How good were Chris and Anthony Daniher?

[eth-dog]

I was born in the 90's and I've heard all about how talented Neale Daniher was and how good Terry Daniher was when he was in his prime, but I never really heard anything about Chris and Anthony. What sort of players were they? Were they your very good players, or solid guys who did a job week-to-week? I don't remember any of their careers (I was 4 when Chris retired), so I was curious.

Next question, does Chris have a son?

 

[Wanna B Hird]

Chris got better as he aged, but he was made to look better due to playing in a good side, ('93)
Whereas Anthony, my personal opinion is that he was an extreamly under-rated fullback, who could kick the ball a mile. When saying that he was under-rated I mean he was'nt ya big name but he played on and most of the time beat the best (Lockett, Dunstall,both at their best).
I can remember a game in about '88 at VFL Park V Hawks and Dunstall needed just a couple of goals to reach his ton and Daniher completly blanketed him meanwhile my favorite Billy Duckworth was getting under the skin of Dermie. Although we lost the game both players were great that day. Oh yeah, that was the day Dermie ran in the middle of our huddle and should've been Knocked on his arse by Billy

 

[srobbo]

Agree with Wanna Be...Anth had some bloody solid years at FB. I remember him stitching up Plugger a few times at Morrabbin in early 90's and from 88-91 was a vital cog in our side. He was very savvy in a one on one, had good closing speed and wasn't afraid to run off his opponent. Was a massive kick! Unfortunately in 1990 a nice smack in the jaw from Osbourne mid year at Prices Park kept him out for a good 7-8 weeks and left him very rusty for the 1990 final series.

Chrissy took time to find his feet but over time became very versatile. I thought he best served the side as a good run with player, due to his good endurance, core strength and had a very all round skill set by feet or hand. Remember he'd often get blokes like Paul Kelly, Bob Harvey and would do a great job as well, whilst still managing to work well offensively too. Turned into a pretty competent footballer i thought!

Two very different players, but both solid contributors.

 

[Towno78]

Anthony certainly the better of the two, but Chris certainly got better as he aged. You knew what you would get each week with both of them, but neither were stars. Anthony was a very good consistent full back.
Yes, I'm fairly sure Chris has sons.

 

[Doss]

Couple of questions.

Chris played 124 games in 11 years- did he miss so many games because of form or injury?

And did Anthony miss out on the 1993 premiership side because of injury or form?

 

[Towno78]

Couple of questions.

Chris played 124 games in 11 years- did he miss so many games because of form or injury?

And did Anthony miss out on the 1993 premiership side because of injury or form?

Chris was more due to form. Took him quite a while before he was considered best 22, if in fact he ever was. As I said, wasn't til he was a bit older that he was playing his better footy.
Can't remember about Anthony missing 93 GF. But I'd be surprised if it was form.

 

[Coldacre]

Can't remember about Anthony missing 93 GF. But I'd be surprised if it was form.

he only played 6 games that year and only one after round 12. by '93 he was seen as past his best, part of the old guard of players. once the youngsters in the team clicked up a gear and we started to regularly win games, players like Sporn, Cransberg, A Daniher & Ridley barely got a run. Sheedy put all his eggs in the Fletcher basket and it was obviously the right call.

 

[srobbo]

Couple of questions.

Chris played 124 games in 11 years- did he miss so many games because of form or injury?

And did Anthony miss out on the 1993 premiership side because of injury or form?

Anth got surpassed on form by a kid called Fletcher. His best was prob behind him by 93' although he did play a few games that year from memory.

 

[Fin ice Smuggler]

Chris was your average joe good average footy player, but I did not rate him at all, played very well in 93 grand final though. Anthony was a decent Full Back that didnt have great leg speed but as someone stated could kick a country mile, i think one day he reached the Centre circle from full back. He struggled against Ablett (who didnt though) but held his own against other premier forwards.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Chris was more due to form. Took him quite a while before he was considered best 22, if in fact he ever was. As I said, wasn't til he was a bit older that he was playing his better footy.
Can't remember about Anthony missing 93 GF. But I'd be surprised if it was form.

Chris was easily best 22 in 93 and was part of a premiership team (felt right having a Daniher there). He wa best 22 for a few more seasons before pulling the pin.
By 93 Anthony's powers had waned considerably and a young upstart called Dustin Fletcher effectively ended his career (if there was any debate).

Loved the way both went about it. Chris panicked a little, but was such a dour player who would just do a job.

Anthony was an exceptional full-back and was never given the plaudits he deserved due to there being so many good full backs (SOS, Langford, Frawley etc.).
One thing I loved about Anthony, he could kick the crap out of the ball just like Fletch. We have been blessed to have huge legs take our kick ins for 20+ years

 

[Doss]

Was Anthony a full back at South/Sydney as well?

They had Rod Carter at the time and he was considered a full back, so did Anthony play another role?

 

[Towno78]

Chris was easily best 22 in 93 and was part of a premiership team (felt right having a Daniher there). He wa best 22 for a few more seasons before pulling the pin.
By 93 Anthony's powers had waned considerably and a young upstart called Dustin Fletcher effectively ended his career (if there was any debate).

Loved the way both went about it. Chris panicked a little, but was such a dour player who would just do a job.

Anthony was an exceptional full-back and was never given the plaudits he deserved due to there being so many good full backs (SOS, Langford, Frawley etc.).
One thing I loved about Anthony, he could kick the crap out of the ball just like Fletch. We have been blessed to have huge legs take our kick ins for 20+ years

Sorry mate, you can't say "easily"... I thought he was best 22 towards the end and indicated as such, but he was often in and out of the team even late in his career.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Sorry mate, you can't say "easily"... I thought he was best 22 towards the end and indicated as such, but he was often in and out of the team even late in his career.

During the period around 93 he was always selected (ergo was easily best 20 not 22). Was a very important cog as he could play fwd, back or midfield.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Was Anthony a full back at South/Sydney as well?

They had Rod Carter at the time and he was considered a full back, so did Anthony play another role?

stretching my memory, but I thought he played CHF for the Swans (not consistnelty) and then moved permanently to FB when he joined the Dons.

 

[Towno78]

During the period around 93 he was always selected (ergo was easily best 20 not 22). Was a very important cog as he could play fwd, back or midfield.

Played 15 out of 25 games mate... So yep, 60% of the time, he got selected every time...

 

[Bloods]

Anthony was more of a half-forward with us. Handy on his day but inconsistent as a Swan.

 

[BERT]

Anthony did his knee in late 91 and was never the same player. He was treading water in 1993. He was an AA Full Back in his time at Essendon. He was a very good player.

Chris was a battler. A player that would have been in the last 4 players picked most weeks. He did his job every week and he could be relied on but was never going to win a game off his own boot. Chris is a player that got the most out of his ability and ended up playing in a flag.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Played 15 out of 25 games mate... So yep, 60% of the time, he got selected every time...

Injuries? Or does that not count?

Played rd1-6, 11-15 and then all Finals.

Hardly the record of a fringe (in and out type player).

And Just to go on with this:

92 - 19 games
94 - 12 games (first game was half way throgh the season and played every game)
95 - 21 games
96 - 19 games
97 - 17 games

HTF would you call that borderline best 20/21?

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Anthony did his knee in late 91 and was never the same player. He was treading water in 1993. He was an AA Full Back in his time at Essendon. He was a very good player.

I still remmeber that game. He was walking around afterwards and everyone thought he may have just done a PCL. Sadly it was an ACL and it was the start of the end.

 

[Towno78]

Injuries? Or does that not count?

Played rd1-6, 11-15 and then all Finals.

Hardly the record of a fringe (in and out type player).

Actual injuries count naturally, what were they?

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Actual injuries count naturally, what were they?

See post above

Game counts aside from 93 -
92 - 19 games
94 - 12 games (first game was half way throgh the season and played every game)
95 - 21 games
96 - 19 games
97 - 17 games
Unfortunately they don't keep the injury records with match reports. So am sturggling to find it. However, his record clearly shows he was a best 20/21 player from 92 through to 96 (with 97 still a solid contributer (picked most weeks), but his powers were waning.

 

[Towno78]

See post above

Game counts aside from 93 -
92 - 19/22 games
94 - 12/22 games (first game was half way throgh the season and played every game)
95 - 21/24 games
96 - 19/25 games
97 - 17/22 games
Unfortunately they don't keep the injury records with match reports. So am sturggling to find it. However, his record clearly shows he was a best 20/21 player from 92 through to 96 (with 97 still a solid contributer (picked most weeks), but his powers were waning.

Sorry mate, I don't think it clearly shows that all. 73% of games over a 6 period for a player I don't recall being very injury prone. I remember him being borderline best 22 and I don't think I'm the only one. We're obviously not going to agree on it, how about we move on.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Sorry mate, I don't think it clearly shows that all. 73% of games over a 6 period for a player I don't recall being very injury prone. I remember him being borderline best 22 and I don't think I'm the only one. We're obviously not going to agree on it, how about we move on.

Nice stats there. 73% because of one season where he didn't start it till half way through the year. Good one.

He had dodgy hammies and used to where those giant thigh warmers. Not hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Using your logic, Hurley retrospecitvely will be looked on as borderline best as he constantly missed games of football. Am I dong it right?

Agree to disagree.

 

[Fin ice Smuggler]

Nice stats there. 73% because of one season where he didn't start it till half way through the year. Good one.

He had dodgy hammies and used to where those giant thigh warmers. Not hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Using your logic, Hurley retrospecitvely will be looked on as borderline best as he constantly missed games of football. Am I dong it right?

Agree to disagree.

Dude he was a battler, end of story. Forget about stats.

He would be todays Scapegoat like Melksham, every now and then he would produce a half reasonable game, he definitely wouldn't be one of the first picked.

He would struggle to get a game in our current side.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Dude he was a battler, end of story. Forget about stats.

He would be todays Scapegoat like Melksham, every now and then he would produce a half reasonable game, he definitely wouldn't be one of the first picked.

He would struggle to get a game in our current side.

WTF does that have to do with price of eggs?

Battler or not, he was in the best 20/21. Hard to comprehend?