Leave the comments/debate for the other thread. Let's see what the fans say in a poll.

Should we make a play for him? Simple YES or simple NO.

And I will make a comment if I chose to- and I do.

When thinking about a player coming to the club, don't think of it only in terms of what he brings with his play- think of it in terms of what he brings team balance.

Cloke in the forward line doesn't necesarilly mean 2 big gorilla forwards- it means we can shuffle Clark around a bit and he can be a second ruckman resting forward- or worst case Jamar goes down and we don't lose anything.

Cloke adds contested marking in spades and insurance. He allows the forward line to walk taller. He is the best player available right now, and as they say, you go the best.

And I will make a comment if I chose to- and I do.

I'm betting you were the type of 6yo who wouldn't go to bed when you were told to.

I was.

I was also the type of 6yo who liked to exercise my right to free speech on public internet forums..

I was.

I was also the type of 6yo who liked to exercise my right to free speech on public internet forums..

You're lucky, when I was a 6y.o., the only forum I could exercise any right on was the Roman forum.

I was.

I was also the type of 6yo who liked to exercise my right to free speech on public internet forums..

And ten years later you still haven't changed!

You're lucky, when I was a 6y.o., the only forum I could exercise any right on was the Roman forum.

Ha ! The only forum I knew about was the Forum cinema . Now a Theatre .

Ha ! The only forum I knew about was the Forum cinema . Now a Theatre .

Was that the old cinerama on Collins Street almost opposite the Atheneum?

Was that the old cinerama on Collins Street almost opposite the Atheneum?

Flinders st , cnr of Russell . From memory they would often show movies based on the 'Roman' times . Sorta like 'Epic Theatre' at the Cinema !

Edited June 9, 201213 yr by Macca

We have enough talls. We need quality mids. You could put Lance Franklin in our forward line at the moment and it would barely make a difference. The ball has to get down there enough first, and it needs to get down there with decent delivery coming in. The midfield is what we need to address.

People saying they want Mids, very few of the mids on offer would be worth it imo, Goddard, Mitchell ect wont come as they can win a premiership.

If Cloke is available we have the cash so sign him, we will get 3 top 12 mids this draft, and maybe even a mature age Magner type WIN

Edited June 9, 201213 yr by Jordie_tackles

We have enough talls. We need quality mids. You could put Lance Franklin in our forward line at the moment and it would barely make a difference. The ball has to get down there enough first, and it needs to get down there with decent delivery coming in. The midfield is what we need to address.

We need to address both.

This is an interesting poll - currently 25 each !

Where will the late votes go ? To the Conservatives ? Or the 'It's Time' people ?

Could it be a stalemate ? Will we need to go to the Polls again ?

Sorry haven't we just paid a shitload for a big forward until 2014 and resigned a ruckman, shesus

Freo were offering him 1 mil a year and its been reported that they upped that offer. If he leaves Collingwood it is for money. There is no way in hell i want us paying that money for Cloke. Knowing my membership money would be paying for that would make me cry.

Freo were offering him 1 mil a year and its been reported that they upped that offer. If he leaves Collingwood it is for money. There is no way in hell i want us paying that money for Cloke. Knowing my membership money would be paying for that would make me cry.

If he leaves it might be for money but not wanting to leave Vic.

But I'm really unsure. Great target to have. Will make the other forwards freer and more dangerous, but it's a lot of money and I don't see it as our biggest problem. I'll back the club whichever way it goes as Neeld has a plan in mind and we need to give him the freedom to make it work.

A hell of a lot of money for a forward not called Buddy though.

I'm in two minds on Cloke, and I keep going back and forth on whether or not I want him. He would free up Clark for other roles and would add a gorilla presence to the FF position that we have lacked for so long. He would make us have the scariest forward line in the competition, but what use is that if the ball isn't going down there? We need to get some gun midfielders to justify his acquisition, and I think that a healthy Gys, Viney and some good picks in the draft could make this happen. So at the moment, I'm voting that yes, we should make a play for him, but I don't promise that my opinion will not have changed the next time I'm asked.

Quite amazing poll result so far. Genuine 50/50.

I voted no, purley because I think money would be spent more wisely on a mid. If not this year then next, who is out of contract in 2013?

No.....people seem to be forgetting the most important factor here....HE IS A CLOKE.....that alone should be enough to turn people away from even thinking of signing him....

LOL you're up against it when some people on here couldn't even understand why we needed Mitch Clark

loved the banter on commentary

Still not able to yes or no

He may be valuable

but may stop development of Howe who I see as Leaping full forward with plenty of ability to lead and Cook who gets good reviews from Casey

Clarke can then play regular CHF and mark lead make space and bring others into the game He has said he doesnt care if forward or ruck but prefers to play one only not both I think he has shown he can be a great addition to our structure

Also nervous about $ relativity. If we pay "overs" the rest of thge squad may say bugger it and not kick it to him, he may think he has had enough success and only has to do the minim,um now Contract must be performance based and

I too think hes CLOKE FGS

YES/ no /YEs /NO Yes /NO yes/NO NO/No NO NO NO

I think thats it NO

YES/ no /YEs /NO Yes /NO yes/NO NO/No NO NO NO

I think thats it NO

YES?

Mids are easier to attract from other clubs and are MUCH quicker to develop.

If we got Cloke, we'd have our talls SET and locked away for the next 10 years.

Tall forwards: Cloke & Clarke as the main 2 targets. Cook developing. Jamar/Martin/Gawn as tall targets when we need to stretch the defence.

Tall Defenders: Frawley, Garland and Rivers. Tom McDonald, Davis and Sheehan developing.

This gives the likes of Watts the flexibility to develop into a utility- forward, midfield and defence. No more pressure on Watts needing to become a bulky pack-busting KPF, when we all know he isn't that naturally and that role doesn't play to his strengths.

Once we've got the talls in order, we can focus on midfielders, which is easier because midfielders develop much quicker rate.

People need to remember we've still got Gysberts, Taggert and Viney to come in to the current midfield rotation. And Trengove and Blease clearly have a lot of upside and haven't even come close to reaching their potential.

loved the banter on commentary

Still not able to yes or no

He may be valuable

but may stop development of Howe who I see as Leaping full forward with plenty of ability to lead and Cook who gets good reviews from Casey

Cook and Howe are seasons away from being able to hold down a key post at AFL level, if ever. Howe is more of a playmaker who can take a good leap and Cook? Who knows?

Clarke can then play regular CHF and mark lead make space and bring others into the game He has said he doesnt care if forward or ruck but prefers to play one only not both I think he has shown he can be a great addition to our structure

He's great for the structure but can't do it on his own.

Also nervous about $ relativity. If we pay "overs" the rest of thge squad may say bugger it and not kick it to him, he may think he has had enough success and only has to do the minim,um now Contract must be performance based and

Melbourne supporters are congenitally 'nervous' nellies. We've got to try and shed that mindset.

I too think hes CLOKE FGS

YES/ no /YEs /NO Yes /NO yes/NO NO/No NO NO NO

I think thats it NO