Dangerfield versus Cloke

[MAAAATTDAAAAMON]

Obviously two very different players. But to settle an argument in the AFL board, which player would you choose if you could add them to your list?

 

[Brenton Davy]

question is answered purely on needs.

If you need a game breaking mid, you pick Dangerfield

If you need a monolithic marking forward, you pick Cloke

 

[timtamWB]

Would take Cloke, purely because the Dogs always need a gun KPF. Although any club with at least serviceable KPF's would take Danger.

 

[Jaeger]

Random. Dangerfield for the Hawks. He's the better footballer anyway.

 

[Heaps of fun]

Can you imagine going to the footy every weekend with all of your hopes and expectations hanging on Travis "Tramp Stamp" Cloke's kicking at goal?
No thanks.

 

[eaglespremiers]

I accidentally chose Dangerfield when I meant to choose...... well, Dangerfield.

 

[boncer34]

[quote="shepp, post: 31477078, member: 731]Random. Dangerfield for the Hawks. He's the better footballer anyway.[/quote]
Not that random shepp.

If you went to the main board instead of the bay you'll see the Collingwood fan hysterically shrieking all coaches etc would pick Cloke.

 

[The Bomb]

Cloke has nothing on Dangerfield, If Dangerfield played forward all the time he would kick just as many goals as Cloke.
Dangerfield is a star, by careers end Dangerfield will go down as the Crows best ever player.

 

[ThisIsJake]

dangerfield is a top 5 mid.
but when buddy is down on form cloke is the clear best power forward, has a massive impact inside and out of the forward 50.
i would say cloke would be prefered by most teams except maybe sydney and west coast because they both have very capable talls.

 

[Monkey King]

I'd take Cloke for the Blues.

 

[FalcoX]

Cloke

 

[MAAAATTDAAAAMON]

question is answered purely on needs.

If you need a game breaking mid, you pick Dangerfield

If you need a monolithic marking forward, you pick Cloke

Not sure it is this simple. At Essendon. I'd prefer a gun forward over a gun mid (although both would be nice!), but Dangerfield, an A+ player, is so much better a footballer than Cloke (B+ for mine), I take him comfortably over Cloke. Danger's age further adds to his appeal.

 

[Igloo]

Cloke.

 

[Vooligan]

Would you prefer chalk or cheese?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Cloke is exactly what Richmond need. Our midfield stocks are already pretty good.​

 

[Richo83]

Building a team from scratch I'd choose Dangerfield.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

Would take Dangerfield for the Hawks.

Danger is the better player but Cloke more valuable due to positon. Would take either. Now that Buddy's gone it was tempting to take Cloke

 

[forwardflanker]

Can you imagine going to the footy every weekend with all of your hopes and expectations hanging on Travis "Tramp Stamp" Cloke's kicking at goal?
No thanks.

Yes... yes I can

The only thing worse is going into a grand final that way

edit: voted cloke obviously

 

[Ashton Agar]

Dangerfield for the Bombers.

And for everyone else as well...

 

[Bert Man]

Cloke for Brisbane

 

[KissKiss]

I think Danger is a much better player but due to needs Brisbane would probably take Cloke

 

[Gone Critical]

Top KPF are a much rarer commodity than a top midfielder. Cloke is in the top 3 KPF whereas Danger probably around 6 for mids. Cloke for mine. He would be a catastrophic loss for Collingwood whereas if Danger was in the Collingwood midfield his loss could be much more easly covered. Not that it wouldn't be a blow

 

[Dazb86]

Cloke without question.

We've seemingly needed a good KPF since the stone ages.

 

[Turly]

If we needed a spud that can mark but can't kick for goal then Cloke.

If we needed a superstar I'd take Danger every day of the week.

Therefore.... Dangerfield

 

[Big Trozza]

Danger easily. Tex at his best is superior to Cloke anyhow.