Cook

[shawthing09]

thats part of the problem at the moment, this intense focus on the opposition, lets be ultra worried about what they're gonna do all the time? lets back our talent to some degree

we have under utilised attacking weapons at the club, lets focus on the strengths of cox and egan, especially cox, his strengths are compelling, yet all you are interested in is negatives, yes he is loose, but geez he is beautiful in traffic, lets try and exploit that strength

we need to stop thinking why not?

If he were fit enough to play midfield I'd almost agree with you, but he is not and hence he has to play as either a foward or a defender and he is not good enough for either. He looks to good for VFL level and he probably is, but at AFL you can't be that soft unless your playing as a loose man, and if your only position is the loose man in defence you get found out, it has happened time and time again to almost every player that can only play loose man in defence.

He can't run out a game in the midfield so it is a rather moot point but, you can't afford to have a midfielder who is blatanly going to loose 50/50 contests because they are not willing to put their body on the line. The fact is it doesn't matter how good you are at what you do well if your going to let down the side equally bad in other areas.

Who should either or Cox come into the side for???? and how would that affect team balance.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Was bottom age when drafted so probably deserves another year but would need to develop further. Shows glimpses at the moment but not enough for me to label him a definite.

If he turned out a Daniel Cross type player I think all concerned would be fairly happy!

He was drafted bottom-aged; but back in 2005. Since then, we've picked up John McCarthy bottom-aged in 2007 who has probably shown more ability at two years younger.

Make a case for him by all means, but the fact he was bottom-aged when drafted is now pretty much a moot point.

 

[Dave The Man]

He was drafted bottom-aged; but back in 2005. Since then, we've picked up John McCarthy bottom-aged in 2007 who has probably shown more ability at two years younger.

Make a case for him by all means, but the fact he was bottom-aged when drafted is now pretty much a moot point.

Spot on Next Year will be the Year to decide if he stays or goes,

Unless he goes this year

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Spot on Next Year will be the Year to decide if he stays or goes,

Unless he goes this year

Champagne Comedy!

 

[nihh]

Anyone watch the interview with him on the offical collingwood web site?

He certainly has tickets on himself, which is surprising considering he hasn't done that much at AFL level.

Cook needs to address a couple of things if he is going to make it.

1. As has been mentioned on here a couple of times, he needs to look for an option rather than just kick blindly. If he can keep an eye up field as he running towards the ball he will have a better idea of where the targets are. He seems to have reasonable penetration on the kick and his technique seems adequate so if he is able to adapt to the pace he could overcome this.

2. He sometimes gains possessions and feeds it back to a player in a worse position probably because he isn't sure if someone is on his hammer. It kind of comes across to me as 'Here's the pill it's your problem now'. Perhaps Cookie only sees the obvious option and fails to see the low percentage option, at AFL level you can't afford to be predictable you have to mix it up. In short Cooky aint got much X-factor.

I think he has addressed the hardness issue well, a couple of times the last few weeks he has hit the ball hard and got his hands on it. Needs to keep his composure and feed it out now that he realises he can do it.

Could go either way with him, he may remain an ugly duckling or he could turn into another Swan.

 

[Godfrey Jones]

Spot on Next Year will be the Year to decide if he stays or goes,

Unless he goes this year

good point. i reckon we should wait until he reaches 40 or 50 games though. whichever comes first.

 

[Godfrey Jones]

Could go either way with him, he may remain an ugly duckling or he could turn into another Swan.

hehehe love this quote. especially since i keep saying he looks like a young dane swan

the only thing i didnt like about his interview is the nicknames used. senior whip?

 

[well left]

He was drafted bottom-aged; but back in 2005. Since then, we've picked up John McCarthy bottom-aged in 2007 who has probably shown more ability at two years younger.

Make a case for him by all means, but the fact he was bottom-aged when drafted is now pretty much a moot point.

Fair point although I was using the bottom age reference in relation to other players that will be on the edge such as Iles and Egan. I probably should have made that clearer.

Either way, given he is getting games ahead of Iles, Egan, Johnson, Lonie at the moment I think he will keep his spot next year but as stated previously he will need to step up to continue on after that.

 

[Lestat]

We should not be delisting Egan. He is still young, has good hands and lets face it, many players with less going for them then he have been given far more chances.

Maybe we should shop him around, but delisting first round picks isn't good for list management, and if we can't get anything for him, I would give him another season at least.

Lets not forget he is still young, quite skinny, and to say he is not the most courageous player is putting mildly. But he has all the characteristics to be a very good player, good hands, good disposal (albeit poor decision making) and good pace. Perhaps his commitment is questionable, but with age that will get better, and with a bit of experience and confidence, he could be anything.

Remember Dane Swan didn't do much until a couple of seasons ago. I think that we all expect far to much from our youngsters these days. Some players pick up the pace quicker then others. Some handle the physicality better then others.

Egan suffers from this aspect of the game. Lets face it, at the moment, when in the seniors he plays scared...like a kid playing against men. Give him sometime to get used to the physicality, and I have no doubt he still can be a very good player for us. Not saying he will be...but to delist him now could potentially come back to bite us.

Trade him...yes, delist him..no.

 

[shawthing09]

We should not be delisting Egan. He is still young, has good hands and lets face it, many players with less going for them then he have been given far more chances.

Maybe we should shop him around, but delisting first round picks isn't good for list management, and if we can't get anything for him, I would give him another season at least.

Lets not forget he is still young, quite skinny, and to say he is not the most courageous player is putting mildly. But he has all the characteristics to be a very good player, good hands, good disposal (albeit poor decision making) and good pace. Perhaps his commitment is questionable, but with age that will get better, and with a bit of experience and confidence, he could be anything.

Remember Dane Swan didn't do much until a couple of seasons ago. I think that we all expect far to much from our youngsters these days. Some players pick up the pace quicker then others. Some handle the physicality better then others.

Egan suffers from this aspect of the game. Lets face it, at the moment, when in the seniors he plays scared...like a kid playing against men. Give him sometime to get used to the physicality, and I have no doubt he still can be a very good player for us. Not saying he will be...but to delist him now could potentially come back to bite us.

Trade him...yes, delist him..no.

I think the Swan point is an interesting one, because if it wasn't for Swan I could see the value in really giving every oppertunity to Cook. But the fact is even if Cook was to make it he would be a very very very similar player to Swan. Now don't get me wrong Swan is a star but he has a couple of things over Cook, in his strength overhead and I dare say he is a bit quicker.

I don't know whether they can fit in the same midfield, we do need all the hardness we can get, but with a preference for guys who can win it, as well as use it well. McCarthy has already shown to be a better user of the football and more composed IMO. Stanley is probably the best kick in our VFL team, with the exception being Cox. The only value I really see in Cooky is that he has the endurance to make it as a tagger.

 

[Lestat]

I think the Swan point is an interesting one, because if it wasn't for Swan I could see the value in really giving every oppertunity to Cook. But the fact is even if Cook was to make it he would be a very very very similar player to Swan. Now don't get me wrong Swan is a star but he has a couple of things over Cook, in his strength overhead and I dare say he is a bit quicker.

I don't know whether they can fit in the same midfield, we do need all the hardness we can get, but with a preference for guys who can win it, as well as use it well. McCarthy has already shown to be a better user of the football and more composed IMO. Stanley is probably the best kick in our VFL team, with the exception being Cox. The only value I really see in Cooky is that he has the endurance to make it as a tagger.

If he gets even close to Swan I would be absolutely rapt.

I still think Cook showed a bit on Friday night. Could definately be a handy run with/tagger who can get the ball himself. Will only get better with time, and worst case scenario would be a good depth player.

 

[well left]

We should not be delisting Egan. He is still young, has good hands and lets face it, many players with less going for them then he have been given far more chances.

Maybe we should shop him around, but delisting first round picks isn't good for list management, and if we can't get anything for him, I would give him another season at least.

Lets not forget he is still young, quite skinny, and to say he is not the most courageous player is putting mildly. But he has all the characteristics to be a very good player, good hands, good disposal (albeit poor decision making) and good pace. Perhaps his commitment is questionable, but with age that will get better, and with a bit of experience and confidence, he could be anything.

Remember Dane Swan didn't do much until a couple of seasons ago. I think that we all expect far to much from our youngsters these days. Some players pick up the pace quicker then others. Some handle the physicality better then others.

Egan suffers from this aspect of the game. Lets face it, at the moment, when in the seniors he plays scared...like a kid playing against men. Give him sometime to get used to the physicality, and I have no doubt he still can be a very good player for us. Not saying he will be...but to delist him now could potentially come back to bite us.

Trade him...yes, delist him..no.

I have to disagree with keeping him on just because delisting 1st round draft picks is not good for list management. Sometimes you have to admit you got it wrong and he would not be the first 1st round draft pick to be delisted.

Keeping someone on for that reason would be bad for list morale in my opinion. I am a believer that once they walk through the door, they are a player and not a draft pick.

 

[Bonuspoints]

One thing I think this guy has struggled with is that he gets one or two games and then he's out for awhile. I'd would have liked to see MM persist with some of these guys for at least three games to let them get a real good taste and an opportunity to find their feet. Hopefully he gets the rest of the season to prove himself and show us that he can be a top player - doesn't have to be a superstar just a good team contributer.

 

[Paddywhackers]

The best thing about Cook and Stanley is that there isn't enoguh of an embarrasment of riches to let them go. Yep, this is a good thing, because although we have kids who are further developed, there are a few players who will be gone at seasons end as they won't make it or are now useless.

Wakelin is certain to retire Lonie and Egan will be delisted. That is of the top of my head. There probably are a few more guys that will be gone. Presti could hang up the boots you would think.

It would be good if they played Stanley though. I think if he can come good than he would be the player we need in the guts.

 

[Godfrey Jones]

played a pretty good game did cookie

 

[OniAu]

played a pretty good game did cookie

agree , its all there . goes in hard and runs all day, his skills arent that bad. i think its confidence that he lacks, or thats the feeling i get from watching him.

 

[jonesy86]

Good game tonight, nullified the influence of Kennelly after he got off to a good start. I'd expect him to go to Palmer next week.

 

[Dave The Man]

Agreed Nothing Great but Did his Job

 

[HFF]

Whilst many think he will be a servicebale player at best or won't make it at all, I genuinely believe this kid will become a very good player for our club.

We all know he has the physical attributes. Running ability and pace cannot be questioned, however, his hardness at the contest for such a young player is what has impressed me. Lets face it, he isn't overly built but he throws himself in at will and what really summed it up for me was in the last qtr on the wing, he broke a tackle, cut inside and then decided to even ride a bump before disposing of the footy.

He played a terrific role tonight on Kennelly and moved well across half-forward. A highlight that stood out for me was his break-away run on the wing to deliver lace out to the advantage of Cloke who goalled in the 3rd.

The more game time we get into this kid, the better. He will become something and Hine will be vindicated for taking a bottom-aged youngster at a pretty high selection (23).


Also, off topic but just wanted to throw in that when up and firing, Nick Maxwell is easily in our best 18. Clearly he was down on form for most of the year but his last 4-6 weeks have been on par to what we saw last season. When he plays well, the defence as a unit is usually rock solid and confident.