Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Bardon Saint wrote:I don't think his performance was as great as what it is being made out to be. I think he did ok, that is all. Without looking too closely, he got beaten on a lead at least once (but that's ok) but got caught under a high ball once again which he does all too often. If I was Zac's opponent, I would instruct my forawards to be ahead of me, make a lead or baulk to go forward but have my teammates kick over my head so I can run back and take the mark. Easier said then done but worth trying from what I've seen.
I feel that a game against a struggling side, with average tall forwards, poor delivery into Port's forward line and lack of delivery has helped Zac get some kudos this week. Not too mention some very good performances by saints players assisting in defence and controlling the midfield which may have helped.
Credit where its due and Zac more than beat his opponent yesterday. The example you put up to try and discredit Zac is pretty piss poor considering all full backs are vunerable to a deep kick over there heads to an opponent.
For three years Zac has basically received no fan fare for his job at FB from media and the press. The old line that he gets help gets trundled out when ever his name gets mentioned. Someone show me a defence that doesnt heilp each other out.
The post is not even discrediting Zac. We defend so well as a back 6/press/flood/whatever it is called that essentially we don't need a quality fullback against terrible teams. Someone needs to stand there and attempt to make a contest.
Zac is vulnerable 1 on 1 and always has been.
I equate Zac's performances and the ease with which he has it to Jonothan Brown in the Brisbane Lions forward line from 2001-2004. Blind Freddy could have snagged a few such was the talent and the confidence around him.
It is actually an indictment on Zac that he does not perform better more often given the help he gets from both the quality players and the game style that we play.
Bardon Saint wrote:I don't think his performance was as great as what it is being made out to be. I think he did ok, that is all. Without looking too closely, he got beaten on a lead at least once (but that's ok) but got caught under a high ball once again which he does all too often. If I was Zac's opponent, I would instruct my forawards to be ahead of me, make a lead or baulk to go forward but have my teammates kick over my head so I can run back and take the mark. Easier said then done but worth trying from what I've seen.
I feel that a game against a struggling side, with average tall forwards, poor delivery into Port's forward line and lack of delivery has helped Zac get some kudos this week. Not too mention some very good performances by saints players assisting in defence and controlling the midfield which may have helped.
Credit where its due and Zac more than beat his opponent yesterday. The example you put up to try and discredit Zac is pretty piss poor considering all full backs are vunerable to a deep kick over there heads to an opponent.
For three years Zac has basically received no fan fare for his job at FB from media and the press. The old line that he gets help gets trundled out when ever his name gets mentioned. Someone show me a defence that doesnt heilp each other out.
The post is not even discrediting Zac. We defend so well as a back 6/press/flood/whatever it is called that essentially we don't need a quality fullback against terrible teams. Someone needs to stand there and attempt to make a contest.
Zac is vulnerable 1 on 1 and always has been.
I equate Zac's performances and the ease with which he has it to Jonothan Brown in the Brisbane Lions forward line from 2001-2004. Blind Freddy could have snagged a few such was the talent and the confidence around him.
It is actually an indictment on Zac that he does not perform better more often given the help he gets from both the quality players and the game style that we play.
Hes on a hiding to nothing then isnt he. If he beats his man its he gets help, if he wins contests one on one it gos unnoticed but someone takes a couple of marks on him and hes terrible.
Bardon Saint wrote:I don't think his performance was as great as what it is being made out to be. I think he did ok, that is all. Without looking too closely, he got beaten on a lead at least once (but that's ok) but got caught under a high ball once again which he does all too often. If I was Zac's opponent, I would instruct my forawards to be ahead of me, make a lead or baulk to go forward but have my teammates kick over my head so I can run back and take the mark. Easier said then done but worth trying from what I've seen.
I feel that a game against a struggling side, with average tall forwards, poor delivery into Port's forward line and lack of delivery has helped Zac get some kudos this week. Not too mention some very good performances by saints players assisting in defence and controlling the midfield which may have helped.
Credit where its due and Zac more than beat his opponent yesterday. The example you put up to try and discredit Zac is pretty piss poor considering all full backs are vunerable to a deep kick over there heads to an opponent.
For three years Zac has basically received no fan fare for his job at FB from media and the press. The old line that he gets help gets trundled out when ever his name gets mentioned. Someone show me a defence that doesnt heilp each other out.
The post is not even discrediting Zac. We defend so well as a back 6/press/flood/whatever it is called that essentially we don't need a quality fullback against terrible teams. Someone needs to stand there and attempt to make a contest.
Zac is vulnerable 1 on 1 and always has been.
I equate Zac's performances and the ease with which he has it to Jonothan Brown in the Brisbane Lions forward line from 2001-2004. Blind Freddy could have snagged a few such was the talent and the confidence around him.
It is actually an indictment on Zac that he does not perform better more often given the help he gets from both the quality players and the game style that we play.
Hes on a hiding to nothing then isnt he. If he beats his man its he gets help, if he wins contests one on one it gos unnoticed but someone takes a couple of marks on him and hes terrible.
But he is terrible and rarely has wins on his direct opponent. When his direct opponent doesn't score it is down to our zone/press/thing and the quality around him assisting with the chop. I see your point but it doesn't take away form the undeniable fact that lordy he is below-average.
Bardon Saint wrote:I don't think his performance was as great as what it is being made out to be. I think he did ok, that is all. Without looking too closely, he got beaten on a lead at least once (but that's ok) but got caught under a high ball once again which he does all too often. If I was Zac's opponent, I would instruct my forawards to be ahead of me, make a lead or baulk to go forward but have my teammates kick over my head so I can run back and take the mark. Easier said then done but worth trying from what I've seen.
I feel that a game against a struggling side, with average tall forwards, poor delivery into Port's forward line and lack of delivery has helped Zac get some kudos this week. Not too mention some very good performances by saints players assisting in defence and controlling the midfield which may have helped.
Credit where its due and Zac more than beat his opponent yesterday. The example you put up to try and discredit Zac is pretty piss poor considering all full backs are vunerable to a deep kick over there heads to an opponent.
For three years Zac has basically received no fan fare for his job at FB from media and the press. The old line that he gets help gets trundled out when ever his name gets mentioned. Someone show me a defence that doesnt heilp each other out.
The post is not even discrediting Zac. We defend so well as a back 6/press/flood/whatever it is called that essentially we don't need a quality fullback against terrible teams. Someone needs to stand there and attempt to make a contest.
Zac is vulnerable 1 on 1 and always has been.
I equate Zac's performances and the ease with which he has it to Jonothan Brown in the Brisbane Lions forward line from 2001-2004. Blind Freddy could have snagged a few such was the talent and the confidence around him.
It is actually an indictment on Zac that he does not perform better more often given the help he gets from both the quality players and the game style that we play.
Hes on a hiding to nothing then isnt he. If he beats his man its he gets help, if he wins contests one on one it gos unnoticed but someone takes a couple of marks on him and hes terrible.
But he is terrible and rarely has wins on his direct opponent. When his direct opponent doesn't score it is down to our zone/press/thing and the quality around him assisting with the chop. I see your point but it doesn't take away form the undeniable fact that lordy he is below-average.
Please give me a list of the AFL fullbacks that go one out with all the key forawrds. I think youll find that Zac has faced all gun key forawards unlike most others.
Bardon Saint wrote:I don't think his performance was as great as what it is being made out to be. I think he did ok, that is all. Without looking too closely, he got beaten on a lead at least once (but that's ok) but got caught under a high ball once again which he does all too often. If I was Zac's opponent, I would instruct my forawards to be ahead of me, make a lead or baulk to go forward but have my teammates kick over my head so I can run back and take the mark. Easier said then done but worth trying from what I've seen.
I feel that a game against a struggling side, with average tall forwards, poor delivery into Port's forward line and lack of delivery has helped Zac get some kudos this week. Not too mention some very good performances by saints players assisting in defence and controlling the midfield which may have helped.
Credit where its due and Zac more than beat his opponent yesterday. The example you put up to try and discredit Zac is pretty piss poor considering all full backs are vunerable to a deep kick over there heads to an opponent.
For three years Zac has basically received no fan fare for his job at FB from media and the press. The old line that he gets help gets trundled out when ever his name gets mentioned. Someone show me a defence that doesnt heilp each other out.
The post is not even discrediting Zac. We defend so well as a back 6/press/flood/whatever it is called that essentially we don't need a quality fullback against terrible teams. Someone needs to stand there and attempt to make a contest.
Zac is vulnerable 1 on 1 and always has been.
I equate Zac's performances and the ease with which he has it to Jonothan Brown in the Brisbane Lions forward line from 2001-2004. Blind Freddy could have snagged a few such was the talent and the confidence around him.
It is actually an indictment on Zac that he does not perform better more often given the help he gets from both the quality players and the game style that we play.
Hes on a hiding to nothing then isnt he. If he beats his man its he gets help, if he wins contests one on one it gos unnoticed but someone takes a couple of marks on him and hes terrible.
But he is terrible and rarely has wins on his direct opponent. When his direct opponent doesn't score it is down to our zone/press/thing and the quality around him assisting with the chop. I see your point but it doesn't take away form the undeniable fact that lordy he is below-average.
For someone so new to this site you seem pretty keen to hang shite and impose your opinion's on everybody else. Zac goes about his job in a team with not many other options as a fullback unless you want to head back to Blake or maybe Simpkin...? If you have time maybe you can bless us with your considered opinion on who you would play instead.? Just a few names of the other fullbacks who don't rely on help from other defenders would be handy also..?
Jack Newnes happy to be a Saint !!!! PS and to hit a target !!!
Obviously some on this forum have never played footy. The backline is a unit of six players working together, and at the moment is one of the most effective backlines in town.
prwilkinson wrote:I thought his game was pretty standard...
As did I. As he plays every week.
For mine, Zac is one of the stalwarts of the team. Can play on a Tall, understands the zone defence and is a reliable (if unadventurous) kick. What else is required in a Key backman?
Hird... The unflushable one is now... just a turd...
He is out of contract and plenty are interested. When he gets poached on a huge contract and the media all heap s*** on us for letting him go all these dick heads will be bitching about a lack of loyalty while saying Ball was screwed by us and had to leave.
No one wants him to leave ! People are just hoping can play at that top of his game more regularly.
ZAC is 200% better player when he attacks the ball and backs himself in to take marks and run off his opponent. Otherwise he becomes overly reactive and makes mistakes 2nd guessing his decisions.
ZAC get your skates on and play that attacking defender role we all know you can - then the SAINTS will have to honour your financial requests.
SAINTS another day older another day closer to the Holy Grail!
