Whipping Boys

[The Dawes]

Reading through a few threads today and it does seem that plenty of posters have Ben Johnson in the gun at the moment.

While he isn't my favourite player, he has been a very good contributor for many years - over 170 games & twice runner up in the B&F.

While his kicking style is awkward his effectiveness is not nearly as bad as some would have us believe. Whilst BJ can produce his share of clangers he can still be a valuable member of the side IMO.

If he can't re-produce his best form though, who else is in the gun?

Inevitably old favourites like Toovey and O'Bree will get a mention, as will Bryan and Fraser most likely - but why do we always feel the need to have at least one player to be the shit-magnet for all that is negative from many supporters?

 

[Quicky]

Reading through a few threads today and it does seem that plenty of posters have Ben Johnson in the gun at the moment.

While he isn't my favourite player, he has been a very good contributor for many years - over 170 games & twice runner up in the B&F.

While his kicking style is awkward his effectiveness is not nearly as bad as some would have us believe. Whilst BJ can produce his share of clangers he can still be a valuable member of the side IMO.

If he can't re-produce his best form though, who else is in the gun?

Inevitably old favourites like Toovey and O'Bree will get a mention, as will Bryan and Fraser most likely - but why do we always feel the need to have at least one player to be the shit-magnet for all that is negative from many supporters?

I'm not sure its that at all. The effectiveness of Ben Johnsons kicking got up to an acceptable level for about two seasons but has gotten worse since then. He still directly turns over the ball much too often. You just can't get away with gifting the opposition possession like this. Carlton kicked 12 goals last night as a result of turn-overs. The fact is we have better players, with neater skills and way more potential than Johnson. Thats not shit slinging its relevant debate.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Ben Johnson is in the gunsights, for sure. And deservedly so. Hasn't played consistently good football since the front half of 06. Maxwell is always a polariser as well -- though the captaincy might slow that argument down.

I don't actually accept your premise. Maybe if you support [insert player name here], then you think attacks on him are just scapegoating by frustrated supporters. But the fact is that there are many supporters who simply have a contrary opinion of [insert player name here] and therefore aren't persecuting him just for the hell of it.

For example, I vehemently disagree with your assessment of Johnson. You probably think that's scapegoating, when in reality it's just someone coming to a different conclusion to you. It's only scapegoating if it's undeserved or disproportionate criticism. You may think that's exactly what it is, but really, that's just repeating the initial disagreement: whether or not Ben Johnson has been shite for the last couple of seasons.

 

[FuManchu]

I dont mind BJ, yeah his kicking has been erratic, but he does one thing very few others up back do. He runs the lines and thru the middle. But someone at Collingwood has issues with him, so this might be his last year to prove himself in a team getting younger.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I dont mind BJ, yeah his kicking has been erratic, but he does one thing very few others up back do. He runs the lines and thru the middle. But someone at Collingwood has issues with him, so this might be his last year to prove himself in a team getting younger.

Problem is that the first compromises the value of the second.

 

[FuManchu]

Problem is that the first compromises the value of the second.

But as someone pointed out in another post, his effectiveness rate of around 69% is better than quite a few others. I think he suffers from years of perception more than anything else.

I thought his first half of 2007 was pretty damn good.

 

[The Dawes]

Ben Johnson is in the gunsights, for sure. And deservedly so. Hasn't played consistently good football since the front half of 06. Maxwell is always a polariser as well -- though the captaincy might slow that argument down.

I don't actually accept your premise. Maybe if you support [insert player name here], then you think attacks on him are just scapegoating by frustrated supporters. But the fact is that there are many supporters who simply have a contrary opinion of [insert player name here] and therefore aren't persecuting him just for the hell of it.

For example, I vehemently disagree with your assessment of Johnson. You probably think that's scapegoating, when in reality it's just someone coming to a different conclusion to you. It's only scapegoating if it's undeserved or disproportionate criticism. You may think that's exactly what it is, but really, that's just repeating the initial disagreement: whether or not Ben Johnson has been shite for the last couple of seasons.

Accept it or don't - it's up to you, I'm not fussed.

I certainly think there is an element of scapegoating, if you want to call it that, at every club - but it's not about supporters differing in opnion on individual players, it's about supporters differing in opinion from the selection committee's of their own clubs.

I honestly don't care who runs out each week in the side - as long as they do their best and hopefully win. Some supporters seem fixated on certain players, particularly following a loss, but it isn't a matter of holding a different opinion from their fellow supporters.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

But as someone pointed out in another post, his effectiveness rate of around 69% is better than quite a few others. I think he suffers from years of perception more than anything else.

I thought his first half of 2007 was pretty damn good.

Kicking effectiveness stats are worthless IMO -- not that 69% is anything to write home about anyway.

Can't agree about the first half of 2007, and even if I did, that's 18 months ago. Even by your own (pretty forgiving) analysis that's damning.

The reason there's a negative 'perception' is because that perception is based on fact. I challenge you to look at, say, the Richmond NAB Cup game and tell me that there isn't sound basis for criticism of his kicking. It was woeful, and that's not an isolated occurrence.

 

[Quicky]

I dont mind BJ, yeah his kicking has been erratic, but he does one thing very few others up back do. He runs the lines and thru the middle. But someone at Collingwood has issues with him, so this might be his last year to prove himself in a team getting younger.

Yeah but it'd be better if we got guys like Cox, Clarke and Shaw to play through the corridor instead of out wide. Johnsons turnovers - which are usually pretty aweful - are just too costly. I think in a similar way that players like Didak have very damaging effective kicks that Johnsons ineffective kicks seem to be much worse than some other players.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Accept it or don't - it's up to you, I'm not fussed.

Thanks. Always nice to have my opinions ratified.

I certainly think there is an element of scapegoating, if you want to call it that, at every club - but it's not about supporters differing in opnion on individual players, it's about supporters differing in opinion from the selection committee's of their own clubs.

What's the difference? If you disagree about team selections, that's really just a disagreement about individual players.

I honestly don't care who runs out each week in the side - as long as they do their best and hopefully win. Some supporters seem fixated on certain players, particularly following a loss, but it isn't a matter of holding a different opinion from their fellow supporters.

Maybe the 'fixation', as you put it, is based on the performance of those players? And speaking for myself, I do care who runs out each week because over years of watching an insane amount of football I've had the temerity to form opinions about players, and therefore about who should or shouldn't be selected. Are you suggesting that this is out of order? If so, maybe we should wind up this board ASAP?

And while you can't ask a player to do anything but their best, sometimes their best just doesn't cut it. If it did, Jason Wild and Luke Godden would be 300 gamers. That's why we have selection committees and why posters and supporters have such impassioned views on team selection.

 

[FuManchu]

Kicking effectiveness stats are worthless IMO -- not that 69% is anything to write home about anyway.

Can't agree about the first half of 2007, and even if I did, that's 18 months ago. Even by your own (pretty forgiving) analysis that's damning.

The reason there's a negative 'perception' is because that perception is based on fact. I challenge you to look at, say, the Richmond NAB Cup game and tell me that there isn't sound basis for criticism of his kicking. It was woeful, and that's not an isolated occurrence.

I'm not saying he is at his best now, I'm saying I have seen what game he is capable of. And when he is running thru the middle and actually hitting up targets, we look more dangerous and less predictable.

Mind you he is unpredictable by nature of his kicking anyway. LOL

This would be his last year I think to win a position and keep it given his off field issues and his erratic career of late.

 

[FuManchu]

Yeah but it'd be better if we got guys like Cox, Clarke and Shaw to play through the corridor instead of out wide. Johnsons turnovers - which are usually pretty aweful - are just too costly. I think in a similar way that players like Didak have very damaging effective kicks that Johnsons ineffective kicks seem to be much worse than some other players.

Clarke tends to want to run the lines and thru the middle too, I think thats instinct from years of playing a more direct game back in Eire. He and BJ stand out more than any others off the backline in that regard.

Cox I am not so sure about having what it takes. Poor decision maker if you ask me, looks rushed at times, doesnt have an elusive side step that you would want to have learned by this stage, gets caught too easily. Not convinced by him.

Shaw, he just need to learn to deal with a tag better.

 

[FuManchu]

I honestly don't care who runs out each week in the side - as long as they do their best and hopefully win. Some supporters seem fixated on certain players, particularly following a loss, but it isn't a matter of holding a different opinion from their fellow supporters.

Huh?

You'd be happy with a team of spuds as long as they tried?

tell me thats not what would make you happy!

 

[The Dawes]

Thanks. Always nice to have my opinions ratified.



What's the difference? If you disagree about team selections, that's really just a disagreement about individual players.



Maybe the 'fixation', as you put it, is based on the performance of those players? And speaking for myself, I do care who runs out each week because over years of watching an insane amount of football I've had the temerity to form opinions about players, and therefore about who should or shouldn't be selected. Are you suggesting that this is out of order? If so, maybe we should wind up this board ASAP?

And while you can't ask a player to do anything but their best, sometimes their best just doesn't cut it. If it did, Jason Wild and Luke Godden would be 300 gamers. That's why we have selection committees and why posters and supporters have such impassioned views on team selection.

Calm down.

Did I say you are not allowed to form an opinion or express it? no.

 

[The Dawes]

Huh?

You'd be happy with a team of spuds as long as they tried?

tell me thats not what would make you happy!

I followed the pies through the late 90's when we had an unprecedented spud-filled list who tried their guts out every week and no, it did not make me happy.

My point is, I'm not interested in championing player A or B, and 'scapegoating' player C or D. As long as the team functions as a unit and does the job, I am not overly concerned with its composition.

 

[FuManchu]

I followed the pies through the late 90's when we had an unprecedented spud-filled list who tried their guts out every week and no, it did not make me happy.

My point is, I'm not interested in championing player A or B, and 'scapegoating' player C or D. As long as the team functions as a unit and does the job, I am not overly concerned with its composition.

That makes more sense

 

[jerry springer]

what I hate is front-runners who continuly go missing in big games when we need clearances and that apparently is their specialty.I also cant stand players who have obvious skill limitation and who do nothing to improve them.in fact they get worse........

I dont have to look back very far 2 weeks ago in the 2nd quarter we were murdered in the middle.

then against Carlton in the biggest H&A game of the year when the game was getting tight they duck their head

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Calm down.

Did I say you are not allowed to form an opinion or express it? no.

I'm perfectly calm. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[mdc]

But as someone pointed out in another post, his effectiveness rate of around 69% is better than quite a few others. I think he suffers from years of perception more than anything else.

I thought his first half of 2007 was pretty damn good.

Couple of things;

69% is woeful for a defender - even someone as limited as Maxwell managed 80%+, as did Harry, as did Wakelin, etc...

Secondly, Johnson only ever kicks long. Any kick over 40m that doesn't clearly go to the opposition is counted as effective. And given that he's still only at 69%!

Also, how many other players get the benefit of being judged on their form from 3 years ago?!


To say that Ben Johnson is a "scapegoat" is incorrect imo. No-one is blaming him for anything. Most are just in agreement that he's a bit of a dud, and we have better players deserving of a go.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

My point is, I'm not interested in championing player A or B, and 'scapegoating' player C or D. As long as the team functions as a unit and does the job, I am not overly concerned with its composition.

So, as long as the team wins you forgo any opinions on the performance of individuals within the team? That's a strange position to take. Team composition is first determined by the past performance of individuals in the team. Coaches have to evaluate those individuals. Unsurprisingly, supporters will do likewise and find many players pass muster and some don't. Is that 'scapegoating'? In most cases, I don't think so.

Anyway, each to their own.

 

[The Dawes]

So, as long as the team wins you forgo any opinions on the performance of individuals within the team? That's a strange position to take. Team composition is first determined by the past performance of individuals in the team. Coaches have to evaluate those individuals. Unsurprisingly, supporters will do likewise and find many players pass muster and some don't. Is that 'scapegoating'? In most cases, I don't think so.

Anyway, each to their own.

Last time I checked we all support Collingwood, not the individual players.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Last time I checked we all support Collingwood, not the individual players.

Relevance?

 

[The Dawes]

Relevance?

because virtually every one of your posts in this thread has been concerned with individualising the players, almost as if the team performance is secondary and I'm sure that's not your intention.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

because virtually every one of your posts in this thread has been concerned with individualising the players, almost as if the team performance is secondary and I'm sure that's not your intention.

No that's not my intention. But this thread did start as a discussion about individuals and whether or not they were scapegoated.

As to your point re teams vs individual: to have the best team performance you have to have the best-equipped players playing in their best position. I don't see any way of achieving this unless you're prepared to break the team down and evaluate each individual: their strengths, their weaknesses, how they fit into structures and gameplans.

But we've already belaboured this point. I have nothing to add to what I've already said. Let's go our separate ways.

 

[The Dawes]

No that's not my intention. But to have the best team performance you have to have the best-equipped players playing in their best position. I don't see any way of achieving this unless you're prepared to break the team down and evaluate each individual: their strengths, their weaknesses, how they fit into structures and gameplans.

But we've already belaboured this point. I have nothing to add to what I've already said. Let's go our separate ways.

cheers.