Training 2020 Preseason

RW

Cancelled
10k Posts Sydney Forum Service Medal Sydney Swans - Jake Lloyd 2020 Player Sponsor BeanCoiNFT Investor Sydney Swans - Harry Cunningham 2019 Player Sponsor Ex-Moderator Sydney Swans - Gary Rohan Player Sponsor 2018 Sydney Swans - George Hewett Player Sponsor 2017 Sydney Swans - Callum Mills Player Sponsor 2016 Podcaster
Jan 11, 2003
16,283
19,093
AFL Club
Sydney

Kiama Chris

Norm Smith Medallist
May 10, 2016
7,502
16,906
Kiama
AFL Club
Sydney
Not really, he produced some excellent footy this season showing what a lot here had seen for some time at NEAFL level. The fact that he has added a high level of endurance to his arsenal is exciting because this is an endurance game, it means Dawson could play any role on the ground, that's highly valuable.

Beating Clarke, a noted front of the field gut runner, is serious stuff.
Not only beat him but pulled quite relaxed. Clarke was close to spewing.
 
I know I have been a huge wrap on Dawson for a long time. Still I am optimistic he can further improve. If he does he will become more important than Mills or Heeney.

He is a pure footy player who reads the play and makes sharp decisions. He also has some leadership attributes like using his voice and directing play. That he has come back after boosting his tank in the off season also speaks volumes for the young bloke.

I'm a fan of Dawson too. My point was that many on this board pay favourites and I think it has to do with where they're drafted and the subsequent expectations on them. Dawson was taken in the 50s, and so anything more than an average player we are ecstatic with (and I think all signs point towards him definitely being more than 'above average.' Mills was taken at pick 3, Heeney was touted as a top 5 talent, Florent and Hayward also first round picks. When they're inconsistent or have a down game, it's constantly pointed out on here (particularly with the two academy boys), and every little mistake they make is met with a, "there goes Heeney showboating again" or "Mills no composure again".

When Dawson is inconsistent or has a down game (and he did this year despite his improvement), it's never mentioned, his mistakes excused as "still learning", while small things (like winning a time trial) are ranted about.

Now this should be a good thing, because I love celebrating the youngsters when they work hard and do well, but there's a clear double standard where people buy into expectations that are unfair to begin with. Makes me shudder to think what Blakey could cop if he doesn't become Goodes 2.0 by the age of 23.
 
I'm a fan of Dawson too. My point was that many on this board pay favourites and I think it has to do with where they're drafted and the subsequent expectations on them. Dawson was taken in the 50s, and so anything more than an average player we are ecstatic with (and I think all signs point towards him definitely being more than 'above average.' Mills was taken at pick 3, Heeney was touted as a top 5 talent, Florent and Hayward also first round picks. When they're inconsistent or have a down game, it's constantly pointed out on here (particularly with the two academy boys), and every little mistake they make is met with a, "there goes Heeney showboating again" or "Mills no composure again".

When Dawson is inconsistent or has a down game (and he did this year despite his improvement), it's never mentioned, his mistakes excused as "still learning", while small things (like winning a time trial) are ranted about.

Now this should be a good thing, because I love celebrating the youngsters when they work hard and do well, but there's a clear double standard where people buy into expectations that are unfair to begin with. Makes me shudder to think what Blakey could cop if he doesn't become Goodes 2.0 by the age of 23.

I meant no slight on either Mils or Heeney, both of whom are terrific players. I think Dawson has more upside. A top ten in the B&F for an inexperienced player is unusual. Horse raves about him but still with a tone of surprise. They say they always rated him, but I do not believe it.
 
I meant no slight on either Mils or Heeney, both of whom are terrific players. I think Dawson has more upside. A top ten in the B&F for an inexperienced player is unusual. Horse raves about him but still with a tone of surprise. They say they always rated him, but I do not believe it.

The youngsters all have plenty of upside and some may take longer than others to reach their peaks. Some may not ever get there, Dawson included.We just don't know and won't for a while. Which is why I think knocking some while worshipping others is a stupid and unfair exercise that is far too common on this board (not saying you're a culprit B52.)

FWIW I think Horse always rated Dawson. I think Horse is a hard-arse and so if a player wasn't fit and taking their footy seriously enough, Horse would cut him at the drop of a hat. That he persisted with Dawson suggests he always saw something in him, and credit to Horse for getting that out of him.
 
The youngsters all have plenty of upside and some may take longer than others to reach their peaks. Some may not ever get there, Dawson included.We just don't know and won't for a while. Which is why I think knocking some while worshipping others is a stupid and unfair exercise that is far too common on this board (not saying you're a culprit B52.)

FWIW I think Horse always rated Dawson. I think Horse is a hard-arse and so if a player wasn't fit and taking their footy seriously enough, Horse would cut him at the drop of a hat. That he persisted with Dawson suggests he always saw something in him, and credit to Horse for getting that out of him.

Hmmn. I think Dawson copped the same treatment as Allir and Mitchell copped.
 
I'm a fan of Dawson too. My point was that many on this board pay favourites and I think it has to do with where they're drafted and the subsequent expectations on them. Dawson was taken in the 50s, and so anything more than an average player we are ecstatic with (and I think all signs point towards him definitely being more than 'above average.' Mills was taken at pick 3, Heeney was touted as a top 5 talent, Florent and Hayward also first round picks. When they're inconsistent or have a down game, it's constantly pointed out on here (particularly with the two academy boys), and every little mistake they make is met with a, "there goes Heeney showboating again" or "Mills no composure again".

When Dawson is inconsistent or has a down game (and he did this year despite his improvement), it's never mentioned, his mistakes excused as "still learning", while small things (like winning a time trial) are ranted about.

Now this should be a good thing, because I love celebrating the youngsters when they work hard and do well, but there's a clear double standard where people buy into expectations that are unfair to begin with. Makes me shudder to think what Blakey could cop if he doesn't become Goodes 2.0 by the age of 23.
You have never been a fan of Dawson and you know it
 
Hmmn. I think Dawson copped the same treatment as Allir and Mitchell copped.

Different cases I reckon B52.

Aliir and Mitchell had both shown what they could do at AFL level which is what made Horse's 'treatment' all the more baffling/frustrating for so many (I agreed with him on Mitchell though)

But Dawson didn't have that form to show because he'd barely played, so it was the safe bet to just keep him in the NEAFL until a spot opened up and then see what Dawson could do with it. He's not the only one. COR was an identical case of a player who was banging the door down in the NEAFL but just didn't have those runs on the board at senior level to make him a favourable choice. They both eventually rewarded Horse's faith while punishing his reluctance though :p
 
I'm a fan of Dawson too. My point was that many on this board pay favourites and I think it has to do with where they're drafted and the subsequent expectations on them. Dawson was taken in the 50s, and so anything more than an average player we are ecstatic with (and I think all signs point towards him definitely being more than 'above average.' Mills was taken at pick 3, Heeney was touted as a top 5 talent, Florent and Hayward also first round picks. When they're inconsistent or have a down game, it's constantly pointed out on here (particularly with the two academy boys), and every little mistake they make is met with a, "there goes Heeney showboating again" or "Mills no composure again".

When Dawson is inconsistent or has a down game (and he did this year despite his improvement), it's never mentioned, his mistakes excused as "still learning", while small things (like winning a time trial) are ranted about.

Now this should be a good thing, because I love celebrating the youngsters when they work hard and do well, but there's a clear double standard where people buy into expectations that are unfair to begin with. Makes me shudder to think what Blakey could cop if he doesn't become Goodes 2.0 by the age of 23.


Dawson never got the armchair selection ride that heeney mills florent and hayward have gotten

also when did he really drop in form so far
 
Dawson never got the armchair selection ride that heeney mills florent and hayward have gotten

also when did he really drop in form so far

Armchair selection ride? When did Heeney & Mills ever do anything worthy of not getting selected? Dawson could've been but he had bad luck with injuries and said himself he wasn't in the best condition, so unfair IMO to use the fact that those four earned early games and proved themselves against them.

Dawson hasn't dropped in form but he's had good games and games where he's not so involved. I could go further but I am not a fan of dragging up mistakes youngsters make and faults in their games. It's the ebbs and flows of being a 22 year old. But can you genuinely say that same standard is applied to every other young player?
 
Back