Caption this

Remove this Banner Ad

Franklin_Lance_246.jpg


One goal, three behinds on Maxie Hudgton, I AM A STAR!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Dunstall is a far better player than Williams, but he wouldn't be as dominant in today's game as tactics have developed in such a way as to stymie lots of his opportunities.

That said, he'd still be a good player. His overhead marking is under-rated - he wasn't a leaper but he mastered the art of the falling back mark in a contest, and he was certainly smart enough to work out how to exploit the new rules.

My only question would be on his pace on the chase in a defensve situation.

Firstly I have to say when I think of 'domination' I think of players like Reiwoldt or Brown (Carey style), one's that take the big pack marks, and present all day.

Secondly, I'd like to point out the fact Dunstall wouldn't need to 'dominate' games to punish teams, and therefor 'succeed.' Williams hardly dominated, yet he was able to consistently punish teams... Dunstall would only need five marks/shots to kick his four goals a game.

Lastly one one page you lot say that defenders back then could do anything they liked, especially when compared to the diluted game we see nowdays. To me this would clearly be a point in Dunstall's favour. Add the fact Dunstall was one of the most canny and intelligent players of his era and I think we've got ourselves a winning formula.

Teflon really has absolutely no idea.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Caption this

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top