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!!!
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!!!
regards,
REB

