What do we do with Suckling?

[dipper86]

Sorry my error 1 premiership.

The Langford call is just though. He is not the only player who's majority of possessions come from in close contested footy but he is the worst performing player for the last 4 weeks in the entire Hawks side for D/E. Not much good him getting his hands on the ball when half the time he is giving it back to the opposition.

Different players yes but I was reading some pretty vitriolic things about Suckers and yes I was pretty upset with him as well. I think he needs a good kick in the ass. But my point is that there are some other players that need to be highlight as well and I don't believe ignoring such poor D/E stats no matter what role a player plays is a wise move.

Yes 14 contested possessions but at least 50% of those he gave to a Swans player.
Actually equal 7th in clearances equal with 2 other players. 3 clearances the same amount as Bruest a forward and Hartung who played a quarter of footy as the sub.
Equal 3rd in tackles with 5 which another 6 players managed as well.
How about Clangers 4 the top amount equal with 3 other players.

Langford averages 3.5 to 4 more contested possessions than anyone else at our club and is 9th on the list list in the total for the AFL. He also avgs the 2nd most clearances at our club.
The effective disposal rate doesn't directly mean the ball is going to an opposition player for a turnover...... it can mean neutral. It means he gets first hands at a ball up, gets tackled whilst hand balling and once again goes into another 50/50. Which is a better outcome than Kennedy getting the ball out to Hanerbury then running away with it.
No doubt Langford can improve his disposal but there is a massive difference in disposal efficiency in an uncontested possession with little pressure vs disposal efficiency in a contested possession under extreme pressure. Langfords sole purpose is to get first hands on the pill rather than the opposition and he's doing that.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

I would like to see Suckers as the sub.

When the heat is on that's not his game.

Coming on fresh five minutes before 3/4 time would give him a chance to weave some magic with fresh legs and a more open game.

 

[StillAtLarge]

it was a perfectly weighted kick to mcveigh's advantage, the odds were in his favour irrespective of who was on him at the time. sometimes you just have to accept that the opposition played well and deserved to kick a goal.

I could've copped that goal if Suckling had at least brought the ball to ground, that should've been the absolute minimum result for the McVeigh contest.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I miss Guerra

Truer words were never spoken on this forum.

 

[Lord Mud of Glenferrie]

I do not recall seeing any mention of Suckers kick in that went out of bounds without being touched. That was at a vital stage of the game. I can't recall for sure if the bleeders got a goal out of that but that was a dreadful kick in. He ran as if he was going to kick down field but at the last second swung his foot across and tried one of his fancy specials. Too half smart for his own good.

In the good old days he would have been benched for that. The one good kick to Rioli (and it was not that good anyway, Rioli made it look good) does not make up for his clangers that resulted in opposition goals.

Come on Clarko. Have a good unbiased look at him and ask yourself what does he really bring to the team that others don't.

 

[Kuuz]

I do not recall seeing any mention of Suckers kick in that went out of bounds without being touched. That was at a vital stage of the game. I can't recall for sure if the bleeders got a goal out of that but that was a dreadful kick in. He ran as if he was going to kick down field but at the last second swung his foot across and tried one of his fancy specials. Too half smart for his own good.

In the good old days he would have been benched for that. The one good kick to Rioli (and it was not that good anyway, Rioli made it look good) does not make up for his clangers that resulted in opposition goals.

Come on Clarko. Have a good unbiased look at him and ask yourself what does he really bring to the team that others don't.

That's my geniune concern. Like a man who cannot look past a beaut pair of breasts (Sucker's "elite" kicking) staring him in the face, he's gotta look beyond it and see that they belong to a pig.

Just listening to his presser, when someone asked about Suckling's clanger in the final minutes of the 4th, Clarko's response was: "No one seemed to mind when he hit Rioli lace out in the 3rd". Admittedlly, that was a terrific pass. But I just feel his brain fades more than cancel out any good he does.

What's better. A player who is either great or terrible in one game. Or one who is consistent without being amazing. I know what my preference is.

 

[tige19]

I think its fair to say this relationship is best to end... My little cousin who's 9years old says to me yesterday at a family doo ' oh man what the hell is suckling doing? He's crap now'.. I pissed myself. My uncle who took all the boys said that supporters were face palming all night regarding Suckling! I think we are all just a little dumbfounded with how South he's gone since 2011-2012.

 

[Nuggets73]

... Suckling is softer than box full of kittens ... good to very good outside player ... but poor in PIVOTAL contested contests.
Suckling vs Duryea is a similar debate to Schoenmakers vs Spangher ... "skill" vs guts ... I know which I'd have in big games.

End of rant

 

[Thaihawk]

It's getting to the stage where I'm seriously contemplating writing letters to HFC showing my disgust that the coaching staff continually pick this one-trick pony, when he has cost us many a game over the years.

I wish I was joking.

Unfortunately all teams can now see through his one trick, so he has lost any value that had.

 

[Blaze Storm]

Well he's going well enough for blaze storm to change his avatar.

Walk it off, mate. My change was pro-Doc, not anti-Suckers.

As I said above, though- he needs a stint on the sidelines. But that's because I honestly believe he's best 22, but is out of form. You guys who think he needs to be traded are kidding yourself if you think we can get anywhere Sucker's quality for the price we're paying him.

 

[Thaihawk]

Can we send him to Sydney instead. It's a win win.

Saw him whisper in that former number 23's (Judas) ear after the game, so you could have your wish H2F.

 

[Suntory Boss Coffee]

To fix our poor conversion we should just let Suckers have pings from 50-55 out. When he was at his best he would regularly kick goals from outside 50. So many times on Saturday night Suckling was free 55-60 out where he could have had the ball kicked to him (as in he was free) and then a few steps and bang.

 

[dipper86]

... Suckling is softer than box full of kittens ... good to very good outside player ... but poor in PIVOTAL contested contests.

They are two completely different things. He ain't soft.

 

[QuietB]

I do not recall seeing any mention of Suckers kick in that went out of bounds without being touched. That was at a vital stage of the game. I can't recall for sure if the bleeders got a goal out of that but that was a dreadful kick in. He ran as if he was going to kick down field but at the last second swung his foot across and tried one of his fancy specials. Too half smart for his own good.

In the good old days he would have been benched for that. The one good kick to Rioli (and it was not that good anyway, Rioli made it look good) does not make up for his clangers that resulted in opposition goals.

Come on Clarko. Have a good unbiased look at him and ask yourself what does he really bring to the team that others don't.

I was appalled at the turnover that led to the Parker winning goal. It is one thing to miss a target, albeit monumentally. It is another thing to just stop, drop your head and stand there and watch while the opposition run it to the other end.

Maybe he had no chance of affecting the contest, but he certainly had zero chance just standing there watching.

 

[Taskmaster]

They are two completely different things. He ain't soft.

Bloody oath he is.

 

[StillAtLarge]

To fix our poor conversion we should just let Suckers have pings from 50-55 out. When he was at his best he would regularly kick goals from outside 50. So many times on Saturday night Suckling was free 55-60 out where he could have had the ball kicked to him (as in he was free) and then a few steps and bang.

The guy's kicked 1.6 this season, he's part of the problem not the solution!

 

[Gday1]

Soft as butter.

 

[dipper86]

Bloody oath he is.

Does not compute.



He's incompetent at contested footy....that doesn't mean he's soft.

 

[Hens Hall]

Just watched the replay of the Syds game.

Not as bad as some of you are making out to be.

What pissed me about the mcVeigh goal was Hill absolute not contest to allow Goodes to take an uncontested mark and then no manning of the mark allowing Goodes to casually waltz on to his left to get the long ball into McVeigh.

Very poor from Hill.

We know suckling is not much chop man on man but he got exposed because of a poor effort further up the ground.

 

[kolchak]

Just watched the replay of the Syds game.

Not as bad as some of you are making out to be.

What pissed me about the mcVeigh goal was Hill absolute not contest to allow Goodes to take an uncontested mark and then no manning of the mark allowing Goodes to casually waltz on to his left to get the long ball into McVeigh.

Very poor from Hill.

We know suckling is not much chop man on man but he got exposed because of a poor effort further up the ground.

There was a play where he may have coughed up the ball, but then he had a great second effort to force a stoppage. I was actually thinking Suckling is playing decent footy for once. I'm incredibely suprised by viritol here based on that game.

 

[whiteTiga2k]

Duryea would of made a contest at least, or at least thrown his body to spoil it.

Drop him

 

[Steven Tyler]

Just watched the replay of the Syds game.

Not as bad as some of you are making out to be.

What pissed me about the mcVeigh goal was Hill absolute not contest to allow Goodes to take an uncontested mark and then no manning of the mark allowing Goodes to casually waltz on to his left to get the long ball into McVeigh.

Very poor from Hill.

We know suckling is not much chop man on man but he got exposed because of a poor effort further up the ground.

Exposed?
The long, high ball was kicked to McVeigh and Suckling at the top of the square
It was a genuine 50/50 contest
It was actually harder for McVeigh to mark the ball than for Suckling to spoil

Outmuscled by Jarryd McVeigh FFS!
Says it all really!

 

[tige19]

They are two completely different things. He ain't soft.

I wouldn't say he's soft I jus think he's incapable of being hard.

 

[tige19]

Does not compute.

View attachment 137795

He's incompetent at contested footy....that doesn't mean he's soft.

If someone had the ability to put together a 'highlights' reel of Sucklings poor efforts it would put that little clip to shame. I'm not sure how anyone can go into bat for Suckling on the basis he's a hard footballer? Terrific outside? Absolutely.. Tough? Nope

 

[Taskmaster]

If someone had the ability to put together a 'highlights' reel of Sucklings poor efforts it would put that little clip to shame. I'm not sure how anyone can go into bat for Suckling on the basis he's a hard footballer? Terrific outside? Absolutely.. Tough? Nope

Theses others have no idea about the game.