Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
I'm interested to know why Zac won't be playing. He's probably the only defender who did what he's supposed to do.... Defendsaintbob wrote:Buddy will be playing against the Saints for sure on Friday night, the same can't be said for Zac against the Hawks.
Zac was personally responsible for at least four goals. They may not have been kicked by his direct opponent, but his ineptitude caused them to be kicked by our opponent Collingwood.BringBackMadDog wrote:I'm interested to know why Zac won't be playing. He's probably the only defender who did what he's supposed to do.... Defendsaintbob wrote:Buddy will be playing against the Saints for sure on Friday night, the same can't be said for Zac against the Hawks.
Dawes had 4 touches and kicked 1 goal for the game and he's been in good form
CORRECT!!!!Bernard Shakey wrote:Zac was personally responsible for at least four goals. They may not have been kicked by his direct opponent, but his ineptitude caused them to be kicked by our opponent Collingwood.BringBackMadDog wrote:I'm interested to know why Zac won't be playing. He's probably the only defender who did what he's supposed to do.... Defendsaintbob wrote:Buddy will be playing against the Saints for sure on Friday night, the same can't be said for Zac against the Hawks.
Dawes had 4 touches and kicked 1 goal for the game and he's been in good form
This crap put out each week about Zac's opponent's stats is rubbish, when he hands goals to other opponents. Do people on here go to or watch the game, or just read the stats? Stats say whatever you want them to say.
Zac has been shocking all year apart from last week against Brisbane and his opponent kicked a few that day.
I'm afraid I have to completely agree with BS. In this day and age, very rare that a backman just plays one on one against one opponent all game. You can really, as a supporter, only assess the defensive efforts of each individual backmen and then assess what offensive drive they are also providing. Almost impossible to tell who is playing on who, or who is meant to be. Zac could be standing under the ball with dawes bodying him, whilst a team mate comes in over the top and punches the ball away. Who gets the credit though? Zac does. It's a team game so hopefully what goes around comes around in that regard. As far as looking safe, being accountable, and being hard physically at the man and the ball, Zac has been found wanting all year I reckon. These text msg's being leaked to the media are even more embarassing when you think about it, b/c as far as I'm concerned there is no guarantee that Zac will even play this Friday.Bernard Shakey wrote:Zac was personally responsible for at least four goals. They may not have been kicked by his direct opponent, but his ineptitude caused them to be kicked by our opponent Collingwood.BringBackMadDog wrote:I'm interested to know why Zac won't be playing. He's probably the only defender who did what he's supposed to do.... Defendsaintbob wrote:Buddy will be playing against the Saints for sure on Friday night, the same can't be said for Zac against the Hawks.
Dawes had 4 touches and kicked 1 goal for the game and he's been in good form
This crap put out each week about Zac's opponent's stats is rubbish, when he hands goals to other opponents. Do people on here go to or watch the game, or just read the stats? Stats say whatever you want them to say.
Zac has been shocking all year apart from last week against Brisbane and his opponent kicked a few that day.
What were the 4 goals out of interest?Bernard Shakey wrote:Zac was personally responsible for at least four goals. They may not have been kicked by his direct opponent, but his ineptitude caused them to be kicked by our opponent Collingwood.BringBackMadDog wrote:I'm interested to know why Zac won't be playing. He's probably the only defender who did what he's supposed to do.... Defendsaintbob wrote:Buddy will be playing against the Saints for sure on Friday night, the same can't be said for Zac against the Hawks.
Dawes had 4 touches and kicked 1 goal for the game and he's been in good form
This crap put out each week about Zac's opponent's stats is rubbish, when he hands goals to other opponents. Do people on here go to or watch the game, or just read the stats? Stats say whatever you want them to say.
Zac has been shocking all year apart from last week against Brisbane and his opponent kicked a few that day.
that flog ...got two lessons on the weekend....one was not to shoot your mouth off in the hun on the morning of a match...the other one was from zac....BringBackMadDog wrote:I'm interested to know why Zac won't be playing. He's probably the only defender who did what he's supposed to do.... Defendsaintbob wrote:Buddy will be playing against the Saints for sure on Friday night, the same can't be said for Zac against the Hawks.
Dawes had 4 touches and kicked 1 goal for the game and he's been in good form
Yeah, he did, just like he does everytime!!!!!ThePunter wrote:I'm sure Zac didn't send Buddy a text message
StoneCold I think Zac will just be happy not to be mentioned in your signature.3:16 wrote:Yeah, he did, just like he does everytime!!!!!ThePunter wrote:I'm sure Zac didn't send Buddy a text message
I think Buddy's response read like this though: "Dear Zacary, thank's for the text, I was seriously worried after your effort last year, then realised that I'm not likely to be playing @ Box Hill, All the best, Ur best mate, Buddy Love"
You only mouth off, either publicly or privately when you know you can back it up. That's why I say, all credit to Zac, he's been terrible all year and yet he stills backs himself in against the best FF in the comp. Some would call that stupid others obviously think it's commendable.Buckets wrote:I just don't understand it...why the hell would we be upset that Zac has sent this message? I reckon it's great! Time to start playing the head games and being arogant. Enough of letting everyone else do it. We are a top 4 team and have been for over half a decade! Time to stop the moaning and second guessing and back ourselves and this team!
It shows that Zac has the confidence to take on Buddy and that is a very good sign! I would rather a confident Zac take the field than one that lacks the slef belief and confidence!!!! GO SAINTS
Still backing him?plugger66 wrote:Why would it even be mentioned then. I'd back a team mate of Buddy's over a person who i gather knows neither.ThePunter wrote:I'm sure Zac didn't send Buddy a text message
Maybe Ross is lying, he wants to emulate the 'successful' coaches like Malthouse.Lyon said suggestions from Michael Osborne that Saints defender Zac Dawson had already been taunting Franklin - his former teammate - with text messages were untrue.
Everyone lies even our coach. i wouldnt have a clue who is this time but if i say RL I will get shot down in flames.kosifantutti23 wrote:Still backing him?plugger66 wrote:Why would it even be mentioned then. I'd back a team mate of Buddy's over a person who i gather knows neither.ThePunter wrote:I'm sure Zac didn't send Buddy a text message
Maybe Ross is lying, he wants to emulate the 'successful' coaches like Malthouse.Lyon said suggestions from Michael Osborne that Saints defender Zac Dawson had already been taunting Franklin - his former teammate - with text messages were untrue.
plugger66 wrote:Everyone lies even our coach. i wouldnt have a clue who is this time but if i say RL I will get shot down in flames.kosifantutti23 wrote:Still backing him?plugger66 wrote:Why would it even be mentioned then. I'd back a team mate of Buddy's over a person who i gather knows neither.ThePunter wrote:I'm sure Zac didn't send Buddy a text message
Maybe Ross is lying, he wants to emulate the 'successful' coaches like Malthouse.Lyon said suggestions from Michael Osborne that Saints defender Zac Dawson had already been taunting Franklin - his former teammate - with text messages were untrue.
,,,,,and you even call our coach a liar ffs,,,, 
