#26 Cale "Thank You Mr" Hooker


#3545

Obviously not from NSW then


#3546

Yah. The champs get to sit in the coaches box. Raz did when he was injured.


#3547


#3548

Haha, yeah I’ll cop that I was very negative there but I can’t help it. Sorry but without Hooker our forward line not only loses a power forward but a lot of its structure. Sydney are probably the form side of the comp and we fell into finals. Our best it very good but our form line shows we haven’t played at our best for quite some time.


#3549

Plays back next year.

Don’t care that he’s a decent forward. Out current key backs won’t take us anywhere.


#3550

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.


#3551

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.


#3552

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


#3553

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


#3554

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


#3555

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.


#3556

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…


#3557

I know throw the sink at Tom Lynch.


#3558

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.


#3559

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


#3560

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”.


#3561

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


#3562

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.


#3563

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


#3564

John Barnes