List Mgmt. Geelong Premiership, why not? Drafting utilities, that's why.

[Vdubs]

poor kicking shows up in stats. not playing well in finals shows up in stats. stop dissing stats. they are far better then human memory.

ok, how did Dangers' stats stack up in finals afa clangers etc cf Martins'?
I KNOW what we saw in each final I went to and watched, which includes Adelaide, and each replay, and we know there were too many moments of "what the ..." with Dangers kicks v Tigers and v Crows- losing games, pressure.
He was BRILLIANT and accurate v Swans

 

[Landgraft]

Danger's disposals under pressure are what separates him from Dusty as THE premier player in the comp.
It's always been his weakness, and can be diluted by his sheer volume of brilliant play, but the comparison is relevant with Martin now more than ever. Don't care about stats - we see what we see in the pressure games of September, and DM stood up 3/3, PD 1/3. I think it's something Danger would like to correct, listening to what he said in an interview. Wonder if he can.

Your assessment of their respective finals campaigns are miles off. If you marked Danger as leniently as you do Dusty and vice versa then the opinion flips on its head.

 

[Landgraft]

That's true for the whole season VD, but how many enhanced their reputations during the finals? We're talking about why we can't win premierships, the fact that most of these players didn't perform well in September (and not one of them excelled) is one of those factors.

To be brutally honest I sometimes wonder why you even bother with home and away football, considering how low an opinion you have of it.

 

[Partridge]

To be brutally honest I sometimes wonder why you even bother with home and away football, considering how low an opinion you have of it.

To be brutally honest I thought the thread title was about a Geelong Premiership, and possible reasons why we’re falling short. Would have thought the difference between home and away and finals form may be one of them.

 

[Seeds]

ok, how did Dangers' stats stack up in finals afa clangers etc cf Martins'?
I KNOW what we saw in each final I went to and watched, which includes Adelaide, and each replay, and we know there were too many moments of "what the ..." with Dangers kicks v Tigers and v Crows- losing games, pressure.
He was BRILLIANT and accurate v Swans

actually you dont know what you saw unless you have watched the game on replay eight times. If not I would argue you can barely remember more then 5 minutes of plays in a 100 minute game. The average human probably would remember less then 3 minutes but I know you are a smart bloke so I will guess 5.

Stats remember 100 percent of the game. however they do remember them somewhat simplisticaly. They dont yet catch all nuances but they are improving and simplistic is still better then completely forgetting 95 percent of the game.

Dangers poor kicking did show up in the stats by the way. He had 9 clangers against richmond. His most for the season. Also from memory his disposal efficiency was absolutely woeful.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

ok, how did Dangers' stats stack up in finals afa clangers etc cf Martins'?

Danger: 3, 2, 5. Ave: 3.33; 3 were FK against.
Martin: 6, 4, 6. Ave: 5.33; 5 were FK Against.

 

[Landgraft]

To be brutally honest I thought the thread title was about a Geelong Premiership, and possible reasons why we’re falling short. Would have thought the difference between home and away and finals form may be one of them.

The thread title is about a specific reason, not various ones. Thus considering you were already off on a favourite tangent I thought the follow up was quite reasonable, because you do legitimately seem to not care about most of the footy season.

 

[Vdubs]

Your assessment of their respective finals campaigns are miles off. If you marked Danger as leniently as you do Dusty and vice versa then the opinion flips on its head.

Danger was below his best, and had poor disposals in the Tigers final, and against Ade, dropped off after half time.
Don't need to mark Martin leniently- he was up to his standard in all 3 finals. FA against is not the type of clanger I'm referring to. Not that you would know or care, but I started a thread BEFORE we knew we were getting Danger comparing him with the emerging Martin- at a time when Martin was in contract negotiations- and my poser was why not Martin instead? Tbh, I have always preferred his style of play. This is NOT in response to his stellar 2017, the like of which may never be seen again.
But having seen Danger firsthand in the hoops, he is indeed a freak of a player, and I am very happy he is ours.

 

[Landgraft]

Danger was below his best, and had poor disposals in the Tigers final, and against Ade, dropped off after half time.
Don't need to mark Martin leniently- he was up to his standard in all 3 finals. FA against is not the type of clanger I'm referring to. Not that you would know or care, but I started a thread BEFORE we knew we were getting Danger comparing him with the emerging Martin- at a time when Martin was in contract negotiations- and my poser was why not Martin instead? Tbh, I have always preferred his style of play. This is NOT in response to his stellar 2017, the like of which may never be seen again.
But having seen Danger firsthand in the hoops, he is indeed a freak of a player, and I am very happy he is ours.

You're entitled to your opinion but I very strongly disagree - in fact I would say both had quite a mixed finals series though Danger was probably better on balance.

I suppose that that would still allow Dusty to be up to his standard, as he is not as good. His best game sad to say was against us - breaking out after Guth went off injured. His prelim and granny performances were fairly ordinary, at least compared to his earlier form. He did still kick 3.3 against GWS but they were an absolute shell of a team and with 20 touches, 2 tackles he wasn't all that involved otherwise. Then in the granny he came into the game after it was blown open by the hard work of others. His Norm Smith is as silly as Johannisen, Cyril, etc. but no doubt someone like Danger would get the special treatment even if undeserving.

 

[Catters 070911]

Genuine mid who became a utility. He was such a beautiful player to watch wherever he played.

Mid in 2007 GF

Tagger in 2009 GF

CHF in 2011 GF.

I'd call that a gun utility.

 

[Warhorse]

Danger was poor in all finals except vs sydney.

 

[El Dubya]

Mid in 2007 GF

Tagger in 2009 GF

CHF in 2011 GF.

I'd call that a gun utility.

Drafted as a mid though, that's my point.

 

[Vdubs]

Drafted as a mid though, that's my point.

Means not much.
Parsons was drafted as a winger- spent all season patched up as a small forward
Boris was drafted as a mid
Mackie was drafted as a HFF, potential KF.
Mitch Brown was an elite schoolboy mid until his final year when he grew some amazing 10 cm, came to us therefore as a KPP.
These kids would play anywhere; at TAC level, the coaches and talent scouts are all about letting them explore different spots.
Bartel must have been a coach's dream player.

 

[Vdubs]

You're entitled to your opinion but I very strongly disagree - in fact I would say both had quite a mixed finals series though Danger was probably better on balance.

I suppose that that would still allow Dusty to be up to his standard, as he is not as good. His best game sad to say was against us - breaking out after Guth went off injured. His prelim and granny performances were fairly ordinary, at least compared to his earlier form. He did still kick 3.3 against GWS but they were an absolute shell of a team and with 20 touches, 2 tackles he wasn't all that involved otherwise. Then in the granny he came into the game after it was blown open by the hard work of others. His Norm Smith is as silly as Johannisen, Cyril, etc. but no doubt someone like Danger would get the special treatment even if undeserving.

Love your posts but this one is questionable.
Danger was only Danger v Swans. Maybe Danger was Danger also v Tigers and Crows because that is what he is, both brilliant and devastating, but also poorly erratic with disposal. Martin was consistent, and brilliant.
While he had players trying to hang onto him in every final, he still managed to break free and set up his team mates, as well as finish off with goals.
He was a constant threat against all finalists, and fully deserved NS, from what I saw.
Martin has slowly improved every year, culminating in 2017, and is now deservedly the #1 in the comp.

 

[Catters 070911]

Love your posts but this one is questionable.
Danger was only Danger v Swans. Maybe Danger was Danger also v Tigers and Crows because that is what he is, both brilliant and devastating, but also poorly erratic with disposal. Martin was consistent, and brilliant.
While he had players trying to hang onto him in every final, he still managed to break free and set up his team mates, as well as finish off with goals.
He was a constant threat against all finalists, and fully deserved NS, from what I saw.
Martin has slowly improved every year, culminating in 2017, and is now deservedly the #1 in the comp.

Dangerfield has done it for longer.

Let's see if Martin isn't a one-season wonder.

 

[Vdubs]

Dangerfield has done it for longer.

Let's see if Martin isn't a one-season wonder.

They are both consistent stars.
Martin has been improving steadily every year.
He is younger.
Massive upside.
I am looking forward to the Danger Ablett combo.

 

[Landgraft]

Love your posts but this one is questionable.
Danger was only Danger v Swans. Maybe Danger was Danger also v Tigers and Crows because that is what he is, both brilliant and devastating, but also poorly erratic with disposal. Martin was consistent, and brilliant.
While he had players trying to hang onto him in every final, he still managed to break free and set up his team mates, as well as finish off with goals.
He was a constant threat against all finalists, and fully deserved NS, from what I saw.
Martin has slowly improved every year, culminating in 2017, and is now deservedly the #1 in the comp.

I didn't see anywhere near the same from Dusty that you did... and frankly I find it extremely unlikely that if the situation was reversed and Danger had played a prelim with 20 touches and 4 clangers that you would be doing anything other than seizing it as proof.

Don't get me wrong, Dusty is a good player. His brute force in breaking tackles is possibly now the single standout attribute in a contested modern game... but you're overselling him enormously. Danger worked harder and got more involved in games with (sad but true) less support from his teammates. To try and laud performances from Dusty while criticising better ones from Danger is pretty telling, no matter what gloss you want to put on it.

 

[Cronin]

Danger was poor in all finals except vs sydney.

It would be nice to see someone else take a game by the scruff of the neck for a change; his shoulders must be getting sore.

 

[Vdubs]

I didn't see anywhere near the same from Dusty that you did... and frankly I find it extremely unlikely that if the situation was reversed and Danger had played a prelim with 20 touches and 4 clangers that you would be doing anything other than seizing it as proof.

Don't get me wrong, Dusty is a good player. His brute force in breaking tackles is possibly now the single standout attribute in a contested modern game... but you're overselling him enormously. Danger worked harder and got more involved in games with (sad but true) less support from his teammates. To try and laud performances from Dusty while criticising better ones from Danger is pretty telling, no matter what gloss you want to put on it.

To be fair, I hardly saw their prelim. I went to Adelaide and saw ours. Danger was our hope, and after Sloane sorted him out- literally- that was effectively the end of him and us. He was mighty v Swans- a near perfect game to get us so far up. I rate them both so highly, it's splitting hairs, but the mark against Martin was his capacity to stand up in a final- and that he did. They are 1 & 2.

But as a natural footballer, Martin just wins- better disposal, and able to bring others into the game. He is more than a good footballer. As a spectacle and wow show, Danger's ability to gain momentum from a pack situation, and burst away with the ball is exhilarating. I am not that critical of Danger- actually rapt he is ours- just his disposal , not even necessarily related to pressure. Our reliance on him is unhealthy in some ways, but that's what happens with having a superstar in the team, GC- GAJ.

 

[Landgraft]

But as a natural footballer, Martin just wins- better disposal, and able to bring others into the game. He is more than a good footballer.

You keep saying this kind of thing and its the crux of the disagreement. Fair enough its your opinion and consequently you're entitled to it but there's no evidence for it. Heck if we account for 2016 as well Dusty is nowhere near it, he was mostly accumulating cheap possessions around half-back and wing (according to memory, reporting, heat maps and metres gained).

If I was to say that Danger wins more contested possessions, uses handball more, wins more clearances, tackles more, kicks more goals (8 more goals, 3 more behinds while being more accurate) then that's fact based on the outcomes of 2017. By contrast Dusty kicks more, has more score involvements (though barely, both average around 8/game), more i50s and more clangers as well as turnovers. He also got an uninterrupted run at the year while Danger had a rib injury for five weeks and a farcical suspension.

You can draw your own conclusions from the numbers but I don't really see it. Maybe it's just the basic fact that Dusty kicks more that it stands out as an attribute. Maybe it's the commentary and hype surrounding his play. Or maybe there's something that can only be observed subjectively and not represented in the numbers. I haven't seen it, and I watched a fair bit of the Tiges this year. His torp that became a Caddy goal at the start of the year was one of the highlights of the season imo. But there's no evidence I can see or recall to support the view that Dusty is cleaner or the more natural footballer.

 

[Partridge]

Love your posts but this one is questionable.
Danger was only Danger v Swans. Maybe Danger was Danger also v Tigers and Crows because that is what he is, both brilliant and devastating, but also poorly erratic with disposal. Martin was consistent, and brilliant.
While he had players trying to hang onto him in every final, he still managed to break free and set up his team mates, as well as finish off with goals.
He was a constant threat against all finalists, and fully deserved NS, from what I saw.
Martin has slowly improved every year, culminating in 2017, and is now deservedly the #1 in the comp.

I couldn't split Rance, Martin, and Houli. My own bias would have led me to pick Rance, as the defenders don't get anywhere near enough accolades. But Martin was involved heavily all the way through. Was nowhere near as egregious a decision as say Buckley in 2002.

 

[Vdubs]

You keep saying this kind of thing and its the crux of the disagreement. Fair enough its your opinion and consequently you're entitled to it but there's no evidence for it. Heck if we account for 2016 as well Dusty is nowhere near it, he was mostly accumulating cheap possessions around half-back and wing (according to memory, reporting, heat maps and metres gained).

If I was to say that Danger wins more contested possessions, uses handball more, wins more clearances, tackles more, kicks more goals (8 more goals, 3 more behinds while being more accurate) then that's fact based on the outcomes of 2017. By contrast Dusty kicks more, has more score involvements (though barely, both average around 8/game), more i50s and more clangers as well as turnovers. He also got an uninterrupted run at the year while Danger had a rib injury for five weeks and a farcical suspension.

You can draw your own conclusions from the numbers but I don't really see it. Maybe it's just the basic fact that Dusty kicks more that it stands out as an attribute. Maybe it's the commentary and hype surrounding his play. Or maybe there's something that can only be observed subjectively and not represented in the numbers. I haven't seen it, and I watched a fair bit of the Tiges this year. His torp that became a Caddy goal at the start of the year was one of the highlights of the season imo. But there's no evidence I can see or recall to support the view that Dusty is cleaner or the more natural footballer.

It is all opinion, and I am a massive Danger fan now- wasn't when he was a Crow. Have always liked Martin.
2016 Danger was every bit the near complete season a player could have, minus finals success.
2017 was the perfect season by a player.
There is nothing in it.
Both A+ GRADERS at the peaks of their powers.
Lucky we have one of them.

 

[Spazz Cat]

It is all opinion, and I am a massive Danger fan now- wasn't when he was a Crow. Have always liked Martin.
2016 Danger was every bit the near complete season a player could have, minus finals success.
2017 was the perfect season by a player.
There is nothing in it.
Both A+ GRADERS at the peaks of their powers.
Lucky we have one of them.

I agree. Danger is better to watch though IMO

 

[Partridge]

It would be nice to see someone else take a game by the scruff of the neck for a change; his shoulders must be getting sore.

I’d settle for a consistent effort from the entire team.

 

[David the Cat]

I couldn't split Rance, Martin, and Houli. My own bias would have led me to pick Rance, as the defenders don't get anywhere near enough accolades. But Martin was involved heavily all the way through. Was nowhere near as egregious a decision as say Buckley in 2002.

Being an old CHB/FB I feel your bias.....

That said, I had Houli as BOG....Martin's Norm was a travesty....but an inevitable one given he played well....but it was Houli and Rance who were alight when the game was there to be won.