Anthony Stokes

We might not have been in the CL without the contribution of Anthony Stokes.

We wouldn't have the chance of European football after Christmas without the contribution of Anthony Stokes.

If that makes me a fanboy then so be it.

 

That's all well and good, but that's not an answer to the question you were asked.

And, smartarse, where exactly have I tried to "justify" Stokes being the main striker for Celtic?

 

i agree that Stokes shouldn't be our main striker in the CL, * even Stokes probably agrees with it.

He has been thrust into a role he is not comfortable with and has performed admirably.

In this 4-2-3-1 formation we play nowadays, Hooper and Stokes could have played in the same team and would have been deadly.

 

It was a great assist against Karandy but James Forrest ultimately scored the decisive winning goal and that was a Champions League qualifier against a team from Kazakstan whereas I'm arguing Stokes doesn't belong at Champions League group stage level.

 

You're justifying Stokes being a regular for Celtic in the Champions League. That's all I need. The majority of Celtic fans do not think Anthony Stokes should be a regular starter for Celtic in the Champions League. Whether in a partnership with someone of Hooper's quality, as the lone striker, 'Number 10' or out wide. He is an asset for the Scottish domestic scene. That is it.

 

Stokes has been our best attacking player....he won a penalty, Hit the bar and put a monumental shift in against Barca....can you tell me what attacking player has been better? We all accept he's not an out and out goal scorer but in terms of work rate and technique I'd have him all day over Hooper.....it's the boards fault that we didn't buy a goalscorer, don't take that out on stokes

 

That's the point here. Even in Wednesday's game, I've already said he was less culpable than our other attacking players but that doesn't mean he himself is still good enough at Champions League level. Pukki, Balde and Samaras (as a striker) are no better thus far. But we've only scored 2 goals in the group and those were by midfielders. He worked hard? So * what. That's the minimum required. There is no evidence of his superior technique at this level. Being fouled in the penalty box does not equate that. But I'm banging my head against a brick wall. This is the fringe forum when it comes to players like Stokes and their true level of quality.

I do blame the board for not replacing Hooper, but that suggests you think Stokes is still good enough in a deeper position? That is false.

 

You seem to have an awfully high opinion of yourself you, eh?

Still you haven't answered my question.

 

Repeat it again mate

 

.

 

I should have been clearer, my apologies. By 'naive' I meant it would have been naive to play a 4-4-2 formation with Stokes and Hooper an an out and out 2 man striker partership. Most teams in the Champions League play an adaptable 5 man midfield with a central striker as a focal point. Not that I think Hooper last season was completely suited for being our sole focal point, but at least he was more suited simply because he can actually score goals at this level - home and away. Furthermore, I don't think a Stokes/Hooper partership would have developed in the Champions League because I think it would have led to a greater chance of more defeats, demonstrating tactical naivety and therefore Lennon would have tried to change it. It's fair to state Lennon didn't trust Stokes in the big games, against the huns and Europe, while Hooper was still at the club. Even if Hooper was still here, it would be Samaras as the other main forward with Stokes on the bench and that would have got my support.

Ultimately it's hypothetical as Stokes was injured for our Champions League campaign last season and Hooper has since left. You might have a 'gut feeling' that Stokes and Hooper would have been deadly in the Champions League but statistical, factual information doesn't back that up nor currently supports any argument that Stokes is adequate to be a regular for Celtic at this elite level. But the alternatives aren't any better, that much I agree with.

 

If Hooper was still here I would have stokes playing behind him at the expense of Commons....he is actually quite comfortable on the ball and showed some slick touches the other night...Technique wise he offers us more than anyone else in out team....and you said "work rate is the minimum" well would you have seen Hooper or Samaras or Commons make that 50 meter sprint and make a brilliant slide tackle on Sigthorsson after Ajax were 3v2 on the break at celtic park?

 

Didn't say any of that. I said it would take him being badly for me to declare him not good enough, as it is, he's the only one outwith Lustig, Ambrose and Van Dijk who is still as good on the ball no matter the level. That is not something we come across often enough to dimiss easily.

Out creative play in the Champions league has been zilch. Absoloutely nothing. I'm not writing off any striker based on that. Put Gerd Muller in this team and he would struggle to score, we need to work on our consistency, our bravery on the ball and our delivery at this level. You don't lose a first touch (Commons and co) you just lose the confidence to do it at a certain level.

 

Or in fact would you see Samaras track back at all?

 

That's another debate entirely and I completely agree.

Our dearth of creativity from middle to front is shocking and Stokes inclusion is symptomatic of that but absolutely not the cause. The system in place has to change and we all agree Hooper needs to be replaced.

 

* me, Don Larsson and I just agreed on something. I'm too drunk

 

I'm still recovering from the doobies

 

20 apps, 17 starts, 5 goals, 5 assists for Celtic this season.

4 apps, 3 starts, 0 goals, 0 assists for Ireland this season.

 

And this is our main striker...

 

He has been * outstanding the last two games.

Delighted to see him get a goal (a goal created by the equally "under pressure" Teemu Pukki).