poor defensive matchups

[efcboy]

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]

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.

 

[rines]

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.

 

[daffo]

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.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

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 Thought he only played on him for the first quarter and then played on Hawkins the rest of the game.

 

[saladin]

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.

 

[Childish Gambino]

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.

 

[Super Gusto]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Kong]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Dempsey out hurts us immensely, don't know what you've got til its gone, probably cost us 5-6 goals.

 

[james_omahoney]

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.

 

[Kong]

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.

 

[efcboy]

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]

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]

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.

 

[daffo]

Don't think Pears conceded a goal to Mooney 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.

 

[daffo]

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.

 

[efcboy]

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.

 

[ant555]

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.

 

[ant555]

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.

 

[Kong]

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.