Universal Love Charlie ‘Chook’ Constable

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
cats_09 said:
Click to expand...

Remember how the AFL changed the rules to keep ruckman in the game? Cause they wanted all sizes to be able to play?
Hahahah nah. Just wanted keep players away from basketball.
Now they change the rules to keep only enduros in the game.
It's now become an extremely uninclusive sport.
Their funeral I guess. Much needed leg up for cricket. Soccer too.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I just wouldn’t mind seeing him get a fair run at it; if he had a fair run at it and was shown up then so be it. But for mine he seems to have performed pretty well whenever given a chance to play in his favoured position. And then i look at someone like ZGuth who just gets opportunity after opportunity when we’ve already got too many defenders in the side as it is.
 
darrenmorgan said:
I just wouldn’t mind seeing him get a fair run at it; if he had a fair run at it and was shown up then so be it. But for mine he seems to have performed pretty well whenever given a chance to play in his favoured position. And then i look at someone like ZGuth who just gets opportunity after opportunity when we’ve already got too many defenders in the side as it is.
Click to expand...
But he can play shithouse in a few different positions.
 
I just wouldn’t mind seeing him get a fair run at it; if he had a fair run at it and was shown up then so be it. But for mine he seems to have performed pretty well whenever given a chance to play in his favoured position. And then i look at someone like ZGuth who just gets opportunity after opportunity when we’ve already got too many defenders in the side as it is.
 
darrenmorgan said:
I just wouldn’t mind seeing him get a fair run at it; if he had a fair run at it and was shown up then so be it. But for mine he seems to have performed pretty well whenever given a chance to play in his favoured position. And then i look at someone like ZGuth who just gets opportunity after opportunity when we’ve already got too many defenders in the side as it is.
Click to expand...

Guthrie is positionally flexible and can run out games better. While CC is the better player he isnt better in those 2 areas and the way the game is played now thats an issue. That said if CC is the sub today i wouldnt be upset.
 
Pure_Ownage said:
Guthrie is positionally flexible and can run out games better. While CC is the better player he isnt better in those 2 areas and the way the game is played now thats an issue. That said if CC is the sub today i wouldnt be upset.
Click to expand...
I know we don't really have full control over when to activate the sub, but if we don't need to activate it in the first half and it's in the second half when we activate it then feels like that's when we'd get best impact from Constable

In his 3 games so far this season we've seen him have an impact when he's come on, but the impact drop off the longer he's on - he may have been well suited under the previous sub rule where clubs had more control of the activation of it
 
Pure_Ownage said:
Guthrie is positionally flexible and can run out games better. While CC is the better player he isnt better in those 2 areas and the way the game is played now thats an issue. That said if CC is the sub today i wouldnt be upset.
Click to expand...
Who cares If you can run out games if you can’t do anything at any point in the game. It’s a waste of legs.

plus we have zero evidence constable can’t run out games. Putting him on the bench is not proof of that. once again we played well when he was on the ground in the centre and distribtuing the ball out and when they put the tag on and gave him less game time we nearly lost the match.
 
Seeds said:
your point is completely irrelevant to what was being discussed. Also probably wrong as well.
Click to expand...
Ok

Seeds said:
Who cares If you can run out games if you can’t do anything at any point in the game. It’s a waste of legs.

plus we have zero evidence constable can’t run out games. Putting him on the bench is not proof of that. once again we played well when he was on the ground in the centre and distribtuing the ball out and when they put the tag on and gave him less game time we nearly lost the match.
Click to expand...
Would have thought that when we were getting hammered in the final quarter a few clearances our way night have helped. Either losing a rotation and losing clearances was a strategic decision, or the problem he himself admitted to having a year or so ago still affects him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The coach is not being honest in the media. Do we really want the honest assessments being done in the media!

Charlie is not the difference in this team, and the reason why no other club wanted him when he was free. Fogarty is looking ok, but does not hurt enough.

WCE are looking like stars, as Allen is looking like a jet, and then got Kelly for less than we got Cameron.
 
Really_ said:
The coach is not being honest in the media. Do we really want the honest assessments being done in the media!

Charlie is not the difference in this team, and the reason why no other club wanted him when he was free. Fogarty is looking ok, but does not hurt enough.

WCE are looking like stars, as Allen is looking like a jet, and then got Kelly for less than we got Cameron.
Click to expand...
What's all that got to do with the price of fish
 
Seeds said:
plus we have zero evidence constable can’t run out games. Putting him on the bench is not proof of that. once again we played well when he was on the ground in the centre and distribtuing the ball out and when they put the tag on and gave him less game time we nearly lost the match.
Click to expand...
What possible motivation would the coaching staff have for benching a player who was playing well other than because he didn't have the legs to run out the game? They have all the numbers in the box in terms of ground coverage, average speed, etc and that plays into how they manage rotations. They knew he was fading. Not to mention he hardly got near it in the second half even when he was on the ground.

When we drafted him he was a top 15 prospect as an inside midfielder with footy smarts, decent disposal, and ball-finding ability. But a massive knock on him was his running ability and lack of flexibility and that meant he "slid" to us in the 30s. A very good use of a pick from a risk/reward point of view but it hasn't worked out because that equation hasn't changed even the slightest bit in four years. If you can't show improvement over that period of time you're not often going to stay on an AFL list.
 
gaz love x said:
What possible motivation would the coaching staff have for benching a player who was playing well other than because he didn't have the legs to run out the game? They have all the numbers in the box in terms of ground coverage, average speed, etc and that plays into how they manage rotations. They knew he was fading. Not to mention he hardly got near it in the second half even when he was on the ground.

When we drafted him he was a top 15 prospect as an inside midfielder with footy smarts, decent disposal, and ball-finding ability. But a massive knock on him was his running ability and lack of flexibility and that meant he "slid" to us in the 30s. A very good use of a pick from a risk/reward point of view but it hasn't worked out because that equation hasn't changed even the slightest bit in four years. If you can't show improvement over that period of time you're not often going to stay on an AFL list.
Click to expand...
What motivation would a club have for keeping a player, let alone playing him, who can't run out a game? He isn't that good, so its like having a barely handy player and then divide that by half.

I'm not sold on it being a lack of fitness, or that he just can't run out a game. Maybe for a player's first season. But he'd be let go by now, surely.

I have never seen him drag himself to the boundary line stuffed and gasping for air.
 
If the coaches genuinely hated him he wouldn't be in the emergencies ahead of Narkle.
 
RegHickeyStand said:
What motivation would a club have for keeping a player, let alone playing him, who can't run out a game? He isn't that good, so its like having a barely handy player and then divide that by half.

I'm not sold on it being a lack of fitness, or that he just can't run out a game. Maybe for a player's first season. But he'd be let go by now, surely.

I have never seen him drag himself to the boundary line stuffed and gasping for air.
Click to expand...
Maybe that's because him & the club agreed to a contract extension during his second season - we don't often delist players who still have time on their contracts without a plan to redraft them (such as Brownless)

Don't forget he was looking at his options last trade period and the club was supportive of him and said they'd help facilitate a trade should one present itself - so happy to keep him on the list, but not stopping him from moving on
 
RegHickeyStand said:
What motivation would a club have for keeping a player, let alone playing him, who can't run out a game? He isn't that good, so its like having a barely handy player and then divide that by half.

I'm not sold on it being a lack of fitness, or that he just can't run out a game. Maybe for a player's first season. But he'd be let go by now, surely.

I have never seen him drag himself to the boundary line stuffed and gasping for air.
Click to expand...
He was contracted at the end of last season, they tried to trade him but no one wanted him. The contract (two year extension) we gave him was based on early promise and wasn't unreasonable but it hasn't worked out. I don't think he would have been playing if Danger, Menegola, Duncan, Simpson, even Stephens weren't all out injured. They might well have thought a good half from Constable was better than what the other players available would have given against Brisbane, and they might have been right.

On the Narkle point, I think they're rated roughly evenly internally and it's a horses for courses thing. Both have massive deficiencies (though I think Narkle has some chance of coming good)
 
RegHickeyStand said:
What motivation would a club have for keeping a player, let alone playing him, who can't run out a game? He isn't that good, so its like having a barely handy player and then divide that by half.

I'm not sold on it being a lack of fitness, or that he just can't run out a game. Maybe for a player's first season. But he'd be let go by now, surely.

I have never seen him drag himself to the boundary line stuffed and gasping for air.
Click to expand...
At this stage I have no idea what it’ll take for people to realise it’s due to his fitness and limited skill set that’s keeping him from cementing his spot.

I suspect when he’s delisted/traded posters will still be convinced it’s some big conspiracy that kept him from succeeding and that the coaches have no idea.
 
Drunkcat said:
I still can not make my mind up about Constable if he is no good or a good player some things to like and some to not
Click to expand...

his decent at what he does which is win the ball in tight, his hopeless at defending and running on the outside. He is a good back up player but probably not much more. Similar to Luke dunstan from st kilda
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top