Mattner Dropped

[ROOno.1]

I watched MM in awe playing for Sturt v South rnd 15. Running past packs, tackiling like he used to, breaking out of packs, and showing he is capable of very decent disposals. He was amazing and I watched one of the most exciting games i have seen him play all year. Granted he makes very obvious mistakes but he is certainly a talented player. Incidentally he's also a great bloke. Co-captains Sheeds and Nelson clapped him off the ground and all players cheered for him because it was obvious he wasn't going to play for Sturt next week. Although Sturt will be happy to have him back its obvious he is a class above SANFL.

Any guesses to where he played that day?

 

[Alex99]

I cannot see Marty Mattner getting traded (or delisted) next year.

Call it pigheadedness or simply being stubborn but Marty Mattner is being played as a defender because of a necessity. As soon as Trent Hentschel is fit enough to resume at CHF and then allow Nathan Bock and Nathan Bassett to play as defender I can see Neil Craig moving him back to the wing. Marty Mattner started playing as a tall defender early 2006 to cover the loss of Nathan Bock and as soon as Bock was fit enough to play, Hentschel was injured. He has played as a defender this year because of a necessity to cover the loss of Trent Hentschel because Nathan Bock was being played as a forward.

2008 with Trent Hentschel playing as a forward and Nathan Bassett and Nathan Bock playing in the back half as tall defenders, Marty Mattner will be able to move back to the wing. Scott Stevens will be able to play as that extra tall defender and with the continual development of Nick Gill, we will not have to rob Peter to pay Paul and play players out pf position.

2008 and beyond – MM back to his wing and either of Reilly or Knights will be played as a rover.

 

[TheLeftFist8]

I cannot see Marty Mattner getting traded (or delisted) next year.

Call it pigheadedness or simply being stubborn but Marty Mattner is being played as a defender because of a necessity. As soon as Trent Hentschel is fit enough to resume at CHF and then allow Nathan Bock and Nathan Bassett to play as defender I can see Neil Craig moving him back to the wing. Marty Mattner started playing as a tall defender early 2006 to cover the loss of Nathan Bock and as soon as Bock was fit enough to play, Hentschel was injured. He has played as a defender this year because of a necessity to cover the loss of Trent Hentschel because Nathan Bock was being played as a forward.

2008 with Trent Hentschel playing as a forward and Nathan Bassett and Nathan Bock playing in the back half as tall defenders, Marty Mattner will be able to move back to the wing. Scott Stevens will be able to play as that extra tall defender and with the continual development of Nick Gill, we will not have to rob Peter to pay Paul and play players out pf position.

2008 and beyond – MM back to his wing and either of Reilly or Knights will be played as a rover.

Maybe that's how it started (though wasn't the official line something about needing to develop that side of his game?) but surely it is not viewed as a necessity anymore otherwise he would not have been dropped with Bassett and Hentschel out of the side? There must be other blokes for that role now.

Having said that, i really hope the club comes to the same conclusion you do. He is far from the perfect wingman but I'd still rate him in our top 2.

It seems the wing is not a highly valued position these days (going by the theory we use it to introduce newbies) but personally I'd rather the newbies (of the 'midfielder' variety, not obvious forwards/backmen) start off half-back/bench/small time in midfield rotation given that we have a wingman playing out of position.

It's all well and good having a concrete pattern of where to introduce young players but we have to adapt to what we have available. If we have a bloke who seems naturally suited to the wing and he can make a big difference there, then find another position for newbies (i.e. Mattners backman role!)

 

[crowman_23]

I can't understand the criticism of him on a wing. It is his run, his long driving kicks inside 50, his hard chasing and tackling that the side is missing so m uch this year. We are so stop/start we need someone who is willing to take the opposition on, run hard and break the lines and move the ball quickly in to attack. I have no idea why the continually play him in the backline but it is blindingy obvious what the club needs to do, put him back on the wing.

You take the mistakes he makes as his impact on games is much more beneficial than the few mistakes he makes. We need his run and dash back, or someone else who can actually fill that role.

 

[King Elvis]

I cannot see Marty Mattner getting traded (or delisted) next year.

Call it pigheadedness or simply being stubborn but Marty Mattner is being played as a defender because of a necessity. As soon as Trent Hentschel is fit enough to resume at CHF and then allow Nathan Bock and Nathan Bassett to play as defender I can see Neil Craig moving him back to the wing. Marty Mattner started playing as a tall defender early 2006 to cover the loss of Nathan Bock and as soon as Bock was fit enough to play, Hentschel was injured. He has played as a defender this year because of a necessity to cover the loss of Trent Hentschel because Nathan Bock was being played as a forward.

2008 with Trent Hentschel playing as a forward and Nathan Bassett and Nathan Bock playing in the back half as tall defenders, Marty Mattner will be able to move back to the wing. Scott Stevens will be able to play as that extra tall defender and with the continual development of Nick Gill, we will not have to rob Peter to pay Paul and play players out pf position.

2008 and beyond – MM back to his wing and either of Reilly or Knights will be played as a rover.

I think that argument was initially a fair one, but when it became obvious to everyone that it wasn't working, he should've been moved back onto the Wing.

Try him down back, sure, but when it doesn't work, let him play in the position he excels at.

Instead, he's been tried in a different position, it hasn't worked and he's been dropped.

Very unfair IMO, he's almost been set up for failure.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Do you really think that the AFC owes you an explanation for the coaches decisions?

I don't expect an explanation of every selection decision, but would appreciate an explanation of one which appears glaringly obvious to the vast majority & is clearly not a one-off.

 

[Dandy_GO]

If we return Mattner to the wing, then someone has to miss out on the midfield rotations.

Mattner to the wing, Douglas to the backline. Dougie played his best game of his career thus far as a backman against (I THINK) the doggies. He's not adjusting to the pace of the game incredibly quickly, so why not ease him into it via the BP/HBF as we did with Edwards all those years ago? Most teams have a small forward or resting midfielder up there at all times he could go with. Would put extra pressure on the likes of Johncock and Torney, and perhaps force them to play on slightly taller opponents, but given that our defence is our strength, I hardly think that's something we can't handle.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Mattner to the wing, Douglas to the backline. Dougie played his best game of his career thus far as a backman against (I THINK) the doggies. He's not adjusting to the pace of the game incredibly quickly, so why not ease him into it via the BP/HBF as we did with Edwards all those years ago? Most teams have a small forward or resting midfielder up there at all times he could go with. Would put extra pressure on the likes of Johncock and Torney, and perhaps force them to play on slightly taller opponents, but given that our defence is our strength, I hardly think that's something we can't handle.

Douglas also played a couple more games in the backlines and yes he did have that great game and then he faded and was dropped back to the sanfl to work on a few things. Mattner is almost 10 cms taller than him and has considerable more bulk, so I can understand the thinking from the coaching staff. What are our other options really.

McIntyre and Hinge are better options but McIntyre got injured at an unfortunate time and has struggled to regain his form prior. Hinge debuted and did a hammy, since coming back from injury he was playing well and then got that knock to the throat from Sellar and has been tentative ever since.

Johncock and Torney are are loose creative backmen while Bassett is unavailable atm. To make them accountable would be a massive step in the wrong direction Dandy. The reason our defensive is so great is the structure that we use and that players know their roles and adjust them on field to suit what we want and not what the opposition wants. If we had Torney being more accountable and not doing his runs through the midfield, kicking goals the last couple of weeks and cutting off passes into our defensive 50 we would be in a lot more trouble and I personally doubt we would have won the port game.

I also don't think you really can 'ease' players into an afl game any more. The game has changed so much over the past couple of years and I believe that there is no place for a player to be 'eased' into it.

 

[Dandy_GO]

I have every faith that Johncock and Torney could still run off their men and adapt to the situation. Yes they'd have to be more accountable, but that doesn't mean we'd lose their run. Rutten gives us run yet he plays on very dangerous forwards each weak, with whom he must be very accountable. Yes moving Douglas in at the expense of Mattner may cause some structural problems, but we've got enough experience, quality and height down there that it wouldn't be a problem. We've dropped Mattner on several occassions and it hasn't seemed to have much of an effect on our run from defence. We've also got Massie in the team, who can play a similar role to Mattner if things go pear shaped. It might not work some weeks, but I don't see any reason why it's not worth a shot again - especially this week against the Dogs. With both Mattner and Douglas in the side, I'd like to see it trialed again both to see how Mattner goes on the wing, and how Douglas plays in defence. If it doesn't work out, we trade the roles back. Granted this isn't the stage of the season we should be experimenting, but I still think it's worth a shot and is hardly likely to cause us many problems against the undersized dogs. We might lose 10cm down back and perhaps some run from Torney or Johncock, but we'd gain Mattner on the wing, where he's far more damaging.

As for your last point why is Bryce Gibbs playing in defence for the blues? Why did we start VB out as a HBF, and then a tagger? We all know where they'll both end up and they're being eased into it. You can't expect young players to shoulder the responsibility of a midfield position and full games straight out of the box. They don't have the confidence, strength or endurance to be reliable players, yet you have to play them for them to get any better. It is much easier for a youngster to adapt to the pace in a position outside of the midfield, given the massive endurance needed to play in the centre these days. Apart from exceptional kids, I believe almost all young players, especially midfielders, need to be eased into it, or else both they and the team may well suffer more serious setbacks.

 

[jenny61_99]

As for your last point why is Bryce Gibbs playing in defence for the blues? Why did we start VB out as a HBF, and then a tagger?

The old school of thought is to make a great attacker, you need to learn to be a defender first. That is why you often see the brilliant young kids in defensive or tagging roles early in their careers (as you suggest with Gibbs and VB). Put him on a Voss or a Harvey or a Roo or a Judd etc etc etc, then they will learn where to go to get the ball.

 

[Dandy_GO]

The old school of thought is to make a great attacker, you need to learn to be a defender first. That is why you often see the brilliant young kids in defensive or tagging roles early in their careers (as you suggest with Gibbs and VB). Put him on a Voss or a Harvey or a Roo or a Judd etc etc etc, then they will learn where to go to get the ball.

Yes, and I consider that to fall underneath the definition of easing them into it.

 

[McLeodMagic]

yeah bad. mattner deserved it.. true but?
nah jokess. he played well today, played better than porpy at least.

 

[maccas_no1]

Mattner was really good tonight...............good to see him take it on the chin and come back and play a solid game

 

[jenny61_99]

Mattner was really good tonight...............good to see him take it on the chin and come back and play a solid game

Hmmmm.. I didn't think he had a stand out game. Was he spare man in defence? because he got a lot of uncontested footy in the back lines. But good to see him back anyways.