Universal Love Charlie ‘Chook’ Constable

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Footy Smarts said:
I think a bit much is being made of his game time. His fitness isn't a strength but I think the main reason he's playing low game time is because he's a midfielder only who isn't in our first choice midfield makeup. He can't really play anywhere else so sits on the bench while a guy like Parfitt goes up forward or Guthrie or O'Connor drift back into defence for a period of time. And if the game is on the line late you want your best midfield group in there and he's clearly behind Selwood, Guthrie, Duncan, O'Connor, Parfitt and Smith as midfielder/wingers. Holmes and Clark also spent lots of time on the bench in the second half because you'll back experienced guys like Duncan, Guthrie and Smith to get the job done over young kids in a game that was really important to win.

I think we can put to bed the idea he's being unfairly maligned by not being picked. Right now he's borderline best 22 and we've got plenty to come back from injury. But he's shown some improvement this year with his decision making and ball use. Fitness and defensive running can be improved over time and he's being picked ahead of Narkle who has some talent so he must be doing something right. My big issue is still that he doesn't seem to have an elite part of his game that will make him stand out. If he wants to have a long AFL career he really needs to be a contested ball and clearance player but his clearance work has only been ok and his contested ball numbers are poor for an inside midfielder this year.

We'll see what happens for the rest of this year. I'm not writing him off yet but I haven't seen enough improvement to guarantee him another year on the list yet. He's been in my "probably won't make it" bucket for a while and he's yet to convince me otherwise.

PS - Can we forget this idea that racking up possessions as a midfielder is some massive talent? O'Connor moves to midfield and racks up touches. Guthrie goes to midfield and racks up touches, etc. Constable's numbers always look better than other kids because he plays as a permanent mid where the others don't. It's not a fair comparison and "the ability to find the footy" must be the most overrated talent in the game.
Click to expand...

tumblr_pe2senMVJd1umxzht_500.gifv
 
Ratcat said:
Yeah like he looked at any moment he might laps into cardiac arrest!
Fairdinkum are you for real?
Learn to read some body language and put your head around that if you can.
Explains why Knights is low in the pecking order or at least should be.
Click to expand...

Good on you Spazz, about time you were on my side, ....seriously though, if they supported his progress he could be something special and totally different than the norm imo.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ratcat said:
You'd know pal.
Click to expand...

Awkward moment when most here know cats_09 isn't a man...

You just need to stop. Accept you're wrong and move on - it's not everyone else, its you. If you can't do that, then go find another group of people to annoy.

The only argument you have is 'he's an AFL footballer, so he must be fit' - that's it. Despite the fact that statistics and data contradict everything you say, and 99% of people, including coaches and previous recruiters, have alluded to his not having a tank, and lack of fitness being the reason he slid from Top 10 in the draft to Pick 36.

It's the reason no club wanted him despite him being available to 17 other clubs during trade period, and why he hasn't cemented his spot in the team. That and his positional inflexibility, has led to him just being so far down the rotations in our midfield order, that he's just not a viable candidate for a spot on our list come the end of this year.

You can either choose to accept that, like most here have (including several like myself who defended him over and over again and called for his inclusion - and who don't have some 'agenda' against him), or you can sit there staunchly defending his shortcomings, for no other reason now than you seemingly being unable to admit that you might have got it wrong.

Seriously, we're all sick of it, and you're just derailing the thread every time you repeat the same old BS. As I said, learn to accept fault, or believe in your own reality - that no-one else lives in. You attack people and call them stupid every time they refute your nonsense, and then claim victimhood when people come right back at you doing the same thing.

It's just sad mate. Grow up.

Back on ignore you go.
 
Ratcat said:
Good on you Spazz, about time you were on my side, ....seriously though, if they supported his progress he could be something special and totally different than the norm imo.
Click to expand...
Yes I’m sure that the club has a personal problem with the kid and are doing everything they can to not develop him
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting that Narkle had very low TOG. Probably explained by the half he played in the reserves on Saturday but interesting nonetheless.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

To small inside... and all over that forwardline, looked small and weak against bigger stronger opposition.
We were simply owned by Melbourne
Defense tried hard as usual.
But if Melbourne were any good they would've beaten us by 10goals.
Peteacca destroyed our little midfield and where was Charlie, watching on like us all and what a disaster it was.
How many times did our small midfielders fumble under pressure, l lost count.
 
Last edited:
Ratcat said:
To small inside... and all over that forwardline, looked small and weak against bigger stronger opposition.
We were simply owned by Melbourne
Defense tried hard as usual.
But if Melbourne were any good they would've beaten us by 10goals.
Peteacca destroyed our little midfield and where was Charlie, watching on like us all and what a disaster it was.
How many times did our small midfielders fumble under pressure, l lost count.
Click to expand...
I don’t rate melbourne after seeing that. We were awful, but if we didn’t screw up a few potential goals we could have been right in it. Doesn’t say much for them after they played out of their skins and barely won. They haven’t beaten anyone you would call good, or in good form, as of yet. A hot team will knock them off no problem.
 
Down at K Park said:
I don’t rate melbourne after seeing that. We were awful, but if we didn’t screw up a few potential goals we could have been right in it. Doesn’t say much for them after they played out of their skins and barely won. They haven’t beaten anyone you would call good, or in good form, as of yet. A hot team will knock them off no problem.
Click to expand...

True mate, but what do we do, we were just to small. And not good enough either.
Scott has to change his small forward and midfield mentality.
We can't kick goals we won't win games it's pretty simple.
We need a fresh look.
 
Ratcat said:
To small inside... and all over that forwardline, looked small and weak against bigger stronger opposition.
We were simply owned by Melbourne
Defense tried hard as usual.
But if Melbourne were any good they would've beaten us by 10goals.
Peteacca destroyed our little midfield and where was Charlie, watching on like us all and what a disaster it was.
How many times did our small midfielders fumble under pressure, l lost count.
Click to expand...
Lol thinking that chook would had made any difference ...we would had been in a worse spot carrying him for 2 qtrs on the bench
 
Down at K Park said:
I don’t rate melbourne after seeing that. We were awful, but if we didn’t screw up a few potential goals we could have been right in it. Doesn’t say much for them after they played out of their skins and barely won. They haven’t beaten anyone you would call good, or in good form, as of yet. A hot team will knock them off no problem.
Click to expand...
I didn't take away that it was a close game at all. We were done just about everywhere
 
Ratcat said:
To small inside... and all over that forwardline, looked small and weak against bigger stronger opposition.
We were simply owned by Melbourne
Defense tried hard as usual.
But if Melbourne were any good they would've beaten us by 10goals.
Peteacca destroyed our little midfield and where was Charlie, watching on like us all and what a disaster it was.
How many times did our small midfielders fumble under pressure, l lost count.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure at all how Chook changes the equation. He would help us match with their midfield a bit for a quarter and let us get opened up defensively for 3. Pass
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top