Travis Cloke

[GVGjr]

Re: Travis Cloke

Ben Harrison?

Way to load a gun

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Travis Cloke

Way to load a gun

I've heard for years Harrison was the worst, now it's Jesse White. I'd agree taking out the 2 months of decent footy before being traded.

[GVGjr]

Re: Travis Cloke

If we have everyone fit and firing he may be surplus to our needs, however it's a long season and players may get injured and/or go through prolonged form slumps. It also depends on the type of role we see him playing.

For me, best case scenario is he gets a bit fitter, moves a bit better and leads at the ball carrier, doing his best work from 40m out to the wings. Worst case, he doesn't play much AFL but provides coverage and is a good lead up target for our young VFL blokes to learn to kick at.

If the numbers being touted are correct, $250k doesn't seem like an unreasonable insurance policy.

This is where I think people misjudged things. Recruiting a high profile player withour actually having a spot for him a spot for him will just be a problem.
Perhaps if we think a number of players will be late starters to the season after end of season operations there might be a spot for him but on paper its very questionable that we need him.

[GVGjr]

Re: Travis Cloke

I've heard for years Harrison was the worst, now it's Jesse White. I'd agree taking out the 2 months of decent footy before being traded.

All I'm saying is don't complain if the thread gets taken off track.

[comrade]

Re: Travis Cloke

Cloke could be Bevo's Brian Lake masterstroke move, or could be a bust. I'd prefer to focus elsewhere.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Travis Cloke

This is where I think people misjudged things. Recruiting a high profile player withour actually having a spot for him a spot for him will just be a problem.
Perhaps if we think a number of players will be late starters to the season after end of season operations there might be a spot for him but on paper its very questionable that we need him.

I'm looking at it slightly differently, as I think we need a lead up forward.

Crameri can play that role, Redpath can (but will be out for most of the season) and other than that we don't really have many players who appear to do it well.

I guess we will learn more over the next 2 months.

[GVGjr]

Re: Travis Cloke

I've quoted Rocco from the Michael Hurley thread because I think it's best answered here

For mine it isn't about direct goals but the ability to create a contest. We play a contested style of footy, hammer it in 50 and then fight our way to a goal. Cloke is still quality in a contest.

Up forward, we go with....
- Cloke as big KP forward creating a contest
- Tom Boyd as 2nd ruck/forward
- Crameri and Stringer as the medium types. Crameri will make it easier for everyone
- Dickson as the small forward. His life will be easier with 2 more marking options. McLean there too
- Guys like Bonts and Dahl rotating there

Stringer was a KP player last season and kicked over 50 goals. You have now rated him as a mid sized forward because you might see a spot for Cloke. To me Stringer is big enough and strong enough to be regarded a key forward who can play in other positions as required.
Dickson was a mid sized forward last year who also kicked 50 goals and is now being re-rated as a small forward to squeeze Cloke in
Boyd is a key forward that will alternate in the ruck much like Tippett does for the Swans
Crameri is a good running mid sized forward who can play tall if required and cause match-up problems. He kicked over 30 goals last season.
McLean, Dahlhaus and Bontempelli and other mids like Smith etc will all spend time up forward. Redpath was the filler for a couple of positions and Roughead and Campbell alternating there as ruck match-ups call for.

To me this seems a very good forward line with plenty of options but if I'm completely honest it could only benefit more by adding a versatile tall forward more than a one position player like Cloke.

I'd also ask if you agree that bringing in Cloke means we can't play both Roughead and Campbell in the same side as him and Boyd?

Don't get me wrong, if were were very confident that he could play and be productive in the forward line I'm not too concerned but I haven't read anything yet that convinces me we really need him. The fact that his salary might be subsidized by Collinwood doesn't swing it for me either.

If he is to come in then we really need to make some tough calls on some players.

[Rocket Science]

Re: Travis Cloke

Surely not. Recruiting someone of Cloke's latter day ilk smacks of something we'd have done 5, 10, 20 years ago. And that always went well...

Furthermore, suggest we're much better placed by recruiting a forward who can graft and create. Cloke needs spoon-feeding by a precise, efficient midfield.

Sound like us?

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Travis Cloke

I've quoted Rocco from the Michael Hurley thread because I think it's best answered here



Stringer was a KP player last season and kicked over 50 goals. You have now rated him as a mid sized forward because the can see a spot for Cloke. To me Stringer is big enough and strong enough to be regarded a key forward who can play in other positions as required.
Dickson was a mid sized forward last year who also kicked 50 goals and is now being re-rated as a small forward to squeeze Cloke in
Boyd is a key forward that will alternate in the ruck much like Tippett does for the Swans
Crameri is a good running mid sized forward who can play tall if required and cause match-up problems. He kicked over 30 goals last season.
McLean, Dahlhaus and Bontempelli and other mids like Smith etc will all spend time up forward. Redpath was the filler for a couple of positions and Roughead and Campbell alternating there as ruck match-ups call for.

To me this seems a very good forward line with plenty of options but if I'm completely honest it could only benefit more by adding a versatile tall forward more than a one position player like Cloke.

I'd also ask if you agree that bringing in Cloke means we can't play both Roughead and Campbell in the same side as him and Boyd?

Don't get me wrong, if were were very confident that he could play and be productive in the forward line I'm not too concerned but I haven't read anything yet that convinces me we really need him. The fact that his salary might be subsidized by Collinwood doesn't swing it for me either.

If he is to come in then we really need to make some tough calls on some players.

Great post, and great answers. Which then pose a lot of questions. What has he shown at AFL & VFL this year to suggest he will significantly improve our forward line is the question I come back to. I think his numbers at both levels are pretty similar to Liam Jones, and we wouldn't touch him if Carlton gave him for free. Would he be much different than Aaron Black? GVGjr responded to a post last week of mine and I've been thinking that ideally the second tall forward should be able to ruck. Tom Boyd is a blue chip KPF and if we need a second either Camhead play together leaving Boyd at FF or we look to someone like a David Hale (Hawthorn premiership vintage) or Leigh Brown (Collingwood premiership vintage) second ruck, second forward bits & pieces player. The very good ones won't be coming our way (Rory Lobb to WA is gaining traction) then we have to look at maybe a Ty Vickery and hope that in a better team with a defined role he does it very well and allows other structural gains that help improve the side as a benefit. I'm fairly of the view we need another KPF, and Bevo knows Cloke well enough to give me confidence if he wants him, but I'm still not sold that Cloke is necessarily our guy. I'm open to listening to the arguments for and against, but I need to be persuaded into the for camp.

[1eyedog]

Re: Travis Cloke

So if we don't need a Cloke we didn't necessarily need to renew Redpath's contract then?

I'm ok with Cloke for a year on 250k and the fact that Redpath is out all of next year heats up the topic. That price point and what we give up seem low risk to at least establish whether he can make a contribution.

[GVGjr]

Re: Travis Cloke

So if we don't need a Cloke we didn't necessarily need to renew Redpath's contract then?

I'm ok with Cloke for a year on 250k and the fact that Redpath is out all of next year heats up the topic. That price point and what we give up seem low risk to at least establish whether he can make a contribution.

I don't think that is the right way to look at it. Cloke has been a marquee player for Collingwood and is on the decline in form and on the outer with selection at his club. Redpath has been on one year contracts because he knows he's on the list to fill in as needed and hopefully improve to a point where he becomes a best 22 player.

Whats the incentive for Cloke to come to us if essentially he is just replacing Redpath and behind a couple of players in the selection process? Isn't that the same position as he already has? I don't think you pick a name player like Cloke as insurance if injuries occur

I'd also ask what is the future for both the combo of Roughead and Campbell if Cloke comes into the senior side? Can we really play Roughead and Campbell rotating up forward if Boyd and Cloke are there?

Also the asking price being speculated is a 2nd or 3rd round pick for his services. I don't think we currently have a 3rd round pick this year and a 2nd round pick seems overs to me.

I think many people of okay with the concept of bringing in a player like Cloke but to me that is a very small part of the consideration process.

[Bornadog]

Re: Travis Cloke

Stringer is not a KPP, please don't mention him as one. He has previously been spoken about as being a Forward with stints as a mid, never have heard he is a KPP.

I would prefer a Stanley type who is big and mobile and can ruck and go forward with Boyd our KPF and not rucking. So Cloke is a big no. The game has gone past him.

[Missing Dog]

Re: Travis Cloke

The cost of Cloke is not the $. Its decreased playing time for Toyd, decreased experience for Toyd being KPP and decreased time of our young forward line gelling together.

One of the things we are being told at the moment (and it makes sense) is that our forward line is young and not played together much and needs to gel. I don't think putting Cloke in helps. He plays the same game as Big Tom except Big Tom is able to play ruck and Big Tom needs experience.

A no for me unless Bevo wants him in which case #InBevoWeTrust.

[hujsh]

Re: Travis Cloke

Yeah if Cloke could ruck it might be woth considering but since he can't It's a firm no for me.

[Bulldog4life]

Re: Travis Cloke

I would prefer Vickery than Cloke. He can ruck as well and is a free Agent so won't cost us a draft pick.