Opinion Dustin Martin is better than Dangerfield

Remove this Banner Ad

Wojcinski

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
14,177
20,521
AFL Club
Geelong
Can't argue with that statement at all. We went through a very similar thing.

Plenty of opposition fans can tolerate or even "like" your team, providing you are no threat, and depending on the arrogance of the supporter, know your place. What they don't like is when you dare to start winning, and even worse, become genuinely successful by winning premierships. That apparently is just too much.

And like all bullies, when the maligned team turns around and starts handing out some smackings, the supporters tend to throw their hands aloft and plead "why are you so mean?"
I think that only applies to the weirdos that live vicariously through their football team. Normal people don't feel that way.
 

Wacky Tiger

Parmy
Aug 26, 2004
26,758
43,198
Country SA
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Fighting Furies, Sturt, Rockets
Well that's been an enjoyable read for a good hour or so.

With the debate clearly now over there's a couple of points I'd like to make.

And I'll start off by saying Dangerfield is a fantastic player, been a top 5 in the league guy for a good 7-8 years but as has been discussed it's his finals record that's left him wanting.

Major part of that is the arrogance of his coach. What I found mind boggling to listen to in the coaches pressers post GF was Scott's and Dangers decision to play Paddy deep forward to start the 3rd (Premiership Qtr) and then to double down and say they discussed how it was going mid qtr and decided it was the best plan of attack to win the game. Now let's couple this with Scott's decision to play his best key defender on a wing in the 2019 Prelim when our best key forward was on his way to kicking 5 huge goals to wrestle back momentum and win the game.

Where is the plan B? Simply put there is none.

Then you look at the way both coaches play their trump cards. Danger wanders down deep to the goal square like a peacock with his look at me strut the whole way and anchors himself there which may work against lesser defenses but when your playing against the best organized defenses it's simply dosent work. If your midfield aren't getting on top or getting the ball deep your rendered useless.

Dusty on the other hands whilst he does sometimes play deep quite often plays that half forward role which brings him into play and therefore far more dangerous to either a) kick the goal himself or b) use his elite foot skills to set up others.

Then you have the whole mental side of things which the Tigers club as a whole have totally nailed.

Dustin is a far more selfless player which makes him more unpredictable to the opposition. Too many times Danger tries to do it all himself which whilst admirable is also one of his biggest flaws especially in finals.

After 34 years of sh*t with the odd moment from the likes of Richo I'm just so glad to be able to watch games with confidence that if we play to our best we're going to be bloody tough to beat. Still feels weird


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Barry_Badrinath

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 23, 2011
18,692
60,379
Bathing in Premiership Glory
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Home Finals at the MCG
Revisionist history. Dangerfield was named in the best for both of those games so he is hardly the reason Geelong lost (both results were 50+ point blowouts). Danger also kicked his 2 goals in the Adelaide PF in the second quarter, not in the dying stages of the game (it was already over in one sense though since Cats were about 8 goals down). Against Richmond he was 4th in supercoach and vs Adelaide he was 3rd. His disposal efficiency vs Richmond was 45%, obviously poor and 59% vs Adelaide, slightly below his season average.

You can argue until you blue in the face but I'll always be correct, him having a bad game in a GF doesn't all of a sudden mean he's never played a good final in his life and frankly its bizarre that this thread keeps going down that path.

Just ask yourself this, if Dusty and Danger switched teams would Geelong instead have 3 cups and Richmond none?
I’m pretty sure it was Leigh Matthews who said it was one of the worst games he’s ever seen from Dangerfield.

He was easily one of Geelong’s worst. SuperCoach means absolutely nothing. He butchered the ball something shocking and was completely incapable of dealing with the pressure that was put him by swarms of tiger players.

That was Richmond’s tackling game at its most brutal. He completely buckled.
 

Wojcinski

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
14,177
20,521
AFL Club
Geelong
I’m pretty sure it was Leigh Matthews who said it was one of the worst games he’s ever seen from Dangerfield.

He was easily one of Geelong’s worst. SuperCoach means absolutely nothing. He butchered the ball something shocking and was completely incapable of dealing with the pressure that was put him by swarms of tiger players.

That was Richmond’s tackling game at its most brutal. He completely buckled.
So you agree with the person I was replying to, that Dangerfield cost Geelong that game then? Because that was the point I was making. Danger wasn't good, but he was still probably one of Geelong's better players on a bad night for pretty much everyone in the hoops
 

Barry_Badrinath

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 23, 2011
18,692
60,379
Bathing in Premiership Glory
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Home Finals at the MCG
So you agree with the person I was replying to, that Dangerfield cost Geelong that game then? Because that was the point I was making. Danger wasn't good, but he was still probably one of Geelong's better players on a bad night for pretty much everyone in the hoops
He was bottom 5 for Geelong. He repeatedly put the ball out on the full and/or handed the ball straight back to Richmond
 

Wojcinski

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
14,177
20,521
AFL Club
Geelong
He was bottom 5 for Geelong. He repeatedly put the ball out on the full and/or handed the ball straight back to Richmond
yeah he wasn't great but he definitely wasn't bottom 5 for Geelong. He kicked it out on the full twice and had a further 7 clangers. I know you guys love trolling him but you can't just keep repeating the same incorrect statement until you start to believe it. He lead Geelong in total disposals, contested possessions, goals and was second overall in the game for meters gained.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 2, 2005
19,623
7,256
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
yeah he wasn't great but he definitely wasn't bottom 5 for Geelong. He kicked it out on the full twice and had a further 7 clangers. I know you guys love trolling him but you can't just keep repeating the same incorrect statement until you start to believe it. He lead Geelong in total disposals, contested possessions, goals and was second overall in the game for meters gained.
I think different players have different parameters. If Jed Bews plays a bad game for the cats, it's not that problematic. If Dangerfield has an okayish game, the cats struggle.

Dangerfield didn't have a bad game, but he didn't play well. Yes, he had a lot of possessions, but he would have been better off passing the ball off to someone else in a better positions. He lead Geelong in contested possessions because... well, he always does. He lead for goals because Geelong kicked five goals for the entire match. He lead for meters gained because Dangerfield tends to kick the ball long. But that's the problem, his long distance kicking isn't good (at least in finals) and often leads to turnovers. I think you're just looking at stats and assuming that the more a midfielder gets the ball, the better he is. The problem with this is that there are plenty of midfielders who either rack up stats playing dinky safe footy or rack up stats even though they're not efficient with the ball. Dangerfield fits the latter category, at least, in finals. If Geelong play better by having a more even spread of players getting the football (and I think they do and it's something that premiers Richmond try to do), then Dangerfield getting the most ball possible isn't helping your side win finals.

In home and away matches, it's different. Dangerfield benefits from getting more ball because he's more effective then. But in finals? Not sure Dangerfield racking up 40 touches is a good thing as teams know how to make him inefficient and it means your other midfielders are going cold.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 2, 2005
19,623
7,256
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I know AFL player ratings cops a lot of heat but one of the things which the rankings system has established which I agree with is that quantity of possessions aren't everything, quality of possessions is key. The context of a possession is also important (the scoreboard, where it is in the ground, the result of the possession etc.)
 

Wojcinski

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
14,177
20,521
AFL Club
Geelong
I think different players have different parameters. If Jed Bews plays a bad game for the cats, it's not that problematic. If Dangerfield has an okayish game, the cats struggle.

Dangerfield didn't have a bad game, but he didn't play well. Yes, he had a lot of possessions, but he would have been better off passing the ball off to someone else in a better positions. He lead Geelong in contested possessions because... well, he always does. He lead for goals because Geelong kicked five goals for the entire match. He lead for meters gained because Dangerfield tends to kick the ball long. But that's the problem, his long distance kicking isn't good (at least in finals) and often leads to turnovers. I think you're just looking at stats and assuming that the more a midfielder gets the ball, the better he is. The problem with this is that there are plenty of midfielders who either rack up stats playing dinky safe footy or rack up stats even though they're not efficient with the ball. Dangerfield fits the latter category, at least, in finals. If Geelong play better by having a more even spread of players getting the football (and I think they do and it's something that premiers Richmond try to do), then Dangerfield getting the most ball possible isn't helping your side win finals.

In home and away matches, it's different. Dangerfield benefits from getting more ball because he's more effective then. But in finals? Not sure Dangerfield racking up 40 touches is a good thing as teams know how to make him inefficient and it means your other midfielders are going cold.
yeah no doubt, I agree with most of what you're saying. Geelong had many bad players in that game, and Danger was one of about 20 of them. The point I'm making is that Danger wasn't one of Geelong's worst. His biggest asset is his ability to win the ball and when no one else will do it like in that final, he has to keep cracking in. No one else gave him a chop out and in the end you see a guy just spraying the ball all over the place because he has 4 Tigers hanging off him.

I can tell you right now, if Danger didn't keep cracking in like he was then Richmond wins by even more because no one else stood up to help him. Other Geelong fans won't admit that and they'll push the blame onto Danger because they can't cope with the fact that the rest of our team is pretty much dogshit these days
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 2, 2005
19,623
7,256
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
yeah no doubt, I agree with most of what you're saying. Geelong had many bad players in that game, and Danger was one of about 20 of them. The point I'm making is that Danger wasn't one of Geelong's worst. His biggest asset is his ability to win the ball and when no one else will do it like in that final, he has to keep cracking in. No one else gave him a chop out and in the end you see a guy just spraying the ball all over the place because he has 4 Tigers hanging off him.

I can tell you right now, if Danger didn't keep cracking in like he was then Richmond wins by even more because no one else stood up to help him. Other Geelong fans won't admit that and they'll push the blame onto Danger because they can't cope with the fact that the rest of our team is pretty much dogshit these days
I agree that Dangerfield wasn't the only or the main problem. Your midfield was largely ineffective with Guthrie going down and the Selwood brothers not really having that much influence. Duncan played well but you need more than two midfielders.

My question though is that since Dangerfield was targeted so much, was there an opportunity to pass it off to someone else in space? Against Richmond I've seen Dangerfield take on risky kicks when there was someone else he could pass to. I think what people are getting at is Dangerfield plays hero ball too much. That hero ball is more damaging to the cats' fortunes than say one of your bottom six having an (literally for them) average game.

I did ask if there are other reasons why Dangerfield is struggling and it might be that he doesn't trust his teammates for a good reason. I get that he's not the only issue with the cats. It just seems strange though that a side which is able to win so many games isn't good enough to be trusted by Dangerfield?
 

Wojcinski

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 14, 2011
14,177
20,521
AFL Club
Geelong
I agree that Dangerfield wasn't the only or the main problem. Your midfield was largely ineffective with Guthrie going down and the Selwood brothers not really having that much influence. Duncan played well but you need more than two midfielders.

My question though is that since Dangerfield was targeted so much, was there an opportunity to pass it off to someone else in space? Against Richmond I've seen Dangerfield take on risky kicks when there was someone else he could pass to. I think what people are getting at is Dangerfield plays hero ball too much. That hero ball is more damaging to the cats' fortunes than say one of your bottom six having an (literally for them) average game.

I did ask if there are other reasons why Dangerfield is struggling and it might be that he doesn't trust his teammates for a good reason. I get that he's not the only issue with the cats. It just seems strange though that a side which is able to win so many games isn't good enough to be trusted by Dangerfield?
Well things have changed a little bit since that QF, I think our midfield is better than it was and we have more consistant performers, so the team doesn't rely on Danger as much as they did. Guys like Guthrie and Menegola have stepped up in the midfield so Danger isn't required to carry the team as much. He has been pretty good in his finals games except for the GF but even then, he wasn't bad because he was turning it over or whatever, he was bad because he wasn't involved in much of the play because C. Scott played him out of the goal square for most of the game.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Partridge

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2002
37,812
42,483
AFL Club
Geelong
Well things have changed a little bit since that QF, I think our midfield is better than it was and we have more consistant performers, so the team doesn't rely on Danger as much as they did. Guys like Guthrie and Menegola have stepped up in the midfield so Danger isn't required to carry the team as much. He has been pretty good in his finals games except for the GF but even then, he wasn't bad because he was turning it over or whatever, he was bad because he wasn't involved in much of the play because C. Scott played him out of the goal square for most of the game.
True to an extent.

But he was in the centre sqare at the start of the last quarter. Just as he was in the third quarter of last year's Prelim. Both times, absolutely no impact. It's a valid point that he spends too much time up forward (and the whole notion that a coach needs to discuss with a player where he plays is shall we say different). But it's also true that he has played in midfield multiple times in big finals now and not made any difference.

He's not this magical force we can effortlessly switch around the field that will make the difference. The growing evidence from the last few finals campaigns is that it doesn't make any difference at all.
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 2, 2005
19,623
7,256
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Well things have changed a little bit since that QF, I think our midfield is better than it was and we have more consistant performers, so the team doesn't rely on Danger as much as they did. Guys like Guthrie and Menegola have stepped up in the midfield so Danger isn't required to carry the team as much. He has been pretty good in his finals games except for the GF but even then, he wasn't bad because he was turning it over or whatever, he was bad because he wasn't involved in much of the play because C. Scott played him out of the goal square for most of the game.
It's improved marginally, but it was noticeable that in the grand final, Dangerfield's absence in the middle was crucial. He's still your best midfielder by a wide margin and him having a C- game up forward hurts you.
 

Partridge

Hall of Famer
Nov 12, 2002
37,812
42,483
AFL Club
Geelong
It's improved marginally, but it was noticeable that in the grand final, Dangerfield's absence in the middle was crucial. He's still your best midfielder by a wide margin and him having a C- game up forward hurts you.
Yeah it's two separate issues for us.

One is that he does spend too much time up forward, for not enough return.
The second is that even when in the midfield, in big games it's not making close to the impact we'd hope for.
 

GastevsBeard

All Australian
Aug 18, 2009
633
1,876
AFL Club
Richmond
Dangers finals records keeps coming up, but as many Geelong supporters point out there are plenty of games where he has dominated & been amongst the best

I'm starting to think his achilles heel is not finals, but playing Richmond, which unfortunately has been 3 of his last 10 finals, & definitely his top 3 highest-stakes finals

Danger's personal stats against Richmond compared to other sides in the past 4 years would be an interesting comparison. I think it would show a steep drop-off in output. You might argue it's not a fair comparison to contrast his stats against the best side of the past 4 years with every other team, but anecdotally, Fyfe, Neale, T Mitchell, Bontempelli, Cripps etc routinely rip the stats-sheet apart against Richmond
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 2, 2005
19,623
7,256
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Dangers finals records keeps coming up, but as many Geelong supporters point out there are plenty of games where he has dominated & been amongst the best

I'm starting to think his achilles heel is not finals, but playing Richmond, which unfortunately has been 3 of his last 10 finals, & definitely his top 3 highest-stakes finals

Danger's personal stats against Richmond compared to other sides in the past 4 years would be an interesting comparison. I think it would show a steep drop-off in output. You might argue it's not a fair comparison to contrast his stats against the best side of the past 4 years with every other team, but anecdotally, Fyfe, Neale, T Mitchell, Bontempelli, Cripps etc routinely rip the stats-sheet apart against Richmond
It's not just Richmond though. He has been below his best against Adelaide in 2017, Melbourne in 2018, and Port and Brisbane this year. I understand what you're saying though in that Dangerfield's worst finals performance has been against Richmond.
 

NZ_Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 30, 2011
7,005
14,382
kensington
AFL Club
Richmond
So you agree with the person I was replying to, that Dangerfield cost Geelong that game then? Because that was the point I was making. Danger wasn't good, but he was still probably one of Geelong's better players on a bad night for pretty much everyone in the hoops
I can’t decide either way, but having watched the game at least 10+ times, the Geelong midfield was setup for Dangerfield to dominate. Players blocked for him at every stoppage and looked to feed him at every chance.

Sum result was he got 31 touches yet turned over 1/3 of them. 3 clearances, 1 in 10 possessions, indicate he was used as a playmaker rather as a ball winner. That seems to indicate that he was fed the ball yet used it poorly.

Certainly a huge factor in Geelongs loss was the poor ball use of their major possession winners and playmakers like Dangerfield and Duncan.

Clear case of stats not telling the whole story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

HAPPY BUDDHA

WA - Best Beaches in Australia
Oct 2, 2018
8,191
11,958
Scarborough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth Royals
Martins career prior to Richmond’s premiership years is pretty bog average to put it politely.

Actually it’s more like plain lazy and his form of the last 4 years shows he was then a massive underachiever who was content to just coast along leaving the heavy lifting to others while he enjoyed prancing around in his unaccountability and focusing on alternative hairstyles..

That said I’d hate to see Dangerfields ego if he won 3 flags & 3 norms.
 

Genghis Tron

3 votes - Jayden Short
Apr 6, 2020
4,299
9,298
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
The Karratha Shazes
Martins career prior to Richmond’s premiership years is pretty bog average to put it politely.

Actually it’s more like plain lazy and his form of the last 4 years shows he was then a massive underachiever who was content to just coast along leaving the heavy lifting to others while he enjoyed prancing around in his unaccountability and focusing on alternative hairstyles..

That said I’d hate to see Dangerfields ego if he won 3 flags & 3 norms.
I don't think Dusty knew what he was capable prior to our premiership years.
 

GastevsBeard

All Australian
Aug 18, 2009
633
1,876
AFL Club
Richmond
Martins career prior to Richmond’s premiership years is pretty bog average to put it politely.

Actually it’s more like plain lazy and his form of the last 4 years shows he was then a massive underachiever who was content to just coast along leaving the heavy lifting to others while he enjoyed prancing around in his unaccountability and focusing on alternative hairstyles..

That said I’d hate to see Dangerfields ego if he won 3 flags & 3 norms.
by bog average you obviously mean best on ground - average?
 

tiger_tough

Club Legend
Nov 24, 2008
1,818
5,079
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Martins career prior to Richmond’s premiership years is pretty bog average to put it politely.

Actually it’s more like plain lazy and his form of the last 4 years shows he was then a massive underachiever who was content to just coast along leaving the heavy lifting to others while he enjoyed prancing around in his unaccountability and focusing on alternative hairstyles..

That said I’d hate to see Dangerfields ego if he won 3 flags & 3 norms.
That is just flat out wrong.

His first year was outstanding but was ineligible for the rising star. He finished outside the top 5 in the BnF once in his first 6 years prior to 2017 (including a 1st, two 2nds and two 3rds) and that was a 6th place in the year he was suspended by the club for sleeping in with Connors. He made the AA squad in 2014 and 2015 and the AA team in 2016 and 3rd in the brownlow (7th in 2015). Made the 22 under 22 team in 2013 and 2014.

Sure they weren't 2017-2020 quality but he's doing what no one has done in the history of the game. He has been exceptional since his first game, even when we were a basket case early.
 

Remove this Banner Ad