Discussion So why aren't we calling for Jason Blake's head?

[Look2Me4Guidance]

The answer is we're not because that would be simply ridiculous. Riewoldt beat Blake hands down on Friday night and well done to him. He even proved a handful for Sam Fisher. Yet, I would bet everything I own that if Zac Dawson had of been Jason Blake on Friday night, there would have been 15 threads saying he needs to be out of the side, never to play again, etc. So perhaps it might be time for people to admit they have it in for Zac and instead of bagging the boy, get behind him because he'll have some big jobs to perform in September along with 21 of his mates.

 

[bluejay]

Like they used to have it in for poor Jason Blake some years ago...

 

[stkildathunda]

well said L2M4G

 

[Squizz]

Blakey was 'orrible on Friday night (even when he got shifted off the ugly cousin).

But had plenty of points in his kit-bag from the last couple of seasons. Would have played almost every game since the start of the 2007 season, and has now played 172 games with the Saints. 9th in 2009 B&F, 10th in 2008.

Some other players on our list might not have the same credits in the bank. Whilst ideally we'd aim to be positive about all our players (and unfounded slagging of the same player whenever something goes wrong is probably not appropriate for this forum), I have no problem with posters raising whether player X should be in the team instead of player Y (you should have a plan B rather than just the "get him out of the team" tone). Whilst the coaches are obviously better placed to make a call, they do have favourites and seem to give certain players extra chances not afforded to others on the list.

But I did think in watching the game that Zac would have matched up better, as Blakey has been on the more mobile forwards (who push up the ground) in recent times.

 

[Joffaboy]

Because there is a 5 year time limit on being a scapegoat. Blakey has long passed the use by date.

Zac and Raph are the new whipping boys - and don't forget it.

 

[Fehring]

The answer is we're not because that would be simply ridiculous. Riewoldt beat Blake hands down on Friday night and well done to him. He even proved a handful for Sam Fisher. Yet, I would bet everything I own that if Zac Dawson had of been Jason Blake on Friday night, there would have been 15 threads saying he needs to be out of the side, never to play again, etc. So perhaps it might be time for people to admit they have it in for Zac and instead of bagging the boy, get behind him because he'll have some big jobs to perform in September along with 21 of his mates.

If Zac had have been in the side, Riewoldt wouldn't have kicked six.

(what I especially like about this comment is that it can't be disproved).

 

[thomas_m18]

From memory, Zac pulled out SEVERAL bad ones.

But you make a fair point here. Zac's just the whipping boy. Every team has somebody. Unfortunately, ours is Zac (and Clarke, and Kosi to a lesser extent).

 

[ChrisL#12]

Ridiculous thread. Jason Blake's job is not to man the opposition's best forward. He had to on the weekend because Dawson didn't play. Dawson's job is to man the opposition's best forward and if he can't do that adequately enough on a fairly regular basis, there should be calls for his omission. Let's face it, we are a top four side and there should be healthy debate about spots. Blake does his designated job well. Dawson, earlier in the year, did not.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

Ridiculous thread. Jason Blake's job is not to man the opposition's best forward. He had to on the weekend because Dawson didn't play. Dawson's job is to man the opposition's best forward and if he can't do that adequately enough on a fairly regular basis, there should be calls for his omission. Let's face it, we are a top four side and there should be healthy debate about spots. Blake does his designated job well. Dawson, earlier in the year, did not.

How is it a ridiculous thread when many posters have suggested Blake would take Dawson's place at FB?

 

[ChrisL#12]

How is it a ridiculous thread when many posters have suggested Blake would take Dawson's place at FB?

Forgive me, I didn't realise many posters were on the selection committee.

 

[Geoff Cunningham]

The answer is we're not because that would be simply ridiculous. Riewoldt beat Blake hands down on Friday night and well done to him. He even proved a handful for Sam Fisher. Yet, I would bet everything I own that if Zac Dawson had of been Jason Blake on Friday night, there would have been 15 threads saying he needs to be out of the side, never to play again, etc. So perhaps it might be time for people to admit they have it in for Zac and instead of bagging the boy, get behind him because he'll have some big jobs to perform in September along with 21 of his mates.

The real answer is because there are delusional supporters on this forum such as yourself who believe that St. Kilda have a list of 38 untouchables and nobody on the list is susceptible to criticism. How many premierships have we won with all of these players who you so honourably defend? None. I’m not pessimist, just a realist. Where were some of your 'mates' on the biggest day in September last year when it counted?

 

[sainter]

Geoff,

If this forum is so full of delusional supporters why not try this forum.

I would argue that the good thing about this forum is that we do have a wide range of opinions. However, it's generally not done in the condescending tone that you've brought to this forum in the last few weeks.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

Forgive me, I didn't realise many posters were on the selection committee.

And you long on here because?

 

[Geoff Cunningham]

Forgive me, I didn't realise many posters were on the selection committee.

Well said Chris

 

[ChrisL#12]

Well said Geoff

Look L2M4G, we know you're the advocate of peace and love and all this stuff but if a player plays badly, supporters have a right to question their place in a team. That's called sport. I've got no idea what you're trying to acheive by defending every player via BigFooty but I think it's probably a pointless pursuit.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

The real answer is because there are delusional supporters on this forum such as yourself who believe that St. Kilda have a list of 38 untouchables and nobody on the list is susceptible to criticism. How many premierships have we won with all of these players who you so honorably defend? None. I’m not pessimist, just a realist. Where were some of your 'mates' on the biggest day in September last year when it counted?

Struggling on the comprehension front are we? Very difficult to have 38 untouchables when only 22 make up a team. I would have thought a learned man such as yourself would be aware of this.

Riewoldt struggled in the GF last year, so I assume you're having a crack at him as well. It's not called experience for no reason and we were right in the game until 5 minutes to go?

I don't know if you struggle in separating reality from fantasy, but we don't have Spud Frawley or Plugger waiting in the wings to cover players who are struggling. Unlike you, I'm not going to down tools and give up on the season just because things aren't to my liking.

 

[Plugger35]

Blakey was 'orrible on Friday night (even when he got shifted off the ugly cousin).

But had plenty of points in his kit-bag from the last couple of seasons. Would have played almost every game since the start of the 2007 season, and has now played 172 games with the Saints. 9th in 2009 B&F, 10th in 2008.

Some other players on our list might not have the same credits in the bank. Whilst ideally we'd aim to be positive about all our players (and unfounded slagging of the same player whenever something goes wrong is probably not appropriate for this forum), I have no problem with posters raising whether player X should be in the team instead of player Y (you should have a plan B rather than just the "get him out of the team" tone). Whilst the coaches are obviously better placed to make a call, they do have favourites and seem to give certain players extra chances not afforded to others on the list.

But I did think in watching the game that Zac would have matched up better, as Blakey has been on the more mobile forwards (who push up the ground) in recent times.

Yeah that's pretty much it, Blake has more credits in the bank than Dawson so people are less prone to criticising him.

Dawson has been pretty poor all season and has pretty much used up any credits he built up from last year. Blake has been consistently good for a couple of years now and rarely plays a bad game. Everyone is entitled to the odd bad game, like Blake had against Richmond, it's when you have a number of bad games in a row that people start calling for a player's head.

The other difference between Blake and Dawson is that Blake always tries 100% and plays with desperation and intensity, something I'm not sure you can say about Dawson. There have been times this year where Dawson has looked half asleep and disinterested and conceded some easy goals as a result.

Most supporters can accept players being beaten by better opponents, like Blake was on Friday night, if they are giving 100%. If they get beaten when they aren't giving 100% or aren't switched on then supporters are going to be more critical.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

Well said Geoff

Look L2M4G, we know you're the advocate of peace and love and all this stuff but if a player plays badly, supporters have a right to question their place in a team. That's called sport. I've got no idea what you're trying to acheive by defending every player via BigFooty but I think it's probably a pointless pursuit.

I don't have a problem with questioning a player's place in the team, but it's pretty baseless when they don't offer a solution to the problem, which is what this thread relates to.

 

[ChrisFooty]

Because there is a 5 year time limit on being a scapegoat. Blakey has long passed the use by date.

Zac and Raph are the new whipping boys - and don't forget it.

We might throw in Robert Eddy if he keeps getting a game.

 

[dan0z]

how bout this guys..
None of you are right and none of you are wrong, you are just different types of supporters.

L2M4G is more of a hippy supporter
geoff and chris are bogan supporters
squizz and plugger are metro supporters

People are always going to have different opinions, so try not to take them so personaly..

 

[phantom13]

I'm a touch confused, who said Blake would take Dawsons spot at fullback? Whoever said that is way off the mark, I will admit i was one of the many saying Maxy should have played in the GF (not at Zacs expense but at Raphs) that is neither here nor there, bottom line is Zac is our FB now and he is okay, Blake is a utility, sometimes tagger, sometimes HBF, he is a tall Stevie Baker (who i LOVE) and we shouldn't forget that, he was a stop gap on friday night and he had his pants pulled down by a very inform very talented full forward who he would never play on if not for lack of anyone else being capable. More to the point who cares, we won, comfortably. If we need to be concerned about anything its definately Kozis lack of form.

 

[Simon Templar]

Ridiculous thread. Jason Blake's job is not to man the opposition's best forward. He had to on the weekend because Dawson didn't play. Dawson's job is to man the opposition's best forward and if he can't do that adequately enough on a fairly regular basis, there should be calls for his omission. Let's face it, we are a top four side and there should be healthy debate about spots. Blake does his designated job well. Dawson, earlier in the year, did not.

Well said Geoff

Look L2M4G, we know you're the advocate of peace and love and all this stuff but if a player plays badly, supporters have a right to question their place in a team. That's called sport. I've got no idea what you're trying to acheive by defending every player via BigFooty but I think it's probably a pointless pursuit.

Yeah that's pretty much it, Blake has more credits in the bank than Dawson so people are less prone to criticising him.

Dawson has been pretty poor all season and has pretty much used up any credits he built up from last year. Blake has been consistently good for a couple of years now and rarely plays a bad game. Everyone is entitled to the odd bad game, like Blake had against Richmond, it's when you have a number of bad games in a row that people start calling for a player's head.

The other difference between Blake and Dawson is that Blake always tries 100% and plays with desperation and intensity, something I'm not sure you can say about Dawson. There have been times this year where Dawson has looked half asleep and disinterested and conceded some easy goals as a result.

Most supporters can accept players being beaten by better opponents, like Blake was on Friday night, if they are giving 100%. If they get beaten when they aren't giving 100% or aren't switched on then supporters are going to be more critical.

how bout this guys..
None of you are right and none of you are wrong, you are just different types of supporters.

L2M4G is more of a hippy supporter
geoff and chris are bogan supporters
squizz and plugger are metro supporters

People are always going to have different opinions, so try not to take them so personaly..

Well said

 

[sainter]

how bout this guys..
None of you are right and none of you are wrong, you are just different types of supporters.

L2M4G is more of a hippy supporter
geoff and chris are bogan supporters
squizz and plugger are metro supporters

People are always going to have different opinions, so try not to take them so personaly..

I'm trying to work out who comes out best and worst with those descriptions!

The way I see it, and it probably makes me a hippy according to dan0z, is that there is no use criticising Dawson week in week out if we have nobody that can step in and do a better job without sacrificing our structure.

Blake is fantastic as a third tall in defence and that's his role. He struggled to contain Riewoldt on Friday and it's pretty obvious he'll struggle against bigger and stronger full forwards than Jack if he was to play on the number one forward from here on in.

As we know Fisher (in Zacs absence) is probably the player that is best suited to playing on the #1 or monster forwards. However playing him in this role is going to mean that we'll miss out on using him in his most damaging role. That is, the tall defender that excels as a loose man or third man up in the contest. The drive he gives us out of defence is lost when he's forced to be accountable on the oppositions best forward.

The point is, if people are going to continually get stuck into Zac, at least tell us what you think we should do in his continued absence.

 

[Papa Juggs]

Blake was the nearest man to Embley running into an open goal and stopped him.

That could have been a great momentum shift for the Eagles.

Blake is awesome.

Who could forget the Hawks game a couple of years ago where he was our #1 ruck and put them to the sword in the 3rd quarter.

Like some have said. Credit in the bank.

 

[Persevering Saint]

Wait, Jack is the ugly Reiwoldt...?

I thought McPhee was...