Separate names with a comma.
Now you can give your BigFooty mates a Premium Membership! Give here.
Great as a birthday gift or as a prize.
Discussion in 'Hawthorn' started by Kapil Hawk, Jul 10, 2010.
Think of that post as an enhancement of your post.
(Log in to remove this ad.)
Haha my bad
Your easily impressed then, seeing as he had played around ten games at the stage Shoey is at now and none of them were good.
Your right, everyone is entitled to their opinion and for the most part I support that but I see no purpose in dishing it out on Shoe the way it has been across these boards when in reality it is clarkson maybe that should be taking the brunt of the vitriol when it is him that is playing this young man out of position.
My biggest fear is that they could end up breaking him and a good footballer is going to be lost to the game - that would be a sad day indeed.
Respect is a two way street Roby and I don't recall ever getting personal with you over anything you posted but in saying that if your going to put your opinion out there then surely you expect to get a response to that opinion and not take offence (unless it does get personal) if someone disagrees with you.
I have refrained from posting since our loss on Monday.......But reading the Age on line today there was an article on Shoenmakers and the journo got his/her info from this site.......I just hope Shoey didn't read any of this vitriol/alcohol (we all know he's learning the trade)
I was as disappointed as anyone about Mondays' game.....but imagine how the guy must feel...........let's not crucify our players.
I feel he's just got to learn to position himself a little bit better
Thats just not fair, Gibson wasn't on an ordinary player, he was on pods, so rather than allowing him to concentrate on his own opponent he has to also worry about what Shoey is doing, ditto with Stratton on Johnson..... Shoey has to be able to compete in the 50/50 contests on his own 2 feet.
No I am not and besides the hate from my Collingwood mates I always liked him. They were complaining about his disposals which was his forte, but most general observers know very little about kicking or technique. He was trying technically hard kicks to break the game open, and sometimes they weren't coming off. Like Stanton he gets criticized because he is a designated kicker. The same crap is said about Fyfe at the moment and I remember Shiels was getting the same criticism even though I kept saying he was technically sound kick.
Reread my posts, am I actually criticising Schoenmakers or the match committee? If I thought we didn't have a better option or alternative, you would not hear a word from me. Not one.
shoey has unfortunately being played in a position he should not be playing at this stage. look at the key position players from that draft, Watts, lynch, vickery, apart from maybe hurley the others have not developed YET into good footballers(and even hurley is inconsistent. Clarko is just asking to much from shoe at this stage of his career, i can certainly see shoe being a quality defender one day but its not just yet, he certainly cant be exposed to playing on power fowards such as cloke,pods, hawkins who will take him to the cleaners and do his confidence no good. Rough must play key back till gilham is back for now id play shoe 3rd up defender or foward or vfl just anywhere but key back
Gibson and stratton were both horrible on monday, shoe wasnt the only defender comprehensively beaten. I'm not saying he should be there but he shouldn't cop all the shit
And Clarkson knew this, and has known this for was coming... for how long?
Geelong dumped the ball on Schoenmakers head last time we met.
Tom Harley is on the TV stating that Geelong would take Schoenmakers to the goalsquare and play through him.
If Clarkson wants to play and develop Schoey, then he needs to give him more support, allow for a changing of the structure so that he can be protected a little and also guard him against such bombardment.
He needs Boumann or Ruff back there .....
Definitely Ruff give the back line some cohesion
Change of structure or a change of personnel ? If its change of structure then the only course of action is to play a spare man behind the ball ........which means once again we are playing into Geelongs hands, they thrive having the spare man in there defence.
A personnel change is needed, as long as Shoey is there, they will continue to isolate him.
If we want to keep the kid in the team....then Roughy needs to go down there at CHB and help the kid..AT EVERY CONTEST...bang bodies and knock the ball loose
Tough way to learn your trade, getting your arse handed to you every week in front of 15,000-80,000 people that are paying for the privilege.
Whilst he's still underweight he obviously still needs a hand to negate a power forward (is that what we're calling them now?) effectively, we either keep in the team & give him some help or cut him and bring in ???
The only big lump of a bloke we've got running around "spare" that can go toe to toe with the power forwards is Roughy.
I would just appreciate it if he went for the footy (when it's in the air) instead of worrying about where his opponent is. He can't out muscle anyone, so he has to use his leap and height to kill the contest. We've all seen he can judge a ball in flight and take strong grabs. He needs to attack it like he's playing forward, but use his fists.
That's the crux of it in my mind.
We took Boumann out of the team, and replaced him with someone bigger and stronger....but didn't put him where we needed him. It was a little strange.
Quite simply we do not have a good match up physically for guys like Hawkins, Cloke, Tippet etc nor anyone who can match their contested marking ability. Therefore our options are to play the defenders that we have and try to prevent quick breaks into our forward line exposing them to the high ball. Alternatively, we could play Rough there as he is a bigger body than most others. However, he has just returned from injury and may not quite be ready at this stage. The other consideration is whether we gain more by playing him in defence than we lose by not playing him on ball/ forward.
Judging by the damage Hawkins did last week I suspect that Clarkson may have no option but to consider playing Rough in defence against Geelong when we next meet. However, not all teams have damaging monster forwards so I doubt if he will need to play there every week. It is all about match ups and Gibson, Schoenmakers etc match up better against leading forwards.
To blame Schoenmakers for being physically unable to match Hawkins for strength, and contested marking is ludicrous. Hawkins and Tippet are ruckmen sized forwards who will outmark/muscle most KPDs if the ball is deliverd to them high and quickly. Our defence did not lose the Geelong game. It was lost by our midfield losing the stoppages comprehensively in the last quarter and our forwards squandering the opportunities they had.
I would say the two strongest KPF at present are Cloke and hawkins. (thats including Brown & Tippett who would be next best).
In the first 2 weeks - Shoemaker was matched against Cloke and Hawkins. To me that in Clarkson eyes he is best option against these players (thats including Gibson, Stratton or Boumann)
Maybe I am wrong but he is playing as Nbr 1 KPD at present. At his age/experience it should be nbr 2 (Probably would if Gilham was up and running or if a decision is made to make Roughead a KPD).
One of the good attributes he has shown is a never give up or give in. Keeps his head up and keeps competing. I like that about him.
I was watching a replay of last years game against Pt Adelaide (round 21, I think?) where we won by 150 zillion points, or something like that. During the third quarter, Butcher takes a strong contested mark against Schoenmakers and the commentator says something like 'Schoenmakers is being monstered by John Butcher in his first AFL game. That must be a worry for the Hawks coming into September'. Hmm... he wasn't exactly being Nostradamus though and perhaps it was a slight over-exaggeration by the commentator at the time, but only a slight one. It's not just the Clokes and Hawkins of this world causing problems.
Play the kid forward and put Roughie back.
I agree - Roughy should be played back at the right time. He's intelligent and has the defender-brain, it was quite apparent against Geelong.
So IF roughy takes the mark at the end of the game and kicks the goal, do we still get 23 pages of Schoey discussion.
Truth is he was beaten by a bigger, stronger, older, more experienced opponent on the day. Would we get the same amount of discussion if Gunner played at FF on Darren Glass and was kept goalless with only 10 touches?
yes, because he's the weakest link in the side by a mile.
perhaps clarko is keeping the 'ruff down back' move up his sleeve, like he did with the 'hodge down back and buddy up the ground' move in the finals series of 08.
the later he leaves it the less time there is for other teams to work out how to counter it...
i don't agree, either that this thread would be so long or that he is the weakest link by a mile.
I don't see how people blame one person for our loss, when:
the forwards kicked 0.5 in the last quarter from a number of very reasonable opportunities. If we kick 2.3 - win!
the midfield get whipped in the last quarter - five clearances to zip.
the other defenders were not able/plain didn't offer much assistance to Shoey who for the main part was playing on the main forward.
Shoey didn't have a great game - agreed. Shoey is the sole reason we lost - way too simplistic.
Schoey is always on the 'lost us the game' list in these big games though. Think back to last years finals (minus the Sydney game). The other thing is, Schoey is generally pretty bad from start to finish, whereas some other guys were just bad in the last quarter. Notice how guys like Reid, Taylor, Glass, etc., don't tend to get mauled like this? This is definitely the weakest part of our team, so, naturally, it should be the thing that gets fixed first.