[QUOTE=āIl Bomber Destro, post: 1007170, member: 2533ā]Hooper is better suited to being a flat track bully who can profit when we have a lot of the ball and are creating chances but he is an utter passenger if you are up against a team where we canāt get a foothold in the game. His touch and control was brutal, his work rate and movement were non existent, he simply did not want to put a shift in.
Stokes brings so much more to the team with his workrate, creative ability and willingness to run the channels. Thereās no doubt we need another striking option who can score goals but Hooper is a far better option than Hooper at this level. For those of you that are bashing Stokes - donāt forget that only for a bit of magic from him in the last minute against Karagandy last season we may not have had CL football at all. Stokes was one of the only players that could be defended tonight so to see some people singling him out shows that there is an agenda at work.[/QUOTE]
Hooper is of no relevance.
Stokes has a crap workrate. He doesnāt run the channels well at all. He occasionally drifts out wide and that means we lose our shape because thereās no central focal point, but thatās not running the channels. Berget created as much as Stokes last night with the cross that their clumsy centre back put just wide but as @Bartosz Bereszynskiego says he was brutal. We were playing against a really poor team who were particularly bad at the back and Stokes couldnāt make anything work for himself.
I donāt think Stokes is beyond redemption as a footballer, and there are some things he does really well. But playing as a lone striker or as the central striker in a 3 is not one of them. Heās not a goal threat and doesnāt come anywhere close to being dangerous enough. Thatās evident in his goal scoring record in Europe which is frankly embarrassing. If Celtic revert to a system where we need someone to play off a striker then he can do that. But even then, his goal scoring is vastly inferior to Commons. Commons has obvious limitations too but he can be effective. Stokes simply isnāt good enough at scoring or creating goals and thatās a problem when heās our only viable attacking option. The fact youāre hanging on one piece of skill a year ago as an example of what he can do is indicative of just how little Stokes has managed to contribute in Europe.
No he wasnāt. Hooper played in a team where Celtic were capable of getting a foothold in midfield and was still by and large embarrassing to have up front. He offered nothing to the team and was as good as being a man down when we didnāt have the balance of the game in midfield.
Our problems stemmed from a midfield who couldnāt string three passes together and Kayal and Mulgrew in particular who went out of their way not to get the ball. A lot of the ball to Stokes last night were long punts down the field which he did ok considering itās not his strength and Suler had a good 3 inch advantage.
He was left isolated up front but did relatively well holding it up and created two of the only 3 decent openings we had all night.
[QUOTE=āRocko, post: 1007193, member: 1ā]Hooper is of no relevance.
Stokes has a crap workrate. He doesnāt run the channels well at all. He occasionally drifts out wide and that means we lose our shape because thereās no central focal point, but thatās not running the channels. Berget created as much as Stokes last night with the cross that their clumsy centre back put just wide but as @Bartosz Bereszynskiego says he was brutal. We were playing against a really poor team who were particularly bad at the back and Stokes couldnāt make anything work for himself.
I donāt think Stokes is beyond redemption as a footballer, and there are some things he does really well. But playing as a lone striker or as the central striker in a 3 is not one of them. Heās not a goal threat and doesnāt come anywhere close to being dangerous enough. Thatās evident in his goal scoring record in Europe which is frankly embarrassing. If Celtic revert to a system where we need someone to play off a striker then he can do that. But even then, his goal scoring is vastly inferior to Commons. Commons has obvious limitations too but he can be effective. Stokes simply isnāt good enough at scoring or creating goals and thatās a problem when heās our only viable attacking option. The fact youāre hanging on one piece of skill a year ago as an example of what he can do is indicative of just how little Stokes has managed to contribute in Europe.[/QUOTE]
Hooper is of relevance when you went out of your way to defend performances of his that were incomparable to the actual contribution Stokes made last night. Stokes was one of the few players who could be defended last night as he was making things happen and trying hard. I agree that leading the line is not a role his natural game is suited to but I felt he is someone who generally makes an effort when playing out of his comfort zone.
Mulgrews performance was as gutless as Iāve seen last, all game long he was deliberately moving into positions that made him unavailable for a pass. He was the crux of our problems last night.
[QUOTE=āIl Bomber Destro, post: 1007207, member: 2533ā]No he wasnāt. Hooper played in a team where Celtic were capable of getting a foothold in midfield and was still by and large embarrassing to have up front. He offered nothing to the team and was as good as being a man down when we didnāt have the balance of the game in midfield.
Our problems stemmed from a midfield who couldnāt string three passes together and Kayal and Mulgrew in particular who went out of their way not to get the ball. A lot of the ball to Stokes last night were long punts down the field which he did ok considering itās not his strength and Suler had a good 3 inch advantage.
He was left isolated up front but did relatively well holding it up and created two of the only 3 decent openings we had all night.[/QUOTE]
Stokes has consistently failed to offer any semblance of a goal threat in Europe across multiple campaigns. Thatās about it really. He drifts wide when heās the lone striker and sets up chances on an irregular basis. We need to have a much better standard of player than him upfront. Iāve agreed that he was passable last night and better than others previously mentioned but itās not good enough either. They were a pretty useless team and weak defensively and he didnāt have an effort on goal.
[QUOTE=āIl Bomber Destro, post: 1007211, member: 2533ā]Hooper is of relevance when you went out of your way to defend performances of his that were incomparable to the actual contribution Stokes made last night. Stokes was one of the few players who could be defended last night as he was making things happen and trying hard. I agree that leading the line is not a role his natural game is suited to but I felt he is someone who generally makes an effort when playing out of his comfort zone.
Mulgrews performance was as gutless as Iāve seen last, all game long he was deliberately moving into positions that made him unavailable for a pass. He was the crux of our problems last night.[/QUOTE]
Why does your defence of Stokes reference Mulgrewās contribution last night and Hooperās performances from a couple of years ago. If Stokes makes an effort, then heās doing it in the wrong areas and heās having no impact on the game as a result. When we were pressing for a late equalizer against ICT at the weekend, he was hanging out on the wing. He was at the same last night. Thatās not running the channels, thatās just playing where youāre not needed.
For the sake of clarity, Iām not saying that Stokes was as bad as Mulgrew. He certainly wasnāt. Berget, Izaguirre, Ambrose and Mulgrew were all worse than Stokes. Van Dijk, McGregor, Gordon and arguably Lustig and Commons were better. He was about on a par with Kayal. Iād argue Johansen was better, others might argue differently. Either way both were ineffective. I think Johansen can be more effective. I think Stokes will never be a reliable goalscorer for us in Europe, will never be a lone striker and canāt play in any system other than one that uses 2 strikers. And very few teams play that way anymore. And even at that, heās not as good as Commons at being a #10 type.
To Rafa Benitez, I have but one thing to say - buy some fucking defenders!
Another insipid display of defending tonight from Napoli. Defence has been a problem since Eddy Rejaās time over 5 years ago. Yet not one manager since - Donadoni, Mazzarri and now Benitez - has sought to seriously address the elephant in the room. Albiol, Madridās reject, was disgraceful tonight, as were Ghoulam and Koulibaly. Gargano picked instead of Inler in midfield, another joke decision. Insigne introduced after 70 minutes despite him being septic the last 12 months and now being a figure of ridicule with most Napolitani.
Now they face a useless distraction every second Thursday in the Mickey Mouse Cup. At least itās less of a distraction than the CL would be to their Serie A campaign.