#26 Cale "Thank You Mr" Hooker


#4648

Yes…provided fit, park in the square and give us a target

Rather they bomb it long on top of his head than Tippas


#4649

Gleeson won’t play yet.


#4650

I know, I was being gratuitously optimistic, but I think we’re really missing him


#4651

Almost to the point where I’d be on the ‘play Hooker forward’ if Gleeson comes in. Not to replace Hooksey, but to do the shuffle-along. We desperately need a marking tall forward. If Brown and/or Smack don’t fix up their ■■■■ on Friday, it will have to be an option, at least. Hurley, Ambrose, Francis, McKenna, Saad, Gleeson. And if our mids don’t fire up soon, I’d even consider throwing McKenna up on the wing, and bringing in Ridley or Redman.


#4652

i cbf looking it up, but did gleek play in that vfl praccy match the other day?


#4653

Yes, but not a full game.


#4654

3qtrs I thought, less rotations. He’s close, I hope.


#4655

No need to rush him back. I want him performing his unco fist pumps when he’s at peak fitness.


#4656

We need to kick a winning score.

This forwardline is incapable of kicking a winning score. We need a change, and there is only one change worth making.

Hooker to the forwardline.


#4657

It’s true that our forward line needs all the help to kick a winning score yet we put Stringer, Raz in the midfield at times… Just doesn’t seem logical


#4658

He’s the most imposing player in our squad and we need him.

He’s a brick and we’re drownin’ slowly,
Off the coast and heading nowhere.


#4659

We’re drowning, yet what you ask for is a brick? A ■■■■■■■ brick??


#4660

Ben Folds has a curious way with words.

Maxx has an even more curious way to cite them, …


#4661

Send him back.

Half our trouble against the saints was our midfielders dropping deep defensively to help out and that effects everyone further up the field.

Hooker gives our defence far better structure and should allow our forwards to hold their positions rather than going up field chasing kicks.

He’s just so brilliant at cutting off that ball across the 50 meter area.


#4662

So you think we can get it out of there quicker?


#4663

“IF” Hooksey comes in this Friday, …

  • Forward
  • Back

0 voters


#4664

Exactly.

If you have that player across there like hooker that can cut it off you don’t need as many mids dropping back.

I watched both Heppell and Merrett closely and both were dropping right back to around the 30 meter area either chasing a kick or setting up a zone. It’s too deep and especially for Heppell who is to slow to sprint back if we win the ball.

The downside of having your high possession winners dropping that far back is the forwards coming further up the field to provide an option.

Hooker for mine just makes everything more stable when he’s back.


#4665

Beats his chest like a gorilla.


#4666

Whilst I agree I don’t think he can join Hurley, Francis and Ambrose who are actually going alright.
I’m questioning whether we’d clear it just as easily without the midfielders all getting back so deep. I’m more in the camp that maybe we should back our defenders in and midfielders getting into a position to receive the rebound beside maybe the one or two who go with the specific player/s who are flying forward. Richmond, Eagles and Pies play a spare and rely on their backs to clear and only go in if it’s stuck. Not every opposition midfielder is screaming inside 50, usually just one sometimes two spread hard to support their forward line.
I really don’t believe more than 8 players are required to rebound an inside 50. We’re playing way too defensive at the moment. Our players are spent by unnecessarily defending too deep. Need to back in the system and defenders.


#4667

Updated injury list. Positive signs for Hooker