Centre Half Forward 2008

Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Posts
2,352
Likes
277
Location
Glass Case of Emotion
AFL Club
Geelong
Thread starter #1
Not just a NAblett thread

Scott Gullan makes a good point that NAblett was the perfect foil for Mooney and that Hawkins is not a dovetailed replacement in that position

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/1,9191,23020436-11088,00.html

Should we have kept Playfair or Charlie as insurance for the mobile CHF position?

Who will now play in the mobile CHF position? I don't think Hawkins will be up to it as he is more suited to staying within the 50m zone

Do we even need a mobile CHF? In my opinion we do because the best thing Nathan did was continually present for contests and create a mark / an option / at least a spilt ball
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

cancat

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
5,707
Likes
581
AFL Club
Geelong
#2
Not just a NAblett thread

Scott Gullan makes a good point that NAblett was the perfect foil for Mooney and that Hawkins is not a dovetailed replacement in that position

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/1,9191,23020436-11088,00.html

Should we have kept Playfair or Charlie as insurance for the mobile CHF position?

Who will now play in the mobile CHF position? I don't think Hawkins will be up to it as he is more suited to staying within the 50m zone

Do we even need a mobile CHF? In my opinion we do because the best thing Nathan did was continually present for contests and create a mark / an option / at least a spilt ball
Playfair and Gardner, you're having a laugh aren't you?

Mooney can play in the square or CHF. Hawkins will demand a good defender like Nablett did.

Forward line of Mooney, Hawkins, Steve Johnson, Chapman, Stokes, Rooke/Varcoe with Otto having a spell should be good enough.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Posts
2,352
Likes
277
Location
Glass Case of Emotion
AFL Club
Geelong
Thread starter #3
Playfair and Gardner, you're having a laugh aren't you?

Mooney can play in the square or CHF. Hawkins will demand a good defender like Nablett did.

Forward line of Mooney, Hawkins, Steve Johnson, Chapman, Stokes, Rooke/Varcoe with Otto having a spell should be good enough.
Not really. The 2007 Cats team had synergy. Meaning that all required roles were filled, even if on a player-by-player comparison certain players weren't better than others they still played because the filled the role . (Ie. Byrnes, Varcoe, Hunt and NAblett)

Point is that we don't have a single mobile CHF in the team - not even to Pinch Hit. Like Gullan says, most of us think we'll be right with the guys you mention but that is ignoring structure and tactics

So, no I ain't joking homeboy
 

The rabbi

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
11,794
Likes
13,494
Location
Geelong West
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
St.Albans (Geelong Football League)
#4
Playfair and Gardiner would be handy players in the VFL side. They would continue to struggle to get a kick at AFL level. They just cannot cut the mustard in the big league. Both players as forwards could only manage 1/2 a goal per game. They never were big contributers to the team and we would only see more of the same had they remained at K-Park.

Time to develop our young talent.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Posts
2,352
Likes
277
Location
Glass Case of Emotion
AFL Club
Geelong
Thread starter #5
let me clarify that I have been one of Charlie's harshest critics and was horrified at Playfair v Port Adelaide 2007

but my point is that champion cricket teams need a dedicated wicketkeeper and premiership footy teams need a dedicated CHF!
 

JUBJUB

TheBrownDog
Joined
Sep 22, 2000
Posts
62,886
Likes
40,997
Location
Calling Wambulances for the Geelong whiners
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Ford
#6
Should we have kept Playfair or Charlie as insurance for the mobile CHF position?
Nope and nope

Who will now play in the mobile CHF position? I don't think Hawkins will be up to it as he is more suited to staying within the 50m zone

Do we even need a mobile CHF? In my opinion we do because the best thing Nathan did was continually present for contests and create a mark / an option / at least a spilt ball
Isn't Harry Taylor a mobile CHF ?
Chappy and Dog are more than capable of having a run at CHF for parts of the game and then there's Lonergan if you want some height.
 

Ling Sting

All Australian
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Posts
747
Likes
2
Location
Melbs
AFL Club
Geelong
#7
OS2007 you've got some weird logic happening there!!

Fact, Hank has never played well enough to deserve a senior game since breaking his jaw. His attack on the ball was never the same and unlike Nath he just didn't have a natural footy brain that would allow him to setup goals and snag a few bags himself like Nath did.

Fact 2, Charlie was and is a hack. How often did we see Nath run full tilt and pick up a semi-volley off the deck then deliver a tidy handpass to advantage? How often have you seen Charlie fall over under little to no pressure and choke when he disposed of the ball? The point I made about Hanks footy brain (or lack there of) applies to Charlie as well.

These two were never viable replacements for Nath. How many chances have both of them had to prove they could play the second HF role......many.......why were they cut from the list......because they weren't good enough.

To those that keep mentioning Hank and Charlie, stop living in the past!!!
 

The rabbi

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
11,794
Likes
13,494
Location
Geelong West
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
St.Albans (Geelong Football League)
#8
let me clarify that I have been one of Charlie's harshest critics and was horrified at Playfair v Port Adelaide 2007

but my point is that champion cricket teams need a dedicated wicketkeeper and premiership footy teams need a dedicated CHF!

I have no problem with the idea of the need for a dedicated CHF. My problem is that you mentioned Charlie and H as players for that role. They had a history of failure. Time to move on and look to developing young recruits.

Mooney to CHF and Hawkins to FF.
 

cancat

Cancelled
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
5,707
Likes
581
AFL Club
Geelong
#10
I'm loving the suggestion of Lonners at CHF

SJ was the story of 2007

Lonners Norm Smith 2008?? You couldn't write a better sporting fairytale
I don't think it's getting any better...

I'm with you that it would be a great story but Lonners wasn't any better than Henry up forward. I think he's been kept on as a back up tall in the back line.
 

winty

Moderator
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Posts
28,119
Likes
29,246
Location
Geelong
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #11
We have plenty of options for CHF in 2008 IMO.

1. Lonergan
2. One of the draftees (Taylor or Scott Simpson)
3. Mooney CHF, Hawkins FF
4. One out of left field, but depending on Egan's fitness. Milburn. Has pinch hit in the role before, and with Harley able to play on both tall and small forwards now, would not be as missed in the back line as he otherwise would be.
5. We could also have SJ or Rooke pinch-hitting there.

At the moment, I can see option 3 being the one we go with initially, but then again, with the way we brought the ball forward last year, is a dominant CHF really necessary?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

year of the cat

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Posts
16,130
Likes
17,198
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
#12
I would be playing both Mooney and Hawkins deep and use SJ and Chapman as the lead up players. Both are good overhead for their size, have great disposal, are quickish and are as hard as nails.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Posts
169
Likes
0
Location
Mornington
AFL Club
Geelong
#14
with nablett quiting. otto cant play that role he is not mobile enough, all i can think of is play tomcat deep depending on his fitness as for mooney he was our real CHF last year so i think not to much will change. as for playfair and gardiner thank god we pissed them off
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
18,021
Likes
14,556
Location
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
#15
Playfair and Gardner, you're having a laugh aren't you?

Mooney can play in the square or CHF. Hawkins will demand a good defender like Nablett did.

Forward line of Mooney, Hawkins, Steve Johnson, Chapman, Stokes, Rooke/Varcoe with Otto having a spell should be good enough.
Throw in Tom Lonergan - he played a blinder in the VFL grand final, has the height, and agility to be a good back-up.
 

Duskfire

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Posts
6,037
Likes
4,335
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Geelong
#16
Mooney CHF, Hawkins FF. I am not sure that it matters all that much however with the talent in the forward line and the amount of goals the midfield kicks. Alot of teams dont have that standard CHF anymore, or at least not a permanent one.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Posts
16
Likes
0
AFL Club
Geelong
#17
Nathan is a small loss only. How many times have we said in the crowd- he should have marked that, and only let him off the hook because he is an ablett.

I think the Cats should delist him at the end of year- irrespective of his future decision. We don't need half hearted people whom bring down others as well.

I would like to see Tom Lonergan given the same opportunity as Nathan in 2008. He has the balls and guts to put his body, and now his life on the line. He is as mobile as Nathan, and probably would provide 2-3 goals a game.

Not to mention the big Tomahawk- who will be ready now to make a massive impression in 2008.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Posts
3,380
Likes
1
Location
Toorak
AFL Club
Geelong
#18
OS2007 you've got some weird logic happening there!!

Fact, Hank has never played well enough to deserve a senior game since breaking his jaw. His attack on the ball was never the same and unlike Nath he just didn't have a natural footy brain that would allow him to setup goals and snag a few bags himself like Nath did.

Fact 2, Charlie was and is a hack. How often did we see Nath run full tilt and pick up a semi-volley off the deck then deliver a tidy handpass to advantage? How often have you seen Charlie fall over under little to no pressure and choke when he disposed of the ball? The point I made about Hanks footy brain (or lack there of) applies to Charlie as well.

These two were never viable replacements for Nath. How many chances have both of them had to prove they could play the second HF role......many.......why were they cut from the list......because they weren't good enough.

To those that keep mentioning Hank and Charlie, stop living in the past!!!
why not bring back g.ablett
he would be ok
 

Rosso

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Posts
1,964
Likes
1,175
Location
Down South
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Kansas City Chiefs
#19
why not bring back g.ablett
he would be ok
Curse you to hell Gary Ayres. Would Gary Snr still qualify under the veterans list or would we need to use a son/father pick in the draft??

In all seriousness, Geelong had three rotating marking targets in Mooney, Johnno and Nath with Otto playing a brief cameo here and there. If Hawkins can come in and kick a goal or two and set some up then it's all good. Don't forget that we drafted three KPP in the draft so I'm backing the club probably saw it comming.
 

LifeSpan-Void

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Posts
6,223
Likes
2,009
Location
The belly of a snake
AFL Club
Geelong
#21
I don't think it's getting any better...

I'm with you that it would be a great story but Lonners wasn't any better than Henry up forward. I think he's been kept on as a back up tall in the back line.
there was about 43-odd difference in games experience between the two. Lonergan was shuffled in and out of the side for his 7 games without getting any real chance to find his feet. Playfair was at least granted the opportunity to play 50 senior games, same with Gardiner.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Posts
41
Likes
0
Other Teams
geelong
#22
Here's one no one has thought of Ryan Gamble
Similar size to Charlie he has a great leap, good skills and has played midfield/wing so he must have a fair endurance tank.
 

cs61

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
8,192
Likes
853
Location
Land of the Rising Sun
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#23
Mooney CHF, Hawkins/Ottens deep forwards, S. J the creative type, and Ablett, Chapman, etc rotating through half forward.

Its a good set up, and I wouldn't be too worried about mobile CHF's when you have the midfield depth that you guys have cause you'll have no problem moving the ball through the corridor to go long for you targets. Not to say Ablett wont be missed or wouldn't have being a good option, just you can get around given you have solid targets to aim for.

Where you guys surprised you delisted T. Grima, or didn't promote him? Or even more surprised that no one picked him (Bulldogs!?).
 

re cat

Premiership Player
Joined
May 14, 2007
Posts
4,639
Likes
577
Location
2 hrs from KP
AFL Club
Geelong
#24
Mooney CHF, Hawkins/Ottens deep forwards, S. J the creative type, and Ablett, Chapman, etc rotating through half forward.

Its a good set up, and I wouldn't be too worried about mobile CHF's when you have the midfield depth that you guys have cause you'll have no problem moving the ball through the corridor to go long for you targets. Not to say Ablett wont be missed or wouldn't have being a good option, just you can get around given you have solid targets to aim for.

Where you guys surprised you delisted T. Grima, or didn't promote him? Or even more surprised that no one picked him (Bulldogs!?).
Please don't mention Grima again some in here are still getting "help" after his departure.:rolleyes:
 

LifeSpan-Void

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Posts
6,223
Likes
2,009
Location
The belly of a snake
AFL Club
Geelong
#25
Here's one no one has thought of Ryan Gamble
Similar size to Charlie he has a great leap, good skills and has played midfield/wing so he must have a fair endurance tank.
Gamble is 184cm, way too short to be a CHF. Gardiner at 190cm was never a successful CHF. The whole "link man" bullshit theory was put to bed when Geelong traded him for zip.
 
Top Bottom