Matt Suckling or Nick Malceski?

[ShaySwannies]

Two beautiful left foot kicks who love to run off the half back flank. So who would you take?

 

[Blood Bath]

Good poll. Voted Suckling because Malkeski's kick isn't as reliable.

 

[Bardo State]

Had very similar 2012s, but went Malceski due to a better defensive game although Suckling was definitely improving in that regard towards the end of the season and is a better kick.

 

[ShaySwannies]

Good poll. Voted Suckling because Malkeski's kick isn't as reliable.

Not sure if anyone's kick is as good as Suckling.

 

[WWSD]

Two beautiful left foot kicks who love to run off the half back flank. So who would you take?

Suckling averaged 20.5 disposals 5 marks and kicked 16.14 for the year, including a four goal haul against Essendon. Talk about a Half Back Flanker who can actually drift forward and kick goals. Nick Malceski is also a good player and was very good during his prime from 2005-2009 and ever since Shaw was traded to the Swans, he is not the link man out of defense anymore like he used to be. Both good players, but at the moment Suckling is now the better footballer.

 

[pacman]

If Suckling can improve his defensive game and be a little more consistent with his kicks he'll be pushing AA.
Unfortunately for Malceski he's had a horror run with his kness, but fortunately for Malceski he kicked the sealer in last years Grand Final and
it will live with him for the rest of his life.

 

[La Vache]

Malceski is comfortably the better footballer right now. Much more reliable and resilient. Suckling made some improvements physically and with his accountability last season but he is still below average in both areas.

Suckling is unquestionably more skilled but footy is about much more than that isn't it? We saw that on Grand Final Day.

 

[Bert Man]

I like Suckling more. He is more reliable and his kick is just so penetrating, reliable and accurate.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Depends on what you want, a better defensive half back or a guy who would school just about everyone in the league with his left boot

Suckling has a much better scope for improvement, Malceski while is pretty reliable never hit his potential with a few bad knee injuries

 

[Wargreymon90]

This thread should include Shannon hurn.

 

[Elite Master]

Suckling is slightly more damaging with his penetration with more scope for improvement, Malceski is the better proven performer but I expect that to change in the future. So based on that I'd take Suckling.

 

[Natho]

Suckling. Just. His kicking skills are amazing.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Suckling. Just. His kicking skills are amazing.

For years Hawthorn fans could not understand why we were persisiting with a guy who only had one trick.
"Sure, he's a great kick...but that not enough to hang onto him, surely?" We'd all muse.

His kicking is elite the majority of the time and it's a very good "one trick" to have, but he does try to be too tricky sometimes, and kick little 15 metre stabs off the side of his boot that come undone.

 

[Donakebab]

Suckling averaged 20.5 disposals 5 marks and kicked 16.14 for the year, including a four goal haul against Essendon. Talk about a Half Back Flanker who can actually drift forward and kick goals. Nick Malceski is also a good player and was very good during his prime from 2005-2009 and ever since Shaw was traded to the Swans, he is not the link man out of defense anymore like he used to be. Both good players, but at the moment Suckling is now the better footballer.

Nothing special, everyone kicked 4 against Essendon.


Suckling for next year, Eski over the journey.

 

[liam_13]

Before the grand final, I would have said Suckling straight away (for current times). Thought he was just that little bit of class above.

But his performance in the GF wasn't just simply poor, it was really weak imo and highlighted his weaknesses more than any of his strengths. So he still has a lot to work on.

Probably even as of right now. Career is Malceski as he has been around a lot longer (+ a premiership and made AA sqaud twice), Suckling has really only had the two good years.

But if I were to pick for the future (if I wanted to be good for the next 5, rather than next 1) I would have to take Suckling as he is 24, while Malceski is 28 and has history of knee injuries.

 

[Ed_Gein]

I voted Malceski. Although i think once both players are finished up Suckling could potentially have had the better career, it's unfortunate Malceski has had problems with his knee, but i still think he is one of the best kicks at our club, although not as good as it was earlier in his career. Suckling is young enough to work on his deficiencies, whilst prior to 2012 i never really rated Malceski a great deal as a one on one defender, but improved significantly in 2012.

 

[forwardflanker]

Op needs to give a context.

If we are talking about who to take in a h&a game in the last quarter when their side is up by 10 goals then Suckling wins every time.

If we are talking about who to take in a close final or any game of importance for that matter then Malceski wins every time.

Both are very good kicks however the key distinction is that one puts his head over the ball and the other doesn't.

 

[pacman]

Op needs to give a context.

If we are talking about who to take in a h&a game in the last quarter when their side is up by 10 goals then Suckling wins every time.

If we are talking about who to take in a close final or any game of importance for that matter then Malceski wins every time.

Both are very good kicks however the key distinction is that one puts his head over the ball and the other doesn't.

What a crock Suckling has to improve his defensive game but you're going to the extreme, if so the same could be said of Dale Thomas.

 

[ShaySwannies]

Op needs to give a context.

If we are talking about who to take in a h&a game in the last quarter when their side is up by 10 goals then Suckling wins every time.

If we are talking about who to take in a close final or any game of importance for that matter then Malceski wins every time.

Both are very good kicks however the key distinction is that one puts his head over the ball and the other doesn't.

Suckling actually took a courageous mark in the GF, running with the flight and Adam Goodes coming straight at him. Granted, he's not the toughest player but he's not soft either.

 

[nicshata]

I voted Suckling purely for his kicking but like others have said Malceski is the better defensive player(and not a bad kick himself)

Both quality players though.

 

[pacman]

Suckling actually took a courageous mark in the GF, running with the flight and Adam Goodes coming straight at him. Granted, he's not the toughest player but he's not soft either.

I agree sometimes when a player is not a natural defender they can look soft (Clinton Young in the goal square in the GF)

 

[forwardflanker]

Sucklings biggest problem is his footpace and it makes him a liability in the higher intensity games, especially since he plays down back. Malceski is a speedster and doesn't have this problem

 

[Ed_Gein]

Malceski lost a bit of pace given the wind resistance against his epic beard. And Malceski has a hotter missus. Hands down.

 

[pacman]

Sucklings biggest problem is his footpace and it makes him a liability in the higher intensity games, especially since he plays down back. Malceski is a speedster and doesn't have this problem

Lots of problems Suckling.

 

[pacman]

Malceski lost a bit of pace given the wind resistance against his epic beard. And Malceski has a hotter missus. Hands down.

Pic please, of his missus of course.