Moved Thread Who was better - Dangerfield 2016 or Martin 2017?

[Rex Kwon Do]

My mistake, he injured the muscle in between the ribs that caused a lot of pain swelling and restriction which required a guard to be worn.
Point is he was severely restricted in his movement power and agility and was way below best.

So he played with a bruised muscle did he?

 

[Richo83]

The 30m sprint is definitely a big factor to balance in when determining who is quicker, it is only six 30m sprints with a short rest in between each (even Martin wouldn’t have had an issue with this).

He would have had more of an issue than the 20 meter sprint. To quote topend sports, the point of the 30 meter repeat sprint is to test: "anaerobic capacity, the ability to recover between sprints and produce the same level of power repeatedly" It's a test to see how quickly a player can run again after resting, i.e. the test isn't purely the sprinting, but how also much the player rests between sprinting, and how much they can run with less oxygen coming into their system than going out. In essence, it's not a pure speed test but also a general cardiovascular fitness test. And if you increase your endurance, you will increase your repeat sprint tests. It's not a pure speed test, if it were they'd just sprint 30 meters, but they don't. If you have average endurance, like Martin did in his junior days, you'd have more difficulty with the repeat sprint test than the 20 meter sprint test. It's why, for instance, many indigenous players test poorly in endurance tests, and even sometimes the 30 meter repeat test, but do well in the 20 meter sprint. They have natural speed, which shows up in 20 meter testing, but haven't done much longer term anaerobic exercise training.

You still haven't proven why the repeat test is a better test of speed than the 20 meter sprint test is. Regardless, you haven't provided any stats or visual/pictorial evidence to prove that Dangerfield is faster.

You don’t think how big a players leap at the ball is plays a part in determining who is more powerful? It is a factor to determining explosiveness and strength.

There are (roughly) four factors which determine vertical leap: height, especially in legs, leg to height ratio, leg strength, and training for jumping. Martin is shorter than Dangerfield, and possibly trains less in terms of vertical leap than Dangerfield, meaning his leaping capacity is reduced.

However, leaping is a poor judge of strength in terms of AFL, given midfielders in general don't leap as much. It's less important than say basketball. I'm not going to grade say Kennedy's strength based on his vertical leap, because a) he probably doesn't build his leg strength much, and probably focuses more on upper body strength to maximise his ability to fight off players and also tackle and b) he probably doesn't do that much leap training, given leaping isn't a key facet of his game.

There are plenty of players in the league who I'd argue are as strong as Dangerfield, such as Kennedy who don't have his leaping ability. Given most of the strength displayed by midfielders involves behavior like being able to push off from midfielders, use their strength to sprint, tackling, grappling etc. which generally happens with two feet on the ground, vertical leap is a poor measure of an AFL midfielder's strength. I'd say it's a similar case for other sports like soccer and rugby, much of which are played with two feet on the ground. This is especially true, given Martin tends to try and grapple or use his strength to gain best position, as opposed to outmarking his opponent. He uses upper body strength more than his vertical leap more than some players. It's a different type of strength. My guess is Martin has prioritised body strength over leg strength, which would make sense he uses the don't argue a lot, and he is one of players with the strongest upper body strength in the league.

Given most players don't take that many marks, or contested marks for that matter, leaping ability is a small aspect of their game which means I don't consider it that relevant for measuring their overall strength or how explosive they are as players in a real game day scenario. In a contested ball situation, their upper body strength is roughly equal and they rarely are caught out muscled.

Yes he played as a forward with a muscle tear in his ribs and a sore foot; which he kicked something like 5.6 for the day and had 12 shots on goal. That was all at 70% capacity, Martin has never managed to have even close to that sort of influence up forward even when 100 fit. Will ask remind you he kicked 4 of them in the space of about 30 minutes of football as he was off the first quarter and didn’t return till halfway through the second, and had kicked 4 by the end of the third. Martin has played a half of football forward plenty of times, he did against Geelong with not a lot of impact down at skilled.

In that game Martin racked up 13 CP and five clearances, in the game where Dangerfield kicked five goals he had no clearanes and only 8 CP. Martin, even in the Geelong game was far more involved in the midfield battle than Dangerfield, so a like for like comparison isn't there.

And plus, you're comparing one game, hardly a large sample size. You've also only managed to show that Dangerfield is slightly better forward wise, given that Dangerfield was the highest scoring midfielder in the league. The second? Martin. And again, I'd attribute that to playing style, nothing else.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

He would have had more of an issue than the 20 meter sprint. To quote topend sports, the point of the 30 meter repeat sprint is to test: "anaerobic capacity, the ability to recover between sprints and produce the same level of power repeatedly" It's a test to see how quickly a player can run again after resting, i.e. the test isn't purely the sprinting, but how also much the player rests between sprinting, and how much they can run with less oxygen coming into their system than going out. In essence, it's not a pure speed test but also a general cardiovascular fitness test. And if you increase your endurance, you will increase your repeat sprint tests. It's not a pure speed test, if it were they'd just sprint 30 meters, but they don't. If you have average endurance, like Martin did in his junior days, you'd have more difficulty with the repeat sprint test than the 20 meter sprint test. It's why, for instance, many indigenous players test poorly in endurance tests, and even sometimes the 30 meter repeat test, but do well in the 20 meter sprint. They have natural speed, which shows up in 20 meter testing, but haven't done much longer term anaerobic exercise training.

You still haven't proven why the repeat test is a better test of speed than the 20 meter sprint test is. Regardless, you haven't provided any stats or visual/pictorial evidence to prove that Dangerfield is faster.



There are (roughly) four factors which determine vertical leap: height, especially in legs, leg to height ratio, leg strength, and training for jumping. Martin is shorter than Dangerfield, and possibly trains less in terms of vertical leap than Dangerfield, meaning his leaping capacity is reduced.

However, leaping is a poor judge of strength in terms of AFL, given midfielders in general don't leap as much. It's less important than say basketball. I'm not going to grade say Kennedy's strength based on his vertical leap, because a) he probably doesn't build his leg strength much, and probably focuses more on upper body strength to maximise his ability to fight off players and also tackle and b) he probably doesn't do that much leap training, given leaping isn't a key facet of his game.

There are plenty of players in the league who I'd argue are as strong as Dangerfield, such as Kennedy who don't have his leaping ability. Given most of the strength displayed by midfielders involves behavior like being able to push off from midfielders, use their strength to sprint, tackling, grappling etc. which generally happens with two feet on the ground, vertical leap is a poor measure of an AFL midfielder's strength. I'd say it's a similar case for other sports like soccer and rugby, much of which are played with two feet on the ground. This is especially true, given Martin tends to try and grapple or use his strength to gain best position, as opposed to outmarking his opponent. He uses upper body strength more than his vertical leap more than some players. It's a different type of strength. My guess is Martin has prioritised body strength over leg strength, which would make sense he uses the don't argue a lot, and he is one of players with the strongest upper body strength in the league.

Given most players don't take that many marks, or contested marks for that matter, leaping ability is a small aspect of their game which means I don't consider it that relevant for measuring their overall strength or how explosive they are as players in a real game day scenario. In a contested ball situation, their upper body strength is roughly equal and they rarely are caught out muscled.



In that game Martin racked up 13 CP and five clearances, in the game where Dangerfield kicked five goals he had no clearanes and only 8 CP. Martin, even in the Geelong game was far more involved in the midfield battle than Dangerfield, so a like for like comparison isn't there.

And plus, you're comparing one game, hardly a large sample size. You've also only managed to show that Dangerfield is slightly better forward wise, given that Dangerfield was the highest scoring midfielder in the league. The second? Martin. And again, I'd attribute that to playing style, nothing else.

Really can’t be bothered replying to everything as you go on quite a bit and like I said before the draft camp tests really aren’t even that relevant to who is better. They where also 18 keep in mind and a lot happens since then.

How big your leap definitely says a lot about your power and athleticism through your legs. It is a big weapon up forward and one that danger has and dusty doesn’t. Danger really does use it to his advantage.

Like I said he played forward because he was at about 70% with quite a restrictive injury, the actual injury was a muscle tear inbetween the ribs which is a very tricky spot, requires a guard. In the hawthorn game he tore the game apart, Martin simply has never been able to have the same effect up forward when he is down there that Dangerfield had in that game and some others forward. Time forward is irrelevant, it’s all about impact and ability to influence the game, not time sitting forward.

Dangerfield the best forward midfielder and Martin second best forward mid sounds about accurate.

Dangerfield is the better contested ball winner, despite you pointing out how you believe he plays more time forward and also remember he played 5 games with a muscle tear in his ribs, this restricts your contested ball massively, and he still was ahead by seasons end.

Probably for me it’s two key things that put Dangerfield ahead for me

1. Ability to win more contested ball and also break free on the outside after
2. More dangerous and impactful up forward

 

[geelong_crazy26]

So he played with a bruised muscle did he?

Most players would have been out for 4-5 weeks due to the restrictive nature of the injury and its limitations on the players ability to be in contests and to hit full speed. Pretty much was running at about 70% capacity to quote some working closely inside the club I know

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Most players would have been out for 4-5 weeks due to the restrictive nature of the injury and its limitations on the players ability to be in contests and to hit full speed. Pretty much was running at about 70% capacity to quote some working closely inside the club I know

I’m not sure how you can make the claim that most players would have been out for 4-5 weeks with that injury. You just don’t know that.

He took the field as such his obligation is to perform. Should have just taken the time off to recover instead of being such a liability to the team

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I’m not sure how you can make the claim that most players would have been out for 4-5 weeks with that injury. You just don’t know that.

He took the field as such his obligation is to perform. Should have just taken the time off to recover instead of being such a liability to the team

He took the field because even restricted he was good enough to contribute in a meaningful way to the team, he put the team above everything else. You will find the decision really came down to a couple of main things which where
1) would playing jeopardise thr onjury further and slow down his recovery? The answer was no in this case
2) can he still play and have an impact better than the player replacing him? The answer is yes.

You don’t need to be 100% fit to play and contribute. But you are entirely correct you do need to go out there and give your 100% and make no excuses, but you can’t ignore the reality if someone is restricted and injured, it is what it is.

Let me be clear as well, I rate dusty very highly and don’t think anything degrading of him, I have danger slightly ahead for his contested ball being better and more dangerous up forward. That’s just me. Obviously it comes down to preferences as dusty has his ticks over danger as danger has his ticks over dusty in areas as well. Would say dusty has an edge over danger in outside ball use execution and decision making.

You really can’t go wrong either way, if you had draft pick 2 and both of these guys where in the draft either way you would be a happy person come pick 2.

 

[Richo83]

Really can’t be bothered replying to everything as you go on quite a bit and like I said before the draft camp tests really aren’t even that relevant to who is better. They where also 18 keep in mind and a lot happens since then.

You were the one asking for stats about speed times, but nevertheless, when I gave them to you, you rubbished them and pointed to other numbers without much proof of why those numbers were more relevant.

And sure, their times would have improved, but do you really think that Martin's speed has dropped off much? His initial burst is very good, evidenced by the fact that he's hard to catch (he's also very agile, like Dangerfield).

Now I've shown that you haven't managed to illustrate that he's more explosive, bar say "oh you know that 20 meter test designed to measure speed and explosiveness? That's less relevant to another test designed to measure other things" and "oh just watching them play you can tell Dangerfield is more explosive".

How big your leap definitely says a lot about your power and athleticism through your legs. It is a big weapon up forward and one that danger has and dusty doesn’t. Danger really does use it to his advantage.

Martin averaged one contested mark per game, so to say he doesn't have it is ludicrous. Secondly, you initially didn't say "Dangerfield is slightly stronger in the legs and has a better leap" if you had have said that, I would have agreed to that.

Instead, you said that he was much more powerful and explosive, full stop. Not, more powerful in the legs, more powerful, period. Now you're saying "he's more powerful in the legs" which doesn't really strike me as "much more powerful". A player's leap is only relevant to one part of the body and only is a factor in a fairly small part of an AFL game.

Their upper body strength, which is what midfielders generally need and are judged upon, and generally what I judge midfielders in terms of strength, are roughly the same.

Sorry if I find your definition of what constitutes "much more powerful" to be a little underwhelming.

Like I said he played forward because he was at about 70% with quite a restrictive injury, the actual injury was a muscle tear inbetween the ribs which is a very tricky spot, requires a guard. In the hawthorn game he tore the game apart, Martin simply has never been able to have the same effect up forward when he is down there that Dangerfield had in that game and some others forward. Time forward is irrelevant, it’s all about impact and ability to influence the game, not time sitting forward.

On what earth is time forward irrelevant for judging whether or not one's forward output is superior? I guess Toby Greene is a better forward than Martin because he kicks more goals and takes more forward marks. Time forward is irrelevant!

Dangerfield is the better contested ball winner, despite you pointing out how you believe he plays more time forward and also remember he played 5 games with a muscle tear in his ribs, this restricts your contested ball massively, and he still was ahead by seasons end.

Dangerfield, and Geelong in general play a higher possession style of football, which involves a lot more handballs, which inflates Dangerfield's contested and uncontested numbers, particularly handballs, where he averaged the fifth most of any player in the league (16.82). Often when a player in a contested area handballs, there's a good chance they'll get the ball back in a possession chain, whereas a clearing kick out of stoppage is unlikely to spring back to the player. This is why I wont rank any player's contested ability purely on their contested possession numbers alone, because you're often comparing players from different teams playing different game styles. Geelong play a high possession game, Richmond play a low possession game.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

You were the one asking for stats about speed times, but nevertheless, when I gave them to you, you rubbished them and pointed to other numbers without much proof of why those numbers were more relevant.

And sure, their times would have improved, but do you really think that Martin's speed has dropped off much? His initial burst is very good, evidenced by the fact that he's hard to catch (he's also very agile, like Dangerfield).

Now I've shown that you haven't managed to illustrate that he's more explosive, bar say "oh you know that 20 meter test designed to measure speed and explosiveness? That's less relevant to another test designed to measure other things" and "oh just watching them play you can tell Dangerfield is more explosive".



Martin averaged one contested mark per game, so to say he doesn't have it is ludicrous. Secondly, you initially didn't say "Dangerfield is slightly stronger in the legs and has a better leap" if you had have said that, I would have agreed to that.

Instead, you said that he was much more powerful and explosive, full stop. Not, more powerful in the legs, more powerful, period. Now you're saying "he's more powerful in the legs" which doesn't really strike me as "much more powerful". A player's leap is only relevant to one part of the body and only is a factor in a fairly small part of an AFL game.

Their upper body strength, which is what midfielders generally need and are judged upon, and generally what I judge midfielders in terms of strength, are roughly the same.

Sorry if I find your definition of what constitutes "much more powerful" to be a little underwhelming.



On what earth is time forward irrelevant for judging whether or not one's forward output is superior? I guess Toby Greene is a better forward than Martin because he kicks more goals and takes more forward marks. Time forward is irrelevant!



Dangerfield, and Geelong in general play a higher possession style of football, which involves a lot more handballs, which inflates Dangerfield's contested and uncontested numbers, particularly handballs, where he averaged the fifth most of any player in the league (16.82). Often when a player in a contested area handballs, there's a good chance they'll get the ball back in a possession chain, whereas a clearing kick out of stoppage is unlikely to spring back to the player. This is why I wont rank any player's contested ability purely on their contested possession numbers alone, because you're often comparing players from different teams playing different game styles. Geelong play a high possession game, Richmond play a low possession game.

Mate I can’t be bothered going over everything as you write such long responses.

I said there are probably some stats from under 18, and also have said about 10 times that its irrelevant to who is better to which you have obsessed over their carnival stats.

I didn’t say time forward is completely irrelevant, i said Dangerfield has a much bigger impact on games up forward and is more dangerous as a forward.

And that’s rubbish talk that Martin has less contested possessions because of playing style. Every team needs fundamentally players to win the contested ball regardless of style. Dangerfield is just better at this which the stats easily prove.

Dangerfield is a better contested ball winning midfielder and a better more dangerous forward than Martin. The impact he has as a forward on games Martin has never achieved. I don’t care about a what if Martin played more forward, I am talking about what has happened, and Dangerfield has had a lot more impact/influence up forward in games than Martin has when down there.

And absolutely I think Dangerfield is a better more dangerous forward option than Toby Greene.

 

[Richo83]

Mate I can’t be bothered going over everything as you write such long responses.

I said there are probably some stats from under 18, and also have said about 10 times that its irrelevant to who is better to which you have obsessed over their carnival stats.

You asked for stats, I gave them to you. You can't be bothered responding because you have no comeback to my speed comments. And your strength argument is fairly poor as well, since your definition of "much more powerful" is reduced to "stronger in the legs and has a better leap".

I didn’t say time forward is completely irrelevant, i said Dangerfield has a much bigger impact on games up forward and is more dangerous as a forward.

And yet you fail to acknowledge that Dangerfield played whole matches up forward, as opposed to Martin who didn't.

And that’s rubbish talk that Martin has less contested possessions because of playing style. Every team needs fundamentally players to win the contested ball regardless of style. Dangerfield is just better at this which the stats easily prove.

Is it? Prove it. Bigfooty presumes that every player is on an even playing field and plays the same way, but it isn't true. Dangerfield handballs more in contested scenarios. As a player who handballs more, he's more likely to win the ball back in a contested scenario. Martin can easily win a contested possession, it's just that rarely does he win more than one. Whereas I've seen Dangerfield handball to a player in congestion, then get a handpass, then for Dangerfield to kick or handpass again. I mean why is it that most of the leaders for contested possession in 2017 were players who handballed more than they kicked?

Dangerfield is a better contested ball winning midfielder and a better more dangerous forward than Martin. The impact he has as a forward on games Martin has never achieved. I don’t care about a what if Martin played more forward, I am talking about what has happened, and Dangerfield has had a lot more impact/influence up forward in games than Martin has when down there.

So you don't care how much they've actually played down forward in terms of judging who is the better forward?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

You asked for stats, I gave them to you. You can't be bothered responding because you have no comeback to my speed comments. And your strength argument is fairly poor as well, since your definition of "much more powerful" is reduced to "stronger in the legs and has a better leap".



And yet you fail to acknowledge that Dangerfield played whole matches up forward, as opposed to Martin who didn't.



Is it? Prove it. Bigfooty presumes that every player is on an even playing field and plays the same way, but it isn't true. Dangerfield handballs more in contested scenarios. As a player who handballs more, he's more likely to win the ball back in a contested scenario. Martin can easily win a contested possession, it's just that rarely does he win more than one. Whereas I've seen Dangerfield handball to a player in congestion, then get a handpass, then for Dangerfield to kick or handpass again. I mean why is it that most of the leaders for contested possession in 2017 were players who handballed more than they kicked?



So you don't care how much they've actually played down forward in terms of judging who is the better forward?

Your whole time down forward is an indication of who is better is like saying because a midfielder gets more possessions per game he must be better than a midfielder who gets less of thr ball. Quality and impact are what I am making my judgment on not the quantity argument you are trying to push.

Dangerfield has won games off his own boot when down forward and torn matches open down there, dusty has not done this to anywhere near the effect danger has. Danger has the points as a forward. Are you trying to say dusty has had the same impact as a forward as danger has? And dusty has spent quite a bit of time forward as well to make the comparison.

No I never really went into stats I have said about 12 times now they don’t determine who is better, no idea why you keep obsessing over their under 18 stats.

I have a solid argument for two things Dangerfield is better at

A) danger is a better contested ball winner which all the figures back up, despite playing 5 games with a rib injury that restricted midfield time, you gave nothing to argue this besides your hypothetical assumption of guessing the game plans.

B) he has more of an impact up forward. Has BOG games determined by his input as a resting forward, won games off his boot as s firward, could have kicked 10 against the hawks had he kicked accurate, kicked 8 more goals also. All the evidence suggests better more impactful forward.

Again these are the two areas he is ahead of Martin. You have nothing but hypothetical what if he played more time forward and what if our game plan was.. fact is it isn’t and he has not had the same contested ball impact or the same impact up forward in his career as danger has for the team.

Dangerfield also goes in and wind his own contested ball and breaks free from the contest, he has the ability to do both. Are you saying Damien Hardwick doesn’t think dusty can do this? That he only wants him to focus on the outside? If true that is a big massive tick for Dangerfield over Martin as a much more valuable weapon

 

[Richo83]

Your whole time down forward is an indication of who is better is like saying because a midfielder gets more possessions per game he must be better than a midfielder who gets less of thr ball. Quality and impact are what I am making my judgment on not the quantity argument you are trying to push.

I didn't say that. I said that because Dangerfield plays up forward, his forward stats are likely to be better, ergo any stats which point to Dangerfield being better because he's kicked more goals are misleading, because he played forward more.

And your possession comparison is wrong. I'm saying it'd be like arguing a player is a better midfielder by looking at clearance stats, and ignoring the fact that one player played in the guts more.

Dangerfield has won games off his own boot when down forward and torn matches open down there, dusty has not done this to anywhere near the effect danger has. Danger has the points as a forward. Are you trying to say dusty has had the same impact as a forward as danger has? And dusty has spent quite a bit of time forward as well to make the comparison.

No. But the reason why is because Richmond doesn't use Martin to win games from the forwardline that much, and he mainly plays in the midfield, with bursts in the forwardline. His inside 50, goal assist and scoring chain numbers bear this out.

I'm not willing to judge who is a better forward unless both of them play as forwards permanently. Otherwise we're making a comparison with incomplete data.

No I never really went into stats I have said about 12 times now they don’t determine who is better, no idea why you keep obsessing over their under 18 stats.

You said on page four: "I didn’t have stats, although I am sure if there is a 20 m sprint stat I am quite confident Dangerfield would come out ontop."

You thought the stats would back you up, and then when they didn't, shifted the goalposts and argued that another stat was more relevant, when I proved that wrong now you're saying "I never really went into stats". You certainly thought they were on your side at first though.

Dangerfield also goes in and wind his own contested ball and breaks free from the contest, he has the ability to do both. Are you saying Damien Hardwick doesn’t think dusty can do this? That he only wants him to focus on the outside? If true that is a big massive tick for Dangerfield over Martin as a much more valuable weapon

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Hardwick clearly thinks he play in the guts, it's an absurd strawman hypothetical you have built. He just thinks he should kick more, meaning his contested possession numbers are lower. Again, teams which kick more will generally have lower possession and contested possession rates. This is not some hypothetical, it's proven by statistics which show both team's possession rates. I'm also not guessing because the coaching staff have said before that they instruct and give Martin the freedom to kick as much as possible in contested and uncontested situations, this means his contested and uncontested possession rates are lower than they'd be if they'd played a higher possession style of game based upon handballs. It's no coincidence that the highest possession teams generally have a high rate of uncontested and contested handballs.

For the same reason, I don't think that Oliver is a better contested possession player than Martin, even though Oliver averages more contested possessions. He averages more because Melbourne often handball a lot in traffic. And in game terms, I'd prefer my midfielders to kick in contested possessions more than handpass, and kick more in general, as it's more damaging and opens up the game more. Kicks from a contest, especially to advantage are like gold in the modern game.

The AFL really need to breakdown contested and uncontested disposal by kick and handpass, that would more clearly show the differences in type and quality of possession and disposal. Also show how often players turn contested disposals into uncontested kicks, which Martin often does.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I didn't say that. I said that because Dangerfield plays up forward, his forward stats are likely to be better, ergo any stats which point to Dangerfield being better because he's kicked more goals are misleading, because he played forward more.

And your possession comparison is wrong. I'm saying it'd be like arguing a player is a better midfielder by looking at clearance stats, and ignoring the fact that one player played in the guts more.



No. But the reason why is because Richmond doesn't use Martin to win games from the forwardline that much, and he mainly plays in the midfield, with bursts in the forwardline. His inside 50, goal assist and scoring chain numbers bear this out.

I'm not willing to judge who is a better forward unless both of them play as forwards permanently. Otherwise we're making a comparison with incomplete data.



You said on page four: "I didn’t have stats, although I am sure if there is a 20 m sprint stat I am quite confident Dangerfield would come out ontop."

You thought the stats would back you up, and then when they didn't, shifted the goalposts and argued that another stat was more relevant, when I proved that wrong now you're saying "I never really went into stats". You certainly thought they were on your side at first though.



Stop putting words in my mouth.

Hardwick clearly thinks he play in the guts, it's an absurd strawman hypothetical you have built. He just thinks he should kick more, meaning his contested possession numbers are lower. Again, teams which kick more will generally have lower possession and contested possession rates. This is not some hypothetical, it's proven by statistics which show both team's possession rates. I'm also not guessing because the coaching staff have said before that they instruct and give Martin the freedom to kick as much as possible in contested and uncontested situations, this means his contested and uncontested possession rates are lower than they'd be if they'd played a higher possession style of game based upon handballs. It's no coincidence that the highest possession teams generally have a high rate of uncontested and contested handballs.

For the same reason, I don't think that Oliver is a better contested possession player than Martin, even though Oliver averages more contested possessions. He averages more because Melbourne often handball a lot in traffic. And in game terms, I'd prefer my midfielders to kick in contested possessions more than handpass, and kick more in general, as it's more damaging and opens up the game more. Kicks from a contest, especially to advantage are like gold in the modern game.

The AFL really need to breakdown contested and uncontested disposal by kick and handpass, that would more clearly show the differences in type and quality of possession and disposal. Also show how often players turn contested disposals into uncontested kicks, which Martin often does.

Richmond is third in the AFL for contested possessions behind Geelong and your saying Richmond doesn’t play a heavy contested ball brand of footy? What rubbish.

Martin also had more possessions than Dangerfield so this whole stuff about team possession count is entirely irrelevant, if anything Dangerfield should be way behind on this stat as he spent 5 weeks playing a bit more forward away from the contests due to carrying an injury.


Dangerfield is just simply a better contested footballer, better up forward as well. Every stat suggests this as does the match reports which have danger getting BOG for tearing games open up forward with such impact that Martin has never done. Your just simply struggling to accept Dangerfield has the runs on the board ahead of Martin for contested possession and performance up forward.

Can you please show what you consider to be evidence Martin is better contested ball winner and better up forward without your hypothetical scenario of what if he played more this or that way? That’s really all you seem to be able to produce, a bunch of what if he played more this or that.

 

[Richo83]

Richmond is third in the AFL for contested possessions behind Geelong and your saying Richmond doesn’t play a heavy contested ball brand of footy? What rubbish.

They're sixth for contested possessions per game behind Geelong, who are fourth. Their stats got a little distorted given Richmond dominated contested ball in the finals, which threw out the numbers and was a bit of an outlier, and because they played finals, which are generally more contested, whereas most teams didn't play one final let alone three. You compare just the home and away season and their average falls to tenth. Richmond actually was trailing in contested possession for much of the year, because whilst teams were handballing more in congestion, Richmond kicked more. Actually lost the contested possession count 14 times in the season.

Now Richmond do play a heavy contested brand of football, in that a high percentage of their possessions are contested, but they don't rack up huge contested ball numbers, because they largely kick from a context.

Martin also had more possessions than Dangerfield so this whole stuff about team possession count is entirely irrelevant, if anything Dangerfield should be way behind on this stat as he spent 5 weeks playing a bit more forward away from the contests due to carrying an injury.

That's because he played more midfield minutes, which is why I don't rank Dangerfield below Martin for trailing Martin in midfield stats, because he played less midfield minutes. You should do me the same courtesy. In this context, possession counts indicates where the player played. Contested possession numbers here are a reflection of handball:kick ratios (Martin kicks more, Dangerfield handballs more).

Can you please show what you consider to be evidence Martin is better contested ball winner and better up forward without your hypothetical scenario of what if he played more this or that way? That’s really all you seem to be able to produce, a bunch of what if he played more this or that.

I never said Martin was better. In fact I've said before that they're roughly the same, both as forwards and in terms of contested ball ability. Averaging more goals because you play more forward and averaging more contested possessions because you handball in traffic doesn't make you a better forward or better at contested possessions. In fact I think rating the top players for contested possessions purely by averages is a poor way of ranking players as every midfielder's role is slightly different and plays the game differently.

I also suspected Richmond pushed Martin more outside to use his kicking skills later in the year as Prestia came on. Six of his eight lowest contested possession totals came after round 11, where Prestia started to lift in terms of the midfield. Again, not every player is the same or is used the same.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

They're sixth for contested possessions per game behind Geelong, who are fourth. Their stats got a little distorted given Richmond dominated contested ball in the finals, which threw out the numbers and was a bit of an outlier, and because they played finals, which are generally more contested, whereas most teams didn't play one final let alone three. You compare just the home and away season and their average falls to tenth. Richmond actually was trailing in contested possession for much of the year, because whilst teams were handballing more in congestion, Richmond kicked more. Actually lost the contested possession count 14 times in the season.

Now Richmond do play a heavy contested brand of football, in that a high percentage of their possessions are contested, but they don't rack up huge contested ball numbers, because they largely kick from a context.



That's because he played more midfield minutes, which is why I don't rank Dangerfield below Martin for trailing Martin in midfield stats, because he played less midfield minutes. You should do me the same courtesy. In this context, possession counts indicates where the player played. Contested possession numbers here are a reflection of handball:kick ratios (Martin kicks more, Dangerfield handballs more).



I never said Martin was better. In fact I've said before that they're roughly the same, both as forwards and in terms of contested ball ability. Averaging more goals because you play more forward and averaging more contested possessions because you handball in traffic doesn't make you a better forward or better at contested possessions. In fact I think rating the top players for contested possessions purely by averages is a poor way of ranking players as every midfielder's role is slightly different and plays the game differently.

I also suspected Richmond pushed Martin more outside to use his kicking skills later in the year as Prestia came on. Six of his eight lowest contested possession totals came after round 11, where Prestia started to lift in terms of the midfield. Again, not every player is the same or is used the same.

Geelong played 3 finals and Richmond played 3 finals, Geelong ended up 3 for contested possessions Richmond 4, very similar contested ball stats in the end when you factor everything for the year. So once again team differences for contested ball numbers aren’t there.


I agree you can’t rate a midfielder purely on contested ball and forward impact. and I said previously I think they both have their strengths over each other.

Like I previously said as well if you had draft pick number 2 and both where in the draft you would be very happy regardless of who went 1.

I think Dangerfield is better contested ball winner and at the in and under grunt work and up forward, I think dusty is a better more polished player on the outside and a better decision maker.

I don’t think in any way I am bashing either or.

 

[tony__montana]

Martin's speed and ability to get separation off the mark is incredibly underrated by a lot of opposition supporters - hes actually very quick and explosive in that initial 15-20 metres - top end speed not so much but no slouch either.

Also this whole danger kicked more goals so hes a better fwd logic is flawed, when you add up goals and assists Martin is ahead and Martin gives away a lot of goals he could quite comfortably kick himself. Not as cut and dried as some basic goals kicked raw stats.


Danger slightly quicker and more explosive off the mark
Danger better getting in and under
Danger bigger leap and better on the lead
Martin better and more damaging kick
Martin better ability to bring teammates into the game
Martin wins and halves more contests up forward than any other player in the comp, doesnt leap and lead like danger, but his body work is second to none

Both superstars, both have an amazing quality to lift their side.

 

[TigerTime88]

Dusty and it's not even close.

One stands up in the big finals and goes a level above the comp.

Also Dusty can hit a target....Danger is a butcher.

 

[rado]

Martin pretty comfortably for me. Pretty impressive leading a team that opposition supporters believe was useless to a premiership, collecting a Brownlow, MVP, B&F, finals MVP and Norm Smith along the way.

Until Danger starts performing in big games (and I mean big games, not cute little semi finals against interstate teams that were out of gas) then it will continue to be the premiership hero Martin.

I’ve seen Danger’s finals production live in 2017 and it wasn’t much chop. I legitimately felt like a Geelong player by the end of the game, he was kicking the ball in my direction that often....

 

[jwint43]

Was excited to read this thread but its just geelong and richmond fans arguing. I wonder who they think had the better season???????

 

[BlueJet]

Dusty marginally ahead as his disposal is more damaging imo.

 

[fumbler]

Unselfish Martin.

 

[DERO]

Dusty. Although both would be welcome n the Essendon midfield!

 

[00Stinger]

A pretty strong case can be made that Dangers 17 was better than Martins tbf

 

[DontArgue4]

A pretty strong case can be made that Dangers 17 was better than Martins tbf

Brownlow, Norm Smith, BnF, MVP, Coaches Award, etc, etc

what case would that be?

 

[maryjames]

Martin getting slightly overrated.. Ablett and Dangerfield in there primes were better players.
The fend off this season better be called by the umps. Those fend offs to the head and face are illegal according to the rules committee.

 

[Jimmybob]

Martin getting slightly overrated.. Ablett and Dangerfield in there primes were better players.
The fend off this season better be called by the umps. Those fend offs to the head and face are illegal according to the rules committee.

Dangerfields 2016 was his best year, as was Martin's 2017. Both players being in their prime at the respected times (both 26 at time). Martin winning more accolades, and smashing this vote. Why even bring Ablett into this? lol