays or goes to Chelsea/rags/arsenal but happy to come back at the end of next season and admit I was wrong. Doubt I'll be back though
Again, this is an example of why I ask for specifics. Against Villa, Jageilka was playing Man on Gestede, he got beat on the header Stones simply ran up from behind the play to contest the header, yet you ascribed the error to Stones. By the way, this is not an error, just Jageilka getting beat by a better jumper. It happens. But either way, it wasn't even Stones who was out jumped, it was Jageilka. Stones was the support defender on the play. So we can scratch this from your list.
1st goal: Antonio outjumps Funes Mori. How this is even ascribed to Stones is a bit of a head scratcher.
2nd Goal: Sahko is fronted by Galloway, then outjumps Coleman for the header. Again how this is ascribed to Stones is also a head scratcher.
3rd goal: Someone beats Jageilka with a cute pullback, OK on this one the supporting CB should have been in the middle and wasn't there. I can see how you could ascribe this error to Stones. But here is the head scratcher. How was Stones supposed to make that play? Seeing as he was already on the bench. Matter of fact he was on the bench for all 3 goals. Got subbed off at halftime. Yet you ascribed all 3 goals to him.
This is what I mean by buying into hype and narrative. Your mind has tricked you into ascribing fault to a guy who wasn't even playing at th E time.
Okay
Just by reading the United claim, I could tell it was a false ascription. We are talking about who is at fault here. Of the five players marginally involved he is the least culpable, assuming you are ignoring the real error which began with the soft pressure from the halfway line.
But let's focus on the goal: Mata gets soft pressure from Baines, passes to Rashford who Jageilka does nothing to stop his drag back to an incoming Nwusu ( Real error here is Cleverly failing to track the deep running Owusu, who crosses inside the box 8 feet away from Stones. For Stones to cut this out he runs the risk of putting it in his goal. But for Martial to score he has to out run his marker Coleman. Yet you include this as an example of Stones causing a goal. This is what I call ascription by reputation. I described this type of error of analysis in my prior post.
I'll give you this. Even though the original error was Robles. Free ball going into his box he should have run over to pick up, he didn't, which left Stones with the decision ( in hindsight Stones should have just knocked it out for a throw in. He didn't, instead gave Robbles a bouncing pass( his error). Robbles too could still have belted it out for a throw in too, but he sheepishly knocked it out for a cornerkick.
This you can ascribe to him. Albeit, with the cavier that you understand that by doing so you have now absolved whoever got beat on the cornercick from fault.
I bring this up not to absolve him, but to point out how who you point to for error changes depending on where in the sequence Stones finds himself. Another easy tell of ascription by reputation. This errors was also replayed 1000 times, magnifying the impression that he is unusually error prone.
Funny enough, this is a good error for me. This is someone who cherishes possession above all things ( a Pep type of guy) poor touch on this pass, but this is unlikely to happen often, nor would it be an error if you had a footballer at goalie. He'd simply lob it back into Stones part. This is the type of error I'm totally fine with as it signifies exactly what we want and what we'll do way better than Robbles weak help.
Again, another one of those fake errors ascribed to Stones for being around. It is clear from the play he was man on Rodriguez, who stepped back to open a lane for a pass from Tadic. Stones got closer and Tadic scrambled it behind him to a winger Sane who was being defended no one. Slipped by 2 clueless midfielders to take an unchallenged position in the box. Unless you are suggesting Stones should be responsible for Rodriguez, and Sane all at once. We can easily file this under the false error category.
Again, I have already stated previously, that bar the Liverpool game, where he was having a royal stinker,
I already gave you this game. Perhaps his worst game of the season. He got pulled after 60 or so minutes. He was having a bad day. But I still disagree on the 2ns goal. A cross into the 6 yard box is the goalies ball. But worse still this is about man responsibility. He was responsible for Lovren and had him covered, again he can't pick up 2 players at once. Goal #2 is as usual another false ascription.
Again I explained this in our previous discussion. Ascribing Fellianis goal to him is another of those mistaking systemic errors for individual error. The error was on pass entry. By the time it got to Felliani it was all done. I'd you allow an easy pass to a moving target then its game over. There has to be pressure on the passer. He can't easy pass into the box and then blame the CB nearest for not closing the acoreer down. Also Jageilka opened the pass line not Stones. Whoever were the 2 guys out left alloew an easy pass entry. Stones late slide is simply by product.
2nd goal, watch from the beginning of the play, who was on Martial? Why did that person let him go make a run with no pressure? That's where the error occurred, Stones hesitation when it looked like Everton had recovered is just a byproduct of the system.
See, I went through your list, and barring Liverpool, moat of these so called errors are either made up (West Ham), acceptable for our purposes (Watford) or simply ascribed by reputation.
I have watched about 18 Everton games to focus on Stones. I have no doubt he is very good. And these reputation based assessments are far off the mark.
Just like I've shown easily with your examples.
I think you will be pleasantly surprised if we get him.
stan bowles
Well-Known Member
He needs another season at Everton to re-establish his reputation before we go in with a bid for him. We'll know then whether he's the real deal or not.
MeatHunterrr
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 11,440
City Watch @City_Watch 7 min
City will sign Aymeric Laporte for €50m (£39.2m) and have offered the same figure for Everton defender John Stones (21). [El Correo]
City Watch @City_Watch 6 min
Pep has asked for a Laporte-Stones partnership, which he views as ideal for his style of football with their passing ability. [El Correo]
Looks like it Laporte AND Stones, so who is out? Mangala or Otamendi?
City will sign Aymeric Laporte for €50m (£39.2m) and have offered the same figure for Everton defender John Stones (21). [El Correo]
City Watch @City_Watch 6 min
Pep has asked for a Laporte-Stones partnership, which he views as ideal for his style of football with their passing ability. [El Correo]
Looks like it Laporte AND Stones, so who is out? Mangala or Otamendi?
MeatHunterrr
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 11,440
No idea, they are Bilbao based paper I think. Don't know how they would know about our interest in Stones, but who knows maybe they have some sources close to Txiki? Txiki is a basque..
I think City watch is playing a joke on me. Thyve been reading my post and decided to make me get excited. It's about to go nuclear up in here :-)
Stones/Laporte. Yes!!!!!!! Please be true.
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 31,921
I also am chuffed if we get both Dax!
- Status