Scham said:
The trueth is that if we were a decent side, Cook wouldn't be getting a game.
Most AFL clubs wouldn't even find a spot for him on their list.
I love the guy for his hard at it approach, but he can't run, can't kick, and doesn't man up. Yes, he's a good tackler, but thats it.
At Freo we have an ingrained culture of accepting mediocrity, and supporting guys that aren't up to AFL level all because they throw themselves into the packs. We will never succeed if guys like Cook and Macca can get a game.
I know its hard, but its true. IMO.
The truth is that Connolly places far too much importance on soft skills and not enough on aggression. We all thought we'd be some all powerful free-wheeling machine which is the only reason why some predicted Cookie wouldn't get a game. Carr is such a hard nut we said, he'll replace Cookie. Unfortunately Connolly just sees some silky smooth skills and turns him into another seagull.
a) he cant run. False. He's not quick, but he's not alone in that regard. Something he does have over the other slow midfielders is he is more evasive, allowing him to run after he's broken the inital tackles.
b) he cant kick. No comment necessary.
c) he doesn't man up. False. If he's given a job, he's proven he can shut the man down. It's the way Connolly chooses to use him that's the issue - he needs to be on a man every week (which would minimalise the negatives of his kicking skills). Scott Burns anyone?
d) he's a good tackler. The best we've got - how ******** weak would we be without him (considering how ******** weak we are with him)
At freo we have a culture of supporting those that actually look like they'll give a damn and put their body over the ball when it matters. Its soft frontrunners like you and CC that think we'll ever go anywhere without some hardness in the team. If a bloke cant kick, get him to handball instead and get on with it.
The Ports/Brisbanes/Essendons circa 2000 all had one thing in common. A ********load of hardness to backup the skill.
That's the truth, imo.