Okay, this is going to sound provocative, but I'm actually trying to raise something serious here. Stokes is physically a great athlete. He's fast, he's tough, he's big. You focus him on something and he can do it and do it well. Problem is, he can't stay focused. He goes off in to lalaland in the middle of a game. I saw him charging the Colorado goal several times last weekend, leaving the midfielders behind. Okay, what does this mean? That is is stupid? Absolutely not. He's physically capable, when he's focused he's got the mental acuity. I think he's incredibly ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). I honestly think getting it diagnosed and treating him with ritalin (or whatever they use now) would be ideal. Am I just grasping at straws? Or have others noticed this in him too? Figuring out how to fix this could turn him into a great player. -Kravi
Does ADD have anything to do with his being pushed to the ground by smaller players? You're grasping at straws.
i mentioned this in another thread and was told "You dolt, he can't play there" or something to that effect. my reasoning was that he's very comfortable with the ball and as you point out, likes to go upfield. he would be surrounded by help and not in the last line where mistakes are noticeable. Part of the reason he was getting toasted (along with the rest of the backline) was because of a lack of defensive support from the midfield. It was pointed out that if there was bad support before, imagine the lack of support when stokes starts giving the ball away or mismarking in the midfield. 2 sides to every coin i guess, but i would still like to try him out there
True. He looked very comfortable going forward, and very well on the one two corners he was involved in.
Well Stoichkov was a sociopath and needed to be medicated for the protection of his teammates, but that never happened. I don't see why they'd start medicating players for ADD when others have needed it for worse conditions. Cheers, Tim
no one actually used the term "dolt", i was paraphrasing... i don't remember what thread it was in (nor do i feel like looking for it), but probably in the stokes threads that started after his first game. i noted the positives listed above, and sombody(s) else replied with comments to the effect of "He would leave the defense even more open to attacks if he played in front of them" (again, i'm paraphrasing...) as with all things on BS, i'm open to all different points of view and am willing to concede when someone has a good point even if i disagree. I dont happen to think that stokes would leave the defense any more vulnerable, but i can definitely see it happening. like i said, i'd like to see the experiment....
I'm not sure why that person said that-it just doesn't make sense. Where would Stokes leave the defense more vulnerable? A) As a defender in a 3-man defense B) As a midfielder in a 5-man midfield The answer is.............A, easily
Stokes in midfield might work. I remember when Nelsen was the Deep midfielder for us, moving him to the back has allowed our defense to perform well above normal. Stokes as the deep midfielder he could/should be the one going after every aerial ball from the Keeper allowing our 3 man backline to be repositioned to win the 2nd ball if need be.
I think Stokes might be remarkably comfortable out at right wingback in the 3-5-2 (the position Stewart is currently playing...well, playing doesn't seem quite the right word...there's lots of standing around and shooting over the goal). Think of the qualities that Orlando Perez brings to the Fire (oh yeah, we had him once didn't we?). Stokes might just not be cut out to play in the last line of defense. He doesn't seem ready for it right now, anyway. Maybe he'll get more comfortable there as he gets older...nevertheless...trying him out wide might be just the thing. If he gets beat 1v1 or gives away the occasional ball, it's not as big a deal. It would also be alot safer for him to foul in order to cover those mistakes. The goal for him would be to develop into a Sanneh-like player. No great dribbling wizard, but rather a workmanlike player whose best attributes are his physical gifts. The question, I think, would be whether he'd be able to hide his lack of quickness against people like Beasley.
Where would Stokes not hurt the team at all? A) Not on the field!! I think it's great that people on this board this season seem to believe you can just take on player and throw him onto the field in another position at any time. There were and are certain players in the league, the Kamlers and Maessners of MLS, that can do this because they are/were solid enough players that have a good skill set of decent skills. However, with Stokes, this isn't the case. At UNC he was little more than a role player turned into a starter because of his size advantage and ability to win balls in the air. He started in a 4 man backline with 3 of the other best defenders in the country around him to cover for his mistakes. There was a group of hard working midfielders ahead of him that limited his duties to almost no 1 v. 1 defensive responsibities, only winning 50/50 balls. The only time he did have to defend individually, he quickly had help from his teammates. What I'm trying to say is you can't just say "oh someone does this well that would make him great there." That's how all those threads like McBride as a D-mid and Landon Donovan for Left Back get started on the US Men's board, they're simply ridiculous. Do you remember what happened when Ivanov, a player who as bad as he was contributed much more positively than Stokes has (and he didn't even speak the language), was put into the midfield during United's preseason games? It was an absolute disaster. elconejito, I was one of the people who said just what you said, that Stokes' defensive shortcomings in midfield would make the 3 man back line more succeptable to attacks. Playing defense in a 3-man backline with a few holding mids in front of you is pretty cut and dry really, but it is much more complicated in a midfield role, especially in the middle.
Agree with you, Thamlin, on DStokes - we watched him play quite a few times for UNC and always wondered what people saw that kept getting him selected for Youth Nat'l Team duty..........we certainly didn't see the talent or potential, other than just "big". There were other "big", but much better defenders who should have been selected over him for the Nats, and who should have been drafted instead of him.
AHA! you saved me from going back to lookthrough those threads (not that i was going to anyway...) i completely agree with you that there is alot of "This guy has *X skill*, why don't we try him at *Y position*". we don't have to go any further than our own team with people calling for dema at forward, olsen as a defender, convey as a forward, earnie as a DM, gros as a defender, etc. not even getting into the Nats cuz that would just be insane. Having said that, there are instances where you might be able to project that a player will play well (or not play well) at a new position. I can't place my finger on it, but i think stokes would do well at a DM position, whereas i think petke or prideaux would not. They all have equal time (as far as i know) at the DM position, which is to say none. Would he make mistakes? absolutely, but i think the mistakes he makes there are less likely to be immediately disastrous than playing in a 3back set. Would stokes be any worse than our midfield defense when jaime played AM? i dont think so, IMHO. His size alone would cause problems like joseph in NE. Now, i dont mean to say that it is a lock that he'll do well there. Absolutely not... he could very well be the Kwame Brown of DCU. And if everyone is available, there are many others i'd like to see in central midfield before stokes. I'm merely throwing out there that i would like to see it, because i think it would be a good position for him. I am also completely open to being wrong, because your points are just as valid. We'll just have to wait and see if one of us is right, or even if he ever gets a shot at it. I trust Nowak's judgement better than i trust your or mine.
Thamlin, I point you to the game vs. the Fire in Chicago and vs. LA on 5/19. When the midfield is already sh1te, it can't get any worse. Stokes can't play in the wing in the 352. Because then he WILL expose the backs along the wing.
No problem buddy. I completely agree, that's what I was saying is a problem with the boards this year. I guess many seem to think the coach just is playing people out of their best positions, because almost every player has been slotted into another position in somebody's dream lineup. Now, there are exceptions. Some players on the team are very versatile. For instance, it's fairly easy for a forward to slide back to a wide midfield spot with a little practice, as Josh Gros, a forward in college, has been able to do very well. Dema at forward is also reasonable because of the fact thats where he used to play. However, I still stand firmly that for the time being, players with very limited potential in my opinion need to get time in only the position they are most used to. This thread started talking about Stokes having an attention problem, why confuse him more? Agreed that certain players can learn to develop a new role, but I still have to disagree with Stokes' ability to do so at this point. His mistakes might be less disastrous, but there is a lot more pressure on a defensive midfielder during the game. Look how many more times Carroll is involved in a play than the average of each of the 3 back liners in a typical game. Stokes would get repeatedly abused and while the backline might save him sometimes, more often than not his lackadasical attitude coming back would cause so many problems for United's defense. Think about what Stokes has done in his few games when he is on the ball. He has a horrible habit of giving soft back passes and mediocre square balls. Look at the interview today on the United website with Tommy Soehn, who said something that I've been saying all year about Carroll. I'm paraphrasing, but they're saying he's finally getting better at looking for a forward pass rather than just playing the ball square all the time. Carroll got lucky in some of his first games, because although he did a good job winning tackles and gaining posession of the ball, he flirted with danger a lot with square balls. There's no easier way to leave the defense on a limb than a square pass that is stepped on by a midfielder of the other team. All of a sudden its a 5 v. 3 and almost certain goal. I also don't see how his size would be an advantage because although he is taller than almost everyone else, he is getting knocked down by almost everyone else as well. He also has had a severe problem with winning headers, save for a few corner kicks that he's sent over the crossbar. This is why I don't see him able to contribue effectively in this manner in the midfield. I also can't agree with the Kwame Brown statement. He was the youngest person of his position to ever be drafted, and the first high schooler with a #1 pick if I recall correctly. He's had an amazing amount of pressure on him to succeed, and last year, his third year, he played fairly well on a more consistant basis. It took almost all of the stars now that came straight from high school 3 years to be real solid contributors, and most of them were guards as well, a less physically demanding position. I believe that Kwame can still become a force for the Wizards, otherwise he wouldn't still be around. He's also still years younger than Stokes and playing a more phsyical position in a more physical league. I've said this all along too, I think that my points are fairly unbiased although very negative towards Stokes right now, but at the same time I hope for United's sake that he starts to step it up and become a solid contributor. Why, he's barely coached more than us.
Thamlin, you have made it clear in just about every thread that mentions Stokes that you are totally biased against the guy. Dutchfootball...three words...Orlando frickin Perez...if Perez can start for the Fire, and he does, well, then many things in this word that seem impossible are quite possible.
I may not like him, but I don't feel that I look at him unbiasedly in the context of his play. I try to look at it at least objectively if not favoring him, because an argument doesn't really mean anything if it's clear that you're twisting the facts around to make it. If you look at the minute by minute analysis thread I did vs. Colorado, it's not like I didn't include the good plays that Stokes made during the game. The point I was making was that there weren't very many good plays, especially in comparison to his bad ones. Also, this is BigSoccer, are you surprised that practically everyone has a bias for or against certain players? If so, you're a lot less intelligent than I gathered from your posts, but I don't think that's the case.
Well..Orlando Perez is like Edson Buddle, mismanagement. Its seems as if there something about DC, that no matter what situation you can imagine, Upper Management for Pro Sports Teams and in "other more Executive positions" is fvcked. We just saw 3 Former Wizards beat the LA "unbeatable" Lakers in a damn near Sweep for the Championship. In Hockey, Chris Simon, gets brought in from Colorado gets booted after several solid seasons..and eventually gets to the Flames and almost wins the Cup if it weren't for Bettman's Cheating Refs. I understand DCU, I thought it was impossible that Joe Gibbs returns to coach the Redskins. But....