#26 Cale "Thank You Mr" Hooker - rejects a brown paper bag from FCFC

RECORD SCRATCH

Yep. That’s me. You’re probably windering how I ended up in this situation…

8 Likes

https://discourse.bomberblitz.com/uploads/default/original/2X/f/ff17770a0e9786834bab55d0bf5f5095e32a04cc.jpg

8 Likes

Best
Response
Ever

2 Likes

Is it better than the Zantuck miss?

10/10 for speed of response CB.

1 Like

We have 3 players (including Hooker) kicking above the highest tally for 6 or 7 years. That’s because we are a better attacking team this year and we are moving the ball with speed.
The last 4 years don’t count towards any analyses of historical stats anyway! We won the bl@@dy spoon last year!
Hooker does not win his own hard ball. He marks well when the ball is delivered in his spot. He competes hard, brings balls to ground but his nett contribution is negative.
For all his contested marks he is 49th in score involvements. His marking prowess should give him a huge head start to being involved with our scoring but it doesn’t. He has 5, yes 5, team mates ahead of him in score involvements. That’s because he is a one trick pony. In today’s AFL you need to do more.
And don’t mention his demoralising goal kicking effort when it’s needed most to help lift the team.
He beat a 3 gamer against North which you would expect.
He has a big heart, he gets as much out of his abilities as he can, he puts in but is he worth preserving with next year when hopefully we are pushing top 4?
Is it a coincidence that Richmond is a top 6 team having moved Vickery on?

WOAH. WOAH. WOAH.

5 Likes

Even if you don’t like Hooker forward the idea that plan B would be move him on, not put him back where he earned an AA spot is baffling.

3 Likes

Last time I checked contested marking and kicking goals = 2 tricks

Your argument fails on so many other levels. Least of all trying to compare Hooker to Vickery…

2 Likes

I should qualify my post;do we preserve with Hooker as a forward?
He certainly deserves being persevered with as a backman, but that doesn’t seem to be in the game plan.
AA as a backman 3/4 years ago is an eternity ago in today’s AFL.
no doubt his loyalty is also very noble but as I’ve said before if we are looking at challenging next year or two, many (read all the comments in here) doubt his value as a forward.

Clearly just trolling now.

That’s crap.
Why can’t we have a rational discussion without immediately thinking someone is a troll?
We don’t need to offend anyone, or each other. It’s simply footy talk about the club we all want to see succeed.
Hard decisions are a coming if we want to make serious advances.
Look at Hawthorn. Not scared to move on 2 legends for what they see as improving their list.
Surely we can agree to disagree and remain civil?

1 Like

What does it mean “Hooker doesn’t win his own hard ball”? I would’ve thought that’s pretty farken far from his role.

And score involvements? He presents well up the ground often to take contested grabs, it doesn’t naturally lead to being counted in score involvements.

2 Likes

All those ‘easy’ contested marks if you know what I mean.

1 Like

Sorry, but I just think this is rubbish. Responding to some of your statements:

  • We are a more attacking team: Bull___. Up until the last few weeks, we were near the bottom of the league for I50 count. The quantity is down, even if the transition is a bit up. But you seem to be forgetting for chunks of 2012 and 2013 we transitioned pretty quickly. In fact, our forward line was setup that way with Hurley and Crameri often leading back into space, with a ruckman the central position. And if you go back further, under Knights we played a very similar style of transition football. Yet Hooker is likely to outscore Lloyd’s top score of 35 in 2009 (when we made finals), meaning the only player under Knights three years who will have outscored Hooker is Lloyd in 2008 (62 goals).
  • The last four years don’t count: Oh, what rubbish. 2013 we would have played finals if not for sanctions, and in 2014 we did make finals. Whats more, we didn’t say 4 years, we said 7. But in fact, you have to go back to 2007 before you have two Essendon players score more than Hooker likely will this year (Lloyd and Lucas). In the 9 years in between, its likely only Lloyd in 2008 and JD in 2016 will score more than Hooker will this year (assuming he bags like 3 more goals). We played finals in 3 of those seasons, it would have been 4 if not for sanctions. How many years do you want?

Um, how on earth is being 3rd for contested marks in the league “not winning his own hard ball”? They’re contested marks. If you’ve been watching, you would have noticed he’s often double teamed as well. Which is where his value comes in - he takes two guys out of the contest, and the ball is free for our smalls to pick up.

On Sunday a forward (I think it was Hooker), had the ball knocked down as part of the marking contest straight to Parish for a goal. I bet that doesn’t count as a score involvement. I damn well consider it one though. If Hooker is double teamed and the ball crumbs down, I consider that a score involvement. If he leads off and Daniher has only to beat one man - that’s a score involvement. Stats tell you so much, watching the game tells you a lot more.

On a side note - the idea you can’t be an AFL footballer while being a one trick pony is ridiculous. Tell that to Zac Dawson, who has played in multiple grand finals. Tell that to teams coached by Lyons or Longmire, where players play their part and it fits with the whole. One trick ponies can be damn important. Collingwood won a premiership with Dawes playing a similar role, and he was damn important for the structure too.

In answer to your question - hell yes. He straightens us up, is kicking goals, and frees up JD. He should be better next year for the experience this year and the additional preseason.

But at the end of the day, there are only 18 clubs and he’s 19th for goal scoring. That in itself should be enough to seal the argument.

14 Likes

Well said Ants. Absolute rubbish what has been thrown up about Hooker. To fully understand his role you have to consider the intangible benefits he provides our forward line in addition to actual benefits we are seeing. As you rightly point out no one has provided this sort of contribution for 10 years. A fantastic second foil to the superstar that Joe is becoming.

3 Likes

I’m not a stats guy, so I had to go and take a look at score involvements. Aside from Joe it’s basically the domain of a mid/ball carrier type, right? BJ,
Hepp, Zaka, Raz, Zerrett… not exactly something Hooker will naturally be doing in his role, especially when another tall forward has a lot it covered. But yeah, shame on you Cale.

4 Likes

Look at Hawthorn. yeah that has gone really well.

1 Like

But they’ve got Vickery - that’s their issue.

1 Like

Go check again and read out the names on that list.
Obviously midfielders are going to be prominent in score invlvements across all clubs
But
nearly every other club has their power forwards ahead of Hooker in score involvements! Simple logic; if Hooker marks the ball as often as he does and scores as often as he does how he can be so far behind every other power forward in the entire AFL???
Sure He has a magnificent Daniher to contend with but given the opportunities that are presented to Hooker specifically, he should be in the top 20 in score involvements but his lack of forward skill and lack of forward nous turns him into a liability up forward.
Anyway enough on Mr Hooker. Yesterday was just so frustrating watching so many gilt edged chances peed away by many players. He just seemed to feature in more than his fair share.