Zac Dawson rejects St Kilda's offer

[Junction Oval]

Some good, very relevant points made in recent threads, especially from T.O.T. Zac has done a good job for us. A couple of points :

- His loss will unbalance the backline - there is no ready replacement.
- Next year's focus will be more on attack, so why deplete a solid defence and spend effort getting things back on track?
- Gwilt is out until mid-year. Raph, Blake, Polo still not signed
- Why have the Saints offered reduced terms (see Age Sport p. 3 today)?
- A one year contract, with a promise of a big up-grade in 2013, based on performance, would seem a good way to go.
- Finally, it looks like he may be sitting on another, far better offer!

[SaintPav]

We all recognise his only real weakness is the long kick into the forward line and the one on one situation vs a Cloke, Waite , Setanta etc.. but he's rarely left alone one on one and gets a lot of help against the big forwards from team mates and he works well with the rest of the defense.
So he has his team mates to thank for not having bags of goals kicked against him... as one on one is not his forte.

The FB position is different from days gone by where there was a continuous one on one duel - if it was like that Riewoldt would kick 10 goals every week vs a single opponent... but as we know he always has 2 or 3 opponents. and has less space to work in.

Will be a bit of a loss .. but is not irreplaceable, as the FB position has changed a lot.

In the 2010 GF Cloke had a groin problem I'm pretty sure of it ..as he was grimacing and moving gingerly when he ran onto the ground at the start of the game... and in a GF 10-12 goals is a winning score and some of those goals come from midfileders and other forwards so how many should we expect a FF to kick ?

It rarely becomes a one on one situation - but if it does Cloke will mark the incoming ball 9 times out of 10 vs Dawson... let's not overlook that !

Your post ignores the facts highlighted by The Other Thomo, but you make such a good argument based on pure opinion that I'm convinced that Zac is a useless dud. I now really hope he goes.

[samoht]

Some good, very relevant points made in recent threads, especially from T.O.T. Zac has done a good job for us. A couple of points :

- His loss will unbalance the backline - there is no ready replacement.
- Next year's focus will be more on attack, so why deplete a solid defence and spend effort getting things back on track?
- Gwilt is out until mid-year. Raph, Blake, Polo still not signed
- Why have the Saints offered reduced terms (see Age Sport p. 3 today)?
- A one year contract, with a promise of a big up-grade in 2013, based on performance, would seem a good way to go.
- Finally, it looks like he may be sitting on another, far better offer!

Good let him choose - we only need committed team players not individuals !
St kilda resurrected him after the Hawks let him go - otherwise he'd be remembered as the player that Rocca took apart and for little else !

[matrix]

ffs
we arent going to hit rock bottom if zac leaves
the job he did and the way he did it will be able to be filled by someone else rather easily and quickly

blake or raph could play the same roll quite easily
zac wasnt exactly a fullback fullback
he was a defender put in that possie and got helped by a lot of team mates being second up
as good teams do

easily covered
but the whole friggin world is not going to full apart if he leaves us.

[samoht]

We all recognise his only real weakness is the long kick into the forward line and the one on one situation vs a Cloke, Waite , Setanta etc.. but he's rarely left alone one on one and gets a lot of help against the big forwards from team mates and he works well with the rest of the defense.
So he has his team mates to thank for not having bags of goals kicked against him... as one on one is not his forte.

The FB position is different from days gone by where there was a continuous one on one duel - if it was like that Riewoldt would kick 10 goals every week vs a single opponent... but as we know he always has 2 or 3 opponents. and has less space to work in.

Will be a bit of a loss .. but is not irreplaceable, as the FB position has changed a lot.

In the 2010 GF Cloke had a groin problem I'm pretty sure of it ..as he was grimacing and moving gingerly when he ran onto the ground at the start of the game... and in a GF 10-12 goals is a winning score and some of those goals come from midfileders and other forwards so how many should we expect a FF to kick ?

It rarely becomes a one on one situation - but if it does Cloke will mark the incoming ball 9 times out of 10 vs Dawson... let's not overlook that !

Your post ignores the facts highlighted by The Other Thomo, but you make such a good argument based on pure opinion that I'm convinced that Zac is a useless dud. I now really hope he goes.

I'm not saying he's a useless dud ..I'm saying that the FB position has changed a lot and that if it was a one on one contest he'd be found out... that's all... and that one on one is his only real weakness.
It's rarely a one on one and so he's an effective defender who will be missed - as he has developed an understanding with team mates.

[bobmurray]

zac wasnt exactly a fullback fullback

Is that a long stop in cricket.....

[SaintPav]

blake or raph could play the same roll quite easily

Not against Cloke and Buddy but dream on.

[matrix]

i think everyone knows what i mean

matty scarlett is a full back
danny frawley was a fullback

zac is some bloke that got chucked there and gets plenty of help when its a contest

black could do the roll just as well, prob for not the next 5 years but we have youth coming thru

if he wants to go i wont miss him and neither will the whole side (imo)

[SaintPav]

We all recognise his only real weakness is the long kick into the forward line and the one on one situation vs a Cloke, Waite , Setanta etc.. but he's rarely left alone one on one and gets a lot of help against the big forwards from team mates and he works well with the rest of the defense.
So he has his team mates to thank for not having bags of goals kicked against him... as one on one is not his forte.

The FB position is different from days gone by where there was a continuous one on one duel - if it was like that Riewoldt would kick 10 goals every week vs a single opponent... but as we know he always has 2 or 3 opponents. and has less space to work in.

Will be a bit of a loss .. but is not irreplaceable, as the FB position has changed a lot.

In the 2010 GF Cloke had a groin problem I'm pretty sure of it ..as he was grimacing and moving gingerly when he ran onto the ground at the start of the game... and in a GF 10-12 goals is a winning score and some of those goals come from midfileders and other forwards so how many should we expect a FF to kick ?

It rarely becomes a one on one situation - but if it does Cloke will mark the incoming ball 9 times out of 10 vs Dawson... let's not overlook that !

Your post ignores the facts highlighted by The Other Thomo, but you make such a good argument based on pure opinion that I'm convinced that Zac is a useless dud. I now really hope he goes.

I'm not saying he's a useless dud ..I'm saying that the FB position has changed a lot and that if it was a one on one contest he'd be found out... that's all.
It's rarely a one on one and so he's an effective defender who will be missed - as he has developed an understanding with team mates.

How did Reid go in the GF against Hawkins when he was one on one and the ball was coming in a lot quicker into the forward line than the filth had been used to in the last two years?

[matrix]

blake or raph could play the same roll quite easily

Not against Cloke and Buddy but dream on.

yeah zac was brilliant against those two
cloke and buddy are the guns of the league
finding anyone to do a number on both of them would be difficult

so yup
dream on

ffs we arent losing chips here
its zac

[SaintPav]

blake or raph could play the same roll quite easily

Not against Cloke and Buddy but dream on.

yeah zac was brilliant against those two
cloke and buddy are the guns of the league
finding anyone to do a number on both of them would be difficult

so yup
dream on

ffs we arent losing chips here
its zac

Typical attitude from someone who lives in Adelaide.

[matrix]

wtf has where i live got to do with it?
and no
i dont live in adelaide

[SaintPav]

wtf has where i live got to do with it?
and no
i dont live in adelaide

Playing Chips deep is a waste. I'm just staing facts as are some other sensible posters.

[matrix]

yup
my idea is to play chips at fullback
i have two acres to mow
the 2 acres that next door to rundle mall...in adelaide

while i would rather keep zac, if he goes it wont be a massive loss imo

thats right
my opinion

[SaintPav]

yup
my idea is to play chips at fullback
i have two acres to mow
the 2 acres that next door to rundle mall...in adelaide

while i would rather keep zac, if he goes it wont be a massive loss imo

thats right
my opinion

Chips at FB is a win to the opposition.

[samoht]

while i would rather keep zac, if he goes it wont be a massive loss imo

thats right
my opinion

and by the powers vested in me .. you're entitled to have one !

[SaintPav]

yup
my idea is to play chips at fullback
i have two acres to mow
the 2 acres that next door to rundle mall...in adelaide

while i would rather keep zac, if he goes it wont be a massive loss imo

thats right
my opinion

I'm certain you said you live in Adelaide. If that is not the case, my apologies to all those who live there.

[Dr Spaceman]

Peopl can argue all they like about Zac's abilities.

But the reason most people are concerned at the possible loss of Dawson is the lack of an obvious replacement for a very important on field position. Sure there's "possibles" however no one really knows how they'll cope in 2012.

With Zac what you see is what you get, and what you get is a bloke who doesn't get a lot of goals scored on him.

[sasaint]

Typical attitude from someone who lives in Adelaide.

[samoht]

Peopl can argue all they like about Zac's abilities.

But the reason most people are concerned at the possible loss of Dawson is the lack of an obvious replacement for a very important on field position. Sure there's "possibles" however no one really knows how they'll cope in 2012.

With Zac what you see is what you get, and what you get is a bloke who doesn't get a lot of goals scored on him.

Well said... and I agree the understanding he's built up with team mates will missed.(he hasn't gone yet)..as he's working in well within our defensive set up... we might not have a ready replacement.

But let's analyse his relative worth by asking some relevant questions .. and rate him more pragmatically.

What I would like answers to ....as part of the analysis is-
1. How much of the "don't get many goals kicked against him" should be attributed to him and him alone and how much to the help he receives (from team mates ) who protect him from the one on ones etc.. ?
- this would be hard to quantify you would need to look at all the games in detail !

2. How many goals do other FB's get kicked on them on average ?
Let's assume that there's 3 or 4 good FF's who kick 60 goals per season plus or about 3 goals on average per game .. for ever one of those there are 3 that kick 20 goals per season - so the average FF may only kick 1.5 goals per game..
So the average FB may have say 30 goals kicked against them over the season.
I'm not sure exactly how many - it's just a guess.
How does Dawson rank amongst the other FB's with regards to goals kicked on them ?

3. How would these other FB's go if they were playing for a strong defensive unit such as St kilda ?
How do you assess that and adjust for that ?

4. when we look at FB's do we only look at how they stop direct opponents or do we also look at what else they bring - e.g. a Scarlett a Fletcher may stop opponents but they also do a whole lot more than that as we all know.

The other thing to remember is the FB role has probably changed over the years - and the FBis just part of a unit and not just about stopping goals -a good one also sets up play... and Zac can do a bit of that too but is no Fletcher, Glass or Scarlett etc..

[bergholt]

3. How would these other FB's go if they were playing for a strong defensive unit such as St kilda ?
How do you assess that and adjust for that ?

you don't have to assess that because we don't have the option of using any of those of full backs.

the only way to assess zac's value is versus our other options. in practice, the options are an untried kid (simpkin), a veteran trier (blake) or some first-teamers who aren't really suited to full back (fisher, clarke, gilbert, dempster).

there's no doubt zac is a better option than any of those, even taking into account everything else you've said.

it would be flabbergasting if simpkin walked into fullback and had a solid season there, as he's a touch undersized and has little experience. blake can play there all year and he'll go ok but he'll definitely have some bad games, and at his age you'd have to expect injuries. moving any of the others to full back would smash our defensive structure and be a serious waste.

so we need zac. the only question is how much we need him. that's what they're currently negotiating.

[SaintPav]

Peopl can argue all they like about Zac's abilities.

But the reason most people are concerned at the possible loss of Dawson is the lack of an obvious replacement for a very important on field position. Sure there's "possibles" however no one really knows how they'll cope in 2012.

With Zac what you see is what you get, and what you get is a bloke who doesn't get a lot of goals scored on him.

Well said... and I agree the understanding he's built up with team mates will missed.(he hasn't gone yet)..as he's working in well within our defensive set up... we might not have a ready replacement.

But let's analyse his relative worth by asking some relevant questions .. and rate him more pragmatically.

What I would like answers to ....as part of the analysis is-
1. How much of the "don't get many goals kicked against him" should be attributed to him and him alone and how much to the help he receives (from team mates ) who protect him from the one on ones etc.. ?
- this would be hard to quantify you would need to look at all the games in detail !

2. How many goals do other FB's get kicked on them on average ?
Let's assume that there's 3 or 4 good FF's who kick 60 goals per season plus or about 3 goals on average per game .. for ever one of those there are 3 that kick 20 goals per season - so the average FF may only kick 1.5 goals per game..
So the average FB may have say 30 goals kicked against them over the season.
I'm not sure exactly how many - it's just a guess.
How does Dawson rank amongst the other FB's with regards to goals kicked on them ?

3. How would these other FB's go if they were playing for a strong defensive unit such as St kilda ?
How do you assess that and adjust for that ?

4. when we look at FB's do we only look at how they stop direct opponents or do we also look at what else they bring - e.g. a Scarlett a Fletcher may stop opponents but they also do a whole lot more than that as we all know.

The other thing to remember is the FB role has probably changed over the years - and the FBis just part of a unit and not just about stopping goals -a good one also sets up play... and Zac can do a bit of that too but is no Fletcher, Glass or Scarlett etc..

I think you're over complicating something that is quite simple.

[samoht]

I agree bergholt no obvious ready replacements for us and I was just assessing his relative worth and rank on the market.

Also the FB's today get a lot of help from their team mates and the average FB gets maybe 30 goals kicked on them over the year - the ones that are worth the $300,000 plus would probably need to bring a fair bit to the table over and above stopping an immediate opponent.

[Megsie]

Zac is average helped by the fact others in the backline were exceptionally good players.
Let's see how he performs in a new team without these guys to rely on.

[bobmurray]

black could do the roll just as well

Only after we draft him