Should Everton make a move for John Stones?

John Stones is leaving Manchester City. After 10 years at the Etihad Stadium, the end of the season will bring the curtain down on John Stones’s career at Man City. He will leave with at least 19 trophies to his name — that could become 21 by the time the campaign is out.

It was, of course, Everton from which Stones joined Man City back in 2016, as the second signing of the Pep Guardiola era. 

The Toffees received £47.5M for Stones, who had wanted to leave the year before. There’s no doubt Stones was a fantastic young player with massive potential, but Roberto Martinez — after initially backing the ‘Barnsley Beckenbauer’ — had begun to influence him negatively.

Stones was brilliant in possession, but still had some shortcomings defensively, as would be expected of a 22-year-old, and Martinez was not the manager to work on those weaknesses.

While Evertonians were loath to lose Stones, it felt like a move that was good for all parties, and at the time, it represented Everton’s biggest sale.

A decade on, Stones has perhaps never reached his full potential, but there has been talk for several weeks now that Everton could be interested in a move for him should he become available, and as expected, he will be a free agent this summer.

So, should Everton make that move? I’ve weighed up the pros and cons.

The Case For Signing Stones

There are clear and urgent needs in this Everton team: At least two full-backs (one left, one right), a top-tier central midfielder, a pacy option for the right wing, and another centre-forward.

That is assuming nobody leaves, and it is also not accounting for the fact that Jarrad Branthwaite’s injuries are becoming a growing concern.

Everton will have a lot of work to do, and when it comes to the defence, the full-back positions have to be prioritised. 

It does seem likely, though, that Everton will also be wanting to assess their central options. Jake O’Brien, in this writer’s opinion, should be seen as a centre-back from next term, but with Seamus Coleman and Nathan Patterson surely seeing their Everton careers come to an end (for vastly differing reasons, of course), then there is a very good argument to be made that two right-backs are required.

If Branthwaite’s fitness wasn’t in doubt, then Everton could probably get away with signing one right-back, with O’Brien the versatile back-up option, but the Irishman will be 25 next month, and so really, we need to start to see if he and Branthwaite can play together in the middle, consistently.

This is where Stones could come in.

Stones was David Moyes’s final signing during his first stint at Everton, but at that stage, he was seen as a future centre-back who had more experience playing at right-back — the classic of a central player having to first prove themselves out wide, which we know Moyes loves.

Moyes clearly values having a versatile option in his defence, and we know how much he values experience. Stones could fill in in a variety of positions, and his excellence on the ball could hugely complement Branthwaite, or of course, make up for Branthwaite’s absence.

Everton’s lack of composure when building out from the back without Branthwaite has been evident at times, and Stones would help solve it. 

He also brings more leadership and a winning mentality; the "been there, done that" nature that is so often required to really elevate sides to the next level. And he would need no time at all to settle in.

The Case Against Signing Stones

Ultimately, while there are positives, there is unfortunately a solid argument to be made against making a move for Stones.

There is no doubt he is still an elite operator but, at almost 32, Stones’s main issue has, and always has been, his fitness.

He is injury-prone, and Everton already have one centre-back who is suffering. The best ability is availability, after all.

With Michael Keane already signed on for another season, and James Tarkowski — who has come in for criticism this season, some fair, some unfair — still in the building, Everton don’t really need more experience in the centre of defence.

Instead, they must be bold and simply go out and sign the top-quality right-back they have needed for years. O’Brien must move inside, and Tarkowski and Keane should really begin to be phased out once Branthwaite is back fit.

The crux becomes whether Branthwaite can be relied on, but then is there not a younger defender Everton could target that could be the versatile back-up option for both right-back and centre-back? A lot would depend on whether the Toffees got Europe anyway, as to whether that extra player is truly needed.

Stones would come in and be Everton’s best defender on paper — or at least, on level pegging with Branthwaite — but football isn’t played on paper, and his injury record says enough. Over his decade at Man City, he has played 293 times, meaning he averages under 30 games per season.

Now, Man City have to deal with more fixtures than Everton, so perhaps playing once a week — or, at a push, twice if Everton were to sneak into Europe — would suit Stones. But then wages have to be taken into account.

As a free agent, Stones can demand higher wages. While he will no doubt have to take a cut from what he has been on at Man City, his wages and signing-on fee would still take up a hefty chunk of change.

A lot will depend on how the end of this season goes. Right now, the negatives of a potential move probably outweigh the positives, though that could change if Everton do find themselves in the Europa League or even the Conference League.

The worry would be that it is just another sticking plaster; while Stones is a very good player, another stop-gap is probably not the most sensible approach.

 

---

Reader Comments (16)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

How to get rid of these ads and support TW