Zac watch

[ormond-allen]

Does anyone know how Zac is coming along? I didn't see much VFL this year, but saw his name in the best often. Is he ready for '08? Cos really, another tall key position defender is probably the only area of the ground where we're found wanting.

 

[Scribe]

Does anyone know how Zac is coming along? I didn't see much VFL this year, but saw his name in the best often. Is he ready for '08? Cos really, another tall key position defender is probably the only area of the ground where we're found wanting.

* Skinfolds are down
* Timetrial PB registered
* Put on another 5kgs of pure muscle
* He's flying
* Training the house down
* Tearing the track up
* Impressing his team-mates with his work ethic

Sadly, unless he breaks into the senior 22 for more than 6 games in 2008, he'll be under pressure to retain his spot on the list.

 

[lickmerocks]

* Skinfolds are down
* Timetrial PB registered
* Put on another 5kgs of pure muscle
* He's flying
* Training the house down
* Tearing the track up
* Impressing his team-mates with his work ethic

Sadly, unless he breaks into the senior 22 for more than 6 games in 2008, he'll be under pressure to retain his spot on the list.

Not up to it.

Lacks skill (kicking and handballing) and sadly lacks any football instincts when under pressure.

 

[HappyHawk]

I think I recall his early games, where he was relaxed and he was even interviewed regarding his calmness during the game. It was the Tigers game I think.

I then went ballistic when Clarko started putting him on the Gorrilla forwards where he had bags kicked on him. My argument was this could shatter his confidence. The experience is NOT good as Clarko argued because deep down you believe it was your performance which lost the game for the team (when the forward bags 7 or 8).

I remember he started looking a lot more panic stricken after these events. He was back page newpaper material. Commentators were questioning Clarkson's nous in this particular case etc. It's significantly different getting towelled up in the forward line than getting towelled up at full back. Light years difference.

I hope Clarkson gives him a go for a reasonable amount of time, and probably against the 3rd talls initially, to get his confidence growing. This was one of the worst coaching moves I've witnessed in 20 odd years of footy. Sounds harsh, but careers can be lost on crazy decisions like this. I know people have differing opinions on the experience thing, but in my view this goes into the "nightmare" experience catagory - last time I heard, nightmares were not good for you psyche and this is cutting edge sport.

 

[GNCLongJack]

I think that putting Zac thru a season at Box Hill was a very good idea. Still plenty of constant pressure, the team earning a cellar dweller spot by the end of season. This end of season team result, despite beating the triple successive premiers Sandy at their ground, and the eventual VFL premiers, Geelong at Kardinia Park in a curtain raiser. His defensive support was Nick Smith, J. Thurgood and Tom Murphy, and Zac certainly got personally towelled up on at least 2 occasions. However, the experience of '07, will serve him well for playing in a successful side, experiencing multiple team victories, whilst shouldering and sharing the defence responsibilities with the likes of Croad, Gilham, Guerra, Jacobs and mebbe even Roughy and Birch. You can see obviously the vast difference the '08 experience could be for the all of 22y.o. in Feb. '08. If Zac has put on another 5kg, at 195cm and the 98kg, statistically he has become our biggest defender. Promising isn't it ? With the mentoring of Danny Frawley, Zac and all of us should be able to anticipate some fruit of his and the club's efforts with him.

 

[Scribe]

To avoid any confusion about my earlier post - I was joking.
I have no idea about Zac's progress, but am sure if you asked anyone at the club, they would roll out some, if not all, of the above cliches.

He has 340 days left to prove himself as an AFL footballer.

No joke.

 

[Brown Blood]

I think I recall his early games, where he was relaxed and he was even interviewed regarding his calmness during the game. It was the Tigers game I think.

I then went ballistic when Clarko started putting him on the Gorrilla forwards where he had bags kicked on him. My argument was this could shatter his confidence. The experience is NOT good as Clarko argued because deep down you believe it was your performance which lost the game for the team (when the forward bags 7 or 8).

I remember he started looking a lot more panic stricken after these events. He was back page newpaper material. Commentators were questioning Clarkson's nous in this particular case etc. It's significantly different getting towelled up in the forward line than getting towelled up at full back. Light years difference.

I hope Clarkson gives him a go for a reasonable amount of time, and probably against the 3rd talls initially, to get his confidence growing. This was one of the worst coaching moves I've witnessed in 20 odd years of footy. Sounds harsh, but careers can be lost on crazy decisions like this. I know people have differing opinions on the experience thing, but in my view this goes into the "nightmare" experience catagory - last time I heard, nightmares were not good for you psyche and this is cutting edge sport.

I agree with you 100% HH - the one thing I think AC has stuffed on as far as coaching goes is his management of zac - I just hope he hasn't burn't him & I think the fact zac failed to play seniors this year shows damage was done.

Will be interesting to see how much support zac gets next year.

 

[cradle of filth]

Dawson has certainly improved alot and i don't think we will ever see a repeat of his 2005 form again. Unfortunately he has to overtake Stephen Gilhams place on the list or he will most likely be de-listed at the end of the year.

 

[Mojo]

Was he really that bad in 2006, for a rookie? He was under a fair deal of pressure given our development wasn't as mature as this year. Perhaps that's why Gilham has excelled so much this season? Added help from midfield, further experienced backline ect.

I think it's more of a case that other players have performed better, rather than Zac performing badly. AC stated that he was the unluckiest bloke on the list, due to Gilham and others developing so quickly.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Both he and Murphy must show something in 2008. They've now been around long enough. No more excuses.

 

[skipjack]

HappyHawk is dead on the money.

Alistair - I love you bud, but you burned Zac badly. (say that ten times quickly)

Putting a child up to mind the gorilla forward was ludicrous.

 

[Noel Gallagher]

Totally disagree about Clarko putting Zac on gorilla fwds in 06. Carlton did EXACTLY the same thing with a young Silvagni. I remember when Lockett absolutely tore a Silvagni a new one early in his career. I'm not saying that Zac is the next Silvagni though just saying that Clarko knows what he's doing. Sick of all these $2 posters adamant that clarko "stuffed up" Give it a rest and reserve your judgemnts after the end of next yaer when we can properly assess where ZAC is at.

Personally i think Zac is very similiar in stature and style to Dustin Fletcher. If he is half as good as him we will be laughing...

Till then "BACK OFF ZAC!!!!!!"

 

[Brown Blood]

Totally disagree about Clarko putting Zac on gorilla fwds in 06. Carlton did EXACTLY the same thing with a young Silvagni. I remember when Lockett absolutely tore a Silvagni a new one early in his career. I'm not saying that Zac is the next Silvagni though just saying that Clarko knows what he's doing. Sick of all these $2 posters adamant that clarko "stuffed up" Give it a rest and reserve your judgemnts after the end of next yaer when we can properly assess where ZAC is at.

Personally i think Zac is very similiar in stature and style to Dustin Fletcher. If he is half as good as him we will be laughing...

Till then "BACK OFF ZAC!!!!!!"

Zac is not a silvagni (full back in team of the century) and the fact that he failed to play a senior game last year shows that the strategy of playing him outside his weight division for prolonged periods of time in a game failed in 2006.

As far as your view that you are sick of posters expressing a view (that it seems you don't agree with) well bad luck - this is an internet forum and everyone is entitled to voice their opinion on an thread as long as it is in a non-abusive way.

Zac has been at the club for 4 years now (he was drafted in 2003) and to suggest that posters shouldn't post an opinion on him or the way he has been managed until he has been at the club for 5 years is nonsensical.

 

[cs61]

Zac is not a silvagni (full back in team of the century) and the fact that he failed to play a senior game last year shows that the strategy of playing him outside his weight division for prolonged periods of time in a game failed in 2006.

As far as your view that you are sick of posters expressing a view (that it seems you don't agree with) well bad luck - this is an internet forum and everyone is entitled to voice their opinion on an thread as long as it is in a non-abusive way.

Zac has been at the club for 4 years now (he was drafted in 2003) and to suggest that posters shouldn't post an opinion on him or the way he has been managed until he has been at the club for 5 years is nonsensical.

I can't possibly understand how you can say categorically it 'proved it failed'.

He is in career best form at Box Hill, but a combination of that still not quite being good enough to be in our 22 due to a few deficiencies is Zac's game combined with the massive improvements of our backline would have more to do with it, than to do with playing him perhaps a little early.

If Zac doesn't come on I very much doubt it has anything to do with Hawthorn not taking the write steps with him, which your post suggests.

They coaching staff has put a lot of faith in a lot of players, a lot of players who people totally wrote off at one stage (Taylor, Campbell, Ladson, Sewell, Boyle) who have proved they can offer something at senior level at one point of another.

That faith was given to Zac in both playing early, and also giving him another two year contract at the end of 2006. It may not pay off, but I'd back their decision considering their track record of developing players so far, as well as deciding which ones to keep and let go.

What is 'nonsensical' is to isolate Zac for criticism in terms of development considering all the factors above doesn't make sense, especially when there wasn't any room in the side, and he is probably on the list for depth purposes at this stage.

 

[Brown Blood]

I can't possibly understand how you can say categorically it 'proved it failed'.

He is in career best form at Box Hill, but a combination of that still not quite being good enough to be in our 22 due to a few deficiencies is Zac's game combined with the massive improvements of our backline would have more to do with it, than to do with playing him perhaps a little early.

You are probably right I can't say it categorically failed but on the other hand if the strategy was a success you would have thought he would have at least played some games in the seniors this year - while he didn't partly as a result of our stable backline there was still a number of times the club had the opportunity to play zac.

And I never said the problem was playing him too early - it was AC for failing to make a move allowing zac to be regularly beaten by physically superior and more experienced opponents thus allowing them to kick multiple goals on him and therefor drawing media attention (and ridicule) on him.

If Zac doesn't come on I very much doubt it has anything to do with Hawthorn not taking the write steps with him, which your post suggests.

They coaching staff has put a lot of faith in a lot of players, a lot of players who people totally wrote off at one stage (Taylor, Campbell, Ladson, Sewell, Boyle) who have proved they can offer something at senior level at one point of another.

The coaching staff hasn't developed zac like they developed those players - and I never heard the press mention any issues with their management like they did with AC's management of zac.

I have been following football a long time and cannot ever remember a time when a very young player like zac was regularly allowed to play and get beaten on physically superior and experienced players like zac was - my criticisms have never been on zac but on AC.

That faith was given to Zac in both playing early, and also giving him another two year contract at the end of 2006. It may not pay off, but I'd back their decision considering their track record of developing players so far, as well as deciding which ones to keep and let go.

Yes they gave him faith in 2006 until he was finally dropped after getting regularly beaten by physically superior and more experienced opponents - as far as showing faith this year I would have liked the coaching staff showing him some faith by at least playing him in some senior games when the opportunity presented itself.

What is 'nonsensical' is to isolate Zac for criticism in terms of development considering all the factors above doesn't make sense, especially when there wasn't any room in the side, and he is probably on the list for depth purposes at this stage.

I have never isolated zac for criticism but AC.

And I still maintain if the strategy was so successful zac would have been expected to play at least some games in the seniors in this his 4th year at the club.

 

[cs61]

You are probably right I can't say it categorically failed but on the other hand if the strategy was a success you would have thought he would have at least played some games in the seniors this year - while he didn't partly as a result of our stable backline there was still a number of times the club had the opportunity to play zac.

Maybe he wasn't good enough?

And I never said the problem was playing him too early - it was AC for failing to make a move allowing zac to be regularly beaten by physically superior and more experienced opponents thus allowing them to kick multiple goals on him and therefor drawing media attention (and ridicule) on him.

Its my personal opinion that I don't think he will make it, and wont be much more than depth this year, and struggle after that, but if he was gonna make it I can't see that handling him any differently would have made his skills better, made him quicker off the mark, or improve his reading of the play, which has a much bigger impact on how he develops than how long he played on Rocca for. Its very subjective how much (if any!) damage playing him on Rocca has had on him as a person or a player.

The coaching staff hasn't developed zac like they developed those players - and I never heard the press mention any issues with their management like they did with AC's management of zac.

Again, with our backline or Brown, Gilham and Croad, and considering our game plan was based around running, Zac just didn't fit into our side. That combined with the coaching staff perhaps believing a year at Box Hill is what he needed to work on his game without the pressure of the media, after being exposed to what was already required. Seems a good way to develop him, this year will be the year to see if he's up to it, I'm not sure last year was, and 2005 was a year where development was > wins, It was an opportunity to play a number of players who weren't ready (Murphy, Young, Dawson). Yes Dawson copped the most, but I don't think they deliberately set out to embarrass him, the media over-reacted, just like they did over round 1 against Brisbane this year.

I have been following football a long time and cannot ever remember a time when a very young player like zac was regularly allowed to play and get beaten on physically superior and experienced players like zac was - my criticisms have never been on zac but on AC.

How many times was it? He kept Kingsley goaless, got pantsed against Rocca, and 5 against Tommo (who was on fire that year anyway). Was there really that many occassions? How can you measure whether it hurt him and has cost him any development?

Yes they gave him faith in 2006 until he was finally dropped after getting regularly beaten by physically superior and more experienced opponents - as far as showing faith this year I would have liked the coaching staff showing him some faith by at least playing him in some senior games when the opportunity presented itself.

He'll have opportunity this year, last year was development.

I just find it hard to believe that when we have come on so well with our list in a short time that people still find time to criticise, without real justification IMO.

They gave Zac a taste early, he got smashed a couple of times,

They took him back, built him up, and gave him a year of footy to work on his game without the pressure of the media, and extended his contract.

He didn't get a game last year based on merit IMO. Brown played key position, Croad had a great year, Gilham was most improved, and the rest of our players were rebounders. Zac IMO will only play when any two Croad, Brown of Gilham go down, and will be used as depth IMO, unless he suddenly becomes a different player.

 

[Monkey23]

Some people are just too one eyed to have a say on this topic.
Zac is probably one of the nicest guys going around, but the true facts are, he can't play footy!
And to all those one eyed supporters, l suppose Roughead and Thurgood are good looking.

 

[Mojo]

Some people are just too one eyed to have a say on this topic.
Zac is probably one of the nicest guys going around, but the true facts are, he can't play footy!
And to all those one eyed supporters, l suppose Roughead and Thurgood are good looking.

Omg.. how can you say that? That's so hypocritical! 'Some people are just too one eyed to have a say on this topic'..? Then you say 'he can't play footy'!

These opinions are so ignorant. Zac was thrown into the deep end in his second season, against experienced, mature forwards. A decision of AC and others to fast track his development, in an undeleveloped side!

At the green age of 20 and the knowledge that many players don't or can't be 'fast-tracked', specifically to a level that satisfies all hungry, impatient supporters, ppl need to be aware Zac hasn't acted in any way to suggest he won't make the grade, particuarly when most of his footy was displayed against the best forwards in the competition at the time!

By 2006's end, both Dawson and Gilham were competing for similiar positions in the side. Subsequently, Gilham, having more experience, surpassed Zac and as a result he wasn't wasn't able to force his way back into a much improved side - even with b.o.g performances for BH!

Simply - players alike to Dawson don't prosper overnight! And like many others on our list are trying to play in a team that for the majority of 2007 weren't many deficiencies!

Clarkson has commented that Dawson will be an important aspect of the Hawks backline in the future! So concluding now that 'he can't play footy' is in fact shallow and naieve to say, when all your basic information of critique was against star forwards! That's it!

Word!

 

[Noel Gallagher]

There is a big difference between voicing your opinion as opposed to bagging the crap out of a very young developing KPP... Wouldn't surprise me that those who bag Zac the most probably never played a game of football in their life. It's probably the same nimrods who bagged BOYLe in 05 and howleed for him to get delisted........

For what it's worth I was a very late maturing footballer and got smashed early on in my junior days because of my height and frame. Funnily enough, once I began to fill out and and get a bit of size I was a different player. Yes I played at a much lower level but the principle is still the same - we all mature at different rates.

I always thought that as true Hawthorn supporters we were supposed to bag opposition players not turn our own...

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

There are a couple of people on here (lickmerocks for one) discussing the player that clearly have not been to see him play at Box Hill. Until such time as you people actually know what you are talking about instead of basing your misguided opinions on a couple of Zac's performances on oversized opponents early in his career, the intelligent people on here will shoot you down.

Your "opinions" are both ignorant and unfair. I saw Dawson first hand on at least half a dozen occasions in 2007. I was not a fan of his until I witnessed his development first hand. He is coming along very well, better than I expected in fact. The Hawthorn Football Club is in agreement with this, proven by the fact that he was offered a contract extension. When he cements a regular spot, and have no doubt that he will, I wonder whether you people will have the stones to publicly apologise.

 

[cs61]

There are a couple of people on here (lickmerocks for one) discussing the player that clearly have not been to see him play at Box Hill. Until such time as you people actually know what you are talking about instead of basing your misguided opinions on a couple of Zac's performances on oversized opponents early in his career, the intelligent people on here will shoot you down.

Your "opinions" are both ignorant and unfair. I saw Dawson first hand on at least half a dozen occasions in 2007. I was not a fan of his until I witnessed his development first hand. He is coming along very well, better than I expected in fact. The Hawthorn Football Club is in agreement with this, proven by the fact that he was offered a contract extension. When he cements a regular spot, and have no doubt that he will, I wonder whether you people will have the stones to publicly apologise.

I'm a Zac supporter, and there is no one I'd prefer to make it than him because he got such an unfair reaction from the media, and the perception of the name (Zac Dawson) is tarnished despite the fact he has some good qualities to offer. What other developing player has copped suck flack, and I've seen worse performances than that from young players before, in a lot easier positions.

Personal opinion of mine is that he wont fit into our game plan, unless he becomes the outright full-back and can handle the big opponents better than Croad, but personally I'm unconvinced that he will considering Roughead may go back this year.

I think we've developed him the right way, and given him the best opportunity possible to compete this season. It'd be fantatic for the side if he could hold a key spot down, and release Croad back to play a more free role on the half back line, or even to be used as a utility as we pleased.

But from where I'm coming from, with our game plan, our defenders need to be able to something offensively, which Gilham, Brown, Croad have shown us so far. I'm not so sure about Zac's work the other way at this stage, but still think he's suitable depth at the moment in case we get into injury problems.

 

[cs61]

There are a couple of people on here (lickmerocks for one) discussing the player that clearly have not been to see him play at Box Hill. Until such time as you people actually know what you are talking about instead of basing your misguided opinions on a couple of Zac's performances on oversized opponents early in his career, the intelligent people on here will shoot you down.

Your "opinions" are both ignorant and unfair. I saw Dawson first hand on at least half a dozen occasions in 2007. I was not a fan of his until I witnessed his development first hand. He is coming along very well, better than I expected in fact. The Hawthorn Football Club is in agreement with this, proven by the fact that he was offered a contract extension. When he cements a regular spot, and have no doubt that he will, I wonder whether you people will have the stones to publicly apologise.

I'm a Zac supporter, and there is no one I'd prefer to make it than him because he got such an unfair reaction from the media, and the perception of the name (Zac Dawson) is tarnished despite the fact he has some good qualities to offer. What other developing player has copped suck flack, and I've seen worse performances than that from young players before, in a lot easier positions.

Personal opinion of mine is that he wont fit into our game plan, unless he becomes the outright full-back and can handle the big opponents better than Croad, but personally I'm unconvinced that he will considering Roughead may go back this year.

I think we've developed him the right way, and given him the best opportunity possible to compete this season. It'd be fantatic for the side if he could hold a key spot down, and release Croad back to play a more free role on the half back line, or even to be used as a utility as we pleased.

But from where I'm coming from, with our game plan, our defenders need to be able to something offensively, which Gilham, Brown, Croad have shown us so far. I'm not so sure about Zac's work the other way at this stage, but still think he's suitable depth at the moment in case we get into injury problems.

 

[Hawkamania!]

If Clarkson and Co have faith in Dawson, then who are we to argue? I mean, Clarkson is the architect of our resurgence and has made advances with the team and players every year he's been coach.

We have to have faith in our coaching staff. So far, they have done a great job.

 

[bigmaxi]

I like zac, full back stay at home player not a rebounder but up and at the new young tall forwards we are just that TALL so go Zac D , I heard Alister say that it was bad luck last year as Zac was plying his best footy ever. he'll get his chance then it will be up to him, i wishh him all the best.
Go hawks.

 

[HappyHawk]

I agree with you 100% HH - the one thing I think AC has stuffed on as far as coaching goes is his management of zac - I just hope he hasn't burn't him & I think the fact zac failed to play seniors this year shows damage was done.

Will be interesting to see how much support zac gets next year.

Some People saying it was the right decision to fastrack him due to his improvement at Box Hill. I don't disagree with this. Just not on the gorillas - that's what hurt him. Give him players who don't use their body as much.

Oh well. There was no way Clarkson could come out and say I was wrong. That would have done even more damage to Zac. We all make mistakes.

And yeah, I really hope Zac isn't burnt. Supporters should give him some slack if he's given another go.

Our playing group is a lot more settled now than when Zac played, so I think he would benefit from a better organized group, especially with the improvement of guys like Brown, Birchall, Croad, Gilham and co beside him down back. Different scenario now - our defence was under siege back then which just compounded the problem.

Good luck Zac - Get stuck into the sour cream and chips.