Gilham vs Dawson

[hawkaz1]

This may have been done before but I was just wondering who you think is the better option for fullback and why. Obviously Dawson didn't have the best of years and Gilham showed promise late in the year, but who has more potential to become a good fullback for us?

 

[Delisted]

Dawson. I'd say the same thing would of happened if Gilham would of been put on Rocca/Thompson. Gilham never got the best forwards. I think Dawson in the long run.

 

[danzan22]

i think hawks should stick with dawson, he has some experience on the big fowards now unlike gilham. plus i think nearly every good fullback was smashed in their first few years

 

[Roughie]

Im sure we will find out this season. Im betting that there will be alot of swapping between Dawson and Gilham getting the best two forwards with Croad getting the CHF. With DJ returning we can expect a bit more help for the young fellas.

I would rather us continue with Dawson.

 

[BedlamHawk]

I would prefer to go with Gilham. He just seems so much more capable of handling FB than Dawson. I mean lets face it, Dawson was drafted as a ruckman.
Dawson:
1. Cant stay on his man - he stands 20 metres away
2. Has no body strength to cope with big forwards (Gilham is a bit older and likely to bulk up quicker)
3. Lacks footspeed
4. Disposal is questionable

Gilham is the safer option IMO.

 

[medusala]

Dawson has showed far less potential than Madigan and we all know how that ended. Would take a minor miracle.

 

[Bartram_Class]

Dawson gets the rough end of the stick on BF in particular and the football world as a whole, some of the jobs he was given last year were pretty tough gigs and too much was expected of him.

He reminds me a bit of Ryan Ferguson at the Demons, similar build and both courageous players who play out of their weight range regularly. Give Dawson a pre-season to bulk up a bit and he will be much better for it.

 

[H2F]

I'm not a fan of Dawson, although I paid absolutely no attention to the moronic media and how he was their pet scape-goat. I have different reasons.

He is far too laconic to be a defender, he simply does not have the urgency nor instintic defensive nature, to make it.

I'm sure you all watched him closely last year and it wasn't that he was beaten by Rocca and Thompson that bothered me, it was that he did not have any ability whatsoever to read the ball, know when to punch, when to tackle, when to take them on etc.

I wouldn't say he isn't an intelligent footballer, he actually did some clever little things, but as a defender he is a dud.

People are saying have him as a third tall, forget it, he also isn't quick and does not have the ability to create like say a Jacobs, who plays that role to perfection when fit.

I rate Dawson as a similar player to Jacobs but no-where near as good and in my opinion should have been delisted.

I feel sorry for him, because he has a cool head, is tall, and would be an excellent reserves player ... but as an AFL full back, forget it and do it now.

Gilham however has potential. He is bigger through the body, has reasonable skills and is a pretty good spoiler from what I have seen. I think Gilham is worth an experiment and could end up being a good FB for us.

 

[mulhollanddrive]

Both not big enough to play FB. Gilham makes a very good 3rd tall, is excellent at reading the play and has good decision making/disposal. Dawson has the athleticism and nothing else.

Just passing time til another option becomes available.

 

[kolchak]

I would prefer to go with Gilham. He just seems so much more capable of handling FB than Dawson. I mean lets face it, Dawson was drafted as a ruckman.
Dawson:
1. Cant stay on his man - he stands 20 metres away
2. Has no body strength to cope with big forwards (Gilham is a bit older and likely to bulk up quicker)
3. Lacks footspeed
4. Disposal is questionable

Gilham is the safer option IMO.

I'd say his disposal is okay, and if he does not have the body strength (which he doesn't) then standing in in front is probaby his best option for the time being.

 

[medusala]

He reminds me a bit of Ryan Ferguson at the Demons, similar build and both courageous players who play out of their weight range regularly. Give Dawson a pre-season to bulk up a bit and he will be much better for it.

Hawthorn has used others in the past that also were too small ie Graham, Jacobs and Smith. They showed far more aptitude for the task than Dawson who simply looked overwhelmed.

The club has the 3rd tall option covered pretty well. So he either plays FB or else I cant see a role for him.

 

[lethalselbow]

Gilham got to be fullback when the side was playing like champs. Dawson may have done well during that time too.

I like 'em both for the side.

 

[Blitzkrieg Boy]

We delisted Gilham because he got smashed by Fergus Watts by 10 goals in SANFL.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Zac wants to be FB, so i say stick with him. Most players dont want the responsibility, so he is taking on a lot. Gilham will be a great player, but i can see him as more of a utility, playing as a defencive forward (like lado?) or playing on HB.

Zac will need two more years, but i don't think he should be put on Rocca or Thomo next time we play, as i believe it would still be playing on his mind

 

[bugsy]

Dawson. I'd say the same thing would of happened if Gilham would of been put on Rocca/Thompson. Gilham never got the best forwards. I think Dawson in the long run.

Thats wrong.
Gilham did alright against Ottons and when croad went off against Essendon he got Luscas.
So he has played on the best forwards (playing at that time) of those clubs.
Gilham also ran off ottons and set up goals around our forward 50.
Zac couldnt do that.

 

[Robber Baron]

Dawson is still young and Gilham is older so I recon Dawson will get as good as Gilham when he gets to his age. Our futre looks bright with these two up and cummers because we have developed under Clarkson already two fullbacks when we had none just last year.

 

[The Kipster]

I would prefer to go with Gilham. He just seems so much more capable of handling FB than Dawson. I mean lets face it, Dawson was drafted as a ruckman.
Dawson:
1. Cant stay on his man - he stands 20 metres away
2. Has no body strength to cope with big forwards (Gilham is a bit older and likely to bulk up quicker)
3. Lacks footspeed
4. Disposal is questionable

Gilham is the safer option IMO.

Very good points Budddddy...
Daws stands 20M in front of his man (you need man on man with the big blokes) this is unlike Gilly who has alot more upper body strength and still needs more.
Disposal is poor under pressure (ATM) whilst Gilly has alot cooler head

Personally I think Daws will come good but somewhere else.....I believe Gilly, Birch and Murph were stand-outs for us

 

[KingRich]

Very good points Budddddy...
Daws stands 20M in front of his man (you need man on man with the big blokes) this is unlike Gilly who has alot more upper body strength and still needs more.
Disposal is poor under pressure (ATM) whilst Gilly has alot cooler head

Personally I think Daws will come good but somewhere else.....I believe Gilly, Birch and Murph were stand-outs for us

Dawson would have been told by coaches to play that far in front I have no doubt. Having played quite a bit of full back as an undersized player it is impossible to stand body on body in the contests. Lets wait and see, kid is only 20, plenty of time to learn and improve!

 

[burner1]

Dawson would have been told by coaches to play that far in front I have no doubt. Having played quite a bit of full back as an undersized player it is impossible to stand body on body in the contests. Lets wait and see, kid is only 20, plenty of time to learn and improve!

Spot on. He was thrown right in the deep end to fast track his development - he was inexperienced and underweight. To play body on body when your giving up so much weight and strength is just stupid - you'd lose every time. He played off his man to give him some sort of chance.
Lets not forget croad got 8 (?) kicked on him by fevola, playing one out in th goal square is bloody hard - let alone for an underweight and vastly inexperienced player.

I think we need to give him some time to adjust to tempo of afl and get his body right. If I remember correctly at the start of last season brad sewell looked hopeless- just was too slow with his decision making and always got caught with the ball. Now 2 seasons later he's one of our better players.

Dawsons played only 14 games and most of them were probably him being fasttracked as a fb than on form. Hes only 20 and probably needs another 2 seasons to add another 10 kgs to his frame. Most fb's take a couple of years at least to come good so we need to be patient. More importanly he appears to have the attributes required - hes a good size at 195cm, is mobile and fairly quick for his size, hes aggressive, he is persistent and wants to be fb, and at bh level he;s shown good decision making and ability to spoil.

Look he may not ever turn into a gun FB, but the coaching staff have seen theres something there to work with - why else would they throw a young player in the deep end like they did? I reckon he'll surprise a few over the next year or two.

From reports from BH gilham struggles even more with the power fwds than dawson does. He's got better decison making and skills but not sure if hes got the frame to play fb long term. Reckon will be a good defender for us though

 

[Back Pocket Rocket]

We delisted Gilham because he got smashed by Fergus Watts by 10 goals in SANFL.

I would of kicked 10 that day the way the Eagles were lacing Watts out! Gilham didn't stand a chance.

 

[Delisted]

Thats wrong.
Gilham did alright against Ottons and when croad went off against Essendon he got Luscas.
So he has played on the best forwards (playing at that time) of those clubs.
Gilham also ran off ottons and set up goals around our forward 50.
Zac couldnt do that.

Your wrong. We won both those game. The games Dawson got dominated we lost in the middle, it wasnt because dawson got ass r*ped. Like burner said Croad got 8 kicked against him against fev, could Gilham have stoped that?

Gilham and Dawson will be good players for us I hope. The only problem I see with Dawson is he seems lethargic, but obviously he has somthing to offer if AC and Co see somthing in him.

 

[HIG]

Does anyone else see the irony in people writing off Dawson when this time last year Gilham had only played 1 senior match in three seasons and been delisted?

 

[MR PERFECT]

Dawson. I'd say the same thing would of happened if Gilham would of been put on Rocca/Thompson. Gilham never got the best forwards. I think Dawson in the long run.

Gilham did play on Thompson in round 21, Thompson kicked one goal.

Although the Kanga's were'nt playing well that day, Gilham did'nt do alot wrong and i was watching him closely.

 

[Philhawk]

This may have been done before but I was just wondering who you think is the better option for fullback and why. Obviously Dawson didn't have the best of years and Gilham showed promise late in the year, but who has more potential to become a good fullback for us?

Poll added for you, Hawkaz.

Really good question, incidentally. I think Dawson will be persisted with, but i'd honestly prefer Gilham to be given the go as he reads the play very, very well and I think he's got the body-type that could fill out and turn into a very good Full-Back down the track.

 

[kolchak]

A better question would be is Al gonna improve his tactics involving his use of Dawson.