#26 Cale "Thank You Mr" Hooker


#4788

What a beast!!! All heart and that mark :muscle::muscle::muscle:


#4789

Vote 1 Hooker


#4790

This may be controversial, but Hooker is the best fullback I have seen in Essendon colors. And yes that includes Dustin Fletcher. Fletch was sensational, but Hooker is the better stopper.


#4791

@Clone_Hirdy pls


#4792

Get a hold of yourself man. The forwards of today aren’t even in the same postcode as those that fletch played on, and I include buddy in that.


#4793

Yeah… Modra, Dunstall, Lockett, Carey, Ablett??
I’m pretty certain Fletcher will always be All-Time-Best Fullback for Essendon, 400 games and a career that spans some of the all time great full forwards.


#4794

Hooker is a favourite of mine and he should be regarded one of Essendon’s all-time greats when he retires but he’ll never be better than Fletcher - he could take on the best forward or play as the third tall to a great effect or kick a goal from Punt Road and chase down a guy who is supposed to be faster than him.


#4795

My opinion guys.

It’s hard to compare in 2 different era’s, and yes Fletch played on the greats, but those greats would not have kicked hundreds of goals in the current game. Hooker has a far better record against the big guys than what Fletch had. Sure Fletch might be the better all round defender, but Hooker the better FB, in my opinion.


#4796

I’m not 100% on board, but you could certainly make the argument.

Fletcher did play on Dunstall, Ablett, Modra, Carey etc, etc. But he didn’t exactly best them.


#4797

Hmmm, . considering Hooksey is a CHB, … not to mention an All Aussie CHB, … I reckon this is a pretty silly argument, … and in that light, original statement. :thinking:


#4798

Naming positions is pretty tough to do with how much they rotate but I would say Hooker is the deepest defender and Hurley plays higher up the ground.


#4799

Fletch was great, but there is a bit of mythology about the bloke. As a get out of jail defender, he was great… very accurate kicking out of defense, could play on smallish players… as a 3rd man up, probably one of the best.

But he got towelled up against the big fwds… and decent but less-than-superstar blokes like Rocca, tore him to shreds. Can’t say that about Hooker… apart from his mobility/speed when playing on smaller fwds, he has few weaknesses


#4800

Yeah, because the AA position means so much. Just ask Pavlich in the back pocket!


#4801

I love Fletch, but it’s hard to argue against this if you have watched enough football.

Certain blokes just consistently troubled him, such as Rocca. Kent Kingsley and Fraser Gherig are others that come to mind.


#4802

Fletcher became a pretty damn good lock down full back by the time the 99-2000 era rocked up.

But he did many hard yards to get there.


#4803

It’s not difficult to argue against at all.
Until Hooker is clearly the best defender in the league over several years then he’s not even in the same postcode as Fletcher.
If Ablett Sr did okay against Fletcher, then he’d have made Hooker look like a traffic cone.
The day that Hooker plays on a 60 goal in a year kicking 5’ 7" player and smashes him, come talk to me.
Fletch has him for pace, sure as hell has him for kicking.
Spoiling isn’t even worth discussing.

And nor, really, is this.


#4804

Hooker lining up on Betts in his prime would have crippled the Blitz server for eternity.


#4805

The game Fletch played against Bris. in 2000 up there and in the wet was one of the greatest defensive games I’ve seen.

He was a brick wall.


#4806

Hardly the argument though, is it?


#4807

With respect, that’s some pretty specific criteria you got there that doesn’t really prove much. As for pace and spoiling well, that’s not Hooker’s game… he reads the play and intercept marks better than anyone in the league. Like arguing Viv Richards wasnt much chop between the wickets… didn’t need to be when he smashed boundaries for breakfast.

Anyway, both great players - I probably shouldn’t have started a comparison btwn the two.