Don’t be stupid Peos
He’s the sole reason we lose games both from opposition scores and our fwd line not scoring also
Well him and Bags anyway
NINA
So you have both Hooker and Hurley never having bags kicked on them? Would you like to add 2 X AA Hurley to that list as well?
There is more to defending than just stopping your individual opponent. Especially in the day and age of zoning.
The only time he’s had a decent crack at it was 2016 and for good reason and when Hooker was used forward and Ambrose was unavailable due to injury.
He’s ample back up if required abnd nothing more.
If he was as good as you are making out he would be playing at another club.
1 Like
I don’t know what this paragraph means, or what it has to do with my post.
And sure, it’s not just about stopping your direct opponent, but people aren’t in here whinging about his inability to zone properly, are they?
1 Like
Well I see you mentioned yesterday that Hooker has only been ripped apart twice and you are suggesting Hartley as well.
Somebody is sure as hell tearing us apart because we have been rubbish for a long time.
Hartley and Ambrose together would not work because they are both primarily man on man defenders.
It’s a team defence and Hartley is the least adaptable player on our list except maybe Myers.
You’re more than welcome to provide examples of that being incorrect.
Ok. Not at all a point I made.
Crikey, you’re all over the shop on this one Mike
1 Like
Its not about whether it is correct or not Paul.
The defence is a unit and for it to work at its best the players need to compliment each other.
Hooker and Hurley back is the foundation of that along with a primary stopper in Ambrose and then the runners.
They have tried Hartley on many occasions and those periods have coincided with us being trash.
You and Speedy are the only ones that still doesn’t see the correlation between Hooker back and us being successful. Yes, that’s partly the midfield tightening up, but also it is Hooker being the rock in our defence that firms up everything else.
Our attacking play as you are well aware generally start from the back half so it makes perfect sense that you get that area right first.
1 Like
I still wanna find out if he can play forward (and be looking to mark the ball rather than worrying about his opponent).
2 Likes
You think I don’t see the value of my favourite player playing back, when I always wanted him back? (Apart from the Brissy game, of course 
Sure thing.
I’m arguing that Hartley isn’t actually a bad one on one defender. You’re arguing something else entirely.
1 Like
Hartleys65metreGoal.gif
Only goal of his career, too.
I’m not disputing what your saying
But it’s clearly a trade off on also ensuring our fwd structure is working effectively.
It’s all well and good generating attacks from the back half if we have nobody to kick to (esp if JD in ruck)/can’t mark the ball/get the ball to ground for our smalls & thus we don’t score ourselves. And also if it keeps coming back quickly doesnt allow us setup defensively properly.
We saw in a game versus Richmond when Hooker was back last year that our fwd structure completely broke down as Stewart wasn’t strong enough to compete as an actual kpd and also wasnt leading/resetting like we needed him to.
And he was dropped after that
So just saying plonk Francis there when his experience forward is limited and tank questionable could have same issues.
Who argues about the value of one on one defending in todays game?
Its pointless.
Lol. Why don’t you just say ‘modern footy’ again?
I would think discussing one on one defending would still be relevant when discussing lockdown defenders. That might just be me, though.
2 Likes
And as you saw against Collingwood having Joe there doesn’t necessarily mean we can win either.
We sure as hell looked much better against Collingwood who do press hard than we ever have before.
I’m all for our attacking game but against tough sides like Richmond and Collingwood, etc. I think we need to bring defence and then build from there.
Slingshot footy doesn’t work even with Hooker and Joe both down there.
Like I said it’s a trade off
The coaches will have to work out which scenario they feel gives us best chance of winning, both our ability to score and stopping opposition from doing so equally important.
If that means Hartley is in the mix got to back him and the selection panel in.
For mine having Hooker back is actually attacking.
Both Hooker and Hurley are excellent at zoning off and intercepting which brings our small runners into the game with overlap.
I would have been more tempted to just bring Fantasia back in as a straight swap for Brown and just kill them with speed on the turnover. Our small forwards are our primary source of goals and they create chaos ball which brings guys like Joe and Stringer into it.
Francis for mine is a conservative call.
I’m not sure how you can say that
IMO Hooker fwd is the conservative call with either Hartley or Francis playing back.
It’s a huge risk with Francis fwd as he’s done practically nothing as a fwd
Hasn’t trained with the forwards all preseason, hasn’t played fwd in VFL all year bar a portion of game last week. And the game he played for us in seniors fwd he was cooked by half time.
But he also deserves an opportunity and he might grab it. Also much fitter this time around.
I remember when there was no position for TIPPA in an AFL team. Sometimes the guy with that much talent just needs to be played. They’ll work it out.
7 Likes
I don’t think Francis should be playing forward. He has not played there for a long time and after being dropped I think its a huge amount of pressure to be just dropping on him.
Maybe it’s the kick in the ar$e that he needs, who knows.
Like I said I would go with a small forwardline with Joe and Stringer the only talls.
I really Stringer is not a genuine tall but he does compete in the air and can bring the ball to ground.
Hooker back at all costs for mine.