poor defensive matchups

[bacon buster]

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]

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.

 

[TheDon35]

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.

 

[Kong]

But that's ok because you don't repspond to people who don't properly read your post.

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.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

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]

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.

 

[ant555]

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]

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.

 

[yaco55]

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.

 

[yaco55]

We need to get this argument into perspective !

Johnston is in such good form he probably would have towelled up Scarlett !

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

I think if Dempsey played he would have gone to Johnson.

 

[bombre-boy]

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...

 

[yaco55]

C.Dempsey would be the best option for us...

Not stong enough in the one on one battles !

 

[Red Black and Blue]

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]

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.

 

[Super Gusto]

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.

 

[Godzke]

sorry, was to busy watching steve johnson snap goals out of his arseh*le than watch which players were manning who.

I'll promise I'll pay closer attention next week.

 

[TheDon35]

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.

 

[efcboy]

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.

 

[ant555]

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.

 

[efcboy]

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...