Patrick Dangerfield or Scott Pendlebury?

[Cdog71]

Yeh I have just never been completely sold on Dangerfield. As you say, beast of a player but I dunno, he lacks that polish which the truly great ones have in spades. He can take a brilliant contested mark and is almost cat like such is (was) his agility. Kicks a lot of goals as well but just never quite kept his game at the very top level.
I guess his peak was better than Pendlebury but as time goes by, we start to lose interest in those older players as we tend to remember their recent exploits and Pendles has regressed from the player he once was with Swan, Ball and Thomas in midfield.

As for greatest Cats players ever, Danger is well behind Buddha Hocking for me. He certainly isn't in the same class as the Ablett's and I would also take Scarlett well ahead of him.
Never saw the older blokes like Farmer or Goggin.
Possibly a good comparison would be Couch or Selwood.

He isnt well known for making others better around him or a as the “club man” I spose.

 

[Seeds]

65% over 14 years doesn't have any bearing on an individual season, that's what's correct. Without the Kardinia Park advantage they miss plenty more.



Strawman all you like but there's nothing genuine about Geelong's home ground advantage. It's not the kind of advantage found in any other club, and it would be disingenuous to call their other home games a mere home state advantage rather than just the same kind of home game advantage that other Victorian or even interstate clubs enjoy. That's not putting Geelong at a disadvantage, it's trying to compare stats while keeping in mind Geelong's ridiculous home ground advantage.

Lethality on his quest to have geelong play 22 away games every year. 13 is just not enough.

keep it in your head. Its delusional.

 

[Seeds]

Having an almighty laugh if you think they're the ultimate achievements of AFL

so selwood three times the player of pendlebury.

got it.

dont be so stupid.

 

[Seeds]

That is true but just on what both players have now become, I think Pendlebury is arguably one of the best users in the games history. Has half the athleticism of Dangerfield but was on another level when it came to making the right choices by hand & by foot. His ability to tip toe around players like he was seeing the game in slow motion is legendary. Similar to that of Simon Black & Sam Mitchell.
Dangerfield is frenetic in almost everything he does but at the end of the day, Pendelbury's record in big games speaks for itself.

If you could go back in time and pick either player from the very beginning, I think most would choose Pendlebury to build their team around and the more AA's, Brownlow medals or MVP awards doesn't really change a thing.

But is that an error in thinking.

we all think pendlebury has been elite for much longer but dangers 8 all australians vs pendleburys 6 suggests otherwise. Are we wrong in our thinking. Collingwood gets all the attention in the media whilst dangers career in adelaide did not.

pendlebury is like a ballet dancer with his foot work. But danger was just far stronger at extracting a ball from a contest and acclerating away from it. Danger also had a pretty decent shimmy to go along with the brute strength and pace. in a contest to win a ball on the deck between danger and pendlebury danger is winning it 9 times out of 10 due to being quicker and stronger. Danger a contested ball beast. Danger also has a huge aerial dimension to his game of which pendlebury has none. Danger offered 1.1 goals a game where pendlebury only 0.5.

ive never seen pendlebury as an elite competition ball disposer like an ablett. Hes good but never seen him as best in the comp level. Maybe i havent been paying attention though. Dangers kicking is a massive weakness.

how do you rate bad kicking vs inferior ball winning ability And less score goal power.

Its apple and oranges really. Basically it subjective as there is not objective way to compare the two.

but i know im taking 2015-17 dangerfield over any year of pendleburys. Dangers finals in that period were elite as well.

 

[Lethality]

Lethality on his quest to have geelong play 22 away games every year. 13 is just not enough.
keep it in your head. Its delusional.

You wouldn't need tu be this dishonest if the facts were on your side.

 

[00Stinger]

The ultimate? Pretty sure there are greater awards which Pendlebury has and Dangerfield doesn’t

ANZAC day medals???

 

[Lethality]

False. Geelong would be the powerhouse for being smart enough not to get bullied into giving up their home.

They werefar enough away to not have to do it is all. Even if it were smarts, it's an asterisk on the field.

 

[HairyO]

Yeh I have just never been completely sold on Dangerfield. As you say, beast of a player but I dunno, he lacks that polish which the truly great ones have in spades. He can take a brilliant contested mark and is almost cat like such is (was) his agility. Kicks a lot of goals as well but just never quite kept his game at the very top level.
I guess his peak was better than Pendlebury but as time goes by, we start to lose interest in those older players as we tend to remember their recent exploits and Pendles has regressed from the player he once was with Swan, Ball and Thomas in midfield.

As for greatest Cats players ever, Danger is well behind Buddha Hocking for me. He certainly isn't in the same class as the Ablett's and I would also take Scarlett well ahead of him.
Never saw the older blokes like Farmer or Goggin.
Possibly a good comparison would be Couch or Selwood.

GAS, Chapman, Bartel, Scarlett, GAJ if he had stayed, Enright, and many more would be ahead of Dangerfield.
Stevie J.
Oh, and this is just in my lifetime. Polly is head and shoulders ahead.

 

[A Victorian Sport]

Easily Dangerfield. Scott Pendlebury

10

Scott Pendlebury

Age

36

Ht

191cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

26.5

5star

K

13.2

5star

HB

13.3

5star

M

4.1

4star

T

4.9

5star

CL

4.9

5star

D

25.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

12.9

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.3

3star

CL

3.6

4star

D

12.4

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

4.8

4star

M

5.8

5star

T

2.6

4star

is a more reliable kick but never elevated himself to surfing in a suit status.

Danger could become a once in a generation player. The best player since 2015. I'm not sure if Petracca/Oliver will reach him. His 2016 was something else Ablett snr esque

 

[Trav 20]

Easily Dangerfield. Scott Pendlebury is a more reliable kick but never elevated himself to surfing in a suit status.

Danger could become a once in a generation player. The best player since 2015. I'm not sure if Petracca/Oliver will reach him. His 2016 was something else Ablett snr esque

Please don't compare a Norm Smith medallist and premiership player with a 12 disposal grand final also-ran.

My reference can be Pendlebury, or Petracca. Take your pick.

 

[Bunnings]

Please don't compare a Norm Smith medallist and premiership player with a 12 disposal grand final also-ran.

My reference can be Pendlebury, or Petracca. Take your pick.

Dangers played in 1 grand final and didn’t play midfield (was carrying an injury) so of his 250 odd games one game means he is not compared to someone who won a norm? Next you’ll say pettracca/pendles has had a better year than dangers 2016 when he won every accolade, could have very easily gone back to back Brownlow’s in 2017.
Danger for mine his peak was better, Scotty makes it close with his consistency though


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Trav 20]

Dangers played in 1 grand final and didn’t play midfield (was carrying an injury) so of his 250 odd games one game means he is not compared to someone who won a norm? Next you’ll say pettracca/pendles has had a better year than dangers 2016 when he won every accolade, could have very easily gone back to back Brownlow’s in 2017.
Danger for mine his peak was better, Scotty makes it close with his consistency though


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I agree I have a hardline stance and the post you're quoting is laced with hyperbole. It depends on the mood I'm in.

Dangerfield has been an incredible player. His 2017 was insane. The goal tally is easily forgotten that year.

However, players are ultimately judged by how they perform on the biggest stage. His failure in his only GF appearance is an indelible blot on his career. Players performances in finals is hugely significant, especially grand finals.

Dangerfield played to a level Pendlebury isn't quite capable of, but the body of work may end up being just that bit better.

 

[TheUnicorn]

I'm genuinely surprised Pendles is winning.

 

[Seeds]

I'm genuinely surprised Pendles is winning.

Its a popularity contest. No one that is actually evaluating the best player.

 

[Seeds]

Please don't compare a Norm Smith medallist and premiership player with a 12 disposal grand final also-ran.

My reference can be Pendlebury, or Petracca. Take your pick.

Please dont be an idiot and focus on a single game played against different opponents and different periods of their career. Danger was a shadow of his peak in 2020.

go look at hirds 2000 grand final vs 2001. Now imagine he only played one of them.

pendlebury wasnt even the best midfielder in his own team. Usually only playing great games when the tag went to swan and he was left alone.

 

[adammania9]

pendlebury wasnt even the best midfielder in his own team. Usually only playing great games when the tag went to swan and he was left alone.

Just a ridiculous comment

 

[AjsGuns]

Danger comfortably.

Everyone comments on Pendles longevity, but Danger has 8 AAs (record). Dangers peak in 2016 and 2017 was clearly better.

Danger, Dusty & Fyfe were the best 3 players in the AFL from 2015-2020 and dominated that stretch.

Danger was the best player in the AFL in 2016 and came runner up in the Brownlow in 2017 & 2019. Was also AA every year from 2015-2020.

 

[Seeds]

Just a ridiculous comment

Pendleburys best seasons were all when swan was still playing despite the fact pendlebury hadnt hit his peak midfield years. Then with swan gone pendleburys form goes backwards rather then keeps getting better as you would expect.

 

[adammania9]

Pendleburys best seasons were all when swan was still playing despite the fact pendlebury hadnt hit his peak midfield years. Then with swan gone pendleburys form goes backwards rather then keeps getting better as you would expect.

Player hits peak years at 24-26 years old - staggering revelation. Pendlebury was the best player at Collingwood during his and Swan’s peaks and anybody who watched the Pies knew that. The more skilled and highly consistent player by a fair way.

You seem to expect Pendlebury to have gotten better following Swan’s retirement? You can’t be serious…

 

[Seeds]

Player hits peak years at 24-26 years old - staggering revelation. Pendlebury was the best player at Collingwood during his and Swan’s peaks and anybody who watched the Pies knew that. The more skilled and highly consistent player by a fair way.

You seem to expect Pendlebury to have gotten better following Swan’s retirement? You can’t be serious…

He peaked at 23-25. Which is well before every other mids peak which is usually around 25-29. but its not only that he peaked earlier but his form fell away during the 25-29 period. he wasnt as good. And the difference was swan was gone,


and your assertion that pendlebury was better then swan is not a unanimous view held by pie fans. Many think swan was better.

 

[adammania9]

He peaked at 23-25. Which is well before every other mids peak which is usually around 25-29. but its not only that he peaked earlier but his form fell away during the 25-29 period. he wasnt as good. And the difference was swan was gone,


and your assertion that pendlebury was better then swan is not a unanimous view held by pie fans. Many think swan was better.

That first claim is based on nothing. There’s nothing linear about players peaking at a certain age. I’m staggered you’ve attempted to use that as an argument.

 

[MinerBoy]

Pendles has Swan covered no question.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Seeds]

That first claim is based on nothing. There’s nothing linear about players peaking at a certain age. I’m staggered you’ve attempted to use that as an argument.

beep wrong. Its completely based off scientific observation. if you take 1000 players who play out their careers to they retire voluntarially their peak perfromance is almost always between 25-29.

 

[adammania9]

Scientific observation hahahaha. Yeah okay professor

 

[My Tilly]

The better player will be Dangerfield but it's a weird one, a bit like Sam Mitchell, if you could choose between Dangerfield or Pendlebury and both are in their prime, I'm taking Pendlebury. Not as brilliant and doesn't kick goals but his impact to the team was quite profound.