Mattner - Attacking Defender or Defensive Wingman?

[NikkiNoo]

Ok seeing as how most debates about our games so far this year always seem to have people calling for Mattner to be put back on the wing where the perception was that he was more attacking. I thought we possibly need one thread to discuss this instead of the constant discussions in many different ones.

I will quote here from the Pride magazine article on Mattner - March/April addition. Emphasis in bold are my own.

Beginning his career as a defensive wingman, Mattner last year played mainly at half-back - with an emphasis on showing more attacking flair and providing some dash out of the defensive 50.

While his disposal average of 16 didn't vary from 2005, the way in which he won the ball and his efficiency did. He won six per cent less in a contest and improved his disposal efficiency by eight per cent and his kicking efficiency by a staggering 15 per cent.

"I made a concious effort last year to work on my weaknesses, which was my attacking play and taking players on," Mattner said.

"Neil (Craig) wanted me to be more attacking, to be involved more and get my hands on more of the footy. So I tried to use my speed more and become more creative. To become a better player I have to continue to add facets to my game."

I found that article very interesting, especially in light of the many discussions here that Mattner was a more attacking player on the wing. It seems that the club thought otherwise. The article seems to say that his role on the wing was defensive and in order to work on his attacking play it was decided to send him back to defence. What better way to learn how to be attacking than to work alongside McLeod?

I personally have not had a problem with him being back in defence (except for the occasional brain fades) as it has allowed the club to use the wings for bringing our younger midfield players into the side (Knights and Douglas especially at the start of this year and Knights and van Berlo last year at times). Our midfielders push back into our defensive area when the opposition are attacking so they must have a more defensive mindset and our attacks are often started from half-back so our defenders often have an attacking one.

It is not the 'traditional way' that footy has been played but that is how it is these days. The game has changed greatly from 10 years ago, nowdays you see both wingman sometimes feeding the ball to each other on the same wing.

[- PC -]

I think the ''attack'' part comes from him taking the ball into the forward lines more than he does now. Breaking the lines for him now means bringing the ball to the wing

The other aspect I liked was his tackling, and on the wing is where transfers of play occur and if the opposition knows a good tackler is there then they will pass more to the contest than to the seagull on the wing

[just maybe]

Again, NikkiNoo, you have this habit of rote-reporting everything the club says.

To any observer, Mattner was a very attacking wingman. We were often credited, in Burton/Mattner, with having the best wing combination in the competition.

Yes they had defensive roles, in that they dropped back to help out in defense, but they both had pace and would burst forward. At one point they were being talked up as an AA combo in 2005.

There was nothing wrong with Mattner's attacking skills, he was always an attacking player and when Ayres tried to play him as a tagger it never worked.

It is one of Craig's most disappointing coaching decisions. The wings were one of the team's strong points in 2005 and now they're back to being nothing spots again.

[Stiffy_18]

Great post Nikki :thumbsu:

I think our fan base is extremely fickle and ALWAYS look for things to bitch and moan about.

I have no problem with Mattner playing in defence (apart from the occasional brain fart as you mentioned). Our game plan is based on having a strong, rebounding defence. Martin does his job well. I also think he is either a wingman or a HBF. I just can't see him as an onballer because he is not a quick enough thinker to be a midfielder. His brain fart increase when the pressure is on and midfielders are under pressure contantly.

Now people bitch and moan about getting him back to the wing and my question then is, where do you play Knights, Van Berlo et al...? We are trying to fast track the new midfield generation and we will not and should not throw them to the wolves straight away and play them in the guts. They rightly are being played on the wing to get the feel of the game and get in the thick of things but under less pressure.

Quite simply, if you want Mattner back on the wing, then Knights doesn't get his game time on that right wing. Its the wing that Mattner used to play on. Craig played his left footers on the right wing and right footers on the left wing so that they turn inside on the preferred foot.

I got no problem with Mattner playing in defence and when Stiffy does get back, I still think that McLeod, Johncock and Mattner will be played in defence as the 3 attacking defenders.

People have this idea that Mattner was an attacking wingman. He was not. Back in 2005 when he was playing on that right wing, he was the one dropping back into defence to take those defensive marks. When the pressure was on, we had both him and Burton drop back and act as extra half back flankers. In the preferred set up, Burton was the attacking wingman and Mattner was the defensive wingman who was dropping back to help out the defenders by taking those defensive marks and then running away with it.

[Stiffy_18]

There was nothing wrong with Mattner's attacking skills, he was always an attacking player and when Ayres tried to play him as a tagger it never worked.

What a load of crap. Mattner has always had the defensive side of his game as his strongest point. His tackling is his strength and last time I checked that was defensive attribute.

The reason he didn't make it as a tagger has nothing to do with the lack of his defensive side but everything to do with his decision making in pressure situation. He is just not a quick enough thinker to play in the midfield. He makes mistakes when he is under pressure and as a tagger he was always under pressure. He gets lost in the congested situations. He is at his best in his open space and he has a great evasive skills when there is space to run into. If he see someone coming at him at the corner of his eye, and there is space available, he will evade them easily. When he is in the thick of things, he just doesn't have what it takes.

[just maybe]

Stiffy, just because MAttner had a defensive role does not mean he did not have an attacking one also.

This board was flooded with Mattner love in 2005 because of his long, loping runs up the wing and big left-foot punts into the forward line.

Burton also regularly was dropping back into the 50 taking marks - so don't pretend they only had one role each. They didn't. They both had dual roles.

[- PC -]

We are trying to fast track the new midfield generation and we will not and should not throw them to the wolves straight away and play them in the guts.

There are also BPs and HBFs to do that.

[NikkiNoo]

The wings were one of the team's strong points in 2005 and now they're back to being nothing spots again.

So by now being able to bring into the game some of our younger players ala Douglas, van Berlo (towards the end of 2005 and in 06) and Knights they are nothing spots again? If Burton and Mattner were playing on the wings entirely in that time frame where would Douglas, VB and Knights all have gotten more game time instead? Would we be sending Goodwin and Edwards out onto the wings as well at times so that Reilly and Thompson could spend more time at the centre bounces, which was what was happening at the start of this season until Reilly was injured? How can we have a gentle handover to the next generation of midfielders that we have been calling to happen?

[just maybe]

What a load of crap. Mattner has always had the defensive side of his game as his strongest point. His tackling is his strength and last time I checked that was defensive attribute.

No, you are talking a load of crap. He was always a gun tackler but never a great defensive player.

All the Sturt supporters were on here moaning how he was being ruined by Ayres being played as a defensive player because his skill was as an attacking midfielder.

[just maybe]

So by now being able to bring into the game some of our younger players ala Douglas, van Berlo (towards the end of 2005 and in 06) and Knights they are nothing spots again? If Burton and Mattner were playing on the wings entirely in that time frame where would Douglas, VB and Knights all have gotten more game time instead? Would we be sending Goodwin and Edwards out onto the wings as well at times so that Reilly and Thompson could spend more time at the centre bounces, which was what was happening at the start of this season until Reilly was injured? How can we have a gentle handover to the next generation of midfielders that we have been calling to happen?

So are we trying to win this comp, or are we all about killing off our strengths on the wings with two reasonably young players in Mattner and Burton anyway?

Why can't Douglas/VB/Knights play BP or HBF like many young players across the league do? Or even HFF? Why does it have to be the wings? I'd be perfectly happy to see Goodwin and Edwards change onto the HFF for a rest.

I mean seriously, look at this critically. Do you really want to rob Peter to pay Paul?

Why cut out the best wing combination we've ever had when we're on the cusp of premiership success?

FFS....some people can't see the forest for the AFC press release. :rolleyes:

[NikkiNoo]

There are also BPs and HBFs to do that.

But you can't get a decent look into the midfield from there really. Players can observe what to do in the midfield better from the wing positions that in a BP or HBF. They are also part of the the midfield rotations and understanding of positioning required etc. If you are playing one of the positions you are discussing at training you would be spending more time training for those positions not the midfield - is this beneficial to a young players development for a midfield role?

[just maybe]

But you can't get a decent look into the midfield from there really. Players can observe what to do in the midfield better from the wing positions that in a BP or HBF.


Oh please. What crock. They can see the whole midfield perfectly well from anywhere unless they're visually impaired.

McLeod does perfectly well dealing with the midfield from HBF. :rolleyes:


They are also part of the the midfield rotations and understanding of positioning required etc. If you are playing one of the positions you are discussing at training you would be spending more time training for those positions not the midfield - is this beneficial to a young players development for a midfield role?

Again, isn't it important that we don't throw away our best-ever wing combination when we're a side close to winning the premiership?

Also, have you forgotten that our defense is very attacking so often overlaps with the midfield anyway?

I mean....come on...

[- PC -]

They are also part of the the midfield rotations and understanding of positioning required etc. If you are playing one of the positions you are discussing at training you would be spending more time training for those positions not the midfield - is this beneficial to a young players development for a midfield role?

HBF is now part of the rotation so its not that.

Having a defensive mindset is a requirement of any player. Remember the arguments on here when Harvey got touches in the Semi Final??? But apparently it was ok because his opposite( Goodwin I think) got 2 possessions less.

I dont disagree that wing is a good spot for a midfield learning role...just that todays game you can also do it from BP and HBF

[NikkiNoo]

So are we trying to win this comp, or are we all about killing off our strengths on the wings with two reasonably young players in Mattner and Burton anyway?

So bascially you are saying that if we had Burton and Mattner on the wings last year we would have won the premiership? That's a little simplistic thought process isn't it? We came bloody close to making the GF and it was more than one thing that meant we didn't make it.

Why can't Douglas/VB/Knights play BP or HBF like many young players across the league do? Or even HFF? Why does it have to be the wings? I'd be perfectly happy to see Goodwin and Edwards change onto the HFF for a rest.

They do sometimes and other times they rest on the wing or in Goodwins case off the HBF. There are a couple of different combinations that we can use, we are not the one trick pony that many people think.

Which young players and which teams are you comparing them too?

I would rather be in the position to be challenging for the premiership year in and year out and also bringing the younger players in at the same time and not have to rely on this tanking to rebuild which personally I have yet to see occur and highly doubt will.

[Stiffy_18]

There are also BPs and HBFs to do that.
And where do you think these midfield prospects will develop faster, on the wings or in BP and HBF espacially taking into account the way we play the game?

[just maybe]

So bascially you are saying that if we had Burton and Mattner on the wings last year we would have won the premiership? That's a little simplistic thought process isn't it? We came bloody close to making the GF and it was more than one thing that meant we didn't make it.


Of course it was.

But the fact is, we didn't make it.

It was plainly obvious that in 2005 we had one of the best wing combinations in the comp.

Now we dismantle it, when on the cusp of a premiership, to play some youngsters there instead of the HBF?

What a wonderful thought process. :rolleyes:


They do sometimes and other times they rest on the wing or in Goodwins case off the HBF. There are a couple of different combinations that we can use, we are not the one trick pony that many people think.

Which young players and which teams are you comparing them too?

I would rather be in the position to be challenging for the premiership year in and year out and also bringing the younger players in at the same time and not have to rely on this tanking to rebuild which personally I have yet to see occur and highly doubt will.

And how about we play them where positions are available instead of where we have one of the best wing combinations in the comp?

How about you answer that?

How about you stop reading from 'Pride' or whatever and tell me: why are we robbing Peter to pay Paul?

Let's stop avoiding the issue here and get a straight answer. Your last paragraph was typical AFC spin avoiding the issue at hand.

[just maybe]

Just as a sidenote Nikki, the two positions that we always used to trouble West Coast with?

Wing.

Our two, tall, long-running wingmen. Mattner and Burton.

When did we beat West Coast most often? 2005, when we had Mattner and Burton there.

Who did the West Coast supporters worry most about when playing the Crows? Mattner and Burton.

So don't tell me this 'they wouldn't have made a difference'.

West Coast had no match up for them.

[just maybe]

And where do you think these midfield prospects will develop faster, on the wings or in BP and HBF espacially taking into account the way we play the game?

HBF, which is where much of our midfield attack is launched from, and where the two positions blend.

Additionally, HBF because we shouldn't be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Stiffy_18]

So are we trying to win this comp, or are we all about killing off our strengths on the wings with two reasonably young players in Mattner and Burton anyway?And you were the first one to bitch and moan about playing Burton on the wing, now you want him back there. Burton is what 28, 29? Hardly young, especially considring the soft tissue injuries he has had.

Why can't Douglas/VB/Knights play BP or HBF like many young players across the league do? Or even HFF? Why does it have to be the wings? I'd be perfectly happy to see Goodwin and Edwards change onto the HFF for a rest.
Because the way we play, they will not learn a hell of a lot about being a midfielder on a HBF or a BP. We are fast tracking them into midfielders and the best way to do that is play them on the wing.
I mean seriously, look at this critically. Do you really want to rob Peter to pay Paul?But we are not. We are developing these players for the better of the club in the long run. If you don't do it now, you are going to hit the bottom really hard in a couple of years time.
Why cut out the best wing combination we've ever had when we're on the cusp of premiership success?
What crusp? We are a level below the true contenders. :confused:
FFS....some people can't see the forest for the AFC press release. :rolleyes:And some people are just not happy unless they bitch and moan about everything and anything :rolleyes:

[NikkiNoo]

Oh please. What crock. They can see the whole midfield perfectly well from anywhere unless they're visually impaired.

Have you played the game? I have (very badly mind you :o) and what I really noticed was the amount of traffic having to deal with out on the ground and the ability to see clearly what was happening up the field is very difficult. It is much easier to see the patterns / rotations etc from watching the game than actually partaking in it.

McLeod does perfectly well dealing with the midfield from HBF. :rolleyes:

He used to be a part of that midfield so he actually already has a knowledge base to build upon.


Also, have you forgotten that our defense is very attacking so often overlaps with the midfield anyway?

Remember Knights talking about working on his defensive game earlier in the year. So it seems that Knights is working on his defensive game by playing in the midfield and Mattner on his attacking from defense. We keep two of our younger players in the side as Stiffy has pointed out. If Mattner was on the wing, where would Knights be playing? I would prefer to rob Peter with Mattner in the backlines than pay Paul with Mattner on the wing and Knights no where to be seen except racking up the possessions in the sanfl.

[just maybe]

And you were the first one to bitch and moan about playing Burton on the wing, now you want him back there. Burton is what 28, 29? Hardly young, especially considring the soft tissue injuries he has had.

I was not the first one to bitch and moan. Nice troll, Stiffo.


Because the way we play, they will not learn a hell of a lot about being a midfielder on a HBF or a BP. We are fast tracking them into midfielders and the best way to do that is play them on the wing.

Rubbish. Look at how our team plays. The midfield blends with the backline at HBF. It integrates with our midfield. Hell, even our back pockets get through there.

But we are not. We are developing these players for the better of the club in the long run. If you don't do it now, you are going to hit the bottom really hard in a couple of years time.

Yet we are currently still a premiership contender, and got rid of one of the best wing combinations in the competition.

So, yes, we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.


What crusp? We are a level below the true contenders. :confused:
And some people are just not happy unless they bitch and moan about everything and anything :rolleyes:

A level below? We beat Sydney every time mate.

We don't beat West Coast.

And we got rid of our most troubling positional aspects for West Coast - Mattner and Burton on the wings.

[just maybe]

Have you played the game? I have (very badly mind you :o) and what I really noticed was the amount of traffic having to deal with out on the ground and the ability to see clearly what was happening up the field is very difficult. It is much easier to see the patterns / rotations etc from watching the game than actually partaking in it.

Then you are advocating that they sit on the sidelines and not play at all?



He used to be a part of that midfield so he actually already has a knowledge base to build upon.


You seem to conveniently forget that McLeod learnt his trade at HB, won his Norm Smiths at HB and has spent most of his career there. :rolleyes:


Remember Knights talking about working on his defensive game earlier in the year. So it seems that Knights is working on his defensive game by playing in the midfield and Mattner on his attacking from defense. We keep two of our younger players in the side as Stiffy has pointed out. If Mattner was on the wing, where would Knights be playing? I would prefer to rob Peter with Mattner in the backlines than pay Paul with Mattner on the wing and Knights no where to be seen except racking up the possessions in the sanfl.

Knights would work perfectly as a HFF as he is a natural goalkicker.

[NikkiNoo]

It was plainly obvious that in 2005 we had one of the best wing combinations in the comp.

Now we dismantle it, when on the cusp of a premiership, to play some youngsters there instead of the HBF?

did we make the GF in 2005? No. We played West Coast 3 times for 1 win and 2 losses. So no we didn't beat them most often as you have also claimed.

We made two consecutives PF's one with Mattner and Burton on the wing and one without them. The result - both losses. How can you claim that they would be different if they were on the wing? How can you claim that we won't win a GF or a PF if they don't play there? You can't. It's just guess work and supposition at best on your behalf.

[- PC -]

And where do you think these midfield prospects will develop faster, on the wings or in BP and HBF espacially taking into account the way we play the game?

As I said I think HBF, the way the game is structured, is as good as the wing. On the wing there is no need to be as defensive minded as the HBF, so the pressure is less.

[just maybe]

did we make the GF in 2005? No. We played West Coast 3 times for 1 win and 2 losses. So no we didn't beat them most often as you have also claimed.

We made two consecutives PF's one with Mattner and Burton on the wing and one without them. The result - both losses. How can you claim that they would be different if they were on the wing? How can you claim that we won't win a GF or a PF if they don't play there? You can't. It's just guess work and supposition at best on your behalf.

Answer my question. Stop avoiding it.

Why dismantle one of the best wing combinations in the comp?

Seriously, why can't you answer the question? Why are you consistently shirking the issue? Are you that beholden to the AFC view of things?

[just maybe]

As I said I think HBF, the way the game is structured, is as good as the wing. On the wing there is no need to be as defensive minded as the HBF, so the pressure is less.

:thumbsu:

[NikkiNoo]

Answer my question. Stop avoiding it.

Why dismantle one of the best wing combinations in the comp?

Seriously, why can't you answer the question? Why are you consistently shirking the issue? Are you that beholden to the AFC view of things?

I haven't avoided it, I have answered it and you have ignored it - we are bringing the younger players in those positions. In fact I had it in my original post
I personally have not had a problem with him being back in defence (except for the occasional brain fades) as it has allowed the club to use the wings for bringing our younger midfield players into the side (Knights and Douglas especially at the start of this year and Knights and van Berlo last year at times)

To elaborate - Burton is now a dangerous match up up forward for the opposition. Mattner is provding much needed assistance down back with the ability to play on small and talls. Often releasing Bassett to play his loose man role effectively and also releasing Torney as well.

The younger players are being fast tracked into our midfield as Stiffy said so that we hopefully won't bottom out like many other sides and also lose those players back to melbourne clubs. We now have a fair idea who will replace Goodwin, Edwards and Roo when they retire and I for one am happy seeing their development and feel comfortable that they will be adequate replacements.

[just maybe]

I haven't avoided it, I have answered it and you have ignored it - we are bringing the younger players in those positions. In fact I had it in my original post

That's not an answer - at least, it's not a good enough excuse to destroy one of our strengths.

Burton always pushed forward anyway, and Mattner's role in the backline is easily replaceable.



The younger players are being fast tracked into our midfield as Stiffy said so that we hopefully won't bottom out like many other sides and also lose those players back to melbourne clubs. We now have a fair idea who will replace Goodwin, Edwards and Roo when they retire and I for one am happy seeing their development and feel comfortable that they will be adequate replacements.

And as PC and I have said, and neither of you have satisfactorily answered, they can be brought in as HBFs or HFFs.

So when those positions were available, we instead broke up a combination that West Coast, our bogey team, had trouble with, and you still think it's a great idea.

I've never heard you say anything critical of the club and that's a sad state of affairs.

[NikkiNoo]

That's not an answer - at least, it's not a good enough excuse to destroy one of our strengths.

Burton always pushed forward anyway, and Mattner's role in the backline is easily replaceable.

And as PC and I have said, and neither of you have satisfactorily answered, they can be brought in as HBFs or HFFs.

So when those positions were available, we instead broke up a combination that West Coast, our bogey team, had trouble with, and you still think it's a great idea.

I've never heard you say anything critical of the club and that's a sad state of affairs.

West Coast you say had trouble with it that combination and yet they beat us twice during that period. It seems that the actual results aren't backing up your argument and yet you are persisting with it. They had trouble with the one match up you say and yet they won more times than lost against us. So it seems that one position does not a game make imo.

If they are playing as the HBF and the HFF flankers then who misses out on selection - HBF well McLeod on the one side, nope don't think he will be dropped, so the spot on the other flank, so Torney probably? It depends on the matchups as to where our defenders play as sometimes we have Bassett on that flank or Johncock as well.
HFF so that one position will be taken up by Vince, Porplyzia, Douglas and Knights? Which ones in the side and which ones out? Burton plays deep in the pocket normally in our forward set up, so who do we send deep then in his place? Bode when fit? Needs to be a tall/mid really to fit in with the structure?

I have been critical of the club - check about the time Craig was appointed. I was ropeable about the appointment process.

So many people on here are negative enough that sometimes I think we need to be reminded that there are positives. It is natural and easier to be critical and it is actually very hard to be positive so I just try and balance things out. From your posts you seem to naturally be a pessimist, me I tend to have a more optimistic outlook on life and I would much rather be that way.

[Kane McGoodwin]

As I said I think HBF, the way the game is structured, is as good as the wing. On the wing there is no need to be as defensive minded as the HBF, so the pressure is less.
I thinks this is the key. HBF role is similar to a wing & Mattner plays this role OK, as he can still set up attacking plays. Where I have concerns about Marty is when he plays across the FB line & taking kickins (with his poor decision making). I don't have the same faith as I do a Hound, Hart or Smart.

[just maybe]

West Coast you say had trouble with it that combination and yet they beat us twice during that period. It seems that the actual results aren't backing up your argument and yet you are persisting with it. They had trouble with the one match up you say and yet they won more times than lost against us. So it seems that one position does not a game make imo.

It doesn't a game make. But when those two positional match-ups worry West Coast, why weaken us further?

I didn't say they'd win the game on their own, I said taking them away weakens us.


If they are playing as the HBF and the HFF flankers then who misses out on selection - HBF well McLeod on the one side, nope don't think he will be dropped, so the spot on the other flank, so Torney probably? It depends on the matchups as to where our defenders play as sometimes we have Bassett on that flank or Johncock as well.

Johncock, Torney and Bassett play deep and run forward.


HFF so that one position will be taken up by Vince, Porplyzia, Douglas and Knights? Which ones in the side and which ones out? Burton plays deep in the pocket normally in our forward set up, so who do we send deep then in his place? Bode when fit? Needs to be a tall/mid really to fit in with the structure?


Obviously the idea of shifting players around on the team board is beyond you. :rolleyes:


I have been critical of the club - check about the time Craig was appointed. I was ropeable about the appointment process.


Yet now you believe everything he says?

Did everyone ever teach you coaches are inveterate liars - something the Crows themselves admit using as a tactic?


So many people on here are negative enough that sometimes I think we need to be reminded that there are positives. It is natural and easier to be critical and it is actually very hard to be positive so I just try and balance things out. From your posts you seem to naturally be a pessimist, me I tend to have a more optimistic outlook on life and I would much rather be that way.

No, I'm critical when I think there's reason to be critical. You see no reason ever to be critical, which is odd given that there's plenty of things the team needs to improve on and we have a novice coach who makes mistakes and is overly stubborn.

I just posted a thread praising Scott Thompson, was that negative?

The problem with your attitude is that when something is worth criticising, you try and dampen it with this blinkered party line dribble torn straight off the AFC website.

Maybe you think that's being an 'optimist', but it just makes you seem like a gormless 'yes-woman'. You always take the media releases as gospel truth, as evidenced by this thread.

[Stiffy_18]

As I said I think HBF, the way the game is structured, is as good as the wing. On the wing there is no need to be as defensive minded as the HBF, so the pressure is less.
If thats the case, then why are people bitching and moaning about Mattner being played across HBF rather than a wing? If its proactically the same, then I see no issue.

Secondly, just maybe, you keep metioning West Coast and how they had trouble handling the wing combination. Can you please list the players that consistently give us trouble when we play them and have given up trouble ever since 2004?

And I agree with Kane McGoodwin, what I am against is Mattner on the FB line and doing the kick ins. I got no issues with him playing accross HB.

[NikkiNoo]

It doesn't a game make. But when those two positional match-ups worry West Coast, why weaken us further?

I didn't say they'd win the game on their own, I said taking them away weakens us.

We have beaten them once since 2004 in round 22 - when it could be debated that Worsfold did a Blight and let Craig make the moves so if they faced us in a final he already knew what was going to happen. Burton doesn't worry them up forward? I know that if I was a coach he would worry me no matter where he plays.

Johncock, Torney and Bassett play deep and run forward.

Not always, sometimes they are playing on that flank, it depends on the matchups needed. Mattner plays deep as well when required for match ups - flexibility is a must in our team structure.


Obviously the idea of shifting players around on the team board is beyond you. :rolleyes:

No just wanting to see who you would think would play in those positions.


Yet now you believe everything he says?

Did everyone ever teach you coaches are inveterate liars - something the Crows themselves admit using as a tactic?

So I am a liar? Obviously my two sisters are, as well as my father, friends, (who used to be my coaches) I have had for years and trust are obviously all liars as well?
Yes I know the club doesn't tell us the whole truth and I know why they don't but I at least attempt to look at what they are telling us and with my own observations making up my own mind. I am not relying on a bias that all coaches are no good and not trustworthy at all.
I have personally gone out to training to watch him coach. I have actually witnessed him with his daughters when one of them was involved in sport and how he dealt with them. I have been very impressed by him from a coaching perspective and I learnt quite a bit learning from observing him. What has been your personal experience of Craig? What you see on tv and what you read in the papers? Have you gone out to training to watch and observe? Why do you have such distrust towards all coaches?



No, I'm critical when I think there's reason to be critical. You see no reason ever to be critical, which is odd given that there's plenty of things the team needs to improve on and we have a novice coach who makes mistakes and is overly stubborn.

You think he is overly stubborn and yet I have seen changes that he has made and his willingness to listen to his players means to me that he is not overly stubborn. You claimed in a previous thread that the players complained that the training on Wednesdays was too heavy, and so they changed the training load on that day - a stubborn person wouldn't have done that would they?

I am critical, just not on here. I have coaching experience so I know the power of a negative turned into a positive. I have been critical of our players before but I do often temper that with a positive as well.

I just posted a thread praising Scott Thompson, was that negative?

Actually you didn't post it, you asked someone else to post it which I found a strange thing to do until I realised that you were on a yellow card and can't post new threads. No it wasn't a negative and I agree that he is having a great season. But would he be playing as much in the midfield if Burton and Mattner were on the wings ;)

The problem with your attitude is that when something is worth criticising, you try and dampen it with this blinkered party line dribble torn straight off the AFC website.

Maybe you think that's being an 'optimist', but it just makes you seem like a gormless 'yes-woman'. You always take the media releases as gospel truth, as evidenced by this thread.

and you take them as blatant lies. I take them as partly truthful and partly lies. I started this thread for a discussion point as I remember reading that article and then that it gave a completely different look to what most people on here thought adn were discussing about Mattner's role. I have put my opinion out there and was waiting for others to provide their opinions and thoughts.

I very rarely visit the afc website as it is telstra crap and I use a mac as well, so I don't look at it much at all. Trust me my family would disagree with you totally - I am not a 'yes-woman'. I make up my own mind and once I do, you won't budge me :D

[just maybe]

If thats the case, then why are people bitching and moaning about Mattner being played across HBF rather than a wing? If its proactically the same, then I see no issue.

As good as the wing for inducting new players into the midfield.

Don't misquote.


Secondly, just maybe, you keep metioning West Coast and how they had trouble handling the wing combination. Can you please list the players that consistently give us trouble when we play them and have given up trouble ever since 2004?

Cousins, Kerr, Embley, Cox. Maybe Hunter.

[just maybe]

We have beaten them once since 2004 in round 22 - when it could be debated that Worsfold did a Blight and let Craig make the moves so if they faced us in a final he already knew what was going to happen. Burton doesn't worry them up forward? I know that if I was a coach he would worry me no matter where he plays.

He can do both.


Not always, sometimes they are playing on that flank, it depends on the matchups needed. Mattner plays deep as well when required for match ups - flexibility is a must in our team structure.

Except Mattner is terrible when playing deep.



No just wanting to see who you would think would play in those positions.

Mattner and Burton on wings, Knights a HFF, Douglas in the backlines, Vince out of the side, Porplyzia on the bench.


So I am a liar? Obviously my two sisters are, as well as my father, friends, (who used to be my coaches) I have had for years and trust are obviously all liars as well?
Yes I know the club doesn't tell us the whole truth and I know why they don't but I at least attempt to look at what they are telling us and with my own observations making up my own mind. I am not relying on a bias that all coaches are no good and not trustworthy at all.
I have personally gone out to training to watch him coach. I have actually witnessed him with his daughters when one of them was involved in sport and how he dealt with them. I have been very impressed by him from a coaching perspective and I learnt quite a bit learning from observing him. What has been your personal experience of Craig? What you see on tv and what you read in the papers? Have you gone out to training to watch and observe? Why do you have such distrust towards all coaches?

I don't have distrust toward all coaches. It's just good coaching sense to lie and deceive in order not to give away clues to the opposition.

The Crows have admitted a policy of lying to the media - yet you believe them utterly because you think Craig's great.

I think you have your head in the clouds.

You think he is overly stubborn and yet I have seen changes that he has made and his willingness to listen to his players means to me that he is not overly stubborn. You claimed in a previous thread that the players complained that the training on Wednesdays was too heavy, and so they changed the training load on that day - a stubborn person wouldn't have done that would they?

I am critical, just not on here. I have coaching experience so I know the power of a negative turned into a positive. I have been critical of our players before but I do often temper that with a positive as well.


Well maybe you should be critical on here, because your reputation is that of an AFC sap and you do yourself no favours by not having the guts to put your real opinion on the line. By your own admission here you're hiding it.

And yes, it is well known Craig is stubborn. Just look at his match-day coaching.


Actually you didn't post it, you asked someone else to post it which I found a strange thing to do until I realised that you were on a yellow card and can't post new threads. No it wasn't a negative and I agree that he is having a great season. But would he be playing as much in the midfield if Burton and Mattner were on the wings ;)


I still wrote the thing, if you're going to bicker over the poster then...whatever. :rolleyes:


and you take them as blatant lies. I take them as partly truthful and partly lies. I started this thread for a discussion point as I remember reading that article and then that it gave a completely different look to what most people on here thought adn were discussing about Mattner's role. I have put my opinion out there and was waiting for others to provide their opinions and thoughts.

I don't take them as blatant lies. But I do question a lot of things I read, maybe because my studies and my work have made me very exposed to media manipulation.

Questioning is good - especially on things that innately bother you like these couple of issues recently.


I very rarely visit the afc website as it is telstra crap and I use a mac as well, so I don't look at it much at all. Trust me my family would disagree with you totally - I am not a 'yes-woman'. I make up my own mind and once I do, you won't budge me :D

Well unfortunately you seem to make up your mind based on what the AFC says.

That is your reputation on here, external of me - you know that.

If, as you claim, you are critical away from here, then have some real guts and be critical on here. This is a discussion board for AFC fans, not some praise forum. It DOES get heated, and it's best when everyone is honest with their opinions. We don't need someone taking the AFC line, we all know what it is.

So how about you actually let us know your criticisms, because it would certainly make you a more rounded poster and I'd respect you a lot more - whether or not you care about that.

[Stiffy_18]

Cousins, Kerr, Embley, Cox. Maybe Hunter.I would also say Braun tears us a new one when ever he plays against us.

Now tell me, where do Braun and Empley play most of their footy when we play WC?

[just maybe]

I would also say Braun tears us a new one when ever he plays against us.

Now tell me, where do Braun and Empley play most of their footy when we play WC?

Braun HB and Embley HF and sometimes deeper.

[Stiffy_18]

Braun HB and Embley HF and sometimes deeper.
WRONG!!!

Try again!

[rooboy]

Hell, Ilike Marty on the wing and/or the HBF. He gives plenty of run and drive from both spots, but I like some others get very jittery when he has the ball deep in defense.
It is understandable that people miss his long striding, long kicking game from the wing, but he plays a very handy strong marking, hard tackling tall HBF possie for us. And whilst it is great to debate issues such as this, I'm guessing the coaching panel have a few ideas as well.

[just maybe]

WRONG!!!

Try again!

Correct.

Braun runs from half-back generally, and Embley plays as HFF who ventures into the midfield.

In fact, on teamsheets, Embley is most often named as forward pocket.

[Stiffy_18]

Correct.

Braun runs from half-back generally, and Embley plays as HFF who ventures into the midfield.

In fact, on teamsheets, Embley is most often named as forward pocket.
Now you are using team sheets as a means to back up your theory :D

Here is a little fact for you, against us, those boys line up on the wing and play there most of the time. Embley does move forward at times but he is primarily a wingman against us and so is Brown.

Must be one hell of a HBF to get 41 possesions in a game against us :rolleyes:

[NikkiNoo]

Except Mattner is terrible when playing deep.

I think he is ok playing deep - I can remember a lot of good saving marks in front of opposition forwards, it's his kicking out that I worry about. But will he never learn if he never experiences the pressure situation. It's something that you can't train for very well.

Mattner and Burton on wings, Knights a HFF, Douglas in the backlines, Vince out of the side, Porplyzia on the bench.

So will Vince never get a chance to learn to be the crumber we need in the forward lines? Who comes onto the wings when Mattner and Burton need a rest? Porps is the relief for who? So we wouldn't have seen that performance from Knights on the weekend?


I don't have distrust toward all coaches. It's just good coaching sense to lie and deceive in order not to give away clues to the opposition.

The Crows have admitted a policy of lying to the media - yet you believe them utterly because you think Craig's great.

I think you have your head in the clouds.

I have said that I don't believe them utterly. I know they lie, did you miss reading that bit where I said that before? I just trust my judgement of what is reported in there, what hasn't been said in there (you can get an idea sometimes of what they mean by how something is said and what wasn't said) and my own personal observations. You still haven't answered some of my questions.


Well maybe you should be critical on here, because your reputation is that of an AFC sap and you do yourself no favours by not having the guts to put your real opinion on the line. By your own admission here you're hiding it.

And yes, it is well known Craig is stubborn. Just look at his match-day coaching.

And look at his admissions that he knows this is a fault and is looking at changing it. Or is that him just lying all the time to the media and not really interested in changing it because he is so stubborn? I have provided an example of him not being stubborn as you accuse and you ignore it.

I have been critical on here. If you haven't seen those posts, oh well.


I still wrote the thing, if you're going to bicker over the poster then...whatever. :rolleyes:

Did you miss my last statement in that section? Did you miss the wink? Maybe we do need the sarcasm tags here. :o I was pointing out that you can't post new threads as others may not realise that you can't do it. I was actually trying to give you a little credit when others may not realise that you can't post new threads.


I don't take them as blatant lies. But I do question a lot of things I read, maybe because my studies and my work have made me very exposed to media manipulation.

Questioning is good - especially on things that innately bother you like these couple of issues recently.

My parents taught me to make up my own mind. I first read what I can, I listen to other peoples opinions/discussions and then I make up my own mind and join in the discussions if I disagree with a point or wish to discuss one of my thoughts further.

Well unfortunately you seem to make up your mind based on what the AFC says.

That is your reputation on here, external of me - you know that.

If, as you claim, you are critical away from here, then have some real guts and be critical on here. This is a discussion board for AFC fans, not some praise forum. It DOES get heated, and it's best when everyone is honest with their opinions. We don't need someone taking the AFC line, we all know what it is.

So how about you actually let us know your criticisms, because it would certainly make you a more rounded poster and I'd respect you a lot more - whether or not you care about that.

I didn't think too much of what others think of me on here. I come here to see what others think about the team, get news on my team, for a laugh with like minded supporters and to read and sometimes particpate in discussions. I'm happy being a lurker and have no desire to have a huge post count. I didn't come here looking for respect, this site was a god send to me living in a non-football state and living overseas. It was a place to discuss and read about footy.

I know that I spent my first many posts getting absolutely no response as it is obvious from my user name that I was female and what would a girl know about football? It took almost a 6 months before people started actually responding to questions that I asked or commented on statements that I made.

I am an AFC fan - no where does it say that you must be critical and negative to be an AFC fan? I suppose it's the South supporter in me to always look on the bright side as the last time my team won a premiership my mother was 12 :eek:

Some people like to be heated, I like to be respectful of other people. If that means that some people on an internet forum think that I'm an afc sap from that, their loss.

You could search and look for yourself but here are some. I have been critical (quite scathing) of the appointment process, Jericho after the NAB final, Knights' lack of defensive work last year and Ayres' desire to tuck his t-shirt into his shorts with the waist sitting just below his chest are just some off the top of my head. Oh my favourite gripe is that our forwards need to be taught how to play netball - i.e. lead to a space might be nice. But I often don't feel the need to say it again and again. I put it out there once. If people read and respond well and good, if they don't, no problems there either. I have been ripped once on here by others for stating that Clement wasn't the best player for collingwood (2005 game) but that he was the least worst.

But as I have said before I will generally temper my responses with some positives. It is just that I have been bought up to be respectful of other people. If my being respectful of others means that you don't respect my opinion, no skin off my nose.

[just maybe]

Now you are using team sheets as a means to back up your theory :D

Here is a little fact for you, against us, those boys line up on the wing and play there most of the time. Embley does move forward at times but he is primarily a wingman against us and so is Brown.

Must be one hell of a HBF to get 41 possesions in a game against us :rolleyes:

Er, for someone who seems to know their footy you're acting remarkably dumb.

Half-back sweeper is one of the most possession-rich roles in the game. Even when unfit Darren Jarman picked up 39 possessions there not long before he retired. Buckley has played that role plenty of times and gorged himself.

And that's exactly what Braun does to us. Hell, even our own current half-back is racking up 30+...a certain McLeod.

Astonishing ignorance to claim HB's can't rack up posessions!

Embley is not primarily a wingman either - he primarily plays on the HFF.

[Stiffy_18]

Er, for someone who seems to know their footy you're acting remarkably dumb.

Half-back sweeper is one of the most possession-rich roles in the game. Even when unfit Darren Jarman picked up 39 possessions there not long before he retired. Buckley has played that role plenty of times and gorged himself.

And that's exactly what Braun does to us. Hell, even our own current half-back is racking up 30+...a certain McLeod.

Astonishing ignorance to claim HB's can't rack up posessions!

Embley is not primarily a wingman either - he primarily plays on the HFF.
Dude spare us the insults as that seems to be the basis of your EVERY debate here. Without, your point remains mute and out of whack!

Here are some facts for you. When we play WC they generally put a combination of Embley and Braun as their wingmen. And funny you mention Burton as a wingman that causes them some headaches. Here is a fact for you, whenever we play West Coast, Burton is the player that lines up on Embley on the wing. The only time when those 2 don't play on each other is when either of them is moved to the forward line.

So now you are claiming that Braun is someone that doesn't hurt us?! I suggest you go back and actually watch some games and keep a close eye on their wingman and a close eye on Braun.

Now you are suggesting that Braun plays the same sweeper role as McLeod, because that is the ONLY way he can accumulate that many stats as a HBF. Fact is he doesn't play that role. And even if he did, his ability is not anywhere near McLeod's to rack up that many touches. Even a champion player like McLeod hasn't had a 40 possesion game from HB in modern football.

Jarman played that game some 7 years ago. Are you aware that the game is pretty different to what it was back then. Not possesion footy back in those days. Teams are not as willing to give it up as much as they used to be.

As for the Embley position agaisnt us, I suggest you wonder off to WC Board and ask them nicely where does Embley generally play when they face the Crows. You might actually learn something.

[just maybe]

Dude spare us the insults as that seems to be the basis of your EVERY debate here. Without, your point remains mute and out of whack!

Something about p.k.b... :rolleyes:


Here are some facts for you. When we play WC they generally put a combination of Embley and Braun as their wingmen. And funny you mention Burton as a wingman that causes them some headaches. Here is a fact for you, whenever we play West Coast, Burton is the player that lines up on Embley on the wing. The only time when those 2 don't play on each other is when either of them is moved to the forward line.

You may like to note that Burton doesn't play wing anymore.


So now you are claiming that Braun is someone that doesn't hurt us?! I suggest you go back and actually watch some games and keep a close eye on their wingman and a close eye on Braun.

Now you're making things up... :confused:


Now you are suggesting that Braun plays the same sweeper role as McLeod, because that is the ONLY way he can accumulate that many stats as a HBF. Fact is he doesn't play that role. And even if he did, his ability is not anywhere near McLeod's to rack up that many touches. Even a champion player like McLeod hasn't had a 40 possesion game from HB in modern football.

Jarman played that game some 7 years ago. Are you aware that the game is pretty different to what it was back then. Not possesion footy back in those days. Teams are not as willing to give it up as much as they used to be.

Are you aware of what a sweeper is?


As for the Embley position agaisnt us, I suggest you wonder off to WC Board and ask them nicely where does Embley generally play when they face the Crows. You might actually learn something.

You might learn he plays HFF.

[smoovy]

I don't buy thing attacking or defensive wingman thing. To me, in today's game, you do both. Got to work just has hard both ways.

Now on Marty specifically, it is obvious to me that his two greatest strengths are his running ability and long left foot kick - these are ideal traits of a wingman as far as I am concerned.

Conversely his weakness is decision making, and you don't want this in the back lines...especially the full back lines. I'm sorry I might be a bit harsh but Marty just doesn't have footy smarts.

Some of his classic brain fades include playing on out of bounds last week and then when kicking in this pres-season, he played on then walked straight back and rushed a behind for 3 points!

I can handle him maybe playing across half back, but please never put him on the likes of Travis Cloke again.

[tcsoul]

To see Mattner at his best and in his best position. 2002 SANFL Grand Final. Sturt vs Centrals. Member side wing, run, long left foot kick, goal from 50.

Oh but of course it's a different competition not the same quality I'm sure some of you will say.

I hate Burton in our forward line, the monumental stuff ups (brain farts) that occur can cost us dearly. I hate Mattner for the same reason in the back line.

The opposition aren't pressured to react to him in their back line, they can wait because they have the numbers down the field. If he's running at our goals, they have to go at him for the simple fact that his kick could go inside 50 or to the goal square. He's at his best when he forces the pressure onto others.

[topjars]

I love the way Mattner and McLeod are waxing the ball:thumbsu: