Opinion Dangerfield and his poor kicking

[Farang83150]

At least Pendlebury wasn't laughing in his opponent's face like a prize flog before he went missing.

That was gold wasn't it, strutting, laughing in Martin's face and acting the big hero after blatantly staging to get a free, then gets absolutely schooled by Martin and disappears when his team need him most.

 

[Wojcinski]

Bit of perspective here.

18 teams x 22 players = 396

Who is worse than Dangerfield?

Just checked on footywire and cherry picked a few;

395 Chad Wingard Hawks
398 Bradley Hill Dockers
409 Dylan Shiel Bombers
418 Travis Boak Power
419 James Worpel Hawks
426 Luke Shuey Eagles
434 Dustin Martin Tigers
436 Liam Shiels Hawks
441 Tim Kelly Cats
452 Stephen Coniglio Giants
454 Robbie Gray Power
456 Josh Caddy Tigers
459 Brad Crouch Crows
469 Dayne Zorko Lions
491 Jacob Hopper Giants
500 Jaeger O'Meara Hawks
503 Toby Greene Giants
508 Trent Cotchin Tigers
523 Tom Lynch Tigers
538 Jack Riewoldt Tigers
540 Devon Smith Bombers

 

[Bulldog1954]

He is a bad kick, but it doesn’t mean he isn’t a gun. His burst from stoppages and the amount of goals he kicks is top notch. Cripps is a poor kick too, so is Treloar, so is Josh Dunkley, so is Matt Crouch, still good footballers.

 

[PerthBoy86]

Elite pinpoint field or goal kicking isn't an easy skill to master. Imo though it does elevate say Dusty to another level, making him more effective. Course Danger would be better if he was an elite kick, but if you look at overall impact he is huge.

 

[jenny61_99]

That's the thing with Dangerfield.... he can be breathtaking one minute and absolutely mind numbingly awful the next. Reckon everyone would still have him in their club if given the choice though.

 

[sobrave]

Danger is the bloke who can drive 350 each time down the guts, but can't putt. He's the debater who stammers. The rich tapestry of life.

On SM-G955F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Definitely a prize winning mass debator

 

[Tiger2709]

Yeah I'm surprised he's still on the list tbh

After half time in the prelim I was surprised as well.

Without joking he is a great player very fast and that seems to affect his kicking, my biggest issue if I supported Geelong is that he sometimes tries to do it all when there are on occasions better options ahead.

 

[Tiger2709]

At least Pendlebury wasn't laughing in his opponent's face like a prize flog before he went missing.

I wouldn't be surprised if that got a mention at half time in the Richmond rooms.

 

[Wojcinski]

After half time in the prelim I was surprised as well.

Without joking he is a great player very fast and that seems to affect his kicking, my biggest issue if I supported Geelong is that he sometimes tries to do it all when there are on occasions better options ahead.

Guess what? He isn't the perfect player. You know he's gonna blaze away sometimes but you take the small amount of bad with the huge amount of good.

 

[Damon_3388]

For someone who is idolised by the media and umpires, Patrick Dangerfield is a very poor kick other than when chip kicking to a team mate on their own. He has accumulated the second highest number of ‘Clangers’ for 2019, finishing on 112 just behind Tim Taranto on 120. His ball extraction is highly effective but to then turn the ball over as he does is poor. He is ranked 392nd for ‘Disposal Efficiency’ in the AFL for 2019, which again highlights the flaw in his game. In the last 4 years he has had 24 shots from 30 to 40 metres out on the run and kicked 2 of them. Hardly elite ball use on the run! He extracts the ball, runs fast but then turns it over at too high a rate to be given the title of superstar.

You realise clangers are not turnovers, right? They're not 'turnovers + other things', either.

Turnovers are a separate statistical category/measurement, and given his contested possession rate and the directness of his ball use, Danger's turnover rate isn't that bad.

Someone like Dusty has a higher turnover rate on a lower contested possession rate, yet he's praised as a great user of the ball. Funny how perception doesn't always match reality.

 

[PP34]

Welcome to 2019. The obsession with being athletic and strong in the contest nowdays far outweighs elite kicking skills.

Fyfe is also a very ordinary kick yet last night collected his second Brownlow. Treloar and Shiel also burn the ball heaps yet look at what Pies and Bombers gave up for them.

Because winning the ball is important. Every midfielder turns it over a number of times a game.

 

[The Punter]

As someone earlier did write, Dangerfield is not alone as a ball-winning mid who is not a great kick.

What makes Dangerfield different is he's actually a really selfish footballer. This can be good when he has to win a game off his own boot, but he just doesn't make his teammates better.

 

[living_in_syd]

Hes never made a grand final either

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

So that has nothing to do with him often being stationed in the fwd line and the others not.....

He actually doesn't get a whole heap of his goals when he's stationed there like Martin does. He had one big game against Hawthorn 3 seasons ago when he was injured during a game and Chris Scott seems to think he will do it every time.

Most of the top end midfielders spend a lot of time forward since they limited the numbers of interchanges per game.

 

[Bluey Shelton]

The top 10 list for clangers is just full of great players. Why? Because when you find a lot of the ball you will inevitably have a lot of clangers. Dustin Martin averages slightly more per game and Nat Fyfe averages slightly less per game. It is not particularly meaningful.

Every advanced statistical measure ranks him in the top handful of players in the league. He has been ranked that highly for years. He is unambiguously a 'superstar'. Focusing on one aspect of his play, while ignoring all the good he does, means you are not seeing the entire picture. It'd be a bit like arguing that Buddy is garbage because he isn't a great contested mark.

Yes he is a good set shot but no good on the run. In his finals games he has kicked the ball high into the forward straight into the waiting arm of the defenders. To be a superstar you need to be an all rounder and with his turnover rate he is only a very good player

 

[Bluey Shelton]

I don't know. I missed the opening bounce

Before half time

 

[Bluey Shelton]

He's an out and out superstar and would be a walk up start in any midfield in the country.

Sure, his kicking his not as good as some of the other elite mids. But he has them comfortably beaten in other areas. I realise the ability to kick the thing is important, the game being called football, but it's not the be all and end all.

It is if you are classed as a superstar and that’s what he thinks he is.

 

[PCORF]

He's only human ..... as great of a player he is he aint perfect.

 

[The wily weagle]

It's that kick inside 50 when is running away from the center square at speed, where he absolutely butchers the ball.

Predominately, he either:

1) skanks the shot at goal on the run, or
2) overcooks the kick to a teammate inside the 50m arc

It happens time and time again

For comparison, the best I have ever seen at either hitting a teammate lace out or nailing the goal whilst running at top speed was Jason Akermanis

 

[PhatBoy]

Things this thread proves:

- You can’t be a good player if you’ve ever had a bad half of a game. Don Bradman was clearly s**t, highlighted by his run-less effort in his most recent match.

- if you make a lot of mistakes with the ball, the fact that you get it more often than 99.9 per cent of the competition is irrelevant.

- if there is any flaw at all on your game, you are, undoubtedly, crap at it. Hence Mohammad Ali was crap at boxing. ‘Well if you look at his landed punch percentage when trying to connect with crouching fighters who bob and weave like Frazier, it’s very low. So he’s no superstar.’

Just facts more than anything.

 

[Tiger2709]

Guess what? He isn't the perfect player. You know he's gonna blaze away sometimes but you take the small amount of bad with the huge amount of good.

Not disagreeing no one is perfect.

Just think he could lower the eyes a bit more and hit up his team mates in better positions more than he does.

 

[SloppyJoe]

It is if you are classed as a superstar and that’s what he thinks he is.

No, it isn't.

 

[Falconx]

I think most of the top end, line breaking mids are fairly average field kicks. The more annoying part is his dreadful set shot kicking for goal. He has consistently let us down across the years with some of his shanks. Blicavs would be about the only person on the list I trust less to kick a goal from 30m straight in front.

 

[Brutalitops]

He is a an average at best kick but you can't ignore that he's elite at multiple other parts of his game. I'd say Martin is slightly better because of his kicking but Danger is a top 5 mid in the comp and easily the best some weeks.

Top 10 maybe, but I wouldnt have him top 5.

 

[Kavliaris69]

His disappearance H2 PF 2019 was stunning.
You gotta get the ball to be able to shank it.

You forgot “and brave”.