Kerr Vs Mitchell

[dynamite kid]

Both are young guns who have had a couple of very good seasons (with both missing a few games through injury - or suspension eg the kerr nutcracker on mitchell).

So based on the last couple of years (forget team success and potential) who has been the better player thus far?

 

[Upgrayedd]

i love mitchell, but i think kerr is a better player based on his last two seasons

 

[Philhawk]

Good comparison for once.

Looking at the stats, they are both roughly the same age, height, weight etc.

While Sammy seems to be the statistically better of the two, there's no doubting what a damaging player Kerr is.

In terms of their worth to their team, West Coast could more than suffice without Kerr. The Hawks on the other hand would literally be down the creek if Mitchell go injured (see latter part of 2005).

Anothing thing which is important to note is that while Sam gets little help from his surrounding midfielders (Hodge and Spida (05) being the obvious exceptions), Kerr has been blessed to have the likes of Judd, Cousins, Braun, Embley, Fletcher and ofcourse, Cox, to help him.

Ofcourse i'm going to be biased because i'm a huge fan of his, but Sam Mitchell for me.

Note to disgruntled/unintelligent Eagles fans: My opinion doesn't mean I think Kerr is a 'hack' by any means.

 

[CrazyQ]

Daniel Kerr is a more rounded player.

Definately the better footballer, however Sammy is very good.

 

[dynamite kid]

Good comparison for once.

Looking at the stats, they are both roughly the same age, height, weight etc.

While Sammy seems to be the statistically better of the two, there's no doubting what a damaging player Kerr is.

In terms of their worth to their team, West Coast could more than suffice without Kerr. The Hawks on the other hand would literally be down the creek if Mitchell go injured (see latter part of 2005).

Anothing thing which is important to note is that while Sam gets little help from his surrounding midfielders (Hodge and Spida (05) being the obvious exceptions), Kerr has been blessed to have the likes of Judd, Cousins, Braun, Embley, Fletcher and ofcourse, Cox, to help him.

Ofcourse i'm going to be biased because i'm a huge fan of his, but Sam Mitchell for me.

Note to disgruntled/unintelligent Eagles fans: My opinion doesn't mean I think Kerr is a 'hack' by any means.

Thankyou philhawk i try!

your argument also seems to based on reason and logic instead of complete crap which is good to see. I think mitchell is a fantastic player full stop and as you said the hawks cant afford him to go down.

Like you said Mitchell is pretty much on his own whilst kerr is 3rd in the pecking order. But i have a different slant on this and thats why i believe kerr is slightly ahead (alot of bias here as well). For kerr to be as damaging and productive as he is whilst having to compete with judd and cousins for the ball makes his feats all the more impressive, mitchell does not have to compete with as many other quality midfielders so he is expected to perform at this level.

ATM kerr just, but mitchell is damn close

 

[Embers]

Daniel Kerr is a more rounded player.

Definately the better footballer, however Sammy is very good.

Pretty much. Kerr kicks and sets up more goals then Sam Mitchell. Thats the crux of it

Kerr is definetly better

 

[Silvagnis]

Kerr because he's a better finisher, runner, has some agro and shown he can push forward to kick goals.

A premiership player and part of their big four in the league's best side deserves your vote.

And I can't recall Mitchell getting off the ground to take a screamer let alone a mark.

And Kerr owns Mitchell's nuts!

 

[Alex_au]

No one in the league is better at clearing the ball from the middle then Sammy Mitchell. Only problem is he doesn't do enough in our forward line.

Kerr would be marginally ahead in all round abilities and pace, but I think Sammy has a bigger edge over Kerr in the centre square and around the ground stoppages.

Voting Mitchell only because I go for the Hawls

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Kerr, just. However he goes missing more. Definately more of a matchwinner.

 

[BedlamHawk]

I would have thought Mitchell would win this because he carved up Kerr at the G in r14 thus the frustration of Kerr punching him in the nuts. If we had have got up that day Mitch woulda got the 3 votes ahead of Judd, he beat Kerr hands down.

 

[crowsarethebest]

Kerr hands down. Mitchell is a very good player but Kerr is in the elite category of players in the AFL. Kerr is more damaging, is very good at breaking tackles, in and under, although Mitchell is good at that as well. Kerr ahs more pace, flair, agression and kick than Mitchell. THe only thing Mitchell is better than Kerr at is Clearances.

 

[bunsen burner]

Mitchell is a very good player but I'm at a loss as to how anyone voted for Mitchell. Mitchell can't tackle like Kerr and can't break ut of tackles like Kerr. There's not a lot in it but but the gap if obvious. Three plays from this year sum up the difference:

1. Kerr's tackle on Gehrig
2. Kerr's screamer in the goalsquare
3. Kerr picking up a ball in the middle of a pack and charging out circa round 20
4. Kerr's pick up and control of a ball on the HFF in the granny

Mitchell is very good but Kerr has it all.

 

[Nightwolf]

Well, we witnessed them go head to head this year and saw Sam Mitchell make Kerr look like an under 16 bench player. So much so, Kerr got mad and punched him in the nuts...

We will see if Kerr can compete at an under 18 standard next year against Sammy, hey?

 

[QL 21]

Kerr >> Mitchell.

 

[heals]

Well, we witnessed them go head to head this year and saw Sam Mitchell make Kerr look like an under 16 bench player. So much so, Kerr got mad and punched him in the nuts...

We will see if Kerr can compete at an under 18 standard next year against Sammy, hey?

Well that under 16 bench player went on to win a grand final , think we would rather win a grand final than a one on one.

and kerr was trying to hit sammy in the thigh because mitchell had a bad thigh at the time.

 

[BedlamHawk]

Well that under 16 bench player went on to win a grand final , think we would rather win a grand final than a one on one.

and kerr was trying to hit sammy in the thigh because mitchell had a bad thigh at the time.

LOL at the eagles fans who still think he "was aiming for his thigh"
Mitchell was sh*ting all over Kerr and the only option was for him to punch him in the nuts and try and get him off the ground.
Kerr gets an easy ride in a classy midfield
Lets see him dominate as much in a crap team in which Mitchell is in.

 

[bzparkes]

Well, we witnessed them go head to head this year and saw Sam Mitchell make Kerr look like an under 16 bench player. So much so, Kerr got mad and punched him in the nuts...

We will see if Kerr can compete at an under 18 standard next year against Sammy, hey?

Lol, compare Brownlow votes if you don't mind.

Kerr has way more than Mitchell and has to compete with Cousins and Judd. Mitchell really has noone other than Hodge to compete with and both of them don't get many votes. Who do you think is better now?

 

[heals]

LOL at the eagles fans who still think he "was aiming for his thigh"
Mitchell was sh*ting all over Kerr and the only option was for him to punch him in the nuts and try and get him off the ground.
Kerr gets an easy ride in a classy midfield
Lets see him dominate as much in a crap team in which Mitchell is in.

An easy run hes our 3rd not if our 2nd best medfielder and brownlow votes can show how he dominates.

 

[QL 21]

Kerr gets an easy ride in a classy midfield
Lets see him dominate as much in a crap team in which Mitchell is in.

You see, that's where your argument is flawed. Kerr is an in-and-under type player, he does the hard work which results in our other midfielders getting an "easy ride", as you put it.

 

[Philhawk]

Uh oh, this thread is heading somewhere ...

FWIW though, Mitchell actually racks up more tackles per game than Kerr. But as an attacking, explosive player - you cant go past Kerr. If you are more of a conservative type (which I now am ), then Mitch is your man.

 

[BedlamHawk]

An easy run hes our 3rd not if our 2nd best medfielder and brownlow votes can show how he dominates.

Kerr gets votes becoz his team wins matches, Mitchell's team doesn't so theres your answer to the swarm of brownlow votes.

 

[ShanBoi]

^^

What he said. Most of the time brownlow votes go to the winning team lol. We won 5 matches last year, the weagles finished one game from minor premiers. Hmmm wonder who is going to poll better??

Even if you get the 3 2 or 1 votes that week, its better than 0

 

[Nightwolf]

Lol, compare Brownlow votes if you don't mind.

Kerr has way more than Mitchell and has to compete with Cousins and Judd. Mitchell really has noone other than Hodge to compete with and both of them don't get many votes. Who do you think is better now?

Oh my god. Brownlow votes mean everything..

 

[dipper86]

Lol, compare Brownlow votes if you don't mind.

Kerr has way more than Mitchell and has to compete with Cousins and Judd. Mitchell really has noone other than Hodge to compete with and both of them don't get many votes. Who do you think is better now?

You can't be serious.

There's no question that Kerr is a gun, but to base it on brownlow votes is silly.

Last time i checked West Coast have been winning matches, Hawthorn hasn't, so going by logic the team that usually wins gets the most brownlow votes.

 

[dynamite kid]

Please folks this wasnt intended to be a west coast v hawthorn bashing thread.

a few points though -

1. Yes kerr has won a premiership, but a premiership is 'team' success and has no bearing on him as a player when comparing to mitchell, it is irrelevant. he didnt win the norm smith did he?

2. Mitchell did play a very good game on kerr this year. The question is though does this make mitchell a better player over the past 2 years against all comers in all circumstances (which is what this thread is supposed to be about). One game does not maketh the player..

3. Yes west coast has been winning more games thus more brownlow votes. but for kerr to be a runner up and ineligible third this year when judd, cousins cox and embley take a swag of those votes of him is very impressive. Hodge got 15 last year in a losing team.. (serious question - how many did mitchell poll this year, i forget?? )

4. kerr rarely 'goes missing' in the conventional sense, once again the reason is normally because cousins or judd are absolutely dominating so he changes his role in the team to support them off the ball instead of competing against them.

Based on this obviously i will still say kerr, but i thought mitchell would be polling better, some fans out there are selling him short.