-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Jason Cloke
- Thread starter Nardz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
i dont think he will get dropped! he is a good utility, depth player! You can use him to plug holes in defence, you can use him to provide a contest up forward, you can even use him on the wing! wont ever be in our best 22 but handy to have as a filler!Dunst said:
Nardz said:didnt look too good last nite did he?
I don't think he was nearly as bad as everybody has been suggesting. Had limited game time, and did a hell of a lot of running and chasing. Sure he didn't have that many possessions, but he was far from disgraced in my opinion.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
magpies42 said:
The highlighted one is the only suggestion you made which is even remotely correct.
The second is laughable at best. Providing a contest is not sufficient at this level and would be several steps backwards for the pies.And that's all he's capable of. Depth in this area is provided by C2, C3, Rusling, Josh (when not in the ruck) and now Bucks. We would have to be absolutely decimated by injury before i would want to see JClo back in the forward line.
The wing!!!!!!!!!. You cannot be serious. With all due respect and I dont want to start flaming fellow Collingwood supporters, that is one of the most ludicrous statements I've seen on this board.
On a postitive note, he should be retained to provide depth and relief for the backline.....but the backline only. If there's no room for him there, then there's no room for him anywhere.
G.O.B said:
So lets say we have a horrid injury riddle season like last year. You wouldnt say that it would be worth putting cloke up forward to create a contest and bring the ball to the deck so that the crumbers can have a crack? sure its not the ideal situation but the guy has a crack puts his body on the line tackles hard and would be worth retaining!
Same goes for the wing i would have him play there if our usually suspects are down and out, he has a crack and he can run out a game a real team player! what more do you want from a fringe player, Bog?
magpies42 said:
You cant determine whether to keep a player or not based on the fear of getting pillaged by injury. You keep him based on whether he can contribute to the team going forward.
If you weren't consumed by anger at my reply (assumption based on your personal jibe at the end of your post) then you would've realised I said he should be retained purely as depth for our backline.
Playing him forward of the centre or on the wing should be out of the question for this sort of player, even allowing for injuries.
To suggest otherwise is ludicrous as he has been tested forward before and fell a long, long way short of what is required.
Where do I start?
Can anyone can give a logical explanation as to why Jason Cloke played on Saturday night?
Firstly he is not even close to our best 22 players, it is well known that the only position he is remotely capable of playing is as a spare defender which very rarely happens these days.
He is definately not a second ruck option especially when you have Guy Richards, C2 and Fanning as back ups.
He is not accountable and this showed in the first 1/4 as his direct opponent Graham had racked up 13 disposals by the 20 minute mark.
He certainly cannot play on the wing and we all know what his capabilitys are as a forward.
We all know he has work extreamly hard over the summer, and how big his heart is, but unfortunately for the kid he is and never will be even close to our best 22 or anyone else's.
Can anyone can give a logical explanation as to why Jason Cloke played on Saturday night?
Firstly he is not even close to our best 22 players, it is well known that the only position he is remotely capable of playing is as a spare defender which very rarely happens these days.
He is definately not a second ruck option especially when you have Guy Richards, C2 and Fanning as back ups.
He is not accountable and this showed in the first 1/4 as his direct opponent Graham had racked up 13 disposals by the 20 minute mark.
He certainly cannot play on the wing and we all know what his capabilitys are as a forward.
We all know he has work extreamly hard over the summer, and how big his heart is, but unfortunately for the kid he is and never will be even close to our best 22 or anyone else's.
He was playing out of position. IMO there was no chance he was going to perform in the Ruck or at CHF. I don't think he has a specific position in the team.
I like Jason, though. He is a goer who tries, tries and tries. I will miss him if he gets off loaded at seasons end.
I like Jason, though. He is a goer who tries, tries and tries. I will miss him if he gets off loaded at seasons end.
I love the way Jason puts in. I thin k he has been very poorly handled. He was crucified during and after the 2003 GF and has been harshly dealt with since. His selection as the opponent for Burton in round 1 after having a very good pre season was sad and annoying. Nevertheless he lacks pace and foot skills and doesn’t have a defined position he can play so IMO his career should end at the end of this season. If someone wants him and we can get something for him then great but I don’t expect to get a cracker for him. Someone may take him in the PSD. He fits St. Kilda’s philosophy and budget so I wouldn’t be surprised to see him take late in the main draft or in the PSD by the Saints. Hammil will be all for that move.
For Jason footy reality is that we have to chop 5 players just to elevate Harry and use our first 4 draft picks. If we want to use round 5 in a reputedly good draft and/or a PSD pick then it’s 6 or 7 that have to go. Go through the names. Unless something very unexpected happens between now and the end of our season, Jason’s will be in the first 5 without doubt.
My name:
Certainties: Hall, J. Cloke, Morrison, Walker
Possibles (or Trades?): Iaccobuci, Fanning, Rowe
After that is gets difficult which is a good thing.
The only thing that can save a few names is if we can get some good trades over the line for a few of the better players on out list that creates the list spots for the new draftees. The likes of O’Bree, Lockyer, a tall forward, Richards, Egan or someone else ranked higher might be a way to get a quality pick or and upgraded pick but you get nothing for nothing (unless you are Sheedy which history says we are a million miles away from).
For Jason footy reality is that we have to chop 5 players just to elevate Harry and use our first 4 draft picks. If we want to use round 5 in a reputedly good draft and/or a PSD pick then it’s 6 or 7 that have to go. Go through the names. Unless something very unexpected happens between now and the end of our season, Jason’s will be in the first 5 without doubt.
My name:
Certainties: Hall, J. Cloke, Morrison, Walker
Possibles (or Trades?): Iaccobuci, Fanning, Rowe
After that is gets difficult which is a good thing.
The only thing that can save a few names is if we can get some good trades over the line for a few of the better players on out list that creates the list spots for the new draftees. The likes of O’Bree, Lockyer, a tall forward, Richards, Egan or someone else ranked higher might be a way to get a quality pick or and upgraded pick but you get nothing for nothing (unless you are Sheedy which history says we are a million miles away from).
MarkT said:
Burns and/or Wakelin may retire which may allow Hall Yakka Rowe and Fanning etc some grace. At this stage I cant see Burns going on although Wakes seems to have plenty left in the tank. Cant see them delisting Fanning - to be fair to a big man, he needs at least two years on the main list. Plus theres always likely to be a trade "out of the blue" like we've seen in the past with Davis Cole and Scotland. So in terms of outright delisting, there may only be one or two players given marching orders - they'd be Morrison and Walker. J Clo is third head on the chopping block.
Maxwell Harry and J Cloke all to play similar roles I guess, and in that list, that is in order of who is most accountable.
J Cloke has to step up and he hasn't. It was good to see him get a game, because he simply earned it. He performs in the seconds and doesn't get a game. When he gets the opportunity, he has to perform. He didn't, and that is what happened this week. He may stay because Harry was (i am pretty sure) playing his last game for now.
I think it is time Jason looks at a new future. At the CFC, it isn't working. I am sure many teams though, may look at him in the PSD. He has experience, aggression and is capable of playing a great game, and consistency can be worked on. I think he has a future, just not at Collingwood.
J Cloke has to step up and he hasn't. It was good to see him get a game, because he simply earned it. He performs in the seconds and doesn't get a game. When he gets the opportunity, he has to perform. He didn't, and that is what happened this week. He may stay because Harry was (i am pretty sure) playing his last game for now.
I think it is time Jason looks at a new future. At the CFC, it isn't working. I am sure many teams though, may look at him in the PSD. He has experience, aggression and is capable of playing a great game, and consistency can be worked on. I think he has a future, just not at Collingwood.
- Thread starter
- #15
bit harsh on yakka, caracella, and even fanning.
yakka is only a 2nd year player. still got every chance to make it.
caracella was good for us last season, and the only reason he hasnt been in the side is cause our forward line has been firing. would be stupid to get rid of him.
fanning is still improving... you'd give him another year or 2 to see how he progresses..
rowe i'd only trade if we get something half decent for him. still hoping he can fight for his place back in the team.
Richards you'd also be stupid to get rid of.
You wanna get rid of fanning and richards, what the f are we gonna do if fraser gets injured?
yakka is only a 2nd year player. still got every chance to make it.
caracella was good for us last season, and the only reason he hasnt been in the side is cause our forward line has been firing. would be stupid to get rid of him.
fanning is still improving... you'd give him another year or 2 to see how he progresses..
rowe i'd only trade if we get something half decent for him. still hoping he can fight for his place back in the team.
Richards you'd also be stupid to get rid of.
You wanna get rid of fanning and richards, what the f are we gonna do if fraser gets injured?
Well for starters richards may get us a draft pick and if he does we should take it.
Fanning is a spud forget about him.
We need to draft a young ruckman preferebly with a high pick.
We got josh at one so we might need to use a high pick again to get another one.
Fanning is a spud forget about him.
We need to draft a young ruckman preferebly with a high pick.
We got josh at one so we might need to use a high pick again to get another one.
Nardz, so who goes then? We have to create 5 to 7 list spots. As for what do we do if Fraser gets injured my suggestion would be play the bloke we recruit who can ruck.
Dunst, I am all for drafting a ruckman but we need a quality one ready to go. We have a small window before Burns, Wakelin and Buckley have retired and Clement, Presti and Licuria are past their best.
Dunst, I am all for drafting a ruckman but we need a quality one ready to go. We have a small window before Burns, Wakelin and Buckley have retired and Clement, Presti and Licuria are past their best.
- Thread starter
- #18
hall,walker, chad, and probably j.cloke.MarkT said:
thats 4.
Expecting at least 1 of burns or wakelin to retire this season.
thats 5-6.
So we get rid of richards and fanning? coming from the person who's been raving on for years about how important the ruck position is, you expect us to be able to have a crack any time in the next 3-4 years with fraser and an 18 year old the only ruckmen on our list?
The way our side has progressed this year i'm hoping to see us have a crack at it in the next few years. We wont be doing that by starting all over again so to speak with our rucks. We need 2 senior rucks, and at least 1 backup.
If burns retires a spot will not open on the list as he is on the veterans list, he's not on the main list.
Trade for a senior ruckmen , use a pick to draft one a good one this time.
Richards is not the answer as he offers nothing around the ground.
Get cam fit and he would be a good second ruckman.
And by the way what makes you think we are gunna have a shot at the big one anytime soon.
We have beaten no good sides atm.
Trade for a senior ruckmen , use a pick to draft one a good one this time.
Richards is not the answer as he offers nothing around the ground.
Get cam fit and he would be a good second ruckman.
And by the way what makes you think we are gunna have a shot at the big one anytime soon.
We have beaten no good sides atm.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Nardz, I wouldn’t get rid of Richards and Fanning. Maybe 1. Maybe both if we got a quality replacement and good prospect in the draft as well.
Dunst, I was right withya until the end there. We have a shot this year and we’ll hopefully have a shot next year, injuries permitting. We had a shot in 2002/3 and we don’t have a supercharged Brisbane to deal with.
Hotpie, Rocca came over about 1998 I think. You have to serve 10 years and be 30 by a cartain date.
Dunst, I was right withya until the end there. We have a shot this year and we’ll hopefully have a shot next year, injuries permitting. We had a shot in 2002/3 and we don’t have a supercharged Brisbane to deal with.
Hotpie, Rocca came over about 1998 I think. You have to serve 10 years and be 30 by a cartain date.
hotpie said:
I think the vets rule is still ten years so rocca has been with us now 10 years.
97-06 so thats ten after this year so he would go on to the vets and presti first year was 96 so thats 11.
So yeah anyone of them would go onto the vets list if burns retires and i dont think he will.
Edit. forgot you have to be 30.
If the retirement of Burns does not create a vacancy on the list because there's no veterans to replace him, does that create an opportunity for Sir Scott to consider playing on in 2007? If he's not taking up any space that could go to somebody younger, why wouldnt he give one final year a crack?
No one is "good enough". That's why we have a chance if we have good luck.Dunst said:
Re Burns - I think he'll play on. I don't expect any retirements at the end of 2006 unless we win a flag in which case Wakelin and Burns would more likely call it quits as well as be eased off the list. I think 1 less vet allows a rookie to play but I could be wrong there.