Matt Suckling

[Fat Tony 5,228]

Matt Suckling (born 25/7/88) is a free agent this year and would add some outside run and skill. Obviously we would need to make him a decent contract offer to lure him away from Hawthorn. Moreover, we wouldn’t go after Suckling unless we signed Colin Garland because we would lose any compensation.

As much as Suckling isn’t a big fish, he could add some much needed class and we could still continue to build for the future through the draft. This idea also assumes we don’t get Paddy Dangerfield.

[dazzledavey36 54,861]

My honest opinion is i would put him in the same boat as Malceski, Lumumba, Byrnes boat. These players are made to look good with a strong team around them but struggle big time when reality kicks in and they are in a bottom 8 team because their teammates around them aren't as good.

So in other words... NO

[Moonshadow 17,676]

I have a stack of Hawthorn supporting mates who would be more than happy for us to take him and get FA compo in return. Not enough strings to his bow.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Cant really see him fitting into our back six for the simple fact that defensively, he's pretty poor.

At the Hawks, he looks a million bucks. He's got such a strong group around him both through the midfield and down back that he's rarely caught out and has the freedom and luxury of zoning off more often and running offensively more often than he would in our side. Lumumba found that out this year for us and next year I'm really hoping we can see more from him. He was surprisingly solid defensively, but his run wasn't there and skills have always been hit and miss.

I know I've made a case for us getting Yarran, which you'd think would contradict what I'm saying in regard to suckling. But if we were to get Yarran, I'd stick him on a wing and would want Vince playing HBF. I think we might see him there next year.

Suckling doesn't provide much other than his lethal left-foot. He's not versatile as a player and is more of the a cherry-on-top kind of player for a team who don't have many weak links.

Would still love a really elite user of the ball and a player who can provide run as part of our deep back three. McKenzie from GC I'd love in a BP, but I can't see it happening.

Garland, Jetta and Dunn are all poor runners and none of them are elite users. Dunn and Garland in particular being two who can really butcher the ball and make terrible decisions.

Edited September 20, 2015 by stevethemanjordan

[Fat Tony 5,228]

I agree with all the assessments above of Suckling as a player. He is an ordinary contested ball player and gets the ball fed to him. But I still think other posters are undervaluing the fact that he is a free agent.

Personally I think Suckling plus one of Charlie Curnow/Darcy Parish/Aaron Francis/Harley Balic is better than a lot of the options being put forward because we keep #6.

[poita 3,902]

I rate Suckling below Lumumba, and I definitely don't rate Lumumba. Suckling is a soft, unaccountable receiver who looks good with ball in hand because he has smart players feeding him the ball in good positions.

In a poor side, every player needs to be able to defend his man, and Suckling can't do that.

[KingDingAling 3,757]

Overrated. I wouldn't take Suckling if he paid us to.

[dee-luded 2,959]

My honest opinion is i would put him in the same boat as Malceski, Lumumba, Byrnes boat. These players are made to look good with a strong team around them but struggle big time when reality kicks in and they are in a bottom 8 team because their teammates around them aren't as good.

So in other words... NO

IMO for us to shed the soft as butter skin, & to change our ways & brand of playing here at the Dees, to lose the fuscia's yet again, & become demons once again, we have to avoid recruiting the soft types.

Its a big NO from me.

[Middymalt 244]

IMO for us to shed the soft as butter skin, & to change our ways & brand of playing here at the Dees, to lose the fuscia's yet again, & become demons once again, we have to avoid recruiting the soft types.

Its a big NO from me.

Then say no

[TGR 1,367]

Definite no.

We need speed, outside run, and boldness yes; but we need guys you can build a team around too.

[robbo24 66]

We have Salem in that quarterback type role. If we're after a half back I'd want one with extreme pace who can break the lines.

[Gator 17,332]

Pass. The classic case of someone who goes to an ordinary club and is very underwhelming.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Pass. The classic case of someone who goes to an ordinary club and is very underwhelming.

it would feel like just another Chris Heffernan moment

[xman97 108]

I can see what you guys are saying but we need better ball users in the team. Scores from our turnovers have got to be worst in the comp I'd think. He can play wing as well, so he'll get plenty of ball on the outside from Jones, Viney, Vince, Tyson, Brayshaw, Vandenberg. All our best mids are mostly inside players. The criteria for mids that we should get in are: Pace, Elite Kick, Outside Player.

[Go the Biff 3,414]

Clinton Young Mk II

[Canplay 634]

In an ordinary football side he'd be a very ordinary footballer

[Axis of Bob 11,788]

Pass from me too. We play a far too accountable style of game to have a defender that can't compete.

[Biffen 12,941]

There's a Suckling born every minute.

[Demon trucker 1,800]

Get him

[daisycutter 29,613]

pass

this thread suckles

[Adzman 2,154]

Sucking? Honestly probably better to stay in a system he knows. Hawks are not getting younger, he should stay.

I don't rate him myself, none of my Hawks mates rate him highly.