Would Kyle Cheney make the run on team with the Dees?

It astounds me how Hawthorn rate him. Looking at his current form it was a good move cutting him from our list.

Every time I see him play he's getting pantsed by his opponent.

Every time I see him play he's getting pantsed by his opponent.

That's what I see as well.

ordinary player in a good side. Every team has ordinary players. You can't have 22 champs.

There was an article in the herald sun after round 2, when the author wrote no one but Nathan Jones would get a game at Hawthorn, if Kyle Cheney was getting in, any of our players would have got in.

It's a position thing. He'd never get a game with us because we have a strong and settled backline. The Hawks have a number of injuries in their backline, so they bring him in because for all his flaws he is a tough competitor. He won't get a sniff if they get their injuries under control, but he's having a go while there is a spot up for grabs, so good on him.

I don't think Cheney is playing a bad game at all. got to admire his persistence and willingness to fill in when required and go back to the 2s uncomplaining. Wish others with more talent had such commitment and lack of ego.

I liked him, but wasn't too disappointed when he went as he's a pretty generic player. He isn't better than any of our starting back 6; he's probably a better defender than Terlich, but doesn't offer the same offensive option.

Didn't the pick we got fir him net Tom McDonald?

I don't think Cheney is playing a bad game at all. got to admire his persistence and willingness to fill in when required and go back to the 2s uncomplaining. Wish others with more talent had such commitment and lack of ego.

who says he's not complaining!

who says he's not complaining!

He was interviewed a few weeks ago and said that he was happy to fill in as required and accepted he wasn't in the best 22

I liked him, but wasn't too disappointed when he went as he's a pretty generic player. He isn't better than any of our starting back 6; he's probably a better defender than Terlich, but doesn't offer the same offensive option.

Didn't the pick we got fir him net Tom McDonald?

Yeah, I think it was something like Cheney + 66 (Puopolo) for Tom McDonald (53 or thereabouts).

By the way, did I see that Hawthorn only had 17,900 at the G today??!! Good golly, we get more than that against GWS and we've won about 20 games in the last 7 seasons.

Pedersons better.

Haven't been watching today's game so can't comment, but was very very impressed with Cheney at the start of this year. His run out of defence was really solid and well suited to Hawthorn's game plan. His biggest issue was match ups (I think Clarkson played him on Hawkins one game while Lake and Schoenmakers were still out), but it's hard to fault him for that.

I think it was a win-win. Given our defensive structure, he probably wouldn't fit in too well with our team (maybe an upgrade for Terlich, but would argue they're about par), but gives Hawks good depth.

It's a position thing. He'd never get a game with us because we have a strong and settled backline. The Hawks have a number of injuries in their backline, so they bring him in because for all his flaws he is a tough competitor. He won't get a sniff if they get their injuries under control, but he's having a go while there is a spot up for grabs, so good on him.

I've watched him a bit, out of interest and he's a third man up, punch the ball player at best. I've seen him make some very ordinary skill errors and, unfortunately for him, he's been matched up on some players who are levels ahead of him in skill and ability.

Good on him getting a game but if he's the best they can offer up in the backline they are in trouble.

By the way, did I see that Hawthorn only had 17,900 at the G today??!! Good golly, we get more than that against GWS and we've won about 20 games in the last 7 seasons.

I had the same reaction!

I guess a combination of Sunday twilight, cold, rain, GWS (having lost their last two by 100 each) and Hawthorn fielding the Box Hill side led to no interest. But still, that's shocking.

Edited June 1, 201411 yr by titan_uranus

I had the same reaction!

I guess a combination of Sunday twilight, cold, rain, GWS (having lost their last two by 100 each) and Hawthorn fielding the Box Hill side led to no interest. But still, that's shocking.

We have been complaining about getting 4:40pm sunday twilight games and the media are like " oh its Melbourne what do you expect". Has been going on for years. Bet you won't hear a song and dance about he number today though...

I thought Cheney played well tonight.

He always seems to get a good opponent,but gets plenty of the ball, and has good disposal.

I think GWS would have beaten the Hawks today if Cheney wasn't playing.

BTW , Bennell wasn't the Eagles' worst and Scully wasn't Gws's.(though I wish he was!)

Yeah, I think it was something like Cheney + 66 (Puopolo) for Tom McDonald (53 or thereabouts).

By the way, did I see that Hawthorn only had 17,900 at the G today??!! Good golly, we get more than that against GWS and we've won about 20 games in the last 7 seasons.

Yeah, rubbish weather, but they have a lot of soft supporters. I wonder how those supporters'll go if their form and team dips over the next few years. Hate them as much as Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton.

My girlfriend and I have been together almost 7 and a half years and I've been trying to convert her from Hawthorn to Melbourne the entire time. Not going to happen when you win about 7 games in 7 years. Might have a chance in the next few years though.

I had the same reaction!

I guess a combination of Sunday twilight, cold, rain, GWS (having lost their last two by 100 each) and Hawthorn fielding the Box Hill side led to no interest. But still, that's shocking.

Well, given they have, what, over 50,000 members? It's a deplorable turn around in attendance. I rubbed my hands together when I heard the crowd.

Edited June 1, 201411 yr by AdamFarr