Goose is king wrote:No to Suckling? You twat.
You've dug yourself a hole Dave and you can't get out of it.
You keep saying "ask Clarko" in your arguments.
Did you "ask Clarko" if he would take Suckling?
Now Goose, the 'vagina' related thread is over in the AE entitled 'Frankston is improving'.
And there's no hole. I pointed out how the 2012 Dawks lost that GF. (Supply to their outside recievers was largely shut down, so those blokes went missing... now why would supply being shut down cause a bloke who can
supposedly win his own footy to 'go missing'?
)
I haven't (ever) spoken to Clarkson, but it was
obvious that he realised that the whole AFL had just been shown the blueprint to beat the (2012) Dawks. He clearly tweaked the game plan by bringing in blokes who can not just do the pretty boy run and carry unopposed stuff, but can also
win their own footy. So much so, that Suckling is the only pure reciever left. (I've heard many Hawks fans use a harsher term than 'receiver' too, btw.) They got away with carrying on of these, however I still would not ever play him, no any of his ilk.
If you have to rely on mates handing you the footy on a platter, then if those mates are shut down, you 'go missing'. That makes
receivers a massive Achille's Heel to any team! Whereas blokes who don't rely on the success of others to earn a kick, are not greatly affected if those 'others' have a quiet day. And in tough hard pressure cooker games... that is an imperative.
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining that logic clearly enough, but I would have thought it was clear(?) What else can I say, except that for me, no show ponies who can't also stand up when the going gets tough.