#26 Cale "Thank You Mr" Hooker


#3806

I prefer him in the forward line. Especially when JD is playing like a dog.


#3807

Dixon will have an absolute field day on anyone but hooker. this is the game.


#3808

Hooker back

with cameos up forward


#3809

We ■■■■■ and moan about the forward line for 10 years, finally fix it, and then people want to move the part that makes it work out.

I really don’t get it.


#3810

In the years i’ve lurked and then posted here. its always been MIDFIELD MIDFIELD MIDFIELD.


#3811

You missed a few Hurley/Carlisle/Hooker forward/back and “where is our small forward” threads then…


#3812

I was on the Hooker forward train until I saw how effective it was with him in the backline last week.

Our forward line looks great, but everything else isn’t balanced.

If you have a backline with Hooker, Hurley, Baguely, Saad, Brown, Guelfi

And a forward line with Daniher, Stewart, Tippa, Fantasia, Green and possibly Stringer.

Doesn’t that look more balanced??


#3813

I reckon a lot of those issues that those threads were bemoaning would be solved with a competent midfield. we were bombing it on davey/walla/greens head because the kicker would panic and just send it long to the first essendon jumper they saw. Also hurley couldn’t mark for ■■■■ in that period, carlol couldn’t be arsed. hooker made sense but I’m of the opinion that there’s a greater net gain from having him defend than forward. purely because the midfield is a sieve.


#3814

Mate, have a look at our I50 rate in 2013. The issue wasn’t the midfield (or the back line).

How many years was our top goal scorer Monfries or Crameri with 25-35 goals?


#3815

i saw a lot of those games in person, long bombs doesn’t mean ■■■■ if the other team can deal with them.


#3816

You know what would be great. If the players in the midfield lowered their eyes, and the forwards led at them. This over the back ■■■■ isn’t working, well it does occasionally, but not enough.


#3817

If that’s our back line we’re in trouble!!
Also, besides the one mark last week, what exactly did he do in the backline?

For the record I believe we would be better with him in the back line and pinch hitting also, however I’m not sold with your explanation


#3818

He was there for five minutes, spoiled twice and took intercept marks.

I don’t mind if you want him forward, but let’s not pretend that wasn’t impressive.


#3819

Let’s not kid ourselves, it was the coolest Essendon moment of 2018 so far.


#3820

I don’t think it’s provable that Hooker is the part that makes it work. The only player from our mid-2015 forward line who’s still there is Daniher. It might be Hooker. It might be that Daniher isn’t 20 any more. It might be that Fantasia is the best small forward we’ve had in 15 years. It might be the elusive chemistry of all 6 forwards combined.

It would definitely be a risk moving Hooker into the backline, but it’s the mirror image of the risks and arguments that saw players repeatedly moved out of a high functioning back line into a dysfunctional forward line.


#3821

Here’s an idea. If he goes back for a few games and the backline still leaks goals and the forward line goes to s#@t, he can be moved back forward.


#3822

That;s exactly right. It’s definitely worth trying for a few games. We’ve got nothing to lose.


#3823

Maybe the times our forward line works really well are the times in the game when we have one less tall (Daniher Rucking or Hooker Back).


#3824

I’ve been on the Hooksy forward wagon since the first time he went there. But man he looked good when he went back.


#3825

I understand those who want to keep him forward, it’s been a productive move to say the least.

But I don’t understand those who are ‘shocked’ or ‘blown away’ by even the idea of moving him back.

I mean, really? You really can’t see why you’d move him back? Really?