poor defensive matchups

[ant555]

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.

 

[efcboy]

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]

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.

 

[Kong]

[...]

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]

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]

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.

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......

 

[james_omahoney]

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]

However I'm of the BtG-school-of-thought,

Move over Confucius and Plato.

 

[rines]

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

 

[Kong]

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......

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]

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.

 

[rines]

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]

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.

 

[efcboy]

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.

 

[efcboy]

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]

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.

 

[efcboy]

we should be aiming to win every match we can. i'd like to think we have a winning culture.

 

[Boucks09]

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.

 

[Kong]

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]

This is going to become the new 'metal arms', isn't it?

Only if you want it to be.

 

[efcboy]

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]

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.

 

[yaco55]

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.

 

[yaco55]

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]

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 .