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

Agree with you but our issues are WAY deeper than whether Hooker plays fwd or back.
We’ve got more holes than swiss cheese. Get Kelly, Gaff, Stringer and Lever and we might (might…) be a half-decent team.
As it is we are bog-ordinary - a poor 2nd half of the year flattered by a friendly draw.

1 Like

We missed him at CHF today so much, we broke down kicking out of the D50 purely by the fact we didn’t have the big Chook to kick to.

I still can’t believe how underrated Hooker is as a forward.

He is massive for the structure of the team.

IF he played back today, he wouldn’t have stopped any of what happened.

6 Likes

We missed him doubly because we didn’t play McKernan in his stead.

7 Likes

Yeah I’m sure a single key back will make up fort the fact that our midfield lets us down every second game.

2 Likes

We need to fix that too. Unfortunately Hooker cant fix the midfield.

And he can’t fix the back line either because our problem isn’t a man on man problem. The reason our backs often fail despite looking good on paper is because in the modern game the midfield has to work hard defensively and in transition or backmen will get cut to shreds. Do you honestly thing a back line with Hooker and Hurley instead of Ambrose and Hurley is going to change the outcome of tonight’s game that much? Hooker is obviously better than Ambrose but that wasn’t where the game was lost and it generally isn’t where we have had a problem all year.

1 Like

How can people still think throwing Hooker back is going to solve our problems?

Who do you propose is going to replace his position as the 40+ goal secondary forward target? How todays game didnt show you that was one area we are completely lacking in depth wise dunno wtf you were watching…

2 Likes

I know throw the sink at Tom Lynch.

1 Like

The AFL have Tommy in their sights for a special “highly paid” job for them. If a player wants to progress its a good idea to say yes to the AFL. Lynch may not win a premiership @ G.C.S. but will be financially secure.

That’s ■■■■■■■ bs that the AFL are even contemplating giving him “some extra money” so he can stay at GC.

Heppell was interviewed on SEN today.

When asked “Hooker forward or back?”, he said Hooker was “committed to becoming one of the premier forwards in the game”. Heppell said “I’m pretty sure that he will be playing forward”.

7 Likes

He just kicked 40+ in his first full season as a kpf, will only improve from there. Especially with team sending more inside 50’s down.

So with Woosh saying doesn’t want JD in ruck seems Jimmy Stewart will be doing plenty of ruck work over summer.

His mobility around ground will come in handy and not rob us of JD’s potency up fwd

I actually liked us running Joe in the ruck. It got him into the game sometimes when he was maybe not getting supply down forward. He’s our best player and the last thing you want is for him to get starved of the ball.

14 Likes

Well the plan would be to ensure he isn’t starved of ball, via midfield beating/breaking even with opposition.

And if he playing CHF not like he won’t be pushing up ground anyway.

As you say he is our most important player so why have him getting jumped into by opposition rucks if can avoid it

John Barnes

Pffft. What would Heppell know? He should let the Footy Department answer those questions.

5 Likes

This is good news

Conjecture.
And assuming he wouldn’t cut off as many goals as a KPB.
And that his replacement would kick zero goals.

If we get our midfield right, especially in term of defensive pressure, our backline wont be so exposed. Part of the problem evaluating the performance of our backline has been due to the lack of midfield defensive pressure exposing them. Hurley and Hooker (or Rance) aren’t going to stop forwards who are gifted possessions from a midfield that is having no pressure put on it. The Norf game this year was a case in point.

2 Likes

To that, I say…okay?

Personally I see Hooker as a great switch player.
And no, I don’t countenance the idea that a player cannot possibly do both.
He goes missing up forward. For loooong periods. Usually early.
Why on earth would you not start him back, where he is very, very good, let him play himself into the game, and then move him forward?
Unless, of course, you can’t afford to.

Edit: Put it another way, how much of a downgrade is Hooker to Stewart? How much of an upgrade is Hartley to Hooker?

I don’t care. I don’t live and die by ‘Hooker is a forward!’ Or not.
I simply see Hooker as more value down back.
And again, this whole ‘Forty goals!’ thing…like his replacement will kick zero.
Seriously, come on.

4 Likes