Nah. Unfair was labeling him weak.
1 Like
Ok, so I think my initial analysis was fair. They kicked 8 goals and Marty had the opportunity to impact 4 of them and failed to do so. 3 of those were being run around or don’t argued (he seems very vulnerable to players change of direction). He also was the key defender in 3-4 times where Port failed to score due to their own fault (e.g. kicking a behind).
He also had some good play, including one great interception that directly led to a goal for us. But not a huge amount.
I’m genuinely confused as to how anyone could say Gleeson had a poor game. Because he got caught holding the ball on the wing one time?
I didn’t think he was brilliant, but i also don’t think he was the biggest passenger, or even a passenger at all.
2 Likes
Did you read the play by play review by Ants? More bad than good in that.
I though on the night he was ordinary and that review seems to confirm it.
I’m genuinely confused how people could say he had a good game. Some gave him votes.
2 Likes
While the play by play was good, there were a few assumptions about communication, or about things that happened outside of the screen.
This is not a comment one way or the other on his game, but just on the limitations of the review.
That is one persons interpretation, that doesn’t mean it was actually as bad as he made it sound. People see what they want to see.
7 Likes
Something something confirmation bias
I read it & wondered why would someone spend so much time analysing one of our players, who beat his more fancied rival. Seems a pointless, ■■■■-gazing exercise to me.
Gleeson beat one of Port’s main shakers & movers (& diver) & people want to say he had a ■■■■■ game? WTF?
This is like an OTT DP-type analysis on one of our players who beat his opponent, why bother?
5 Likes
Gawd, talk about obsession. Id rather go with the vibe
1 Like
I thought he was good and has been good the last few weeks. Only issue with him he has a finer line than most when it comes to taking players on, if he gets caught, he’s done. There’s no breaking tackles.
Or sticking tackles himself.
It will be interesting to monitor the progress of Ridley against Marty. A similar height and probably now a similar weight and seen as a back currently but who may develop into virtually any position other than ruck.
I’d be picking him every week if I was coach. His intercept marking is very good, he is brave and he leaves his man at the right moments to give us an out-number at the contest.
He is also takes the game on when he has the ball. Sometimes to his detriment, but on balance we are the beneficiaries. There’s no arguing his kicking is agricultural, but I reckon he is a more than handy player.
3 Likes
As far as why I did it, I was curious because my perception of his game was very different from others. Many on the main review thread and here were singing his praises. I thought he was more in the “drop immediately” bracket. That’s a pretty big disconnect.
I said to HAP that if I watched it again I would record Gleeson’s involvements, I think on the Saturday. I then decided I would re-watch the game Sunday night, so I did what I said I would do and recorded Gleeson’s involvements. Frankly, I didn’t realise quite how onerous that process would be. It’s damn fiddly and time consuming! But I’d said I’d do it and I did.
Obviously some like CameronClayton think Gleeson had a good game. I saw it pretty differently. Some of the comments are open to interpretation. For example:
- I say Gleeson should have been able to block Wingard or slow him down before the third goal. I know HAP believes a lucky bounce did Gleeson in.
- I say Gleeson got beaten by Gray in the marking contest on the wing, with Gray turning his body and protecting the fall, only for Gray to fail to hold the mark. Others may disagree. Certainly Gray thought he should have been given a free (either for the contest or the subsequent tackle).
- Similarly, with that one that Wingard contested with Gleeson that went over the back and was cleared by McKenna, Gary and the umpire disagreed on if Gleeson held Wingard post mark or not. So there are two opinions. I thought it could have been paid as easily as not.
Different opinions are possible. But I’m feeling reasonably comfortable in my view he had an absolutely rubbish game, and that I’m not being unduly unfair on him. Most concerning, was that a number of the things that went wrong (e.g. being wrong footed and out-muscled) are a bit endemic in his game.
2 Likes
Again you wanted to see that. I watched the replay, I watched Gleeson’s game and I saw something very different.
3 Likes
Yup a few more of these touches were intercepts that are not being credited IMO.
1 Like
See right here you’re giving Gray the benefit of the doubt (won the marking contest even without holding it?? WTF??) but not Gleeson.
Well, he did out position Gleeson so he didn’t touch it, went straight into Gray’s chest/hands, and then slipped through. Would you say the defender had anything to do with Walla’s near mark of the year being dropped?
It’s certainly not a complete list: e.g. at 10:32 to go in the first he gives a fantastic tap under pressure that starts the Fantasia-through-the-middle chain to goal.
1 Like