View Full Version : poor defensive matchups
Wasn't impressed at all with the defensive matchups and strategies employed by knights. I am a knights fan but believe he warrants criticism occasionally in this area (probably 4 or 5 times in the 32 games as coach i haven't been happy so that a reasonable record). First time was anzac day last year but won't go into that.
Against Geelong:
S.Johnson was always going to be their main avenue to goal - I couldn't believe they started a slow, plodding midfielder in heath hocking on him. That was always going to fail. Then plan B - h.slattery, slight improvement but not much better. At one stage he even had houli on him for a couple of minutes... It wasn't until the last qtr pears finally quietened him but that was way too late...Proper analysis would show you need a player with pace and height/spoiling ability overhead. Looking at the available players darcy daniher was the obvious choice. Poor decision on the matchup here.
Mooney - Looking at body size, speed etc C.Hooker looked the perfect matchup yet he went to hawkins. Would have thought this matchup was obvious with pears going to hawkins.
Ablett - Started Stanton on him, ludicrous given how loose defensively he is.
We were never probably going to win but given the professional nature of the game i'd expect better from the coaching group. It would be good to hear them explain their reasons etc but from where i'm viewing the decisions appear plain ordinary. When they look at key matchups do they look at physical attributes such as top speed, height/strength, defensive abilities etc? You would think so but on todays matchups it appears not. I get the impression they pick a side based on who's been playing well then once they have this 22 they then go ok so who's going to who. Surely matchups should be in mind prior when they select a side. With dempsey and lovett-murray both out daniher should have been in to add some much needed pace in defence...the replacements (mcveigh and skipworth) didn't fill the void in that area at all. If skippy was to play then it should be at another forward/mids expense - it would have made more sense for any of nash/myers/daniher to come in to keep the team balance as replacements for the injured/suspended duo.
Hoping the coaching panel goes a lot better next week.
Boucks09
1 Jun 2009, 01:04
Great thread efcboy. It was arguably one of the most interesting aspects of the match.
S.Johnson was always going to be their main avenue to goal - I couldn't believe they started a slow, plodding midfielder in heath hocking on him. That was always going to fail. Then plan B - h.slattery, slight improvement but not much better. At one stage he even had houli on him for a couple of minutes... It wasn't until the last qtr pears finally quietened him but that was way too late...Proper analysis would show you need a player with pace and height/spoiling ability overhead. Looking at the available players darcy daniher was the obvious choice. Poor decision on the matchup here.
Totally agree regarding the non selection of Daniher. I actually didn't mind the idea of Hocking going to SJ as it showed how highly we rated him. Heata did ok in some contests but one their midfield got on top he had no chance.
Darcy would've been the ideal match up at least as a 3rd option.
Mooney - Looking at body size, speed etc C.Hooker looked the perfect matchup yet he went to hawkins. Would have thought this matchup was obvious with pears going to hawkins.
Totally agree. I was amazed when they lined up the other way around. Pears wasn't quick enough for Mooney and Hooker wasn't strong enough for Hawkins. No idea what the reasoning was there.
Ablett - Started Stanton on him, ludicrous given how loose defensively he is.
Didn't mind this one as much. Stanton did start like a house on fire early. We were also trying to shake the Ling tag on Watson, with Jobe trying to go to Selwood. I actually think that Lonergan was with Ablett at the clearances and Stanton with him around the ground.
Neither worked but then I don't think much would've to be honest.
We were never probably going to win but given the professional nature of the game i'd expect better from the coaching group. It would be good to hear them explain their reasons etc but from where i'm viewing the decisions appear plain ordinary. When they look at key matchups do they look at physical attributes such as top speed, height/strength, defensive abilities etc? You would think so but on todays matchups it appears not. .
I honestly thought we had a great chance to win today. I was amazed that there were no more pressing questions from the journos in Knighta's press conferene (just crap about 'How good is Ablett, ''How good is Geelong?). He made a few errors today and should've been questioned.
I get the impression they pick a side based on who's been playing well then once they have this 22 they then go ok so who's going to who. Surely matchups should be in mind prior when they select a side. With dempsey and lovett-murray both out daniher should have been in to add some much needed pace in defence...the replacements (mcveigh and skipworth) didn't fill the void in that area at all. If skippy was to play then it should be at another forward/mids expense - it would have made more sense for any of nash/myers/daniher to come in to keep the team balance as replacements for the injured/suspended duo.
Hoping the coaching panel goes a lot better next week.
Exactly my thoughts:
- prior to;
- during;
- after;
the game.
People unfortunately enough to be sitting in the stands near me would be sick of hearing this but Knights was just crap today. I doubt he was watching the game perhaps he had other things to do...
I think it is a cop out to suggest "we weren't going to win anyway", to be competitive is a goal in itself and make no mistake, we were outclassed in every single area of the game so comprehensively we deserve to have some shit heaped on us! We seemed to skate through these nightmares without anyone questioning how and why they happen.
Slattery on Johnson for 90%+ of the game.. outplayed to the point of hilarity. Johno knew he was going to get it before the ball was bounced. The move HAD TO BE MADE... I dont care if you try something crazy or zany but SOMETHING has to be done when ONE man has kicked more score than your ENTIRE side.. you don't just leave him him there to be slaughtered!!! what a joke.. why not try a davey.. at least know he will be tackled at some point.. why not try driving him to the ground everytime he gets a touch.. to say we had no options is a cop out.. we had 21 other players to have a go with..
Stanton on Ablett.. what was that?!! a game of crazy horse?> see who would have the biggest impact?? ahhhh let me think... hmmmmmmmmmm was never never never going to be stanton.. only knights would let THE most talented, creative player in the league and say "run free and do what you like".. stanton as a tagger.. what a joke
Again I question our lack of B plan.. our A plan was clearly getting smashed and yet nothing was done.. we didn't seem to have a back up plan or ANY ideas about how to get into the contest, just more crap rolled out.. when we play well.. we look great.. love our effort but too many games are won with 1 qtr efforts which wont cut it against good sides.. we have been in front for the lowest % of time in the comp other than freo and melbourne.. that sums it up.. a heap of lucky wins and no real substance..
hope the boys learn from this but more importantly I HOPE KNIGHTS does.. lack of leadership, inspiration and ideas.... needs to change at the top if we are to move forward.
I didn't mind Stanton on Ablett, whoever we put on him wasn't going to stop him, so why not try to hurt him the other way. I thought the first quarter Stanton actually outplayed him.
Hocking on SJ was a HUGE mistake! I knew this from the first bounce. I don't know why we tried this. I was really pissed off with this. I think Slattery was the right man for the job, everyone just has to realise that SJ is one of the games best players currently and would be top 10 in the brownlow. Slattery did an ok job on him considering.
Pears got outplayed by Mooney which was a big suprise but he is a kid, give him time.
Jonesy1987
1 Jun 2009, 10:07
Pears got outplayed by Mooney which was a big suprise but he is a kid, give him time.
Don't think Pears conceded a goal to Mooney :confused: Thought he only played on him for the first quarter and then played on Hawkins the rest of the game.
do you people even watch the game? FFS! Pears played first quarter on mooney for no goals. then spent the rest of the game on Hawkins for no goals. if anything, i was surprised that Pears was moved off him, not that he started on him.
Hocking started on Johnson, but got moved because our midfield was being put to the sword in the centre, not because johnson was dominating. He did dominate later though, kicking 4 goals in one quarter. When he played on slatts.
in any event, the defensive area was under the pump continuously because of our failings further up the ground. i think we actually did ok to stand up as well as we did in that half of the ground.
do you people even watch the game? FFS! Pears played first quarter on mooney for no goals. then spent the rest of the game on Hawkins for no goals. if anything, i was surprised that Pears was moved off him, not that he started on him.
Hocking started on Johnson, but got moved because our midfield was being put to the sword in the centre, not because johnson was dominating. He did dominate later though, kicking 4 goals in one quarter. When he played on slatts.
in any event, the defensive area was under the pump continuously because of our failings further up the ground. i think we actually did ok to stand up as well as we did in that half of the ground.
I thought Hocking held his own against Stevie Jay. I think he only kicked the one goal on him in the quarter (the pass from watson!) and looked really solid. However we didn't have enough tough bodies in the midfield so it was Knights only option. Those people questioning the decision obviously didn't watch the game.
The only time Johnson started to dominate was when Slattery was on him. I think even Houli went to Johnson for 30 seconds in which he kicked a goal.
If Knights had persisted with Hocking on Johnson I think he may have kept him to around 3 to 4 goals.
Wasn't impressed at all with the defensive matchups and strategies employed by knights. I am a knights fan but believe he warrants criticism occasionally in this area (probably 4 or 5 times in the 32 games as coach i haven't been happy so that a reasonable record). First time was anzac day last year but won't go into that.
We were never probably going to win but given the professional nature of the game i'd expect better from the coaching group. It would be good to hear them explain their reasons etc but from where i'm viewing the decisions appear plain ordinary. When they look at key matchups do they look at physical attributes such as top speed, height/strength, defensive abilities etc? You would think so but on todays matchups it appears not. I get the impression they pick a side based on who's been playing well then once they have this 22 they then go ok so who's going to who. Surely matchups should be in mind prior when they select a side. With dempsey and lovett-murray both out daniher should have been in to add some much needed pace in defence...the replacements (mcveigh and skipworth) didn't fill the void in that area at all. If skippy was to play then it should be at another forward/mids expense - it would have made more sense for any of nash/myers/daniher to come in to keep the team balance as replacements for the injured/suspended duo.
Hoping the coaching panel goes a lot better next week.
Great thread.
Big fan of Knights but we got it wrong by bringing in Mcveigh and Skipworth. Daniher should have played.
In fairness though Geelong were far too good and when they are in this frame of mind they are unstoppable.
TheDon35
1 Jun 2009, 11:13
I'm still one of the few who isn't convinced that we have the right coach despite a good start to the year (Before you all start, i'm not saying he isn't the right man, just not convinced that he definately is).
In saying that, I think it's harsh to jump over the coach's decisions when we run into a team like Geelong in full flight like we did.
Probably the only one that is any chance of going with Johnson when he's up IMO would be McVeigh but their is obviously a bigger picture involved.
Hooker / Pears on Mooney, Mooney was getting into great position and was going to be dangerous regardless of which one of those inexperienced guys played on him.
At the end of the day, the score was a true reflection of where the team's at. About 10 goals off the best on their day. Don't forget, we fell over the line against Carlton and Collingwood and our performance against Richmond in the first half was as poor as any teams this year.
We are improving but shouldn't expect miracles nore blame the coach when we are playing a side with 17 or 18 blokes that can blow games appart and ussually do.
Probably the most dissappointing was the form of our senior players: Lloyd, McVeigh, Skipworth, Winderlich, Lovett. These are the sort of players that you expect given their age and experience, should be able to step up against the best and make more of an impact than they did to make the youngers blokes jobs easier.
lemon chicken
1 Jun 2009, 11:18
Lot said during the week about our poor starts and really the coaching staff are more to blame for that than the players. If the preparation and match ups arent close to a winning formula we are giving up a head start.
Not one midfield tag against the best mids in the comp plus we play our best accountable mid in defence.
Hooker and Pears starting match ups just didnt even look right whatever way you look at it.
McPhee on Max Rooke. I still dont know what the thought behind this would of been. Rooke is having an ok year but he isnt a real danger.
Slattery on Johnson for 90%+ of the game.. outplayed to the point of hilarity. Johno knew he was going to get it before the ball was bounced. The move HAD TO BE MADE... I dont care if you try something crazy or zany but SOMETHING has to be done when ONE man has kicked more score than your ENTIRE side.. you don't just leave him him there to be slaughtered!!! what a joke.. why not try a davey.. at least know he will be tackled at some point.. why not try driving him to the ground everytime he gets a touch.. to say we had no options is a cop out.. we had 21 other players to have a go with..I'm sorry? You do realise that was Hocking that started on Johnson, and was made to look incompetent? Slattery was moved onto Johnson during the second quarter, which probably made it about 70% of the game; by then, Johnson was already on fire. Johnson beat Slattery, yes, but his influence would've been (and was before the change) far greater had Hocking remained on him. Hocking simply didn't know how to play him; there were a few instances where I could see (Level 3) Hocking giving SJ a few metres on the lead because he didn't know where to stand; one instance saw SJ literally have 10 metres on Hocking. When he did stay with him, Johnson would double-back, turning Hocking inside out before running up again. I'm not having a go at Hocking, as he is a midfielder first, but to say Slattery and Slattery alone was at fault for SJ's game, is ignorant and uninformed.
james_omahoney
1 Jun 2009, 11:51
Slattery on Johnson for 90%+ of the game..
If you're going to pass figures off as facts then make sure they're correct.
Agree that Knights made some mistakes - Hocking on Johnson for one. You coul see straight away it wasn't going to work and I think he persisted for too long. Slattery was an improvement but Johnson is a top 10 player at the moment and only Pears would have had a chance on him, given that Hurley, Fletch and Dempsey are out.
One thing that annoyed me was Houli's kicking out. He would stroll over to the ball without any sense of urgency, yet blind freddy could see we needed to clear it out of our defensive 50 quickly. Must do better.
Not having Dempsey really hurt too. Very important to our team clearing the ball and applying defensive pressure.
The basic thing that really cost us was the lack of manning up. I noticed a few in McPhee and Stanton not getting back to help out defence at times, or letting their opponents collect easy possies on the wing. We really needed to go with them every step of the way. Defence is the way to defeat Geelong and we just didn't do it well as a team. There was a point in the third or fourth when we had a full zone on, and the Cats really struggled to get it forward. It's funny how it made such a difference. You can't let that team run free or they will kill you. Give them no options and the game changes dramatically and you actually have a chance. It's just a matter of applying the zone and then taking your options when they arise.
The other basic thing that cost us was the overcooking of our kicks. Instead of putting it in front of our leading options, too often it would go to the top of their hands and it was just too easy to spoil, and when Geelong get the turnover they punish you.
Ryder was fantastic, Pears was quite good and Neagle was also impressive.
TheDon35
1 Jun 2009, 11:56
I'm sorry? You do realise that was Hocking that started on Johnson, and was made to look incompetent? Slattery was moved onto Johnson during the second quarter, which probably made it about 70% of the game; by then, Johnson was already on fire. Johnson beat Slattery, yes, but his influence would've been (and was before the change) far greater had Hocking remained on him. Hocking simply didn't know how to play him; there were a few instances where I could see (Level 3) Hocking giving SJ a few metres on the lead because he didn't know where to stand; one instance saw SJ literally have 10 metres on Hocking. When he did stay with him, Johnson would double-back, turning Hocking inside out before running up again. I'm not having a go at Hocking, as he is a midfielder first, but to say Slattery and Slattery alone was at fault for SJ's game, is ignorant and uninformed.
I'd hardly be defending Slattery's game. He was thrashed by Johnson and was having a shocker prior to being moved onto him.
Jonesy1987
1 Jun 2009, 12:04
Dempsey out hurts us immensely, don't know what you've got til its gone, probably cost us 5-6 goals.
james_omahoney
1 Jun 2009, 12:18
I'd hardly be defending Slattery's game. He was thrashed by Johnson and was having a shocker prior to being moved onto him.
If you read his post you'll see that he didn't defend Slattery's game - he just said Johnson would have done even more damage on Hocking. His point was that Slats was not fully to blame.
If you read his post you'll see that he didn't defend Slattery's game - he just said Johnson would have done even more damage on Hocking. His point was that Slats was not fully to blame.I've learned that if people can't even comprehend what you're saying in a post, it's often not worth following up their response. :thumbsu:
the most annoying moment of the game for me was when s.johnson had the ball on the boundary line, passed to ablett in the pocket and then started running towards the goal square...slattery ambled behind and ablett passed it to him directly in front of goal. absolutely disgusting, pathetic effort from h.slattery. for too often we've put up with this rubbish from slattery - its time for him to go. he has no place in our side with a fast, attacking skilfull game plan as he possesses none of those attributes.
lemon chicken
1 Jun 2009, 12:30
One thing that annoyed me was Houli's kicking out. He would stroll over to the ball without any sense of urgency, yet blind freddy could see we needed to clear it out of our defensive 50 quickly. Must do better.
I'd prefer him to kick out than Stanton who steps over the line more times than any footballer in the history of the game. His football IQ would have to be in the low 30's.
james_omahoney
1 Jun 2009, 12:36
I'd prefer him to kick out than Stanton who steps over the line more times than any footballer in the history of the game. His football IQ would have to be in the low 30's.
Agree Stanton shouldn't. Houli? Yes, if he improves his urgency.
Stanton does his best work as a running outside mid. He's not a tagger and the kicking out should be left for the specialist backmen. Hard to judge him on roles he was given but not suited to.
Don't think Pears conceded a goal to Mooney :confused: Thought he only played on him for the first quarter and then played on Hawkins the rest of the game.
From what I was watching, I thought Pears played more on Mooney. I got knocked out playing footy on Sat so i was on med's at the game on sunday, so my memory isn't 100%. I remember being very suprised when Pears was getting outmarked, as he rarely was being beaten 1-1 the whole year.
the most annoying moment of the game for me was when s.johnson had the ball on the boundary line, passed to ablett in the pocket and then started running towards the goal square...slattery ambled behind and ablett passed it to him directly in front of goal. absolutely disgusting, pathetic effort from h.slattery. for too often we've put up with this rubbish from slattery - its time for him to go. he has no place in our side with a fast, attacking skilfull game plan as he possesses none of those attributes.
That was right in front of me, S.J ran quite hard to space and Slattery was chasing him down, it wasn't an 'amble'. The kick to SJ was perfect.
That was right in front of me, S.J ran quite hard to space and Slattery was chasing him down, it wasn't an 'amble'. The kick to SJ was perfect.
slattery was too stupid and slow to react - he gave johnson too much latitude and should be punished for this. i've had enough of putting up with mediocre efforts from slattery - he's a tagger at best and when a tagger doesn't even stick with his man he's a liability. henry needs to be dropped and we'll see if he's even any good at bendigo - given the flaws in his game that are pace, skill and ability then i'm doubting it. how he gets a regular game of afl football is beyond me.
Wasn't impressed at all with the defensive matchups and strategies employed by knights. I am a knights fan but believe he warrants criticism occasionally in this area (probably 4 or 5 times in the 32 games as coach i haven't been happy so that a reasonable record). First time was anzac day last year but won't go into that.
A couple of points here.
1- Still only early in Knights career and he is going to make mistakes and selection errors.
2- we are rebuilding as a side so player do need to be tested out of position to see what they have to offer.
3- having yet to have the full list to choose from for any length of time it will take longer to sort out the list to suit the game plan.
Every coach in the league makes questionable calls at various stages. I am still wondering why Malthouse went away from playing the good corridoor footy that the Pies played in the NAB Cup and went back to the round the boundry stuff after one defeat against Geelong in the final.
Anyway coaches make mistakes.
S.Johnson was always going to be their main avenue to goal - I couldn't believe they started a slow, plodding midfielder in heath hocking on him. That was always going to fail. Then plan B - h.slattery, slight improvement but not much better. At one stage he even had houli on him for a couple of minutes... It wasn't until the last qtr pears finally quietened him but that was way too late...Proper analysis would show you need a player with pace and height/spoiling ability overhead. Looking at the available players darcy daniher was the obvious choice. Poor decision on the matchup here.
I like this one. It shows you can go to the game and still have no idea what is going on. The fact that you said Slattery on Johnson was a slight improvement on Hocking on Johnson is simply amazing. Now i was not at the game ( i had to be at the Metro v Country game ) but after watching the game on Fox last night and watching the replay this morning i do not know how you come to the conclusion you did.
Quarter one - Johnson 4 disposals and 1.1. Hocking 8 disposals.
Johnson actually got his only goal via a Stanton miss kick that went straight to Johnson. Hocking clearly won that quarter.
Quarter two Johnson 11 disposals and 1.1. Slattery 7 disposals. Johnson clearly on top.
Quarter three Johnson 6 disposals and 4.0. Slattery 0 disposals. Johnson giving Slattery a lesson.
Quarter four Johnosn zero disposals while playing on Slattery first and then Pears and Hocking at various stages.
I am sorry but you have completely stuffed this evaluation up . The "slow plodding midfielder" was actually a good match up in the first quarter and only got changed becasue Hocking was moved up field and Slattery of Byrnes who had the better of him.
Johnson dead set pansted Slattery in the second and third quarters.
The only thing i agree with is that Daniher should have been selected in the side.
Mooney - Looking at body size, speed etc C.Hooker looked the perfect matchup yet he went to hawkins. Would have thought this matchup was obvious with pears going to hawkins.
Pears started on mooney and kept him to zero goals. They then swapped the match up at 1/4 time. i think that Peras was actually a better match up than Hooker but in saying that i think Hooker did well considering the amount of footy the Geelong forwards had.
Ablett - Started Stanton on him, ludicrous given how loose defensively he is.
not a good match up i agree but watching it off the TV it looked like Ablett was trying to stay on Stanton anyway. It was almost like Ablett had the tagging role on Stanton and ran off him whenever he could.
We were never probably going to win but given the professional nature of the game i'd expect better from the coaching group. It would be good to hear them explain their reasons etc but from where i'm viewing the decisions appear plain ordinary. When they look at key matchups do they look at physical attributes such as top speed, height/strength, defensive abilities etc? You would think so but on todays matchups it appears not. I get the impression they pick a side based on who's been playing well then once they have this 22 they then go ok so who's going to who. Surely matchups should be in mind prior when they select a side. With dempsey and lovett-murray both out daniher should have been in to add some much needed pace in defence...the replacements (mcveigh and skipworth) didn't fill the void in that area at all. If skippy was to play then it should be at another forward/mids expense - it would have made more sense for any of nash/myers/daniher to come in to keep the team balance as replacements for the injured/suspended duo.
I agree with the comments regarding McVeigh and Skiipy. I agree that Daniher and someone else should have played in front of them.
However i can not agree with a lot of the other stuff simply becasue it was clear that despite making comment on certain aspects you did not have a clear picture of what was going on.
I'm sorry? You do realise that was Hocking that started on Johnson, and was made to look incompetent? Slattery was moved onto Johnson during the second quarter, which probably made it about 70% of the game; by then, Johnson was already on fire. Johnson beat Slattery, yes, but his influence would've been (and was before the change) far greater had Hocking remained on him. Hocking simply didn't know how to play him; there were a few instances where I could see (Level 3) Hocking giving SJ a few metres on the lead because he didn't know where to stand; one instance saw SJ literally have 10 metres on Hocking. When he did stay with him, Johnson would double-back, turning Hocking inside out before running up again. I'm not having a go at Hocking, as he is a midfielder first, but to say Slattery and Slattery alone was at fault for SJ's game, is ignorant and uninformed.
Johnson 4 disposals 1.1
Hocking 8 disposals.
Johnsons only goal came from a miss kick from Stanton.
How you can say that Slattery was the better option is beyond me when you consider that Slatts had 5 goals kickied on him in two quarters had was betean 17 disposlas to 7 (icluding Slatts having zero disposals in the thrid quarter when Johnson kicked 4 goals)
The points you make about Johnsons work rate and losing Hocking a few times are relevent but how many times did Johnson get really clear of Hocking and recieve the footy ? It was only once on a lead where he got the ball. If Stants does not kick the footy straight to Johnson at one stage Johnson finishes the quarter with 3 possessions and zero goals.
Johnson 4 disposals 1.1
Hocking 8 disposals.
Johnsons only goal came from a miss kick from Stanton.
How you can say that Slattery was the better option is beyond me when you consider that Slatts had 5 goals kickied on him in two quarters had was betean 17 disposlas to 7 (icluding Slatts having zero disposals in the thrid quarter when Johnson kicked 4 goals)
The points you make about Johnsons work rate and losing Hocking a few times are relevent but how many times did Johnson get really clear of Hocking and recieve the footy ? It was only once on a lead where he got the ball. If Stants does not kick the footy straight to Johnson at one stage Johnson finishes the quarter with 3 possessions and zero goals.I'd be silly to say anything other than Johnson beat Slattery, and those stats do suprise me somewhat. However I'm of the BtG-school-of-thought, in that I don't like to judge matches based on stats (although sometimes it is necessary for particular arguments). While on paper you say Hocking beat Johnson, I strongly disagree. Sitting up on Level 3, my brother and I were watching that match-up quite a lot with unease. Johnson continually slipped past Hocking, and the latter had no idea how to play him. While Hocking may have had more posessions, I would argue that Johnson made him look rather ordinary. You also need to remember that it was during the second and third quarters that Geelong were polaxing us all over the ground; at the ground you could continually see Mackie, Ling and co. streaming down the wings into the forward line unmarked. Most times one or two of our defenders ran up to pressure them, resulting in their forwards having little-to-no pressure. Slattery probably couldn't have done a whole lot more; Geelong, and Johnson, were on fire.
I kept watching that contest closely, and even though Johnson out-played Slattery, Slatts kept with him most of the time, rarely ever conceding ground before the lead much like Hocking had done. Slatts simply isn't strong enough in the air, nor quick enough, for someone of SJ's ilk. However he at least manned him pretty well (IMO), and did more within his power to stop the freakshow than Hocking did, or would have.
I'd be silly to say anything other than Johnson beat Slattery, and those stats do suprise me somewhat. However I'm of the BtG-school-of-thought, in that I don't like to judge matches based on stats (although sometimes it is necessary for particular arguments). While on paper you say Hocking beat Johnson, I strongly disagree. Sitting up on Level 3, my brother and I were watching that match-up quite a lot with unease. Johnson continually slipped past Hocking, and the latter had no idea how to play him. While Hocking may have had more posessions, I would argue that Johnson made him look rather ordinary. You also need to remember that it was during the second and third quarters that Geelong were polaxing us all over the ground; at the ground you could continually see Mackie, Ling and co. streaming down the wings into the forward line unmarked. Most times one or two of our defenders ran up to pressure them, resulting in their forwards having little-to-no pressure. Slattery probably couldn't have done a whole lot more; Geelong, and Johnson, were on fire.
I kept watching that contest closely, and even though Johnson out-played Slattery, Slatts kept with him most of the time, rarely ever conceding ground before the lead much like Hocking had done. Slatts simply isn't strong enough in the air, nor quick enough, for someone of SJ's ilk. However he at least manned him pretty well (IMO), and did more within his power to stop the freakshow than Hocking did, or would have.
So you do not judge the forwards by their Stats.
To say you do not like to base matches just on stats is ok but they do play a part. Seriously people who have been around this board know i dont simply use stats either. I use them in conjunction with what i see going on and with a lot of different aspects including how much midfield pressure was on and how many cheap dinky possessions a player got.
At the end of the day it comes down to how many times a forward gets the ball and kicks a goal.
I can not comment on how many times Johnson got away becasue i was at Vic Metro v Vic Country. All i can comment on was on what i saw from watching the game off TV a couple of times.
At the end of the day despite your concerns about how much space Hocking was gining Johnson ask yourself this.
How many times did Johnson get to a marking contest without Hocking right on him ? I counted only once and i watched the replay this morning and went forward and back a number of times to pick out where the players where.
At the end of day if you exclude what Hocking did in getting the ball the fact that Johnson only had the ball in his hands 4 times and only kicked 1.1 you have to say Hocking did a good job on him.
Even more so when you consider Hocking has not played much defence and Johnson is ij the top 5 forwards in the league at the moment.
Later in the week i will get the chance to see the behind the goal footage so i will get to see more of the out of screne stuff but after very carefully going though the replay today and rewinding and pausing a lot of the game to write notes i do not think i have missed much of the close in stuff.
Challenge me all you want but i never comment on any game unless i have had a realy close look and written a lot of notes down about various things.
Just as a question have you watched the game on TV yet ?
I know i always like to get a look at the game on replay after i have been there live as you do pick up a lot of things that you miss at the ground.
hocking/slattery were both wrong choices - i probably should have explained that i thought slattery was a slight improvement matchup wise at the time as it released hocking back to the midfield where he should have been playing. however daniher should have been there from the outset with hocking in the midfield helping out against selwood/bartel at the clearances.
i was also sitting on level 3 (front row) on the wing and had a perfect view of how the players were coping defensively.
the stats provide some evidence but you also need to keep in mind that in the first quarter essendon were quite competitive up until about the 20min mark so the amount of inside 50s for the cats in the first quarter may well have been significantly less than the 2nd and 3rd quarters. it was disappointing that the cats got late goals in that first quarter blowing it out to 6-1 when it had been 1 goal-a-piece for quite some time.
both mooney/johnson missed shots early also which was only a fault of their own and not due to their opponent.
i respect your opinion highly ant555 but you would have to concede you generally get a much better feel on the defensive matchups when you're at the game rather than watching on tv. on the tv you can't see the work going into leads, good leads not honoured etc and you don't get the overall picture of the game style/positioning of players.
at the end of the day on the whole i'd say we probably both wanted the same thing - daniher in defence, hocking in midfield, mcveigh in the vfl for fitness.
james_omahoney
1 Jun 2009, 14:55
Ant the thing with Stevie Johnson is that he often has quiet starts to games. 1.1 is actually probably more than he would usually do in his first quarter, and those things that aren't measured by stats, such as distance gained on his opponent in a lead showed that he was going to dominate Hocking more and more as the game went on.
When Slats first went to him at about 5 or so minutes into the second quarter he started well on Johnson, but if the supply keeps coming into Geelongs forwardline the way it did then Stevie will have a field day regardless. Our defence just didn't get the support across half back, which is where Johnson does a lot of his damage as he leads in and out and around the back.
Plenty of times I've seen Steve Johnson have next to no impact in the first or second quarters and then come out, dominate and go close to BOG. It's the way he plays his game and I think it's unfair to judge Slats' effort to Hocking's on stats because the dynamics of the game was changing and both of our choices were beaten at the end of the day. I honestly believe that if Hocking had've stayed on Johnson then he may have kicked even more.
I will be interested to hear your thoughts on the behind-the-goals evaluation though, as I do believe you have a good footy brain.
[...]Yeah all fair points, and this isn't for the sake of arguing with you. I actually respect your football opinion more than anybody on this board, as you clearly know your stuff.
For that reason I'll take your word for it, however I'll agree to disagree on the Hocking/Slattery debate. I believe that if Hocking had've stayed on SJ, he would've ended up with more than 6 goals. However I may have the worst parts of the Hocking game clouding my judgement.
I unfortunately don't have Tivo or Foxtel IQ, so won't be able to watch it again, but I agree that watching the game after being there does help you to pick up on things you may have misssed; just like being there is often better for picking up on things than watching it on TV alone.
TheDon35
1 Jun 2009, 16:18
If you read his post you'll see that he didn't defend Slattery's game - he just said Johnson would have done even more damage on Hocking. His point was that Slats was not fully to blame.
Yea well I actually did read his post and by implying that Hocking had primed Johnson up to the point where by the time Slattery went onto him, he was unstoppable he was defending him.
I would also suggest that by saying that Slattery did a much better job than what Hocking could have done had he stayed on him is also defending him.
If you read his post you might glean this aswell. But probably not.
TheDon35
1 Jun 2009, 16:22
I've learned that if people can't even comprehend what you're saying in a post, it's often not worth following up their response. :thumbsu:
So you didn't imply that Johnson was flying because Hocking was so poor on him which made Slattery's job alot more difficult?
You also didn't imply that Slattery did a better job than what Hocking could have done?
Neither of these things are defending Slattery though......:rolleyes:
james_omahoney
1 Jun 2009, 16:40
Yea well I actually did read his post and by implying that Hocking had primed Johnson up to the point where by the time Slattery went onto him, he was unstoppable he was defending him.
I would also suggest that by saying that Slattery did a much better job than what Hocking could have done had he stayed on him is also defending him.
If you read his post you might glean this aswell. But probably not.
He was just saying Slattery wasn't fully to blame for SJ's game as the "90%" call was incorrect.
If you read his post you might glean this aswell. But probably not.
Ben the Gooner
1 Jun 2009, 17:21
However I'm of the BtG-school-of-thought,
Move over Confucius and Plato.:D
Sorry I used the 90% figure. I did not have a stop watch with me at the time and was "guesstimating" the figure. It was not meant to be a statistical fact.
DESPITE the actual %, be it 90,80 or 70, the fact remains that slattery stayed on SJ for FAR too long when it was blantantly clear to everyone at the game (and probably on TV) that he was being beaten badly.
I was sitting with several Geelong fans and, needless to say, they were very happy that H Slattery remained on SJ. 1 goal was kicked on hocking (from memory) and 5 on HS, including 3-4 in the 3rd (I think) when Slatts was on SJ for the whole qtr. Therefore the BULK of SJ damage was done on Slattery and as such he should take primary responsibility not Hocking
So you didn't imply that Johnson was flying because Hocking was so poor on him which made Slattery's job alot more difficult?
You also didn't imply that Slattery did a better job than what Hocking could have done?
Neither of these things are defending Slattery though......:rolleyes:Don't give me that snarkie shit. Read my post again. I said Johnson would've done more damage on Hocking than he did Slattery.
I'm not having a go at Hocking, as he is a midfielder first, but to say Slattery and Slattery alone was at fault for SJ's game, is ignorant and uninformed.I've bolded that part for you. Please also read this next part, as I believe that's where it got tricky for you.
Johnson beat Slattery, yes, but his influence would've been (and was before the change) far greater had Hocking remained on him.I'd say that's me saying Slattery was beaten, and he really was, but that I felt Hocking did a poorer job. I have defended him a bit this year, as I think some people are too caught-up on their pre-conceived idea of the player Slattery is to realise he's been solid for us this year. You can interpret all of my posts in this entire thread as defending Slatts if you wish, however I'll leave you with one final thought.
Steve Johnson took Slattery to the cleaners. I simply think Hocking was worse.
Ben the Gooner
1 Jun 2009, 17:30
In keeping with my Goonerist views, I'm not going to refer to stats.
However, the thing that stands out to me about Steve Johnson (apart from the diving and petulance) was the number of times that he was just too far away from Hocking. Say what you like about Slattery, but Hocking is a fairly decent tagger and wasn't able to get to anywhere near the level Slattery does, week in, week out.
In keeping with my Goonerist views, I'm not going to refer to stats.
However, the thing that stands out to me about Steve Johnson (apart from the diving and petulance) was the number of times that he was just too far away from Hocking. Say what you like about Slattery, but Hocking is a fairly decent tagger and wasn't able to get to anywhere near the level Slattery does, week in, week out.
So the general thought seems to be that we only had two options, hocking or slattery, and that slattery was the lesser of two evils.
What about mcphee/houli/davey/mcveigh/lovett/monfries/winderlich/dyson etc etc... I know, we needed them to be everywhere else for "structure" but my thinking is that when you are 60pts down, there is a good chance your "structure" is not working...
My main point was actually to point out the lack of options/thought/creativity by Knights, rather than blast slattery. Sorry if my anger tainted my post.. I was trying to point out that a MOVE should have been made..
Ben the Gooner
1 Jun 2009, 17:51
I was making more of a general comment about Slattery.
People tend to assume that his job is easy, and that he must be a hack to be producing at the level he is. However Hocking (who has been touted by many as an option to replace Slattery when Welsh gets back) was horribly out of his depth there.
yeah my main point from the opening was that the most suitable available opponent for SJohnson being darcy daniher wasn't even selected in the squad of 25...seemed crazy.
I was making more of a general comment about Slattery.
People tend to assume that his job is easy, and that he must be a hack to be producing at the level he is. However Hocking (who has been touted by many as an option to replace Slattery when Welsh gets back) was horribly out of his depth there.
given lack of conditioning i think welsh is more likely to play off half back as he won't have the tank to play midfield this year after his long layoff.
The Donners
1 Jun 2009, 18:03
Against Geelong:
S.Johnson was always going to be their main avenue to goal - I couldn't believe they started a slow, plodding midfielder in heath hocking on him. That was always going to fail. Then plan B - h.slattery, slight improvement but not much better. At one stage he even had houli on him for a couple of minutes... It wasn't until the last qtr pears finally quietened him but that was way too late...Proper analysis would show you need a player with pace and height/spoiling ability overhead. Looking at the available players darcy daniher was the obvious choice. Poor decision on the matchup here.
Shows our lack of a quality small backman. I'd be happy to see McVeigh here. Even if he can't stop Johnson, he can set the play up from the backline, particularly in Dempsey's absence.
Ablett - Started Stanton on him, ludicrous given how loose defensively he is.
Could be the exact reason Knights lined him up on Ablett.
When they look at key matchups do they look at physical attributes such as top speed, height/strength, defensive abilities etc? You would think so but on todays matchups it appears not. I get the impression they pick a side based on who's been playing well then once they have this 22 they then go ok so who's going to who.
I think the matchups are, for the majority, for our learning curve as a young playing group.
Surely matchups should be in mind prior when they select a side. With dempsey and lovett-murray both out daniher should have been in to add some much needed pace in defence...the replacements (mcveigh and skipworth) didn't fill the void in that area at all. If skippy was to play then it should be at another forward/mids expense - it would have made more sense for any of nash/myers/daniher to come in to keep the team balance as replacements for the injured/suspended duo.
McVeigh had to come back into the team eventually, why not against a side we were, realistically, unlikely to beat. Now he and Skipworth, to a lesser degree, have a senior match under their belts, they'll be nearly primed for the all important home game against Adelaide.
This season isn't all about winning, remember. Easy to get carried away when you have a number of nice wins against quality opposition but we all know we're inconsistent. It's a development year and finals will be a bonus if we get there, a bonus for the supporters and a bonus for our young players to play in a final or 2.
Things are moving along nicely in our development, inconsistency will come with inexperience (towing the company line). I think we all agree things are looking positive for our future.
we should be aiming to win every match we can. i'd like to think we have a winning culture.
Boucks09
1 Jun 2009, 18:12
It would be defeastist for us to play McVeigh down back in any game this year. He is our best onballer and should play there and rest forward. We are committed to developing our young defenders as they are the ones who are going to be playing there in our next premiership- not Mark McVeigh. Hopefully he will be carving up the middle.
In keeping with my Goonerist views, I'm not going to refer to stats.This is going to become the new 'metal arms', isn't it? :(
Ben the Gooner
1 Jun 2009, 18:27
This is going to become the new 'metal arms', isn't it? :(
Only if you want it to be.;)
It would be defeastist for us to play McVeigh down back in any game this year. He is our best onballer and should play there and rest forward. We are committed to developing our young defenders as they are the ones who are going to be playing there in our next premiership- not Mark McVeigh. Hopefully he will be carving up the middle.
i don't think a game or two off half-back for mcveigh would be the worst idea whilst he is building up his fitness. whilst fletcher is still out he'd be handy there to help marshall the troops. the only experienced blokes down back have been h.slattery and mcphee - i'd prefer mcphee up forward at the moment and h.slattery out of the side. knights is on record saying he wants at least one experienced defender to show the youngsters the way. mcveigh could fill this void until fletcher returns and then go into the midfield when his fitness is better.
Boucks09
1 Jun 2009, 18:45
i don't think a game or two off half-back for mcveigh would be the worst idea whilst he is building up his fitness. whilst fletcher is still out he'd be handy there to help marshall the troops. the only experienced blokes down back have been h.slattery and mcphee - i'd prefer mcphee up forward at the moment and h.slattery out of the side. knights is on record saying he wants at least one experienced defender to show the youngsters the way. mcveigh could fill this void until fletcher returns and then go into the midfield when his fitness is better.
I agree that McPhee should go forward bu he probably won't until Fletcher returns.
I don't share your thoughts on dropping Slattery, however putting that aside I also think it is a risk putting McVeigh back in defense. He doesn't provide the run and dash to fit our half back requirement.
IF he were to play the lock down Slattery role, that would rob us of our best midfielder who is able to give Jobe a massive chop out in the centre - something Knights said in his press conference yesterday that was of immediate and primary importance.
do you people even watch the game? FFS! Pears played first quarter on mooney for no goals. then spent the rest of the game on Hawkins for no goals. if anything, i was surprised that Pears was moved off him, not that he started on him.
Hocking started on Johnson, but got moved because our midfield was being put to the sword in the centre, not because johnson was dominating. He did dominate later though, kicking 4 goals in one quarter. When he played on slatts.
in any event, the defensive area was under the pump continuously because of our failings further up the ground. i think we actually did ok to stand up as well as we did in that half of the ground.
I believe that the coaching staff underestimated the importance of Johnston.
You need to have a taller player with good speed on Johnston because he is excellent at marking in one on one contests. You only had to look at the game against the Bulldogs.
I was surprised that Daniher didn't play, which would have allowed Pears to play on Hooker.
Hawkins was probably not going to cause a problem and Daniher could have played on him.
I saying that Johnston was always going to create a problem and Mooney is underrated on this board.
I agree that Daniher should have played against geelong but he was not the suitable match up for Johnston.
Daniher does tend to get turned inside out too easily which is one of Johnston's strenghts.
Does the match commitee have a crisis of confidence in Danihers ability to play at the AFL level ?
james_omahoney
2 Jun 2009, 06:54
I believe that the coaching staff underestimated the importance of Johnston.
You need to have a taller player with good speed on Johnston because he is excellent at marking in one on one contests. You only had to look at the game against the Bulldogs.
I was surprised that Daniher didn't play, which would have allowed Pears to play on Hooker.
Hawkins was probably not going to cause a problem and Daniher could have played on him.
I saying that Johnston was always going to create a problem and Mooney is underrated on this board.
It definitely would have been a crisis if those two were playing on each other :o.
bacon buster
2 Jun 2009, 09:58
haven't bothered to read all the thread, but i fail to see how people can complain about our young, exciting (but still middle of the road) side getting taken apart by one of the best teams to ever play the game?
wouldn't matter who played on who, when geelong decided they wanted to whip us, we became spectators.
TheDon35
2 Jun 2009, 11:15
Don't give me that snarkie shit. Read my post again. I said Johnson would've done more damage on Hocking than he did Slattery.
I've bolded that part for you. Please also read this next part, as I believe that's where it got tricky for you.
I'd say that's me saying Slattery was beaten, and he really was, but that I felt Hocking did a poorer job. I have defended him a bit this year, as I think some people are too caught-up on their pre-conceived idea of the player Slattery is to realise he's been solid for us this year. You can interpret all of my posts in this entire thread as defending Slatts if you wish, however I'll leave you with one final thought.
Steve Johnson took Slattery to the cleaners. I simply think Hocking was worse.
You've made a mess of this one. You implied that I hadn't read your post properly by replying to the suggestion that you weren't defending Slattery. You clearly were defending him in your suggestions that Hocking primed him up and that Slattery did a better job than what Hocking would have. I never said Slattery played on him the whole day either, only suggesting that Slattery was terrible the whole day - Before he went onto him and after.
But that's ok because you don't repspond to people who don't properly read your post.:rolleyes:
TheDon35
2 Jun 2009, 11:19
He was just saying Slattery wasn't fully to blame for SJ's game as the "90%" call was incorrect.
If you read his post you might glean this aswell. But probably not.
Yep, that's one sentence, the other sentece was implying that Hocking had primed SJ so much that Slattery's job was too difficult (Defending Slattery as per my original post)
and
That Slattery did a much better job than what hocking would have done had he remained on him all day.
That's defending Slattery.
All I said in response to his original post was that Slattery's game didn't warrant any form of justification as he was bloody hopeless all day aswell.
But that's ok because you don't repspond to people who don't properly read your post.:rolleyes:No, I don't. I also don't respond to people like yourself who rarely ever contribute anything worthy of reading. And I would know, I have to read all of your bloody posts. The particular post in question was not aimed to defend Slattery as such, but merely to point out that he had done a better job than Hocking. I admitted that Slattery was beaten (please, read it again), so wasn't trying to justify his poor effort. Yes, saying that he did better than Hocking is defending him in some small way; but if that's the main point you got out of a semi-lenghty post, which clearly you did, there was no point in replying to your myopic self.
Jonesy1987
2 Jun 2009, 13:53
I agree that Daniher should have played against geelong but he was not the suitable match up for Johnston.
Daniher does tend to get turned inside out too easily which is one of Johnston's strenghts.
Agree, Dannihers pace is running in a straight line, would have been burnt in his 40 metre turning circle. I don't think we have a match up on our list for S.Johnson (and Motlop) maybe Pears but even thats a stretch.
james_omahoney
2 Jun 2009, 14:44
Yep, that's one sentence, the other sentece was implying that Hocking had primed SJ so much that Slattery's job was too difficult (Defending Slattery as per my original post)
and
That Slattery did a much better job than what hocking would have done had he remained on him all day.
That's defending Slattery.
All I said in response to his original post was that Slattery's game didn't warrant any form of justification as he was bloody hopeless all day aswell.
Nah mate. Explicitly stating something carries far more weight than implicitly implying otherwise. The thrust of his argument was the focus on Hocking also being responsible, not on Slattery's game. You can intepret it any way you like, but I think most people understood the actual meaning.
He didn't defend his game. But he defended against an incorrect analysis. That's the difference.
Yeah all fair points, and this isn't for the sake of arguing with you. I actually respect your football opinion more than anybody on this board, as you clearly know your stuff.
For that reason I'll take your word for it, however I'll agree to disagree on the Hocking/Slattery debate. I believe that if Hocking had've stayed on SJ, he would've ended up with more than 6 goals. However I may have the worst parts of the Hocking game clouding my judgement.
I unfortunately don't have Tivo or Foxtel IQ, so won't be able to watch it again, but I agree that watching the game after being there does help you to pick up on things you may have misssed; just like being there is often better for picking up on things than watching it on TV alone.
I just find it interesting that the comment was if Hocking stayed on him he would have been beaten. I understand where you say there where worries about how much space Hocking gave Johnson at certain stages.
I just do not think you can say that Johnson would have blitzed Hocking becasue you did not get a chance to see it happen. It is a bit of a crystal ball statement.
To put it in horse racing terms i could back the Caulfield Cup winner and see it smash the field and then predict it will win the Melbourne Cup easily. In the lead up to the Cup the horse in question gets scratched. I can still say the horse would of won easily but i will never really know becasue it did not run.
It is more of an assumption rather than anything else.
There where some people i spoke to who where at the game and they thought that Hocking played him ok. They belived he got screened out a couple of times but in general when Johnson was in a realistic ball winning spot Hocking had the situation under control.
I remeber seeing Hocking play a quarter on Campbell in the practice match against North and it sounds like it was similar. Campbell was loose a few times but vary rarely when he was a realistic chance to get the footy was Hocking too far away from him.
hocking/slattery were both wrong choices - i probably should have explained that i thought slattery was a slight improvement matchup wise at the time as it released hocking back to the midfield where he should have been playing. however daniher should have been there from the outset with hocking in the midfield helping out against selwood/bartel at the clearances.
i was also sitting on level 3 (front row) on the wing and had a perfect view of how the players were coping defensively.
the stats provide some evidence but you also need to keep in mind that in the first quarter essendon were quite competitive up until about the 20min mark so the amount of inside 50s for the cats in the first quarter may well have been significantly less than the 2nd and 3rd quarters. it was disappointing that the cats got late goals in that first quarter blowing it out to 6-1 when it had been 1 goal-a-piece for quite some time.
both mooney/johnson missed shots early also which was only a fault of their own and not due to their opponent.
i respect your opinion highly ant555 but you would have to concede you generally get a much better feel on the defensive matchups when you're at the game rather than watching on tv. on the tv you can't see the work going into leads, good leads not honoured etc and you don't get the overall picture of the game style/positioning of players.
at the end of the day on the whole i'd say we probably both wanted the same thing - daniher in defence, hocking in midfield, mcveigh in the vfl for fitness.
Agree with the bold part totaly. I was not at the game so personally i can not comment on the out of screen stuff. That being said i did get to speak to some people who where at the game who's opinions on things i do value and use often and they had no real concerns with the job Hocking did on Johnson.
I do not comment on many things unless i have a good deal of info on the subject at hand. Thats why you will not see me making comments on games most weeks until the following day or before i have been able to watch the replay a few times and speak to a few people that where also at the game.
reincarnated
2 Jun 2009, 19:04
I agree with your observations whomb...
I honetly put my hand on my head and shook my head when Hocking went to Stevie J. The stats which are being shown around doesn't give you the indication or they might be just wrong.
Because from what I saw he was clearly comprehensively beaten by Johnson. He was trailing by up to 15 m on the lead at times.
Hocking has been really good this year. It terms of his in and under wrok and tackling, and also ability to kick/create goals from pack situaions.
However, if someone can be bothered showing the stats on people who he has tagged this year, you will see that almost all the opponents he had this year, ended up with nearly 30 odd touches. He hasn't beaten any of his better opponents by stoping them. The biggest glaring weakness is his pace. That's why it was a big mistake to have him on Johnson.
So why was Hocking moved off anyway? I believe he was moved beacuse Knighter saw the same thing as we did.
Agree, Dannihers pace is running in a straight line, would have been burnt in his 40 metre turning circle. I don't think we have a match up on our list for S.Johnson (and Motlop) maybe Pears but even thats a stretch.
Pears or Fletcher.
We need to get this argument into perspective !
Johnston is in such good form he probably would have towelled up Scarlett !
Wahooti Fandango
2 Jun 2009, 23:04
I think if Dempsey played he would have gone to Johnson.
bombre-boy
3 Jun 2009, 00:19
I don't think we have a match up on our list for S.Johnson (and Motlop) maybe Pears but even thats a stretch.
C.Dempsey would be the best option for us...
C.Dempsey would be the best option for us...
Not stong enough in the one on one battles !
Jonesy1987
3 Jun 2009, 05:34
C.Dempsey would be the best option for us...
Don't think so, his run is too valuable and would have to play very close on him, robbing Peter to pay Paul, as we seriously needed his disposal coming out of the backline.
Wahooti Fandango
3 Jun 2009, 10:18
Not stong enough in the one on one battles !
He does not need body strength because he plays over his man and spoils as opposed to beside his man and spoil. He is like a mini Fletcher.
We need to get this argument into perspective !
Johnston is in such good form he probably would have towelled up Scarlett !
Exactly. Did anyone see the highlights of Johnson on Footy Classified - His marking was amazing the ball just stuck in his hands, not even falling out after he crashed on the ground.
He is a sensational player when on song.
sorry, was to busy watching steve johnson snap goals out of his arsehole than watch which players were manning who.
I'll promise I'll pay closer attention next week.
TheDon35
4 Jun 2009, 16:45
No, I don't. I also don't respond to people like yourself who rarely ever contribute anything worthy of reading. And I would know, I have to read all of your bloody posts. The particular post in question was not aimed to defend Slattery as such, but merely to point out that he had done a better job than Hocking. I admitted that Slattery was beaten (please, read it again), so wasn't trying to justify his poor effort. Yes, saying that he did better than Hocking is defending him in some small way; but if that's the main point you got out of a semi-lenghty post, which clearly you did, there was no point in replying to your myopic self.
Thanks for clearing that up. And thanks for responding.
question? if the coaching staff deemed daniher good enough to play on fevola for a match than why not s.johnson? (surely an easier assignment)
doesn't make sense to me...
anyway hopefully daniher gets a game this week as we'll need an extra tall defender as the crows are going tall to exploit with the 3 ruckman having tippett mainly up forward with stevens, walker and porplyzia. they might also have moran down there on occasions.
question? if the coaching staff deemed daniher good enough to play on fevola for a match than why not s.johnson? (surely an easier assignment)
doesn't make sense to me...
anyway hopefully daniher gets a game this week as we'll need an extra tall defender as the crows are going tall to exploit with the 3 ruckman having tippett mainly up forward with stevens, walker and porplyzia. they might also have moran down there on occasions.
Well not knowing what the coaching staff are working on with Daniher will lead to it not making sense ;) Things are not always balck and white.
He is not in the side this week either. They are working on a few things with him at the moment which is why he is in the VFL.
very concerned about the porplyzia matchup without daniher in - i'd prefer not to use dempsey as he is our line breaker out of defence so if he runs off porps could get some goals on the rebound...perhaps use pears and not wait until the last qtr to put our best current stopper on the most dangerous forward...