Kyle Cheney is a Hawk - Welcome Son!

[ventor1]

His strengths. Great overhead. Plays taller then he is. Solid skills. Reads it beautifully. Tough as.

But he doesn't play tight enough for mine. Wonderful third zoning defender because he can read it well but can lose his man when asked to play tight. Not overly quick but being super slow is over exaggerated.

Sounds like a good pick up to me, and in retrospect a likely apprentice to fill the void left by Browny's departure.

Welcome to the Brown & Gold 'Ginger Ninja'!

 

[Tasmaniac]

Welcome to the Brown & Gold Kyle Cheney.

 

[LuvMyHawks]

If Cheney is a genuine stopper who is hard at it is he a challenger for Tom Murphy's role? I can't see who else he might replace - and I don't see it as likely that he would force Smurphy out.

Worst case - we have a hard nut as a depth player I guess.

Brant,

Did we drop Murphy for Brown the last few years? Of course not, Cheney just replaces Brown..
Certainly Tom does not deserve to be dropped, he has been improving by the week this year. He deserves his spot..

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Brant,

Did we drop Murphy for Brown the last few years? Of course not, Cheney just replaces Brown..
Certainly Tom does not deserve to be dropped, he has been improving by the week this year. He deserves his spot..

Brown spent plenty of time up forward. I wonder if Cheney will be doing that?

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Brown spent plent
y of time up forward. I wonder if Cheney will be doing that?

They may well try him there LP..who knows what they will do with him..
Could he become a crumber? I don't know.. I guess only time will tell!

 

[Great 2008]

I also had him in my Dreamteam a few years back and he had a few great games. He was tough and hard and knew how to find the pill. For some reason he struggled to get consistent games game from this point. Best of luck Kyle.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Quote from Matt Burgan's 2007 phantom draft.

66 – MELBOURNE – KYLE CHENEY

North Ballarat Rebels, VIC, Medium defender, August 25 1989, 184.6cm, 86.2kg

Cheney looms as a fascinating player in this draft. There has been some speculation he could be taken as early as No.33 by Port Adelaide and he has also been linked with West Coast, but the Eagles are out of the meeting by pick No.22. Melbourne looms as Cheney's most likely destination with one of its later choices. It may opt to select him at No.53, but otherwise it should be able to claim him here. Cheney is rated by some recruiters as one of the top prospects to have come through the state-based screenings this year.

Bio: Skilful medium defender who had an injury-interrupted start to the 2007 season before finishing off the year in great fashion.

 

[Hannabal]

Re: Who is Kyle Cheney

Positives: Courageous, Hard at it, Very good mark for size, Coachable, Dominates VFL.

Negatives: Kicking (despite being a left footer), Atheleticism - just doesn't seem to be nippy enough for the smalls and obviously isn't a tall. Smalls seems to lose him at AFL level and so he's better up the ground, but then he has to kick it more and thats not great.

If he's in the contest so to speak he'll do a good job for you in winning the ball. He provides something different to your more outside defenders and he's probably no worse than Murphy.

There's so much fail in this thread and none more evident than a Melb supporter calling him a "left footer". He's not.

Some Hawthorn supporters get quite excited at a prospect they haven't seen, while the more discerning wonder why Melb gave up a contracted player for a pick that they may not use.

Cheney is too good for the VFL, but too limited in the AFL. Tough, good mark, but a little slow, not great on nimble smalls, not creative, and too small for third tall forwards. There's nothing wrong with his kicking despite reading on this thread that he "can't kick". Any errant kicks would be more a result of poor decision making.

I'm glad Melb have given him an opportunity elsewhere. Melb didn't try to "win" a trade here, but simply help a player that wasn't in their plans. Cheney knew that he had a limited future, hence a desire to be traded if any interest loomed.

 

[beau river]

Re: Latest - Hawthorn interested in Kyle Cheney

EDIT: Have you ever had a good ninger?

Who was that Taswegian blood-nut....Young?

I thought he was going to be a gun, but only lasted a few seasons.

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Re: Latest - Hawthorn interested in Kyle Cheney

For anyone who is interested there is another article in the Wimmera Mail Times about Kyle; It's good to know that he knows Clinton Young...

http://www.mailtimes.com.au/news/lo...s/cheney-on-the-move-to-hawthorn/1967351.aspx

 

[IBleedBrownNGold]

Re: Latest - Hawthorn interested in Kyle Cheney

For anyone who is interested there is another article in the Wimmera Mail Times about Kyle; It's good to know that he knows Clinton Young...

http://www.mailtimes.com.au/news/lo...s/cheney-on-the-move-to-hawthorn/1967351.aspx

Cheers LMH! Is his manager the same Alex McDonald that played for us?

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Re: Latest - Hawthorn interested in Kyle Cheney

Cheers LMH! Is his manager the same Alex McDonald that played for us?

Yes, he sure is..

There was also another article in the paper on the 4th Oct for those who missed my earlier posting;


http://www.mailtimes.com.au/news/lo.../cheney-rewarded-for-consistency/1958708.aspx

 

[dermott]

Re: Latest - Hawthorn interested in Kyle Cheney

I have just returned from a couple of days fishing and am trying to catch up on reactions to trade week. With regard to Cheney, I have stated previously that I know nothing of him and have never seen him play but in retrospect, with Brown's departure, I can see why a player of his type was recruited . The other interesting snippet (if true) was that Pelchen enquired about him last year. Finally, after delistings, we may not be as flush with medium defenders as we appear to be as everyone seems to assume Morton Muston and Suckling may be on the list to be culled (probably some not all).
Good luck Kyle.

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Re: Latest - Hawthorn interested in Kyle Cheney

I have just returned from a couple of days fishing and am trying to catch up on reactions to trade week. With regard to Cheney, I have stated previously that I know nothing of him and have never seen him play but in retrospect, with Brown's departure, I can see why a player of his type was recruited . The other interesting snippet (if true) was that Pelchen enquired about him last year. Finally, after delistings, we may not be as flush with medium defenders as we appear to be as everyone seems to assume Morton Muston and Suckling may be on the list to be culled (probably some not all).
Good luck Kyle.[/quote


It certainly is true, it is in the article I posted, from the Wimmera Mail Times..Alex McDonald definitely stated he was enquired about last year..

 

[Arkadia]

There's a name from the past -Alex Macdonald. Jeansy picked him up as our number one draft pick '86 or '87??? . I think we moved him on to the pies..????

 

[LuvMyHawks]

There's a name from the past -Alex Macdonald. Jeansy picked him up as our number one draft pick '86 or '87??? . I think we moved him on to the pies..????

I remember him well !He played 46 games for us between 1990-95 and 61 for Collingwood from 1996-99..

 

[Knights 24]

FFS Get a hand off it people. At pick 54 he is better than nothing. BTW did we need a ceratin Stephen Gilham who could not get a game at Port. So for those that say because he can't get a game at Melbourne i will say he didn't have opportunities at Melbourne.

Is this not what Sydney does...takes fringe players from other clubs and gives them a chance.

So we all wanted a superstar at pick 54 boo hoo it doesn't happen that often..all picks at this range are speculative at best.

I think most people expected the "mystery defender" to be a tall.

I don't think anyone has a problem with Cheney and we'd hope he goes on to be a great player.

Agree, 54 definitely speculative but was hoping / expecting we'd speculate on a KPD.

 

[grizzlym]

I think most people expected the "mystery defender" to be a tall.

I don't think anyone has a problem with Cheney and we'd hope he goes on to be a great player.

Agree, 54 definitely speculative but was hoping / expecting we'd speculate on a KPD.

The club's been quite adamant that we don't need a gorilla back. Well, perhaps not publicly. They've obviously identified something in Cheney, and followed him this year, so it'll be interesting to see if we can develop him.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

The club's been quite adamant that we don't need a gorilla back. Well, perhaps not publicly. They've obviously identified something in Cheney, and followed him this year, so it'll be interesting to see if we can develop him.

Is it just me or does Cheney seem like a Benny Mac replacement more so than a C Brown replacement?

 

[grizzlym]

Is it just me or does Cheney seem like a Benny Mac replacement more so than a C Brown replacement?

Mmmm he is the mystery defender after all!

 

[Brant]

The club's been quite adamant that we don't need a gorilla back. Well, perhaps not publicly. They've obviously identified something in Cheney, and followed him this year, so it'll be interesting to see if we can develop him.

If this is the case then we have to stop sending 3 defenders to assist Gilham every time the ball is in the air. Doing this has killed our structure & game plan & still leaks just as many goals; but instead of the major forward kicking 4-5, they get spread around and 2 or 3 opponents kick 2-3 each... Check our 2nd Geelong game where Stokes of all people made us pay with 4, despite the 'big' Geelong forwards being well held.

I don't mind if we don't get our Gorilla - just don't then borrow from Peter (being our Rebound Defenders) to pay Paul (Gilham when playing on bigger guys).

I say we let Gilham go 1-out against his opponent and keep Gibbo, Stratton & whoever else doing their role; that being part defence / part offence (rebound).

This way we cover the crumming Forwards instead of just the tall ones; we still have our rebound capacity; our mids stay in the middle; and, our forwards play up forward.

As plenty have mentioned, we played and won a few games in 2008 (including 3/4 in late September!) without Croad. He was good but not essential. If we have rebound & structure then I have no doubt our Forwards / Mids will provide the pressure on the ball carrier which will make the game that much easier for our Defenders.