Crows flock to Dangerfield

[Mego Red]

just out of curiousity what about this is a great piece of footy knowledge or analysis?

interesting read, but it was still just a fairly prosaic article about a subject we like - so this makes her a great writer, and others idiots?

not sure this follows.

I don't think anyone said it was a profound piece of footy analysis, just that it was a great article. It is a feature article on a player, so it is hard to imagine within that format it COULD become a rigorous analysis of the game.

There is a trifling amount of coverage of the Crows, so that's a positive right there. And there has been a ludicrous amount of dime-store criticism of our player development, so it is nice to see someone swim against that tide and point towards the fact that maybe the Crows knew what they were doing in developing their players slowly and not letting them debut until they were able to perform at the elite level.

 

[cmndstab]

Flocks! geddit? But yeah, was Dangerfield injured today? Only 37 DT points...He's killing me!

Not only was he not injured, he was awesome. Played in the centre and was probably the leading clearance player on the ground. I'm surprised he only got 37.

 

[that_dood]

From the Dangerfield thread on draft day 2007.

Matt Rendell you are unbelievable. We miss out on Ebert for a kid who wont even BE at the Crows next season. I dont care about this kids name no matter how good it is, thats just another f*** up to add to the list. Usually we say good luck for next season, but Patrick, good luck for year 12.

Is this **** Rendell still working for the ****ing victorians

just sack the idiot FFS

im shocked, i believe the WCE didnt even talk to ebert

The bottom comment is the one that stood out for me as it shows how Rendell knew the whole time what he was doing and how the Eagles made an impulse decision on a teenager they have never met before.

Paddy is clearly going to be the better player and will be a major player for us in the years to come.

Great article by the way on Paddy and Craig.

 

[cmndstab]

That's just three posts from a good 50 or so venom-filled gems in there.

 

[WALL-e]

PLENTY more where that came from too.

Bum the Phil Davis one too. It's really quite crazy on here on draft day.

 

[IddyBiddy]

Think its a bit harsh on SS_Fury - his/her comments are hardly venom filled. Not sure what followed.

I think most of us on the day were shocked. There was only really an indication of Dangerfield tot he crows in the day or three before the draft. Most assumed Ebert would go to Brisbane so the shock was two fold. Firstly that Ebert was available and secondly that Danger was selected ahead. It's a great thread to encourage people to keep perspective, but lets be honest most were 'shocked' some were just a little bit more vitriolic about it...

For the record, I was not a one of the 'angry' posters that day...

 

[cmndstab]

The Davis thread wasn't too bad, in that case the complaints were the exception rather than the norm in the Dangerfield thread.

 

[jo172]

just out of curiousity what about this is a great piece of footy knowledge or analysis?

I don't think anyone's claiming it as analysis, but it's actually a well reasearched (a rarity in itself) article set out to tell an interesting story.

This is in contrast to other more well known footy writers i.e Rucci, Sheehan, Wilson who write to provoke reactions, further their own publicity and often purely use their guesses and opinions rather than research.

I prefer Quayle's approach.

 

[WALL-e]

The Davis thread wasn't too bad, in that case the complaints were the exception rather than the norm in the Dangerfield thread.

Lucky Hartlett wasn't on the board when we picked

 

[cmndstab]

Here's the old Phil Davis thread for anyone interested. Almost everyone was good about it, though a few people were annoyed that Trengove went to Port.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

Here's the old Phil Davis thread for anyone interested. Almost everyone was good about it, though a few people were annoyed that Trengove went to Port.

Including the great one who was willing to self harm herself with a revolver over the draft outcome.

But little more than 2 hours later was then claiming Davis was now the superior player.

And then of course mid pre season claimed Davis was definetely going to be the AFL star and Trengove sucked (despite both missing most of pre season).

One of the highlights of BF history for me.

 

[jo172]

Including the great one who was willing to self harm herself with a revolver over the draft outcome.

But little more than 2 hours later was then claiming Davis was now the superior player.

And then of course mid pre season claimed Davis was definetely going to be the AFL star and Trengove sucked (despite both missing most of pre season).

One of the highlights of BF history for me.

Doesn't top her opinions on Shaun McKernan, for virtrol to love over the space of 10 minutes.

Also, after Round 3 when she claimed she was the only person who rated Dangerfield.

 

[WALL-e]

Including the great one who was willing to self harm herself with a revolver over the draft outcome.

But little more than 2 hours later was then claiming Davis was now the superior player.

And then of course mid pre season claimed Davis was definetely going to be the AFL star and Trengove sucked (despite both missing most of pre season).

One of the highlights of BF history for me.

I miss the PHIL Appreciation Thread.

 

[Mismatched]

The Davis thread wasn't too bad, in that case the complaints were the exception rather than the norm in the Dangerfield thread.

Yeah, I think most had learnt from the year before with Patty to take a quick chill pill and collect thoughts before posting on something the vast majority of us have absolutely no idea about. I know I was pretty shocked, bordering angry when I realised we'd overlooked Ebert, but was perhaps lucky I chose to wait until the whole draft was over before posting, by then I'd realised that if we'd overlooked Ebert for the Dangerfield bloke, then he must be something special. Also, with Davis' draft everyone had a bit more faith than the 07 one, as Rendell had already proven himself to have a pretty decent idea about drafting.

Now for Patty, gee he looks like a gun, just has the ability to do those special things that seperate good players from absolute gun players. Case in point, his mark backing back into the pack in the first quarter yesterday after a Roos kickout. Still I think struggling from his poor preseason and currently finding it tough to run out games, hence he often seems to have a really good first and maybe second quarter, before fading, it also means that he hasn't quite got the fitness to display his outstanding pace as when he gets the ball. I think next year we'll really start to see what he really is capable of after a decent preseason and a few genuine games under his belt.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

I miss the PHIL Appreciation Thread.

Still lurking in the BigFooty museum!

 

[cmndstab]

Hahahaha, I just read through the old Rory Sloane thread where on page 7 I do one of the worst photoshops in history and then claim him as "my draftee"


Edit: Holy shit and on page 9 I go into his Myspace and steal all his photos, what the **** was wrong with me

 

[jo172]

Edit: Holy shit and on page 9 I go into his Myspace and steal all his photos, what the **** was wrong with me

Yeah, WAS wrong with you

 

[WALL-e]

Yeah his Myspace went private pretty quick....you freak!

 

[Drummond]

Yeah, WAS wrong with you

Stole my thunder!!

 

[marvin]

I don't think anyone's claiming it as analysis, but it's actually a well reasearched (a rarity in itself) article set out to tell an interesting story.

This is in contrast to other more well known footy writers i.e Rucci, Sheehan, Wilson who write to provoke reactions, further their own publicity and often purely use their guesses and opinions rather than research.

I prefer Quayle's approach.

I concur.

Quayle has obviously had the time and put in the effort to do more than take a few snippets from a generic press conference. It's pretty clear she either knew or was tipped off to the rather ridiculous reaction here and elsewhere on draft day, and ot appears from the article that apart from talking to Dangerfield and Craig, she's also used her knowledge of the U-18 circles and probably had a chat to Whiskas Hocking too.

On their day, most of the Age footy journos can churn out a pretty good piece, and I enjoy reading Martin Flanagan, Greg Baum, Martin Blake, Jake Niall and Rohan Connolly (when he's not smooching all at Essendon after a win or sticking the boots in after a loss) too. Emma Quayle does stand out in this group as a consistently good writer. Her work on the draft (and I haven't read her book - yet) is great - last year, she correctly tipped 13 of the top 14, only getting our pick wrong (she had us getting Trengrove) - but having us linked to both Phil Davis and Shaun McKernan.

Having said all that, from the radio he did after his Rising Star nomination, it seemed to me that Dangerfield is a pretty engaging interview subject, which has to help if you are writing up a profile.

 

[chickawah]

Still lurking in the BigFooty museum!

You ruined the fun Vader.

 

[WALL-e]

Still lurking in the BigFooty museum!

Thread HOF in 9 posts.

 

[Crow-mo]

I don't think anyone said it was a profound piece of footy analysis, just that it was a great article. It is a feature article on a player, so it is hard to imagine within that format it COULD become a rigorous analysis of the game.

There is a trifling amount of coverage of the Crows, so that's a positive right there. And there has been a ludicrous amount of dime-store criticism of our player development, so it is nice to see someone swim against that tide and point towards the fact that maybe the Crows knew what they were doing in developing their players slowly and not letting them debut until they were able to perform at the elite level.

I'm just commenting on the Emma is great, she is the best posts.

it's just a puff piece, and as you say it's nice that its about us and a subject we're pretty keen on. but I didn't quite follow how that made her the most knowledgable footy journo going - as has been ventured more than a couple of times in this thread.

I enjoyed reading it, like I enjoy reading all puff pieces about our players/coaches/tactics etc.

 

[Crow-mo]

I don't think anyone's claiming it as analysis, but it's actually a well reasearched (a rarity in itself) article set out to tell an interesting story.

This is in contrast to other more well known footy writers i.e Rucci, Sheehan, Wilson who write to provoke reactions, further their own publicity and often purely use their guesses and opinions rather than research.

I prefer Quayle's approach.

oh c'mon.

 

[cmndstab]

I can't be bothered going back over the last few pages to check (I'm on a computer with ridiculously slow internet here, every page is taking a good minute or more to load ) but I thought that most people were saying that Emma Quayle is a good journalist, one of the most knowledgable about lists and juniors going around, and that this article was an example of that, not evidence of it. Emma's proved over the years that she knows what she's talking about, and puts her neck out every year with the draft and is generally proven reasonably correct.