- Aug 15, 2009
- 3,948
- 6,233
- AFL Club
- West Coast
A concern would be Martin becoming affected by Richmond's culture of defeat, I'd like to see the Tigers change that with Martin (and Cotchin) leading the way.
Careful what you wish for.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A concern would be Martin becoming affected by Richmond's culture of defeat, I'd like to see the Tigers change that with Martin (and Cotchin) leading the way.
Well it depends. Martin can go forward and kick multiple goals and break a game open, would kick a lot more if he played there more. Fyfe is a more dominant mid. Martin has a boot as good as anyone in the game, Fyfe marks the ball which is rare for a mid. So hard to split.Martnis good but if you had to choose between the 2 to make your team a better all round side you'd have to take Fyfe.
No more than Richmond rely on Martin IMO.Also Freo rely very heavily on Fyfe.
You should probably follow that up with something that IS a good way to judge someone's kicking then, rather than just throw stones.
Fact of the matter is, Fyfe's kicking ability has been greatly played down due to the first quarter of the 2013 GF.
Funnily enough I do watch Fyfe play, being a Dockers supporter and all. He's a good kick.Use your eyes and watch them play. Also look at what is used to calculate disposal efficiency and clanger stats.
Fyfe has carried Freo for year, Martin is more the icing on the cake. He ices games so in that respect he is more important because he helps win more games, but Fyfe has to do more work.No more than Richmond rely on Martin IMO.
He is a good enough kick, Martin is a powerful kick, who occasionally hits a clanger. If Martin gets the ball anywhere near the 50m line from any angle he's a good chance of kicking it.Funnily enough I do watch Fyfe play, being a Dockers supporter and all. He's a good kick.
Agree completely on Martin. But you're underselling Fyfe. I've seen him slot it from the boundary on both sides.He is a good enough kick, Martin is a powerful kick, who occasionally hits a clanger. If Martin gets the ball anywhere near the 50m line from any angle he's a good chance of kicking it.
I said he was a good enough kick, which means above average even, certainly not the poor kick that others have been saying.Agree completely on Martin. But you're underselling Fyfe. I've seen him slot it from the boundary on both sides.
Funnily enough I do watch Fyfe play, being a Dockers supporter and all. He's a good kick.
The gap between their relative kicking abilities isnt that big.Good is a relative term
If fyfe is a good kick, Dustin Martin is the greatest kick of the football in history
The gap between Martin's kicking and most of the comp is pretty big. That's not a knock on Fyfe.The gap between their relative kicking abilities isnt that big.
The gap between Martin's kicking and most of the comp is pretty big. That's not a knock on Fyfe.
Some have knocked Fyfe's kicking, not me. A fair bit already about marking and ground ball gets, mostly leaning towards Fyfe. Hence some are in the Fyfe camp, some in the Martin. But right now I agree, they are the best 2 in the comp, and if they keep going for a few more years at that level, they will be talked of as some of the best players of the modern era.Although we've now effectively had a page of comment about Dusty's biggest weapon (his kicking) as a means to knock Fyfe - who I would rate as a better than average kick, but it is probably his least capable attribute. Maybe we now do a page on how they compare against each other in marking or ground ball gets??
Or alternatively we just accept that with the ageing of GAblett we are trying to debate who is the better of the two players who in time will be regarded as genuine greats of the game. Many good to decent players have scored one Brownlow or one Norm Smith - but 2 x Brownlows or 2 x Norm Smiths puts the recipient in the highest echelons of the game - not just amongst the best players of a decade, but the best players of all time.
Seems a little less damaging than he used to be. Lost a yard probably, because that explosiveness whilst no means gone is not quite what is was. One would think that it will continue to wane (pace), a bit like it did with Judd, who are probably the most explosive players ever. He like Martin goes forward more and is very dangerous. Right now they sit together, a year older maybe not, time will tell.I'll just say this - I think Fyfe and Martin are the top 2 in the game (I choose - aaah, I'll think about it some more).
However, I think that Dangerfield's skillset sometimes lets him dominate an individual game to the highest level of all of them.
In other words - Fyfe is the most consistent, Martin more the brilliant match-winner, Danger capable of complete games that make you go 'wow'. Ok - maybe he does those games against GC, and never in finals etc - but when he's on, he's really on.
Fyfe is a better midfielder and defender.
Dusty is a better forward and therefore more damaging IMO.
Hard to split but I think Dusty's big stage efforts take the cake.
leaves Dusty standing on his own forward of centre.
Well said.Fyfe is a better midfielder and defender.
Dusty is a better forward and therefore more damaging IMO.
Hard to split but I think Dusty's big stage efforts take the cake.