#32 Travis Cloke

[jackcass]

I'm a Buckley fan and I'll be glad to see the back of the Cloke clan, but I've got to disagree with what you said about 5 yr plans. Seriously, the Bulldogs showed you can go from boiled lollies to scorched almonds in 2 years.

Started their rebuild in 2010. For the 3rd time I will post a comparison of their rebuild compared to ours.

Bulldogs: 1st yr 10th, 2nd yr 15th, 3rd 15th, 4th 14th, 5th 6th, 6th flag.
Collingwood: 1st yr rebuild 11th, 2nd yr 12th, 3rd yr 12th.

People are conveniently forgetting all the hard work Brendan McCartney did with their young list. He taught them the defensive side of the game, which you saw be so successful in the GF. No doubt Luke Beveridge has done a sensational job, but he came in after all the hard work was done. The list had been built, they had been taught the proper way to play, and Beveridge took full advantage of this, whilst also adding his own imprimatur on the team.

All that may be true, but 2 years ago, some of their best players simply abandoned the club, including Griffin (captain), Higgins and Cooney. Their coach was sacked, their CEO resigned and they lost a major sponsor. In short, the Bulldogs were a basket case. From that they recovered and won a flag within 2 years. So my point is simply that there are far too many unknown variables in football to be able to carefully map out a plan 5 years in advance. Instead, clubs need to ensure they get the best out of their team every week and every year.

I think the point is that they started their list rebuild after their 2010 finals campaign. Yes the club may have had issues along the way but purely from a footy squad perspective, they'd been at it 5 years before they made it back into finals contention in 2015 and dipped a lot lower than us for a couple of them. Ultimately losing Griffin, Higgins, Jones and Cooney has hardly hindered their development and in fact landed them Boyd, Biggs and Daniel, Webb, Dale, McLean and Hamilton in the 2014 trade-draft period. I think Hamilton is the only 1 of those yet to taste senior footy or have an impact across the 2015-16 seasons.

[mooretreloar]

Started their rebuild in 2010. For the 3rd time I will post a comparison of their rebuild compared to ours.

Bulldogs: 1st yr 10th, 2nd yr 15th, 3rd 15th, 4th 14th, 5th 6th, 6th flag.
Collingwood: 1st yr rebuild 11th, 2nd yr 12th, 3rd yr 12th.

People are conveniently forgetting all the hard work Brendan McCartney did with their young list. He taught them the defensive side of the game, which you saw be so successful in the GF. No doubt Luke Beveridge has done a sensational job, but he came in after all the hard work was done. The list had been built, they had been taught the proper way to play, and Beveridge took full advantage of this, whilst also adding his own imprimatur on the team.

All that may be true, but 2 years ago, some of their best players simply abandoned the club, including Griffin (captain), Higgins and Cooney. Their coach was sacked, their CEO resigned and they lost a major sponsor. In short, the Bulldogs were a basket case. From that they recovered and won a flag within 2 years. So my point is simply that there are far too many unknown variables in football to be able to carefully map out a plan 5 years in advance. Instead, clubs need to ensure they get the best out of their team every week and every year.

I think the point is that they started their list rebuild after their 2010 finals campaign. Yes the club may have had issues along the way but purely from a footy squad perspective, they'd been at it 5 years before they made it back into finals contention in 2015 and dipped a lot lower than us for a couple of them. Ultimately losing Griffin, Higgins, Jones and Cooney has hardly hindered their development and in fact landed them Boyd, Biggs and Daniel, Webb, Dale, McLean and Hamilton in the 2014 trade-draft period. I think Hamilton is the only 1 of those yet to taste senior footy or have an impact across the 2015-16 seasons.

Spot on jackcass. Hamilton hasn't played, but he absolutely torched us in the VFL prelim. One to watch for in the future. As an aside, he is also the nephew of Darren and Andrew Jarman.

[think positive]

this pick seems to be about facilitating a trade and helping cloke get to his destination. given the club has no real desire to retain him it hardly has the whip hand.

The arrangement must be absolutely about getting Cloke to his preferred destination. We did the same thing for, eg, Ben Davies when he couldn't be offered a game and we should certainly do the same thing for a former senior player who has played almost 250 games for the Club.

100% agree this is part of it.
Other elements are a) it allows us to get his salary off our books, so this automatically deflates what we are prepared to accept and b) the facts are that he played VFL 50% of the year and multiple experts have declared him gone, so his currency is nowhere near what it was.

I had heard a 5th round pick was going to be our compensation, which for mine is about right, so we have done the best we can to get it up to a 4th rounder.

Turn on your sarcasm radar!

Personally I think we should keep him, I'm pissed he wasn't treated better this year and so wants to leave. But no, 100% look after Collingwood, sell to the highest bidder, no payments from us and a decent pick or player, let the other buggers pay over. Or he stays base wage playing VFL or earning his spot.

As for the famous hindsight rule, I'd bet we be saying in a year, **** he was worth at least a second rounder. I'm damn sure a happy fit confident Travis is still a good player.

[think positive]

Paul Connors from Herald Sun article:
"We'd like to think the deal will be done, forget the pick for a second, there's an understanding I think from both parties that probably time's up for Travis at the Pies, the relationship is healthy and fine but I think a new home will be good for him"

Point 1: pick 59 is overs, we are lucky to be getting anything. It is not Travis Cloke of 2010 or 2011, it is Travis Cloke of 2016, who played VFL for large stints in 2016.
Point 2: the statement above blows the argument of blaming Buckley for this out of the water.
Point 3: we are not 5 years into a 5 year plan, we are 3 years into a 5 year plan. The rebuild started at the end of 2013.

I'm a Buckley fan and I'll be glad to see the back of the Cloke clan, but I've got to disagree with what you said about 5 yr plans. Seriously, the Bulldogs showed you can go from boiled lollies to scorched almonds in 2 years.

Started their rebuild in 2010. For the 3rd time I will post a comparison of their rebuild compared to ours.

Bulldogs: 1st yr 10th, 2nd yr 15th, 3rd 15th, 4th 14th, 5th 6th, 6th flag.
Collingwood: 1st yr rebuild 11th, 2nd yr 12th, 3rd yr 12th.

People are conveniently forgetting all the hard work Brendan McCartney did with their young list. He taught them the defensive side of the game, which you saw be so successful in the GF. No doubt Luke Beveridge has done a sensational job, but he came in after all the hard work was done. The list had been built, they had been taught the proper way to play, and Beveridge took full advantage of this, whilst also adding his own imprimatur on the team.

I agree Bevo is getting accolades which are partly owed to McCartney, his influence was obvious. The only thing that says to me though, is how do we get him on our coaching panel? We are rich, buy some decent coaches to help Buckley out in the areas he is not good in.

[thompsoc]

I'm a Buckley fan and I'll be glad to see the back of the Cloke clan, but I've got to disagree with what you said about 5 yr plans. Seriously, the Bulldogs showed you can go from boiled lollies to scorched almonds in 2 years.

Started their rebuild in 2010. For the 3rd time I will post a comparison of their rebuild compared to ours.

Bulldogs: 1st yr 10th, 2nd yr 15th, 3rd 15th, 4th 14th, 5th 6th, 6th flag.
Collingwood: 1st yr rebuild 11th, 2nd yr 12th, 3rd yr 12th.

People are conveniently forgetting all the hard work Brendan McCartney did with their young list. He taught them the defensive side of the game, which you saw be so successful in the GF. No doubt Luke Beveridge has done a sensational job, but he came in after all the hard work was done. The list had been built, they had been taught the proper way to play, and Beveridge took full advantage of this, whilst also adding his own imprimatur on the team.

All that may be true, but 2 years ago, some of their best players simply abandoned the club, including Griffin (captain), Higgins and Cooney. Their coach was sacked, their CEO resigned and they lost a major sponsor. In short, the Bulldogs were a basket case. From that they recovered and won a flag within 2 years. So my point is simply that there are far too many unknown variables in football to be able to carefully map out a plan 5 years in advance. Instead, clubs need to ensure they get the best out of their team every week and every year.

Well said Rudeboy.
There are lots and lots of variables.
Like known knowns and known unknowns ....etc....apologies to Rumsfeld.
Donald never talked as if it was a known fact.

[Piesnchess]

Watching the grand final I reckon Cloke will be very good for the Doggies. Grundy took mark after mark in defence which wouldn't happen with him having to mind Cloke.

Leigh Matthews said he didn't think Cloke could have a role as he can't ruck as well as play forward. I don't think that's necessarily correct. Sure if he could ruck that would be better but he provides a contested marking target with good small players around him.

If that was true why didn't Cloke open up opportunities for Blair and DeGoey to kick bags of goals in our forward line. Also I don't think Cloke would have stopped Grundy from marking, just as he didn't stop other tall defenders taking marks against him during the year. If he plays the same way for WB as he played for us this year he will struggle next year. If he buckles down with a different attitude under a new coach next year, he could be a great player again, but it will be the same familiar role he played for us and not a rucking role as you suggest (he can't ruck).

Realistically, Cloke will be competing with Cordy, Redpath and Campbell as the other KPP in the Doggies F50 along side Boyd. He's ahead of all 3 of those for 2017 I'd reckon. Hell, GF performances aside he's still ahead of Boyd. Will free up Crameri and Stringer as the 3rd tall - medium forward options, or even allow Stringer to spend time in the midfield.

V Boyd:
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_p ... 1=S&fid2=S

V Cordy
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_p ... 1=S&fid2=S

V Redpath (although he and Campbell more logically competing with Boyd)
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_p ... 1=S&fid2=S

V Campbell
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_p ... 1=S&fid2=S

Ultimately though, who actually gives a fat rats clacker about whether he'll fit into their side. It's where he wants to go and they want him. Make it happen.

ok, but why, if hes going to be as good as you say he is-I don't think his kicking will improve one iota and he will still miss soda goals-but if hes going to be that good for them, better than Boyd, then why should we get shafted for him, why should we get the dirty end of the deal, why cant we get decent compensation for him then. ?? If they want him THAT bad, then let them give us fair and decent compensation for him. We must not get duded and shafted on this, that I do know.

[mooretreloar]

If that was true why didn't Cloke open up opportunities for Blair and DeGoey to kick bags of goals in our forward line. Also I don't think Cloke would have stopped Grundy from marking, just as he didn't stop other tall defenders taking marks against him during the year. If he plays the same way for WB as he played for us this year he will struggle next year. If he buckles down with a different attitude under a new coach next year, he could be a great player again, but it will be the same familiar role he played for us and not a rucking role as you suggest (he can't ruck).

Realistically, Cloke will be competing with Cordy, Redpath and Campbell as the other KPP in the Doggies F50 along side Boyd. He's ahead of all 3 of those for 2017 I'd reckon. Hell, GF performances aside he's still ahead of Boyd. Will free up Crameri and Stringer as the 3rd tall - medium forward options, or even allow Stringer to spend time in the midfield.

V Boyd:
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_p ... 1=S&fid2=S

V Cordy
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_p ... 1=S&fid2=S

V Redpath (although he and Campbell more logically competing with Boyd)
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_p ... 1=S&fid2=S

V Campbell
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_p ... 1=S&fid2=S

Ultimately though, who actually gives a fat rats clacker about whether he'll fit into their side. It's where he wants to go and they want him. Make it happen.

ok, but why, if hes going to be as good as you say he is-I don't think his kicking will improve one iota and he will still miss soda goals-but if hes going to be that good for them, better than Boyd, then why should we get shafted for him, why should we get the dirty end of the deal, why cant we get decent compensation for him then. ?? If they want him THAT bad, then let them give us fair and decent compensation for him. We must not get duded and shafted on this, that I do know.

I understand your frustration Pieschness, but unfortunately Cloke is no longer the player he was and I would suggest that there wouldn't be many, if any, interested in him. He played VFL 50% of the year, we don't want him or his salary on our list and he wants to go to the Bulldogs, thus we don't have a great bargaining power.

For mine based only on his form in the past 2 seasons, taking any of the other factors out of the equation, he is a late 3rd round pick at best. Adding the other factors meant I thought a 5th round pick was the best we could hope for and that was the mail I was hearing. So, a late 4th round pick is probably a win.

Try and think of it that the pick could be used to get WHE or certainly the points associated with the pick could be used to help us pick up Daicos or Brown. All three are the future of the club, Cloke is not. Also, think of it that if he had of stayed with us we would have got nothing for him, as he would be a free agent at the end of 2017. I am actually grateful we are getting something, but in hindsight we should have traded him at the end of 2013 to further fast track the rebuild.

Unsure why Cloke is being compared to Boyd. One is young and has his best footy in front of him. The other has had a great career, but his best is well and truly past him. Comparing the impact Boyd and Cloke will have on season 2017 is like comparing chalk and cheese.

The Bulldogs are only picking him up as insurance because Redpath did his ACL and if Boyd gets injured they are lacking in that area. Cloke is likely to spend long periods in the VFL in 2017 like he did for us in 2016.

[piedys]

People are conveniently forgetting all the hard work Brendan McCartney did with their young list. He taught them the defensive side of the game, which you saw be so successful in the GF. No doubt Luke Beveridge has done a sensational job, but he came in after all the hard work was done. The list had been built, they had been taught the proper way to play, and Beveridge took full advantage of this, whilst also adding his own imprimatur on the team.

I agree Bevo is getting accolades which are partly owed to McCartney, his influence was obvious. The only thing that says to me though, is how do we get him on our coaching panel? We are rich, buy some decent coaches to help Buckley out in the areas he is not good in.

Well that's the thing isn't it?
Why no plaudits to Brendan McCartney from WB in the post GF celebrations? Exactly what was he doing so wrong that saw both Griffin and Ward leave the kennel [bad call too fellas, might I add...] to go to GWS? Even if it did instigate to the Boyd trade...
Do I recall correctly that their 2014 playing list wanted McCartney gone?
We really need to get to the truth of the matter before we go lumping him in the same game day box as Buckley, week after week...

[mooretreloar]

People are conveniently forgetting all the hard work Brendan McCartney did with their young list. He taught them the defensive side of the game, which you saw be so successful in the GF. No doubt Luke Beveridge has done a sensational job, but he came in after all the hard work was done. The list had been built, they had been taught the proper way to play, and Beveridge took full advantage of this, whilst also adding his own imprimatur on the team.

I agree Bevo is getting accolades which are partly owed to McCartney, his influence was obvious. The only thing that says to me though, is how do we get him on our coaching panel? We are rich, buy some decent coaches to help Buckley out in the areas he is not good in.

Well that's the thing isn't it?
Why no plaudits to Brendan McCartney from WB in the post GF celebrations? Exactly what was he doing so wrong that saw both Griffin and Ward leave the kennel [bad call too fellas, might I add...] to go to GWS? Even if it did instigate to the Boyd trade...
Do I recall correctly that their 2014 playing list wanted McCartney gone?
We really need to get to the truth of the matter before we go lumping him in the same game day box as Buckley, week after week...

Ward left years before McCartney got there. Griffen saying he wanted to leave was the last straw for McCartney's coaching stint at the Dogs. Apparently, as well as being an excellent teacher, McCartney was a hard task master and told it to the players straight. The hard task master and tell it straight side got a few of the senior players off side. Griffen being one, Minson and Boyd the other names that were reported.
Roos snapped up McCartney as a development coach at the Dees, which tells you where his standing is.
I saw a headline last week reporting that Jason Johanisen was giving McCartney some credit. I hadn't read the article (Herald Sun Sep 28th) until now, but quotes as follows:
"Macca's had a big influence on the young players because he did have a good game style and he did teach us contested ball, which we pride ourselves on"
"He had a big impact on that. The foundation was there and Bevo had put some extra touch and extra belief into the players that we can play some good footy"

Thompsoc, apparently there is fact in what I post, you should try it someday.

[Dave The Man]

We are pretty much giving Cloke to the Dogs for next to nothing.

Because they Pay ALL of his Salary

[Fatui Attata]

Bevo had all the list development done for him by McCartney with a strategic eye for the future. Buck's had Mick preparing for an assault on the 2011 flag, and nothing beyond. Hence Bucks had to turn that around. If I were to take over a team as coach, the Dogs would look much more attractive, at the time of their transition, than the Pies. Window opening (Dogs) vs window closing (us). Due to the fast tracking nature of the succession plan, I think we'll do it quicker than the Dogs. Deluded? Maybe. But, if not, there is plenty to gain for all of us!! [/i]

[mooretreloar]

Bevo had all the list development done for him by McCartney with a strategic eye for the future. Buck's had Mick preparing for an assault on the 2011 flag, and nothing beyond. Hence Bucks had to turn that around. If I were to take over a team as coach, the Dogs would look much more attractive, at the time of their transition, than the Pies. Window opening (Dogs) vs window closing (us). Due to the fast tracking nature of the succession plan, I think we'll do it quicker than the Dogs. Deluded? Maybe. But, if not, there is plenty to gain for all of us!! [/i]

Great summation Fatui Attata.

[RudeBoy]

We are pretty much giving Cloke to the Dogs for next to nothing.

Because they Pay ALL of his Salary

And that's about all he's worth.

[Culprit]

There is no guarantee they will take him now that they won the flag. I cannot see how he fits into their squad but that's me.

[themonk]

There is no guarantee they will take him now that they won the flag. I cannot see how he fits into their squad but that's me.

If Bevo spoke to Cloke prior to the GF and I'm sure he did then you can lock it in.