Midfield: If G Ablett Jnr can, why can't Johnock? [Archive]

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 15:22

Both supposedly have smallish engines, although it could be argued when fit, Johnock has a marginally bigger engine. Both awesome in traffic, both brilliant readers of the play and both are one of the most attacking footballers at their respective clubs. So my question is, if Thompson can give Ablett brief stints on the ball, why can't we do the same with Stiffy?

Stiffy has been awesome down back but is it time? It's all very well to set up your attack from the half back line but surely it's better to start your attack from the midfield - Mattner, Johncock. Both Reilly and Thomson have shown they have improved out of sight at the in under stuff this year. Would the pacey Johncock feeding off of them be the iceing on the cake? Could Stiffy be that X factor game breaking midfielder come finals?

Thoughts.

King Elvis

13 May 2007, 16:07

I think it's a case of need - at this stage, we haven't really needed Stiffy on the ball.

I think it'll happen eventually. At this stage I'm hoping he'll come back and play out of a forward pocket.

Seanason

13 May 2007, 16:18

I think it's a case of need - at this stage, we haven't really needed Stiffy on the ball.

I think it'll happen eventually. At this stage I'm hoping he'll come back and play out of a forward pocket.
100% correct.

We have one of the stingiest defences in the game and have done since craigy came in. With stiffy playing in the middle, it alters our back 6 - the one thing that ahs helped us be the stingiest team in the AFL.

Markthirtytwo

13 May 2007, 16:20

100% correct.

We have one of the stingiest defences in the game and have done since craigy came in. With stiffy playing in the middle, it alters our back 6 - the one thing that ahs helped us be the stingiest team in the AFL.

Nothings changes since he's been out though. ;)

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 16:34

Nothings changes since he's been out though. ;)

Exactly. So under Neil Craig, would S Burgoyne be playing at half back? Does Craigy see the half back flank as a more attacking position than the midfield?:confused:

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 16:46

Nothings changes since he's been out though. ;)

And we've found a new player to whinge about being back there in Marty.

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 16:55

And we've found a new player to whinge about being back there in Marty.

Yawn. Thanks for your contribution Neil.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 17:04

Yawn. Thanks for your contribution Neil.

Uh... right.

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 17:20

Uh... right.

Mate, you really go to water when someone questions anything about the AFC. "Awww gee, you guys are really negative".

With this compeition being wide open this year, more so than recent years, a Johncock/Mattner type to the midfield ( even briefly )may just be the move we need to get over a team like West Coast.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 17:23

Mate, you really go to water when someone questions anything about the AFC. "Awww gee, you guys are really negative".

With this compeition being wide open this year, more so than recent years, a Johncock/Mattner type to the midfield ( even briefly )may just be the move we need to get over a team like West Coast.

Actually you're jumping up and down about absolutely nothing.

I didnt comment on whether or not i like Mattner/Stiffy back there, or how negative you are.

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 17:29

Actually you're jumping up and down about absolutely nothing.

I didnt comment on whether or not i like Mattner/Stiffy back there, or how negative you are.

Arguing for the sake of arguing hey mate. Alot of that on the Adelaide Board so far this year.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 17:33

Uh... you've decided to take cheap shots for no apparent reason. Instead of acting like a scorned woman, you could actually think about the implications of mattner being back there.

Mattner appears to have taken on the role of second carrier out of defence, along side McLeod. This was the role which Stiffy usually plays. Perhaps, given mattners rise in form recently, which cooincides with Stiffy's injury, Johncock could be freed up to play elsewhere?

I dont see it though, Johncock is a great back pocket. Dont think he'll ever be an elite midfielder.

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 17:39

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 17:43

You mean a cheap shot like how "everyone is whingeing about Mattner playing in the backline". :rolleyes:

I bet you would be a great employee to manage - "Yessum Mr Boss".

Actually i said we. That means me inclusive. Do i really need to put a colourful face in there so you can understand tongue in cheek?

Still avoiding the point i was trying to raise too. You dont agree that Mattner playing the rebounder could potentially free up Stiffy?

- PC -

13 May 2007, 17:47

Nothings changed.... where would you like Mattner to play?

To me it seems that Mattner is back due to Stiffy missing... I could be wrong as well. Goodwin went back, Douglas had a week or two, I just think we DO need Stiffy back there to replace our structure of Mattner further up the ground and Goodwin in the middle and Douglas forward...yes Stiffy can go forward at times to give Douglas more time in the BP... but at the moment I think Stiffy is a BP/HBF player with occasional bursts a la Wirrpanda in the forward line

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 17:58

- PC -

13 May 2007, 18:04

Last week it was Mattner playing in the backline as a tall becuase we are lacking kpp's. This week he's playing in the backline becuase he is covering Stiffy's rebound role. So which is it.

How many more excuses can we make to sugar coat what is basically a confusing, and overly defensive, coaching decision. Not excusing it...just trying to explain it.

Now back to Stiffy. How do we know he couldn't be effective in the midfield in spurts. He is brilliant in traffic, has electrifying pace and is tough as nails. His only weakness is his supposed small engine, which leads me back to the question of the thread. If Ablett can effetcively be used in the midfield, why can't Johncock?
Age? Has he gone past the point where NC sees the need to blood the new gen and to blood them quickly? Or have the coaching staff looked at his GPS figures and feel he doesnt work as hard as they feel a midfielder should do

There is a lot of hidden data we as supporters dont get.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 18:05

Last week it was Mattner playing in the backline as a tall becuase we are lacking kpp's. This week he's playing in the backline becuase he is covering Stiffy's rebound role. So which is it.

How many more excuses can we make to sugar coat what is basically a confusing, and overly defensive, coaching decision.

Now back to Stiffy. How do we know he couldn't be effective in the midfield in spurts. He is brilliant in traffic, has electrifying pace and is tough as nails. His only weakness is his supposed small engine, which leads me back to the question of the thread. If Ablett can effetcively be used in the midfield, why can't Johncock?

Its not necessarily one or the other.

Mattners role this week did change. Scotty Stevens went back, so Mattner wasnt needed as the tall defender, and he played a rebounding role. I was impressed with his running out of the backlines. Its a role he could play well, similiar to McLeod. I suppose it doesnt hurt that he can fill in as a tall defender if necessary.

I dont actually think Stiffy has elecrifying pace. Its more his reading of the ball and his awareness which create space for him out of the backline. Im not sure hes either fast, or fit enough to be a gun midfielder.

cats2rise

13 May 2007, 18:05

I hope you do not mind me posting...

Junior has better skills in a pack, thats why. Jnr keeps his feet, and has fantastic awareness, spins out of tackles, taps the ball in front of him.. all those little things. Dont get me wrong, Johncock is a great player, but he is not an in-and-under, clearance type player IMO.

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 18:26

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 18:31

Its not necessarily one or the other.

Mattners role this week did change. Scotty Stevens went back, so Mattner wasnt needed as the tall defender, and he played a rebounding role. I was impressed with his running out of the backlines. Its a role he could play well, similiar to McLeod. I suppose it doesnt hurt that he can fill in as a tall defender if necessary.

I dont actually think Stiffy has elecrifying pace. Its more his reading of the ball and his awareness which create space for him out of the backline. Im not sure hes either fast, or fit enough to be a gun midfielder.

"electrfying pace" was probably going abit overboard. But he does have "break away" pace a key ingredient in a quality midfielder.

King Elvis

13 May 2007, 19:11

Now back to Stiffy. How do we know he couldn't be effective in the midfield in spurts. He is brilliant in traffic, has electrifying pace and is tough as nails. His only weakness is his supposed small engine, which leads me back to the question of the thread. If Ablett can effetcively be used in the midfield, why can't Johncock?

I think my point on the first page was taken in the wrong way.

In the past, we haven't had need for Stiffy to be on the ball, we've had Edwards, McLeod, Goodwin, Roo, Burton, Reilly, Mattner and so on; but we haven't had anyone who could fill Johncock's role down back.

Now that we have these young guys who are putting in a solid performance, the time Johncock has been injured has shown that we don't need him in defense anymore.

So, now we could potentially have him spend some time in the midfield. I don't think he's demanding a midfield spot though, but I would like to see him playing off the HFF, or possibly in a Forward Pocket but also rotating onto the ball in short spurts.

I'd like to see what he could do on the ball as well Spring, but, again, I don't think we've needed him up there - and he's been so effective and damaging down back that we've needed him there.

And on the Mattner/Stevens thing - I hate seeing Mattner playing as a tall defender, but last night I quite enjoyed seeing him as a rebounding backman.

macca23

13 May 2007, 20:34

Last week it was Mattner playing in the backline as a tall becuase we are lacking kpp's. This week he's playing in the backline becuase he is covering Stiffy's rebound role. So which is it.

How many more excuses can we make to sugar coat what is basically a confusing, and overly defensive, coaching decision.

A bit harsh on the use of Mattner there Springy. I don't like him in a back pocket too much because any brain fades are costly, but I think the others have it covered pretty well. Sometimes he's covering for a taller KPP type player and on others he's trying to get the run going from defence.

Personally I think he's done a pretty good job overall.

The other thing you have to take into account is the way that Craig is using the wings, Springy. Knights is playing on one, with the mid-fielders rotating though the other.

What will be interesting is where Craig plays him when Johncock comes back.

Crow-mo

13 May 2007, 21:18

Age? Has he gone past the point where NC sees the need to blood the new gen and to blood them quickly? Or have the coaching staff looked at his GPS figures and feel he doesnt work as hard as they feel a midfielder should do

There is a lot of hidden data we as supporters dont get.

very fair point.

I always think he is such an obvious midfield proposition, that he has not really been tried must be more than accidental.

just maybe

13 May 2007, 21:23

Mate, you really go to water when someone questions anything about the AFC. "Awww gee, you guys are really negative".

Yep. Serial AFC apologist.

just maybe

13 May 2007, 21:26

And Johncock definitely does want to be a midfielder. Every pre-season he talks about it in the press.

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 21:42

So, now we could potentially have him spend some time in the midfield. I don't think he's demanding a midfield spot though, but I would like to see him playing off the HFF, or possibly in a Forward Pocket but also rotating onto the ball in short spurts.

I see your point but IMO if it was only a choice between the small forward or the small backman roles, I would rather see him stay in the backline. I would hate to see a guy like Stiffy, with his obvious talent, get wasted in the no mans land of the life of a small forward. Must be one of the most career shortening positions to play.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 21:44

Yep. Serial AFC apologist.

Aww, holding a grudge are we?

Its not my fault you were wrong.

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 21:46

What will be interesting is where Craig plays him when Johncock comes back.

Yep. I can't wait to see what Craigy does with Mattner when the likes of Johncock, and possibly McGregor come back.

Didn't Mattner spend the majority of last year playing in the backline?

just maybe

13 May 2007, 21:47

Aww, holding a grudge are we?

Its not my fault you were wrong.

I was neither wrong nor am I holding a grudge.

I am just right. On all counts. As was SpringChoke.

:thumbsu:

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 21:48

And Johncock definitely does want to be a midfielder. Every pre-season he talks about it in the press.

He says it every year. I wonder if the opposition has had a word in his ear about a move with a role in the midfield being the carrot.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 21:53

I was neither wrong nor am I holding a grudge.

I am just right. On all counts. As was SpringChoke.

:thumbsu:

I love it when people get embarassed, and then start running through threads, trying to recover their pride by agreeing with everyone who disagrees with their 'enemies'.

Sorry caped avenger, you still lost.

just maybe

13 May 2007, 21:54

He says it every year. I wonder if the opposition has had a word in his ear about a move with a role in the midfield being the carrot.

No doubt.

The fact that Craig won't even try him is annoying.

Craig's stubbornness is really becoming the Achilles Heel in his coaching. And may be the missing link between a Prelim and a Premiership.

just maybe

13 May 2007, 21:55

I love it when people get embarassed, and then start running through threads, trying to recover their pride by agreeing with everyone who disagrees with their 'enemies'.

Sorry caped avenger, you still lost.

You? Embarrass me?

Hahahaha, oh dear, this 'gun' has an overdose of self-importance.

You've struggled to put together a coherent argument, let alone 'embarrass' me. You're a thinly veiled hormonal teeanger.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 21:59

You? Embarrass me?

Hahahaha, oh dear, this 'gun' has an overdose of self-importance.

You've struggled to put together a coherent argument, let alone 'embarrass' me. You're a thinly veiled hormonal teeanger.

Really? Then why are you following me around trying to beat your chest?Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned huh?

just maybe

13 May 2007, 22:01

Really? Then why are you following me around trying to beat your chest?Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned huh?

Following you around?

I've posted in one other thread you're in, on the Adelaide Board, where I also contribute, but you've again kicked up a tantrum about how wubby-wubby we should be to the AFC. So apart from commenting on the subject, I also commented on that.

If your definition of 'following around' existed, most people in the world would be in jail for stalking.

Fortunately, most people aren't hysterical hyperbolic hormonals like you.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 22:04

Following you around?

I've posted in one other thread you're in, on the Adelaide Board, where I also contribute, but you've again kicked up a tantrum about how wubby-wubby we should be to the AFC. So apart from commenting on the subject, I also commented on that.

If your definition of 'following around' existed, most people in the world would be in jail for stalking.

Fortunately, most people aren't hysterical hyperbolic hormonals like you.

Jumping in threads to post about me, just because you were embarassed in the other thread... This suggests an unhealthy obsession.

Go get laid, and spend less time thinking about me.

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 22:05

Can you limit the argument to only one thread at a time lads. This has the makings of "Thread of the Month" and you're ruining it.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 22:07

Can you limit the argument to only one thread at a time lads. This has the makings of "Thread of the Month" and you're ruining it.

Aye aye captain.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 22:08

On topic, when is stiffy due back?

They said it was a three weeker, five weeks ago.

just maybe

13 May 2007, 22:12

Jumping in threads to post about me, just because you were embarassed in the other thread... This suggests an unhealthy obsession.

As I've already explained, you didn't embarrass me.

As I also already explained, I am an Adelaide board contributor. My contribution to this thread had no relationship to you, whatever your struggling ego might hope.

Go get laid, and spend less time thinking about me.

Haha, 'go get laid'. What a classic line - I'm betting you're still a virgin. Pretty limp 'gun'.

Try losing the self importance and the false bravado and a girl might go for you sometime.

SpringChoke

13 May 2007, 22:29

On topic, when is stiffy due back?

They said it was a three weeker, five weeks ago.

His injury was originally about 3-4 weeks. Surely he should be hitting the track either this week or the next. Let's hope he doesn't have the dreaded
"2 weeks away" that kept Bock out for most of last year.

Southerntakeover

13 May 2007, 23:42

As I've already explained, you didn't embarrass me.

As I also already explained, I am an Adelaide board contributor. My contribution to this thread had no relationship to you, whatever your struggling ego might hope.

Yep. Serial AFC apologist.

I see. You posted referring to me, yet claim your contribution had no relation to me. It must be hard having the memory of a goldfish.

Haha, 'go get laid'. What a classic line - I'm betting you're still a virgin. Pretty limp 'gun'.

Try losing the self importance and the false bravado and a girl might go for you sometime.

You're betting?

Ok, how much do you want to put up?

just maybe

13 May 2007, 23:49

Plenty.

Now shhhh child, admin has spoken.

Dandy_GO

13 May 2007, 23:49

His injury was originally about 3-4 weeks. Surely he should be hitting the track either this week or the next. Let's hope he doesn't have the dreaded
"2 weeks away" that kept Bock out for most of last year.

Or the Matthew Bode
1 week -> 1 week -> 1 week -> 2 weeks -> 7-8 weeks -> ????

Southerntakeover

14 May 2007, 00:14

Or the Matthew Bode
1 week -> 1 week -> 1 week -> 2 weeks -> 7-8 weeks -> ????

Shh! Dont mention the injury list.

Ok, this might seem like a strange question, but would Stiffy have more influence as a 'midfielder'? Considering the way the half back line plays for the Crows, our most influential players often line up across there, look at Maccas form early in the year for example.

Stiffy_18

14 May 2007, 00:33

And Johncock definitely does want to be a midfielder. Every pre-season he talks about it in the press.
Ben Hart also wanted to be a midfielder ;)

AS Crow-mo said, he is such an obvious choice but he never gets a run there. There MUST be more to it than just what the average supporter sees. Maybe his work rate is not up to it as a midfielder, maybe he doesn't have the aerobic capacity to do it. Who knows but its not happening any time soon and there must be a reason behind it that we are not aware of and why do we HAVE to know everything that the coaching stuff believes.

Markthirtytwo

14 May 2007, 09:50

Ben Hart also wanted to be a midfielder ;)

AS Crow-mo said, he is such an obvious choice but he never gets a run there. There MUST be more to it than just what the average supporter sees. Maybe his work rate is not up to it as a midfielder, maybe he doesn't have the aerobic capacity to do it. Who knows but its not happening any time soon and there must be a reason behind it that we are not aware of and why do we HAVE to know everything that the coaching stuff believes.

But even with stats, some coaches still try different players in different posititons to get a "match feel" on a particular player.

I stand corrected by didn't Ayres try Benny in the middle. It didn't work we all know that.

I can't see why NC doesn't experiment a little more, if it doesn't work, it does't work and we move on. As I mentioned earlier, seeing that our defence is still standing up without him, it could be an opportunity to get that "match feel" with your namesake.

I for one would love to see it, even just once. ;)

I also believe that type of player should be rotated through the HBF or BP to get their defensive gameskills honed.

Vader

14 May 2007, 11:24

As has been previously stated, one of the "standard" pre-season stories is the "Johncock working on his aerobic fitness to play in the midfield" story. Happens every year.

I seem to recall one of these stories spelled out just what it is that Adelaide demand from their midfielders. They have a standard - from memory it's the ability to run a certain distance in a certain time, probably repeatedly (3km from memory, no idea about the time). If you can't meet that standard then they will not even consider playing you in the midfield as it indicates you simply don't have the right combination of speed & endurance to survive in that environment.

At the time of the article (summer 05/06 from memory), Johncock had improved his PB by 20 seconds, but was still some 15 seconds short of reaching the qualifying standard.

The fact is that Johncock does not and in all likelihood never will have the combination of speed & endurance required to play in the midfield. He's great in traffic, explosive on the burst, but the constant hard running required to play in the midfield is simply beyond him.

All of this takes nothing away from Johncock. He's easily our best small defender and would probably also be our best small forward if/when played at that end of the ground. It's just that he will never be a midfielder.

just maybe

14 May 2007, 11:27

Then why not play him in the midfield in bursts?

- PC -

14 May 2007, 11:33

Who is to say we dont? Does a midfielder have to start in the square in todays football to be considered a midfielder?

I have seen Johncock go forward, now I cant say its part of a mid rotation or him playing loose upfield ( that begs the question of who is looking after his man) or is he following his opponent upfield?