Dawson

iwantmeseats · Sun 23 May 2010 9:17pm

plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:er, did he not get his first touch with a minute to go? Thought he was poor, again.
How did Lynch go?

not good, your point ? jebus.

plugger66 · Post: # 929063Post **plugger66** » Sun 23 May 2010 9:18pm

iwantmeseats wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:er, did he not get his first touch with a minute to go? Thought he was poor, again.
How did Lynch go?
not good, your point ? jebus.

Pretty obvious if you understand footy. He played on a FF who got one goal.

Duggie · Post: # 929083Post **Duggie** » Sun 23 May 2010 9:23pm

Mabe THIS week he will go out.

iwantmeseats · Sun 23 May 2010 9:24pm

plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:er, did he not get his first touch with a minute to go? Thought he was poor, again.
How did Lynch go?
not good, your point ? jebus.
Pretty obvious if you understand footy. He played on a FF who got one goal.

a few words for you to mull over, contests and RFEBOUND out of defence. Understand footy? pfft. Your a total knob. Its staggering how many threads you drop into to prove it, consistantly.FFS.

plugger66 · Post: # 929102Post **plugger66** » Sun 23 May 2010 9:27pm

iwantmeseats wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:er, did he not get his first touch with a minute to go? Thought he was poor, again.
How did Lynch go?
not good, your point ? jebus.
Pretty obvious if you understand footy. He played on a FF who got one goal.
a few words for you to mull over, contests and RFEBOUND out of defence. Understand footy? pfft. Your a total knob. Its staggering how many threads you drop into to prove it, consistantly.FFS.

Yes I am a knob but that has nothing to do with what he does. Do you actually know what his role is? If you do can you please tell us.

Con Gorozidis · Sun 23 May 2010 9:30pm

Devilhead wrote:
Con Gorozidis wrote:
Devilhead wrote:
saintkid wrote:Dawson got his one kick with about 1 minute to go. Needs to be dropped and find some form at Sandy. Is hopelessly lost out there now for some reason.
How many goals did his opponent kick??
got the runaround from mkinley for a while. wasnt pretty. hes not playing well . hes just lucky there are no alternatives now goose has gone. will johnson?
So who was playing on McKinley???

I have heard Gwilt, Fisher, Baker, Clarke and now ..... Dawson

From all reports Dawson was on Lynch for the majority of the match

No doubt Zac haters will be soon be saying McKinley kicked his 4 on Dawson

oh kill me with pedantry. im a zac lover. but the fact is he had a few kicked on him... some where he either missed the ball or missed the man. u crap on all day . hes not playing well . its not about who he is on. hes playing crap. lost his mojo for some reason. if u r going to be a pedant i will go back over the tape and give u the exact minutes and circumstance of the goals. but i dont think its neceassary. i like the bloke. 195cm backmen dont grow on trees. but hes still playing crap this year. just face it it. FFS.

saintkid · Post: # 929111Post **saintkid** » Sun 23 May 2010 9:31pm

plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:er, did he not get his first touch with a minute to go? Thought he was poor, again.
How did Lynch go?
not good, your point ? jebus.
Pretty obvious if you understand footy. He played on a FF who got one goal.

Yeah but 2-3 Eagles goals came directly from his clangers and crap play. He was really poor again and looking at Lynch's lone goal is misleading stats. He had several chances to score from Dawson's weak play on him but fortunately for us kicked points.

Scottish Saint · Sun 23 May 2010 10:42pm

kosifantutti23 wrote:Zac led the team for Disposal Efficiency today.

Actually, he didn't! Gardiner (9 disposals) and McQualter (7) both had 100% efficiency as well.

Milan Faletic · Sun 23 May 2010 10:51pm

kosifantutti23 wrote:Zac led the team for Disposal Efficiency today.

That's funny because it's true!

Moccha · Post: # 929333Post **Moccha** » Sun 23 May 2010 11:05pm

bobmurray wrote:Who takes his spot....we seem to lack alternatives....

Was on the bench for a fair amount of time. Maybe the bloke playing in his position

bobmurray · Post: # 929403Post **bobmurray** » Sun 23 May 2010 11:41pm

plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
iwantmeseats wrote:er, did he not get his first touch with a minute to go? Thought he was poor, again.
How did Lynch go?
not good, your point ? jebus.
Pretty obvious if you understand footy. He played on a FF who got one goal.
a few words for you to mull over, contests and RFEBOUND out of defence. Understand footy? pfft. Your a total knob. Its staggering how many threads you drop into to prove it, consistantly.FFS.
Yes I am a knob but that has nothing to do with what he does. Do you actually know what his role is? If you do can you please tell us.

Look..it's a tete a tete between the Oakleigh boys.......where is the popcorn

bigcarl · Post: # 929409Post **bigcarl** » Sun 23 May 2010 11:47pm

no chance of zac being dropped as so many seem to want. he completely eclipsed his opponent. looks so much better when he plays the ball rather than being sucked into the body on body stuff.

Batnoe · Post: # 929452Post **Batnoe** » Mon 24 May 2010 12:16am

I think Gwilt can play FB

it is easier to fill Gwilts spot off the flank, i am sure we can!

bigcarl · Post: # 929455Post **bigcarl** » Mon 24 May 2010 12:17am

Batnoe wrote:I think Gwilt can play FB

gwilt had four kicked on him to half time, plugger told me

Enrico_Misso · Mon 24 May 2010 12:20am

A week at Sandy did Raph a world of good.

Time for Zac to taste that tonic.

saintsRrising · Mon 24 May 2010 12:40am

Enrico_Misso wrote:A week at Sandy did Raph a world of good.

Time for Zac to taste that tonic.

While dropped Raph never played at Sandy.....

ace · Post: # 929546Post **ace** » Mon 24 May 2010 1:48am

Surely Tommy Walsh has progressed enough to play better than Dawson did today.
If he hasn't then he should be sent back to Ireland.

saintbob · Post: # 929649Post **saintbob** » Mon 24 May 2010 10:59am

Dawson reminds me of another waste of space that seemed to be one of the coach's favourite and no matter how bad he played couldn't get dropped!!!

That waste of space's name was Fiora, and another similairity is that they both sleep with the light on!!!

SaintWodonga · Mon 24 May 2010 11:09am

4ever_saint wrote:Just read the match stats and saw Dawson got 1 kick for the entire game! .

His kick came in the last few mins of the match, a cheap chip to him in the backline.

IMO he should have been dropped weeks ago. Mini has also given naught this year!

St. Luke · Post: # 929702Post **St. Luke** » Mon 24 May 2010 12:22pm

ace wrote:Surely Tommy Walsh has progressed enough to play better than Dawson did today.
If he hasn't then he should be sent back to Ireland.

Even if Walsh didn't get a kick the entire game, surely he'd be a better option?

It's unfortunate. Dawson looks to have good stamina, ability and speed, but just fails to read the play. How much more time does he need to get it right??

Bernard Shakey · Mon 24 May 2010 1:03pm

All those asking how did Lunch go? Insinuating that Zac beat him, just don't understand the game.

Lynch had 93% game time, 13 possessions, 2 inside 50s, 2 goal assists, kicked 1 and missed 3.

Zac had 60% game time, 1 possession, 1 tackle and 1 spoil.

How did he beat Lynch during the 40% of time he spent on the pine?

60% game time by a full back tells me he's going to be playing North Ballarat next Sunday.

bigcarl · Post: # 929733Post **bigcarl** » Mon 24 May 2010 1:12pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:How did he beat Lynch during the 40% of time he spent on the pine?

that was when lynch got most of his possessions. in any case, who would you bring to cover adelaide's tall forwards?

i'd love it if tommy walsh was ready, but you, being a regular sandringham watcher, would be in a better position to judge that.

or are he and gaertner ineligible because they are rookies?

Dr Spaceman · Mon 24 May 2010 1:21pm

bigcarl wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:How did he beat Lynch during the 40% of time he spent on the pine?
that was when lynch got most of his possessions. in any case, who would you bring to cover adelaide's tall forwards?

i'd love it if tommy walsh was ready, but you, being a regular sandringham watcher, would be in a better position to judge that.

or are he and gaertner ineligible because they are rookies?

Gaertner & Walsh are ineligible as they are rookies. Would need to be promoted to senior list. However:

Walsh is not ready yet.

Gaertner is coming along ok did not play the last game for Sandy (illlness) and they had a bye on the weekend. So he hasn't played for 2 weeks.

Both those guys are long term.

In the short term, IF it is decided that Dawson is not up to the job then his replacement will need to come from within the senior team.

plugger66 · Post: # 929751Post **plugger66** » Mon 24 May 2010 1:23pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:All those asking how did Lunch go? Insinuating that Zac beat him, just don't understand the game.

Lynch had 93% game time, 13 possessions, 2 inside 50s, 2 goal assists, kicked 1 and missed 3.

Zac had 60% game time, 1 possession, 1 tackle and 1 spoil.

How did he beat Lynch during the 40% of time he spent on the pine?

60% game time by a full back tells me he's going to be playing North Ballarat next Sunday.

No way Zac will get dropped for that performance. He may not have been great but neither was Lynch. If he was going to be dropped it would have happened after 7 goals was kicked on him. Surely.

meher baba · Post: # 929785Post **meher baba** » Mon 24 May 2010 1:48pm

I'd keep Zac in the side for the time being. You can't always judge a defensive player by the things you actually notice them doing: if they stick tight to their opponent and keep positioning themselves well, the opposing midfield won't kick the ball to the man they are playing on. Which is an excellent result, but one which won't show up on any stats sheets.

However, if it is true that Zac was kept on the bench for 40% of the game, that's not a good omen for him keeping his spot in the side. Fullbacks are meant to play as close to 100% of game time as possible.

BTW, one of the forum's new pin-up boys, Gwilt, had a rather disappointing 50th AFL game yesterday. He did do some good things with the ball in his hands, but - as I have suggested in previous threads - he is still struggling in his primary role as a defender: that is, minimising the impact of the guy he is playing on.

Last night, once again, we saw Gwilt grabbing arms, shirts, etc. and he was lucky not to give away more frees than he does. He is extremely vulnerable in a contest for the ball when it is kicked in over head height.

I'm a great fan of JG, but he isn't as good as Zac or Fisher or Baker at playing a tight defensive role. The idea put up earlier in the thread that Dawson could be dropped and Jimmy go to FB is silly IMO.

Like Gilbert and Raph, he is happiest when he can play loose at the back. But we don't need a third backline player of this type.

Dawson

Re: Dawson