I'm sick of it - Stokes

[Cantankerous]

I'm tired of all this Stokes-bashing. Given that we got thrashed, I'll be charitable and put it down to anger and resentment, but it's completely misguided anger and resentment nonetheless. Some of the criticism is off-base enough to make me wonder if people really understand what they're watching.

Here's what I see. Stokes is a young, tall, strong, and talented defender. Despite what I've heard some people say, he has decent speed. He definitely knows how to tackle. The only real problem he has right now is his inexperience.

You call him lazy. I say you're confusing his loping gait with a lack of speed or commitment. He has a glide in his stride, much like another tall black central defender we used to have. Watch him. He can get moving if the occasion calls for it.

You call him lost and confused. Well, duh. He hasn't played much against competition like this. He's a kid w/ no experience, and has to learn. Unfortunately that can only come in matches, and it'll come gradually. For additional data points, I give you Convey, Adu, Donovan, etc., all of whom caused spectators to wonder what the big deal was.

You say he passes the ball backwards too much and sends underweighted passes to his teammates. True enough, but the first is because he's nervous, and a backpass is generally a safer ball. Richie Williams made a career of backpasses, and he did OK for us as a d-mid. I also remind you that everyone on our team was making underweighted passes for most of the night.

You say he was beaten along the sidelines by Cobi. Yeah, he was. But Cobi has done that for years to many, many defenders. When Stokes's positioning and anticipation improves, runs to the byline won't be as effective against him. Remember the time near our endline when Cobi tried to get past him and was shrugged off and left flailing on the ground while Stokes headed upfield. That's going to become the norm.

Cast your mind back to the '96 season (those of you who were here) when Eddie Pope and Clint Peay were shuttling between the Olympic team and DCU. There were many times that Clint looked more comfortable on the ball than did the great Eddie Pope. We all know how that race ended, as Eddie gained in experience.

Stokes is being groomed to be a central defender. He didn't play there on Wednesday because he's too inexperienced. He'll move there soon enough, and as he gains in experience and confidence, has the tools to be more effective than Nelsen, mostly because he's faster, with equal physical presence.

Bottom line: you need to back off and let this kid learn. He's going to be a good one.

[Serie Zed]

Word.

Tried to do to much, held the ball a bit long, but size, speed, a bit of skill? Check, check, check.

[Pints]

Word to your word.
No one comes into this game being wonderful. No one.
His play was not perfect, and neither was let's see....the other 10 players, sorry 9 players WITH experience in this league.

[fatbastard]

Well, on a more positive note, his was the first United head I've seen rise above everyone else's on a corner kick or 4 toward the end of the game, with the possible exception of Nellie once or twice this season.

[MeridianFC]

I can't understand the strong feelings towards young Mr. Stokes one way or the other. I've seen both USOC matches he played in, one of which is was pretty terrible in, and his paltry minutes the other night (I might have seen him play against UofMD but I honestly can't recall). He's looked iffy, which is expected of a young rookie, but didn't appear to be either an out & out disaster or a world class defender in waiting. He's big, which on our team is a plus, he's had a flash here or there and some real bone headed moves so that puts him right in the mediocre as he stands now category. I don't think he's anywhere near starting material, and given our current difficulties it's still hard to figure giving him lots of minutes, no matter how much he may need them, with the 3 in the back system.

I'm mystified by the bile being spewed towards him but I'm equally confused why some see such promise. I'd guess, at this early juncture, he'll mature into a decent servicable defender, though I'd not complain if I was wrong and he turned into God's Own Last Line of Defense.

Just one man's two cents.

[QuietSide]

Here's what I see. Stokes is a young, tall, strong, and talented defender. Despite what I've heard some people say, he has decent speed. He definitely knows how to tackle. The only real problem he has right now is his inexperience.
...
Bottom line: you need to back off and let this kid learn. He's going to be a good one.


While yes, Stokes is "young, tall, and strong." I think "talented" remains to be seen.

I'll say this about his performance. It seemed clear to me that he did not belong at this level right now.

On the one hand, I don't think his defending was actually all that bad. And hey, he's a defender, so good job. Of course, LA was almost exclusively sitting back at that point and only coming forward on counters so the defensive job wasn't all that tough...

However, he had a serious deficiency when he had to do something other than defend. When he came in, he made one or two passes that did not go well and then he got this deer in the headlights look that did not leave him for the rest of the match every time the ball was played to him. Thus, a HUGE number of backpasses. He was clearly overwhelmed, and it showed. And he did not get more comfortable as the game went on, it got worse...

Now, will that disappear with time. Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows.

Here's one thing I do know -- it is highly unlikely that he is going to see much time on the field for DC this year - I certainly wouldn't risk playing him in any MLS games other than lopsided blowouts (more on that in a moment).

If we weren't so darn thin at defense Stokes would be the perfect candidate to loan out the A-league for the year to let him get some actual experience and see if these issues really are just a lack of inexperience. But alas, that seems unlikely and he didn't respond too well to that idea last year...

The one thought I do have about his play on Saturday was that I thought it was an excellent sub by Nowak. He waited about 10 minutes into the first half to see if we would score and make it interesting - when we didn't, Nowak went ahead and got him some time in an MLS game. Nicely done... I can't help but think Hudson would not have done the same thing, but I'm not sure we had any lopsided games like that last year where there was a chance for "garbage time"...

[voros]

My personal opinion is that Stokes played very poorly, but with the lack of playing time and his relative inexperience, it's hard to dump too much blame on him. A victim of the lack of reserve matches.

[LowEnd]

Sign me up for Team Stokes. I was at the game and saw the good and the bad, but at the end of the game (before seeing all the threads) kept thinking how he could really blossom into a great defender. The size alone helps, and I bet once he realizes that he needs to put more foot into his passes, he'll be fine. Lord knows we could use some more depth in the back with WC qualifiers coming up, and injuries to be. I'm not sure we have the room to loan him to the A-League now, but given the chance, I'd like to see him put in more pressure situations.

[Cantankerous]

While yes, Stokes is "young, tall, and strong." I think "talented" remains to be seen.

I'll say this about his performance. It seemed clear to me that he did not belong at this level right now.
I believe he has talent. Whether he matures into a useful defender or not absolutely remains to be seen.

And to use his performance on Wednesday as proof that he doesn't belong at this level now is precisely why I posted what I did. He clearly needs development, and since we're perilously thin at center back, he might as well get the look.

However, he had a serious deficiency when he had to do something other than defend. When he came in, he made one or two passes that did not go well and then he got this deer in the headlights look that did not leave him for the rest of the match every time the ball was played to him. Thus, a HUGE number of backpasses. He was clearly overwhelmed, and it showed. And he did not get more comfortable as the game went on, it got worse...

Now, will that disappear with time. Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows.

Wait, are you taking him to task because he didn't improve over the 40 minutes he played? That's not exactly giving someone time to develop.

Here's one thing I do know -- it is highly unlikely that he is going to see much time on the field for DC this year - I certainly wouldn't risk playing him in any MLS games other than lopsided blowouts (more on that in a moment).
I disagree. (I'm getting good at this.) I think you'll see him more as the year goes on. I sincerely hope that doesn't mean that we'll be getting blown out more, but I don't think it does.

[Atouk]

I can't understand the strong feelings towards young Mr. Stokes one way or the other. I've seen both USOC matches he played in, one of which is was pretty terrible in, and his paltry minutes the other night (I might have seen him play against UofMD but I honestly can't recall). He's looked iffy, which is expected of a young rookie, but didn't appear to be either an out & out disaster or a world class defender in waiting. He's big, which on our team is a plus, he's had a flash here or there and some real bone headed moves so that puts him right in the mediocre as he stands now category. I don't think he's anywhere near starting material, and given our current difficulties it's still hard to figure giving him lots of minutes, no matter how much he may need them, with the 3 in the back system.

I'm mystified by the bile being spewed towards him but I'm equally confused why some see such promise. I'd guess, at this early juncture, he'll mature into a decent servicable defender, though I'd not complain if I was wrong and he turned into God's Own Last Line of Defense.

Just one man's two cents.Make that two men's four cents.

He's mostly looked poor when I've seen him; there's no way he's ready to start over any of our best four defenders, but that's not a reason to think he's a complete wash-out or won't be a starter, even possibly a fine one, at some point. When our next round of "can we pay this much for a defender?" comes and we lose Nelsen or Petke, I guess we'll find out.

[Cantankerous]

I'm mystified by the bile being spewed towards him but I'm equally confused why some see such promise. I'd guess, at this early juncture, he'll mature into a decent servicable defender, though I'd not complain if I was wrong and he turned into God's Own Last Line of Defense.Fair enough. I have these hunches, you see... :)

Clearly Stokes has not shown it on the field yet, but he has all the tools he needs to succeed. More precisely, he has given glimpses of potential. I think his current failings may be fairly attributed to inexperience. You can learn positioning. You can learn passing. You cannot learn size and speed.

Of course, as a counter-argument, we have Tom Presthus, who had all the talent and size to be a great goalkeeper. All he lacked was the 'head'.

The difference is that keepers are judged much more harshly because of the consequences of their mistakes. That gives field players a 'gentler' environment in which to learn and grow.

[Atouk]

You cannot learn size and speed.

Of course, as a counter-argument, we have Tom Presthus, who had all the talent and size to be a great goalkeeper. All he lacked was the 'head'.

The difference is that keepers are judged much more harshly because of the consequences of their mistakes. That gives field players a 'gentler' environment in which to learn and grow.Good point. Still, there are lots of 6'3, 203 lb., guys who are reasonably fast who will never, ever be good soccer players.

I think they drafted him for a reason and he isn't playing (but is still employed) for a reason. He's got potential, but he's still not near enough to the level of Prideaux or Petke to make putting him out there to "get experience" worth the risk.

[Cantankerous]

I think they drafted him for a reason and he isn't playing (but is still employed) for a reason. He's got potential, but he's still not near enough to the level of Prideaux or Petke to make putting him out there to "get experience" worth the risk.
I wish we had a reserve team system. I agree with you and and an earlier poster that (given our current setup) he will not get all the PT he needs. I do think he'll get some, though.

[newXgate]

I can't understand the strong feelings towards young Mr. Stokes one way or the other. I've seen both USOC matches he played in, one of which is was pretty terrible in, and his paltry minutes the other night (I might have seen him play against UofMD but I honestly can't recall). He's looked iffy, which is expected of a young rookie, but didn't appear to be either an out & out disaster or a world class defender in waiting. He's big, which on our team is a plus, he's had a flash here or there and some real bone headed moves so that puts him right in the mediocre as he stands now category. I don't think he's anywhere near starting material, and given our current difficulties it's still hard to figure giving him lots of minutes, no matter how much he may need them, with the 3 in the back system.

I'm mystified by the bile being spewed towards him but I'm equally confused why some see such promise. I'd guess, at this early juncture, he'll mature into a decent servicable defender, though I'd not complain if I was wrong and he turned into God's Own Last Line of Defense.

Just one man's two cents.
What's funny is that many on these boards last season were ripping into Hudson precisely for not playing Stokes and Carroll in MLS games. I was one of those who defended Hudson, since Stokes was in fact given minutes (in the Open Cup and in the ES friendly), and had given similarly mixed performances in those games. Based on Wednesdays evidence, I wonder if anyone who was calling for Stokes to get playing time last season would like to admit that Hudson was right and they were wrong (at least in this instance), given that we scraped into the playoffs by a single point.

That said, we had nothing to lose by putting Stokes in when 4-1 down and I'm sure he learned from the experience. I think the reaction to Stokes' play has to do with the fact that he has some things we really need - size, athleticism, skill with the ball at his feet - but also does some really dumb stuff that could cost us games. He probably has the rest of this season to reduce the dumb stuff or I suspect he does not have a future in MLS. Conversely if he can learn to avoid the gaffes he could be real asset.

[John_Harkes_6]

Here is my two cents - he sucks on the practice fields. As we have seen - Nowak is not afraid to throw a young player into the fire - look at Carroll and Gros. The fact that Stokes did not get a run out until last night indicates that he might not show that well on the practice field either. After the howlers that Petke and Prideuax put up it says a lot that stokes did not get a run out from Nowak. Now of course - I am just making wild guesses here.

[John_Harkes_6]

What's funny is that many on these boards last season were ripping into Hudson precisely for not playing Stokes and Carroll in MLS games. I was one of those who defended Hudson, since Stokes was in fact given minutes (in the Open Cup and in the ES friendly), and had given similarly mixed performances in those games. Based on Wednesdays evidence, I wonder if anyone who was calling for Stokes to get playing time last season would like to admit that Hudson was right and they were wrong (at least in this instance), given that we scraped into the playoffs by a single point.

I would say you might have a legit argument if Carroll wasn't playing well this year. However, that is not the case. Ray had a stiffy for older players and it hurt DCU. Who knows if we would be having this conversation if Ray had given David a game or two?

[Line9Foul]

I'm just a troll...Just a lame old troll...and I'm lurking under this bridge...

Mod Note: Go away troll...

Have a nice day! ;)

[QuietSide]

He clearly needs development.

Hey, I agree. "He clearly needs development." In other words, he's not ready for this level. Ok, ok, I know that's not what you're saying...

I guess I look at it as a matter of risk...

As an example. I don't think that Eski really belongs at this level either. Nothing he has done in a year and half has shown me that he really belongs in MLS. However, maybe he'll blossom and he just needs more time. He's at the point where it's worth the risk to let him try.

I don't think Stokes is at that point. Putting him in and letting him "develop" seems way to risky to me at this point. I haven't seen anything in the (admitedly very little time) I've seen him play that gives me confidence that we could put him in a regular MLS game and it wouldn't be a big problem for
us.

Same thing goes for Carroll - he still needs development but he's at the point where it doesn't scare you to put him in the game...


...and since we're perilously thin at center back, he might as well get the look.

We play a three man back line and have Nelsen and Petke ahead of Stokes. It's probably the place in the back line that we are the least thin...


Wait, are you taking him to task because he didn't improve over the 40 minutes he played? That's not exactly giving someone time to develop.

Not only did he not improve, I'd say you could argue that he got worse...

But that's not what I was really saying. How about this, I didn't get a good first impression of Stokes. Obviously first impressions can be wrong.

But for me,

Carroll = good first impression
Gros = good first impression
Warren = good first impression (game vs. Metros last year when Nick got injured)
Eski = bad first impression

Hey, it may turn out that the first three are out of the league in two years and Eski getting transferred to ManU but let's just say I'd be really surprised...



I disagree. (I'm getting good at this.) I think you'll see him more as the year goes on. I sincerely hope that doesn't mean that we'll be getting blown out more, but I don't think it does.

When do you think he'll play? Again, we play a three man back line and he's got four guys ahead of him. I'll be very surprised if that changes. When Nelsen is gone he will likely be the first defender/sub off the bench, but I doubt he'll start if everyone else is available. Basically, barring injuries to two players, I just don't see Stokes getting a lot of PT...

[AB727]

Fair enough. I have these hunches, you see... :)

Clearly Stokes has not shown it on the field yet, but he has all the tools he needs to succeed. More precisely, he has given glimpses of potential. I think his current failings may be fairly attributed to inexperience. You can learn positioning. You can learn passing. You cannot learn size and speed.

Of course, as a counter-argument, we have Tom Presthus, who had all the talent and size to be a great goalkeeper. All he lacked was the 'head'.

The difference is that keepers are judged much more harshly because of the consequences of their mistakes. That gives field players a 'gentler' environment in which to learn and grow.

I'm new here, and in the short time I've been reading these posts I've come to respect Cantakerous' opinions, on the whole, a great deal.

That said - I stand by my disappointment in how Stokes played. I believe that the majority of us who have said how poorly he played have not called for him to be sent packing. I know I see all the tools (size, strength, etc.) and very much hope that in time he will indeed become God's Gift to Defense. But he scares me right now, although I know he'll never be GGtD without more playing time and I am willing to put up with it on the chance that he will live up to his potential.

I'm going on memory here, so I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but one thing stands out to me. When Namoff first joined United he got plenty of playing time, mainly taking over Richie Williams' position. I believe that was under Rongen. Namoff didn't play much under Hudson the first year, and was sent down to Richmond.

When asked about that, Namoff said that it motivated him to prove himself and he worked hard at his game, and the results are obvious.

Wasn't it Stokes who said, when asked how it felt to be sent down to Richmond, that he didn't like it and he felt it was a blow to his self-confidence? Yes, even if it's true I'm sure I'll be told I'm way off base, but it just seems that the difference in attitude between Namoff and Stokes is telling.

I have gut feelings too, and I worry about Stokes. But boy, I really really hope I'm completely wrong.

AB

[Cantankerous]

When do you think he'll play? Again, we play a three man back line and he's got four guys ahead of him. I'll be very surprised if that changes. When Nelsen is gone he will likely be the first defender/sub off the bench, but I doubt he'll start if everyone else is available. Basically, barring injuries to two players, I just don't see Stokes getting a lot of PT...
You make a lot of good points, and I'm hard pressed to argue against any of them. I was only half joking when I referred to my having a hunch. I've been watching defenders a long time, and I have a feeling about this kid. I'd like to see him given time to grow. I think the ripping of his performance is over the top, esp. when he was not responsible for any of the goals we so cavalierly gifted to the Galaxy.

You're correct that a 3-5-2 doesn't leave many spots open for a youngster trying to break in. That said, I'm not sure I'd consider Petke adequate cover for Nelsen. I don't think he organizes as well, which is why he was played as a wing back earlier this year.

Let's cut to the chase. I think initially Stokes will get PT in games where a 2-goal margin exists (one way or the other.) After that, if he shows well, he'll be brought in more frequently. If he doesn't show well, he'll be sat down or sent down.

Re: his attitude towards being sent down, I suspect that might have changed in Nowak's presence.