John Stones

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dax777 said:
Don't want to rehash an argument I've had 3 times since that game. 2 of those arguments are on this thread. The truth is he was not shocking. The goals contrary to popular claims were not down to Stones being poor. Just poor team defense.

Fuck, I guess I'm goingto hash it out :)

Goal number one was simply good football from Fellianiand Martial.

Martial Walt's past Basic with way too much ease. Jageilka did nothing to play support defender and double team the danger, rather he took a position to attempt to block the cross if it came in.

Jageilka's decision is not good or bad. It's a choice BTW 2 legitimate decisions, double team the imminent danger or stay as part of a crowded box area. He chose the latter. But didn't succeed.

To start with Felliani ran back post as the play developed. We've watched Everton and now United enough to know what he initially was trying to do, ( go far post and get the ball in the air of a high cross. He had Baines on him and would have crushed Baines had a good cross come in.

But Martial got a short pass put his head down and blew by Basic with ease. That instant was where the breakdown Happened. As Martial is blowing by Besic, Felliani makes an intelligent run to the front post. Both Jag and Stones correctly step closer to their goal to be in line with the ball. Stones actually had to peep over Jag's shoulder to see the ball.

Martial crosses to the front post to a moving Felliani. Stones is the first to react, and tried a slide block but missed.

But simply because Stones was closest, everyone went Ape shit about who is at fault. It makes no difference that Felliani wasn't originally his man. It makes no difference that Besic got beat too easily to the by line. That Jageilka was in no man's land. That Baines did not follow Felliani or alert the other ( Granted he couldn't as this was a bang bang play). All that deems to matter is that Felliani scored and the closest person to him when this happened was Stones.

If this is being shocking, then Kompany is shocking every time we are scored on. Stone didn't just make some nice passes. He bullied Fellian most of the game.

Had multiple goal bound blocks. His reading of the game was superior to Jageilka, Baines or Besic in defense. Besic was particularly having a horrid time containing Martial. Martial should have scored on 2 other occasionsif not for bad finishing and not showing a cool head.

Stones pretty much orchestrated Everton's football out of the back. Almost double the touches of every other Evertonian. That this game has been lumped into the media played up 'error prone' narrative is what's shocking.

Could Stones have done better on both goals? Sure. He could have read Martial's mind in a split second on the 1st goal and step into towhe Martial was gonna pass. It's a ridiculous ask in that split second but sure he could have been there. Or better yet, he could have left his zone and followed the moving Felliani. Something Baines didn't do and Jageilka didn't do. But sure, let'spretend only Stones should have broken line.

On the 2nd goal, you have to watch the sequence from the beginning. Pay attention to the CM who was tracking Martial. If you are looking for someone to blame on a team that was constantly showinga lack of team oriented defensive solidity. Can you explain to me why and how a Midfielder in the dying seconds of a game just inexplicably ignores his responsibility and walks away as the opposition attacks?

As for the incidence, Martial is running diagonally twds goal, Stones steps up to pick him up Rashford, Martial and Rashford do a 1-2 Stones then drops off into his zone as Martial passes twds theCentral striker, at this point Jageilka disrupts the pass, Stones stops to hold the line with Baines, but in reality everyone stops coz they think Jageilka has the ball. When your team gets possession you have to start rotating into support positions. If you are already in one you hold that position. You can see the midfielder next to Jag's stop, so does Baines, Stones who slows down intending to go support Jageilka, then the ball gets poked into Martial's path. Martial's run takes him into the space Jageilka vacates to go intercept the ball in the first place. Stones is caughtbehind the play. Understandably so.

Yes he could have continued running at full speed to get ahead of Maetial in those milliseconds as Jageilka intercepts Martial's original ball to the striker. But this simply is not a natural reaction to your team recovering the ball.

Stones was the best Everton player in that game. And goal 1 wasn't an error. Just good football by by United. Goal 2 was a lucky break to Martial and poor pressure defense by Everton overall.

Phew! There :-)
Click to expand...

I would have read that, but I've seen the goal very recently & he's utter dogshite beyond any possible level of acceptance in any football game anywhere, unless you are his mother, so I don't need to.
 
Neville Kneville said:
I would have read that, but I've seen the goal very recently & he's utter dogshite beyond any possible level of acceptance in any football game anywhere, unless you are his mother, so I don't need to.
Click to expand...
This made me laugh more than it should have.
 
I have done a little bit of research on Stones and it would appear if my way of thinking is right, that under the "Webster Ruling" Stones will be able to buy out the rest of his contract next summer.

This is because he was under 28 years of age, when he signed his last contract with Everton.

He signed his current contract with Everton on 7th August 2014.

On the 8th August 2017 he willhave completed 3 years and a day of his current contract with Everton.

Maybe we can play hardball and walk away from this deal this summer and pick the guy up on the 8th August 2017 when he has served three years and one day of his current contract for nothing or at the most the cost of his remaining contract which would be 2 years.

Anyone else any thoughts on this?

Here's a quote from Wiki about it:

"Article 17 of FIFA's Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players has a section on "Consequences of Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause". It states that any player who signed a contract before the age of 28 can buy himself out of the contract three years after the deal was signed. If he is 28 or older the time limit is shortened to two years".

I might be wrong I'm a retired frogman not Lawyer.
 
Dax777 said:
Don't want to rehash an argument I've had 3 times since that game. 2 of those arguments are on this thread. The truth is he was not shocking. The goals contrary to popular claims were not down to Stones being poor. Just poor team defense.

Fuck, I guess I'm goingto hash it out :)

Goal number one was simply good football from Fellianiand Martial.

Martial Walt's past Basic with way too much ease. Jageilka did nothing to play support defender and double team the danger, rather he took a position to attempt to block the cross if it came in.

Jageilka's decision is not good or bad. It's a choice BTW 2 legitimate decisions, double team the imminent danger or stay as part of a crowded box area. He chose the latter. But didn't succeed.

To start with Felliani ran back post as the play developed. We've watched Everton and now United enough to know what he initially was trying to do, ( go far post and get the ball in the air of a high cross. He had Baines on him and would have crushed Baines had a good cross come in.

But Martial got a short pass put his head down and blew by Basic with ease. That instant was where the breakdown Happened. As Martial is blowing by Besic, Felliani makes an intelligent run to the front post. Both Jag and Stones correctly step closer to their goal to be in line with the ball. Stones actually had to peep over Jag's shoulder to see the ball.

Martial crosses to the front post to a moving Felliani. Stones is the first to react, and tried a slide block but missed.

But simply because Stones was closest, everyone went Ape shit about who is at fault. It makes no difference that Felliani wasn't originally his man. It makes no difference that Besic got beat too easily to the by line. That Jageilka was in no man's land. That Baines did not follow Felliani or alert the other ( Granted he couldn't as this was a bang bang play). All that deems to matter is that Felliani scored and the closest person to him when this happened was Stones.

If this is being shocking, then Kompany is shocking every time we are scored on. Stone didn't just make some nice passes. He bullied Fellian most of the game.

Had multiple goal bound blocks. His reading of the game was superior to Jageilka, Baines or Besic in defense. Besic was particularly having a horrid time containing Martial. Martial should have scored on 2 other occasionsif not for bad finishing and not showing a cool head.

Stones pretty much orchestrated Everton's football out of the back. Almost double the touches of every other Evertonian. That this game has been lumped into the media played up 'error prone' narrative is what's shocking.

Could Stones have done better on both goals? Sure. He could have read Martial's mind in a split second on the 1st goal and step into towhe Martial was gonna pass. It's a ridiculous ask in that split second but sure he could have been there. Or better yet, he could have left his zone and followed the moving Felliani. Something Baines didn't do and Jageilka didn't do. But sure, let'spretend only Stones should have broken line.

On the 2nd goal, you have to watch the sequence from the beginning. Pay attention to the CM who was tracking Martial. If you are looking for someone to blame on a team that was constantly showinga lack of team oriented defensive solidity. Can you explain to me why and how a Midfielder in the dying seconds of a game just inexplicably ignores his responsibility and walks away as the opposition attacks?

As for the incidence, Martial is running diagonally twds goal, Stones steps up to pick him up Rashford, Martial and Rashford do a 1-2 Stones then drops off into his zone as Martial passes twds theCentral striker, at this point Jageilka disrupts the pass, Stones stops to hold the line with Baines, but in reality everyone stops coz they think Jageilka has the ball. When your team gets possession you have to start rotating into support positions. If you are already in one you hold that position. You can see the midfielder next to Jag's stop, so does Baines, Stones who slows down intending to go support Jageilka, then the ball gets poked into Martial's path. Martial's run takes him into the space Jageilka vacates to go intercept the ball in the first place. Stones is caughtbehind the play. Understandably so.

Yes he could have continued running at full speed to get ahead of Maetial in those milliseconds as Jageilka intercepts Martial's original ball to the striker. But this simply is not a natural reaction to your team recovering the ball.

Stones was the best Everton player in that game. And goal 1 wasn't an error. Just good football by by United. Goal 2 was a lucky break to Martial and poor pressure defense by Everton overall.

Phew! There :-)
Click to expand...

Good post.

In that match stones was the one orchestrating the attack as well as defending
 
Mr Ed (The Stables) said:
I have done a little bit of research on Stones and it would appear if my way of thinking is right, that under the "Webster Ruling" Stones will be able to buy out the rest of his contract next summer.

This is because he was under 28 years of age, when he signed his last contract with Everton.

He signed his current contract with Everton on 7th August 2014.

On the 8th August 2017 he willhave completed 3 years and a day of his current contract with Everton.

Maybe we can play hardball and walk away from this deal this summer and pick the guy up on the 8th August 2017 when he has served three years and one day of his current contract for nothing or at the most the cost of his remaining contract which would be 2 years.

Anyone else any thoughts on this?

Here's a quote from Wiki about it:

"Article 17 of FIFA's Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players has a section on "Consequences of Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause". It states that any player who signed a contract before the age of 28 can buy himself out of the contract three years after the deal was signed. If he is 28 or older the time limit is shortened to two years".

I might be wrong I'm a retired frogman not Lawyer.
Click to expand...


This is true but nobody has had the balls to try it on in a major league yet
 
lancs blue said:
Wasn't there an informal agreement between the top clubs not to take advantage of it?
Click to expand...

I suspect so. There is also a factor of loss to club (ie everton) to be factored in and that could be anything so I doubt clubs are willing to gamble on it as well
 
Mr Ed (The Stables) said:
I have done a little bit of research on Stones and it would appear if my way of thinking is right, that under the "Webster Ruling" Stones will be able to buy out the rest of his contract next summer.

This is because he was under 28 years of age, when he signed his last contract with Everton.

He signed his current contract with Everton on 7th August 2014.

On the 8th August 2017 he willhave completed 3 years and a day of his current contract with Everton.

Maybe we can play hardball and walk away from this deal this summer and pick the guy up on the 8th August 2017 when he has served three years and one day of his current contract for nothing or at the most the cost of his remaining contract which would be 2 years.

Anyone else any thoughts on this?

Here's a quote from Wiki about it:

"Article 17 of FIFA's Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players has a section on "Consequences of Terminating a Contract Without Just Cause". It states that any player who signed a contract before the age of 28 can buy himself out of the contract three years after the deal was signed. If he is 28 or older the time limit is shortened to two years".

I might be wrong I'm a retired frogman not Lawyer.
Click to expand...

I remember people mentioning this ruling as a possibility when we were negotiating a price for Sterling. I think it's a sort of Pandora's box that no major club really wants to open as it would set a very, very bad precedent and no club wants to be remembered as the ones who "started" it. Also I imagine whichever club that does it will take a huge hit in terms of reputation and more clubs would be less likely to do business with that club.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.