Gary Ayres and Dawson

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

I would like to see Zac fill the Walsh hole as the new forward big man (if he stays) - can't watch him down back - but think he might be able to play if moved forward where he can actually concentrate on the ball - has done ok in past cameo's .

I would say brereton in watters ear re Dowler - I for one think he knows his footy Brereton - so might be a good pick up

Personally I dont think Dawson would be quick enough on thd lead, strong enough or an accurate enough kick for goal to hold down a key forward postition. Besides we are pretty flush with forward options at the moment IMHO.

If Dawson has indeed rejected a contract offer and decided to move on best of luck to him but he lost any respect I had for him.

BANG BANG

I don't agree with your questioning of his speed on the lead. One of the reasons I've not been against trying him up forward more is the fact that, on the rare occasions he's been played there for us, he has looked really good on the lead. He just seems to effortlessly put a big gap between himself and whoever is on him when he leads. I'm not sure how he does it, as you don't usually see how leads start, unless you're just watching someone specifically, but he does it very effectively. For someone his height (I'm pretty sure he's at least 197cm) he is genuinely quick, especially over a short distance. He's clearly played a lot of footy up forward in the past (I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was more at home there than down back, where he looks lost too often) and I'd be happy to see him played there more (if he stays, which I hope he will). Especially after recently seeing my recording of our round 24 game against Carlton, when he was pushed forward to very good effect.
I agree that he doesn't have the strength one on one, but he doesn't have that down back, either, and I'd rather he be beaten one one one in front of our goals than theirs. As for his kicking, it doesn't look great, but it may still be simple yet effective and I doubt it would be any worse than some who shall remain nameless.
I don't think anyone's suggesting he'll become our next Fraser Gehrig, but if we can cover his loss down back, I'd be plenty happy to see how he went in a trial up forward. If we could get someone like him to kick a couple of goals a game and give a good contest in marking contests (bringing the ball to the ground) it could make us stronger overall.

I reckon there are 2 reasons he wont play up forward for us next season. He will be a Freo and he is a FB who plays best in that position and for that one in 10 chance he stays we dont have any better options. We have plenty of better options than him as a forward.

I was just waiting for you to come on here and trott out your usual closed minded drivel and pigeonholing like "he's a FB". If you were coaching a team no-one would ever play in a different position than the one they usually play in, would they? You have little to no vision or creativity.
You've said the same sort of stuff about Goddard and Tommy Walsh and I reckon you're wrong about all three.
You also said that Chris Dawes would definitely be playing for us next year ("Someone makes up a name on here as either we are interested in getting or they want to come to us and we run with it as fact. Butcher to Saints next year as much hope as probably Judd and 400 other players. Now if we want to run with fact I would be looking at Dawes. He is coming."), so I think I'll take what you say about Zac going to Freo with a grain of salt.
Next you'll be trotting out, for the umpteenth time (although twisting my words in the process), something I said about 3 years ago, as if, even if what I said wasn't a good idea, something someone said years ago means that everything they say after that will be incorrect, or stupid, or whatever you deem it to be.

[plugger66]

I would like to see Zac fill the Walsh hole as the new forward big man (if he stays) - can't watch him down back - but think he might be able to play if moved forward where he can actually concentrate on the ball - has done ok in past cameo's .

I would say brereton in watters ear re Dowler - I for one think he knows his footy Brereton - so might be a good pick up

Personally I dont think Dawson would be quick enough on thd lead, strong enough or an accurate enough kick for goal to hold down a key forward postition. Besides we are pretty flush with forward options at the moment IMHO.

If Dawson has indeed rejected a contract offer and decided to move on best of luck to him but he lost any respect I had for him.

BANG BANG

I don't agree with your questioning of his speed on the lead. One of the reasons I've not been against trying him up forward more is the fact that, on the rare occasions he's been played there for us, he has looked really good on the lead. He just seems to effortlessly put a big gap between himself and whoever is on him when he leads. I'm not sure how he does it, as you don't usually see how leads start, unless you're just watching someone specifically, but he does it very effectively. For someone his height (I'm pretty sure he's at least 197cm) he is genuinely quick, especially over a short distance. He's clearly played a lot of footy up forward in the past (I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was more at home there than down back, where he looks lost too often) and I'd be happy to see him played there more (if he stays, which I hope he will). Especially after recently seeing my recording of our round 24 game against Carlton, when he was pushed forward to very good effect.
I agree that he doesn't have the strength one on one, but he doesn't have that down back, either, and I'd rather he be beaten one one one in front of our goals than theirs. As for his kicking, it doesn't look great, but it may still be simple yet effective and I doubt it would be any worse than some who shall remain nameless.
I don't think anyone's suggesting he'll become our next Fraser Gehrig, but if we can cover his loss down back, I'd be plenty happy to see how he went in a trial up forward. If we could get someone like him to kick a couple of goals a game and give a good contest in marking contests (bringing the ball to the ground) it could make us stronger overall.

I reckon there are 2 reasons he wont play up forward for us next season. He will be a Freo and he is a FB who plays best in that position and for that one in 10 chance he stays we dont have any better options. We have plenty of better options than him as a forward.

I was just waiting for you to come on here and trott out your usual closed minded drivel and pigeonholing like "he's a FB". If you were coaching a team no-one would ever play in a different position than the one they usually play in, would they? You have little to no vision or creativity.
You've said the same sort of stuff about Goddard and Tommy Walsh and I reckon you're wrong about all three.
You also said that Chris Dawes would definitely be playing for us next year, so I think I'll take what you say about Zac going to Freo with a grain of salt.

Looks like i was right with Walsh as he has now left the club. BJ will also not play forward next year apart from when resting occasionly. I suppose we could also have your attitude of just throw the names up and play them anywhere because that is open minded. Yep got Dawes wrong so now got 150 less wrong than you. By the way do you still want players dropped no matter how good they are if they play one poor game in a row and there is a replacement in the seconds. And you say I write drival. That was one of the funniest threads i have ever read.

You can play certain players in other position but I am sorry Zac isnt one because unless you know something we dont, we havent got any other FB.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Look at what I just added to the bottom of my previous post, as you were posting this one. You are SOOOOO predictable and boring and childish it's not funny.
You do realise I don't even bother to read most of your replies to my posts, don't you? There are about a million better things I have to do with my time than get involved in your childish little arguments, that go on and on and on, clogging up an otherwise relatively good site ABOUT THE ST. KILDA FC (not "plugger66", sadly for you). It makes me wonder how many times you've trotted out that old chestnut, that you have to twist to make it sound better, though. Please feel free to continue to try to make me look bad by twisting my words, though. If it's that important for you to look good on an internet site, mostly in front of those you'll never meet in your life, then it's no skin off my nose if you misquote me over and over again, on something you have no proof is not correct anyway. I'm sure it makes you feel really important and takes the attention off the fact you're losing an argument, though, which is when you generally trot it out (that I've seen).
When someone calls you on something you say that isn't correct (you say yourself that you're "wrong on a regular basis/often wrong"), or doesn't make sense, you just tend to try to weasel your way out of it, or change the subject, like bringing up stuff from a million years ago, that you have to twist to make it sound good. It's sad. You can do better than that.
And saying Goddard won't play forward next year is a far cry from your previous claims that he wouldn't be any good there, which flies in the face of his bags of goals in short periods of time there, despite not being used to playing there in an AFL team.
And suggesting that Tommy leaving us (he wasn't delisted because we didn't want him, was he?) is somehow proof that he won't be successful up forward in an AFL team is very chuckle-worthy. Thanks for that.
But as per usual, you're twisting things that either you've said, or someone else has said, to try to make yourself look good, as you're not brave enough (your own admission; "I don't have guts") to just admit when you're wrong about something, unless it's blindingly obvious, like the Chris Dawes one. Again, you can do better and you don't need to be afraid to look bad. I bet you do have guts, somewhere in there.
And I wonder when all these 150 times I've quoted something as "fact" are, when in fact they weren't? I can think of maybe one, when I said I heard "such and such" on the radio, that you actually came on and said was not what they said. But I still am confident that what I heard was what I wrote on here, so that may not even be one.

[plugger66]

Look at what I just added to my previous post, as you were posting this one. You are SOOOOO predictable and boring and childish it's not funny.
You do realise I don't even bother to read most of your replies to my posts, don't you? There are about a million better things I have to do with my time than that.

Well bringing up I was wrong about Dawes is much more mature. Also funny you dont read my posts when replying to you. You obviously have a gift because you seem to know what I have written. Ever though about using that gift?

By the way is SOOOOO a mature word?

[SaintPav]

The calls for Zac to play as a permanent forward are a bloody joke.

There's a big difference between sticking him up forward during a game because he has no obvious opponent or to expolit a match up(s) in the forward line to pinch a goal and to playing him as one of the permanent main targets. BIG DIFFERENCE.

TOTAL JOKE.

[bobmurray]

If Gary Ayers comes in on equal footing with Watters then maybe that clown pre coach appointment wasn't as wrong as we all thought .....

[whiskers3614]

The calls for Zac to play as a permanent forward are a bloody joke.

There's a big difference between sticking him up forward during a game because he has no obvious opponent or to expolit a match up(s) in the forward line to pinch a goal and to playing him as one of the permanent main targets. BIG DIFFERENCE.

TOTAL JOKE.

Why so certain?Surely a bloke of his build(reasonable speed also) would have to be better than somebody like Gamble?

[The Redeemer]

Maybe Zac could be offered a player/assistant coach role.

Or his dad

His Dad is a massive twat and had a massive go at me on a bus from Metricon earlier this year after I said Zac played an average game as a friend and I were going through who played well and who not so much rather quietly.

Dad = twat doodle.

[plugger66]

Look at what I just added to the bottom of my previous post, as you were posting this one. You are SOOOOO predictable and boring and childish it's not funny.
You do realise I don't even bother to read most of your replies to my posts, don't you? There are about a million better things I have to do with my time than get involved in your childish little arguments, that go on and on and on, clogging up an otherwise relatively good site ABOUT THE ST. KILDA FC (not "plugger66", sadly for you). It makes me wonder how many times you've trotted out that old chestnut, that you have to twist to make it sound better, though. Please feel free to continue to try to make me look bad by twisting my words, though. If it's that important for you to look good on an internet site, mostly in front of those you'll never meet in your life, then it's no skin off my nose if you misquote me over and over again, on something you have no proof is not correct anyway. I'm sure it makes you feel really important and takes the attention off the fact you're losing an argument, though, which is when you generally trot it out (that I've seen).
When someone calls you on something you say that isn't correct (you say yourself that you're "wrong on a regular basis/often wrong"), or doesn't make sense, you just tend to try to weasel your way out of it, or change the subject, like bringing up stuff from a million years ago, that you have to twist to make it sound good. It's sad. You can do better than that.
And saying Goddard won't play forward next year is a far cry from your previous claims that he wouldn't be any good there, which flies in the face of his bags of goals in short periods of time there, despite not being used to playing there in an AFL team.
And suggesting that Tommy leaving us (he wasn't delisted because we didn't want him, was he?) is somehow proof that he won't be successful up forward in an AFL team is very chuckle-worthy. Thanks for that.
But as per usual, you're twisting things that either you've said, or someone else has said, to try to make yourself look good, as you're not brave enough (your own admission; "I don't have guts") to just admit when you're wrong about something, unless it's blindingly obvious, like the Chris Dawes one. Again, you can do better and you don't need to be afraid to look bad. I bet you do have guts, somewhere in there.
And I wonder when all these 150 times I've quoted something as "fact" are, when in fact they weren't? I can think of maybe one, when I said I heard "such and such" on the radio, that you actually came on and said was not what they said. But I still am confident that what I heard was what I wrote on here, so that may not even be one.

Looks like that skill is in use again. As I suggested you should use it for good and not evil.

[skeptic]

One thing about Gary Ayres...

Port Melb were full of passion about the club and jumper. They were united and had a strong sense of team and spirit about them.

I wouldn't mind GA have some kind of developmental role that allows him to try and start developing a similar ethos with us

[SaintPav]

The calls for Zac to play as a permanent forward are a bloody joke.

There's a big difference between sticking him up forward during a game because he has no obvious opponent or to expolit a match up(s) in the forward line to pinch a goal and to playing him as one of the permanent main targets. BIG DIFFERENCE.

TOTAL JOKE.

Why so certain?Surely a bloke of his build(reasonable speed also) would have to be better than somebody like Gamble?

Why do you think?

[HitTheBoundary]

One thing about Gary Ayres...

Port Melb were full of passion about the club and jumper. They were united and had a strong sense of team and spirit about them.

I wouldn't mind GA have some kind of developmental role that allows him to try and start developing a similar ethos with us

Agreed. I wouldn't have a problem with Ayres. From what I have heard his strength is his team management/communication skills, and with a past background as senior coach and succesful Hawthorn era player he has a lot of experience.

My only real concern is that the new structure will have a lot of potential for big ego's to conflict. Can Laidley, Ayres, Pelchen, Watters all co-exist?

Hopefully whoever we finally end up with in the management/coaching structure are all team players.

[Spud]

Maybe Zac could be offered a player/assistant coach role.

Or his dad

His Dad is a massive twat and had a massive go at me on a bus from Metricon earlier this year after I said Zac played an average game as a friend and I were going through who played well and who not so much rather quietly.

Dad = twat doodle.

I don't blame him, it's not polite and of course he would have a go at you for that.

[SMS]

1. IF we have Dawson and Ayres next year we CAN win the flag.

2. IF we lose DAWSON chances go down a lot.

3. R.Clarke? get off his back at his best he can rip it up! A new coach, new attitudes throughout! All R.Clarke needs to change is mentally! His run and skills are as good as most in the AFL!

R.Clarke running off half back is a good thing people!

[iremember66]

Zac just needs to get a lot stronger... if he can do that over the summer and get some attacking flair back into his game he would be one of the best FB in the comp.

Hasn't he had a couple of setbacks at the beginning of each pre-season that have hindered his bulking up? ...and then never quite been able to add the bulk during the season proper. Am looking forward to seeing what he can do - hope he stays and can be of major assistance - he is (in my opinion) one of those players who, when he makes a blue, stands out horribly (ie makes a bad one). He has towelled up a couple of forwards on occasions, and is getting better I believe...

[Ross who?]

Did Pelchan give Zac the chop at the Dawks??? If so maybe that is why Zac wants out....

[westy]

I would like to see Zac fill the Walsh hole as the new forward big man (if he stays) - can't watch him down back - but think he might be able to play if moved forward where he can actually concentrate on the ball - has done ok in past cameo's .

I would say brereton in watters ear re Dowler - I for one think he knows his footy Brereton - so might be a good pick up

Personally I dont think Dawson would be quick enough on thd lead, strong enough or an accurate enough kick for goal to hold down a key forward postition. Besides we are pretty flush with forward options at the moment IMHO.

If Dawson has indeed rejected a contract offer and decided to move on best of luck to him but he lost any respect I had for him.

BANG BANG

I don't agree with your questioning of his speed on the lead. One of the reasons I've not been against trying him up forward more is the fact that, on the rare occasions he's been played there for us, he has looked really good on the lead. He just seems to effortlessly put a big gap between himself and whoever is on him when he leads. I'm not sure how he does it, as you don't usually see how leads start, unless you're just watching someone specifically, but he does it very effectively. For someone his height (I'm pretty sure he's at least 197cm) he is genuinely quick, especially over a short distance. He's clearly played a lot of footy up forward in the past (I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was more at home there than down back, where he looks lost too often) and I'd be happy to see him played there more (if he stays, which I hope he will). Especially after recently seeing my recording of our round 24 game against Carlton, when he was pushed forward to very good effect.
I agree that he doesn't have the strength one on one, but he doesn't have that down back, either, and I'd rather he be beaten one one one in front of our goals than theirs. As for his kicking, it doesn't look great, but it may still be simple yet effective and I doubt it would be any worse than some who shall remain nameless.
I don't think anyone's suggesting he'll become our next Fraser Gehrig, but if we can cover his loss down back, I'd be plenty happy to see how he went in a trial up forward. If we could get someone like him to kick a couple of goals a game and give a good contest in marking contests (bringing the ball to the ground) it could make us stronger overall.

At last, someone has spotted the obvious. I think Zac could be a revelation up forward. It wouldn't be the first time that a coach has played a bloke in the wrong position without knowing it! Look at what happened to Tarrant at Fremantle.

[westy]

Didn't Zac get the chop from the Dawks before Pelchen got there?

[Junction Oval]

Westy's question :

Didn't Zac get the chop from the Dawks before Pelchen got there?

I think that Pelchen was a long term Hawks employee - there well before Zac.

Let's wait and see how things fall this week, then we can discuss with some clarity, where Zac may play - could well be with Freo !

[SMS]

Do we want to win a flag?

GET FEVOLA! KEEP DAWSON and GET AYRES!! those 3 = FLAG!

without those 3 what have we got? no real full forward, opnly fisher, blake as experienced KPPs down back AND MCEVOY will have to ruck by himself as Kosi will have to play full forward when he clearly is better in the ruck1!

FFS give me the coaching job Ill have a flag by 2012s end.

But no we wont get fevola, we wont keep dawson and our team will only get 5th - 8th AT BEST! god damn it!

[SMS]

Do we want to win a flag?

GET FEVOLA! KEEP DAWSON and GET AYRES!! those 3 = FLAG!

without those 3 what have we got? no real full forward, only fisher, blake as experienced KPPs down back AND MCEVOY will have to ruck by himself as Kosi will have to play full forward when he clearly is better in the ruck!

FFS give me the coaching job Ill have a flag by 2012s end.

But no we wont get fevola, we wont keep dawson and our team will only get 5th - 8th AT BEST! god damn it!

I agree DAWSON up forward is a great option! All in all we MUST keep Dawson losing him say goodbye to 2012.

[bigcarl]

We have plenty of better options than him as a forward.

Such as?

[Dr Spaceman]

1. IF we have Dawson and Ayres next year we CAN win the flag.

2. IF we lose DAWSON chances go down a lot.

3. R.Clarke? get off his back at his best he can rip it up! A new coach, new attitudes throughout! All R.Clarke needs to change is mentally! His run and skills are as good as most in the AFL!

R.Clarke running off half back is a good thing people!

Raph has been regularly lampooned as one of Lyon’s pet players, as someone who was only getting a game because Ross was coach.

However if he stays, I actually reckon he’s exactly the sort of player who will benefit from all the coaching changes at Seaford. Just a feeling.

Time will tell I suppose.

[Little Dozer]

1. IF we have Dawson and Ayres next year we CAN win the flag.

2. IF we lose DAWSON chances go down a lot.

3. R.Clarke? get off his back at his best he can rip it up! A new coach, new attitudes throughout! All R.Clarke needs to change is mentally! His run and skills are as good as most in the AFL!

R.Clarke running off half back is a good thing people!

Raph has been regularly lampooned as one of Lyon’s pet players, as someone who was only getting a game because Ross was coach.

However if he stays, I actually reckon he’s exactly the sort of player who will benefit from all the coaching changes at Seaford. Just a feeling.

Time will tell I suppose.

Raph has had 8 years to play consistent football. The proof is that he's not capable. He will have good games occasionally and poor games frequently. If he stays fine, hopefully he improves, if he's gone that's fine too, had more than enough time.

[skeptic]

The proof is that he's not capable.

hardly proof