Daniel Hannebery - ball butcher

[S120]

He is really hyper and gets really excited. But when things go badly he can give himself a really hard time apparently.

He can spray the ball a bit certainly but his ball-winning and courage under intense pressure makes him more suitable to being an inside ball winner than an outside man atm IMO anyway.

 

[skipper kelly]

I'm glad to see someone can actually look at the situation in a balanced, measured and unbiased way.

What you mean is you are glad that someone slightly agrees with you.

 

[BarneyBent]

Thanks bsa.

I'm glad to see someone can actually look at the situation in a balanced, measured and unbiased way. And actually acknowledge how shocking his kicking was last night (instead of childishly attacking Essendon instead).

I haven't read about his anxiety problems, I must admit - are you able to explain what you're referring to there?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...too-much-for-his-own-good-20110428-1dyuz.html

Calling it a disorder would be going too far, but he clearly focuses too much on the bad rather than focusing on the good. Needs to figure out a way past it. You could see the cogs turning in his head when he tried to spot up that short pass inside 50 and overcooked it badly.

BTW, this thread is still way OOT. He is naturally a better-than-average kick, he just gets stuck in ruts with his kicking.

 

[caboose]

What you mean is you are glad that someone slightly agrees with you.

Oh dear. Back for another go, skipper? Not content with making a bit of a goose of yourself with your amusing posts the first time?

 

[caboose]

He is really hyper and gets really excited. But when things go badly he can give himself a really hard time apparently.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/hamlet-hannebery-is-the-young-prince-who-thinks-too-much-for-his-own-good-20110428-1dyuz.html

Calling it a disorder would be going too far, but he clearly focuses too much on the bad rather than focusing on the good. Needs to figure out a way past it. You could see the cogs turning in his head when he tried to spot up that short pass inside 50 and overcooked it badly.

That's interesting, thanks.

I know this has quite often happened with a lot of players' kicking for goal over the years.

But can't remember too many talking about it affecting their overall game to the kind of extent he appears to have.

Cheers.

 

[BIGBEZ]

That's interesting, thanks.

I know this has quite often happened with a lot of players' kicking for goal over the years.

But can't remember too many talking about it affecting their overall field kicking to the kind of extent he has.

Cheers.

why do you care so much?

 

[caboose]

why do you care so much?

Sorry?

 

[BIGBEZ]

Sorry?

apology accepted, now piss off and start a thread about someone from your dud club, plenty of duds to choose from

 

[skipper kelly]

Oh dear. Back for another go, skipper? Not content with making a bit of a goose of yourself with your amusing posts the first time?

why are you so obsessed with Sydney?

 

[caboose]

why are you so obsessed with Sydney?

Probably because I live in NSW, and every single game they play is live on FTA? And they are massively promoted here over and above any other team? So I see and hear more about them than anyone else.

Why are you so obsessed with Essendon, and with me?

 

[TripleB]

Couldn't believe the hype surrounding this guy last year when he was awarded the Rising Star (admittedly by default, because of the ludicrous disqualification of Dustin Martin).

And this season is only reinforcing it for me.

Is it just me, or is this guy a very overrated user of the ball? All I keep seeing from him are kicks put to very poor position for the Swans.

So what gives, and why is he so highly rated for someone whose disposal is, let's face it, poor?

Most punters problem with your OP (repeated for convenience) is you call him overrated and over-hyped and undeserving of the Rising Star.

Hard to argue that his disposal by foot needs work, but just about every other aspect of his game is first rate and his disposal by hand is truly elite.

He was awarded MAXIMUM points in the Rising Star, meaning EVERY award selector thought he was the best.

I'd suggest you have identified a deficiency in his game and have zeroed in on it as if you are the only 'critic' in Australia to have noticed. Don't be so tunnel visioned and have a look at the rest of his game.

As pointed out, he received BOG votes in his RS year, a pretty fair effort. Ask Hawthorn and Norf fans what they think of him after he carved them up at Etihad.

Now do as your name suggests and return to the rear of the train where u belong

 

[balldman]

How many contested marks did Cloke take tonight btw?

1 by my count.
Because it was clear after the first one,anytime a half decent kick went in his area it was not a contest

 

[skipper kelly]

Probably because I live in NSW, and every single game they play is live on FTA? And they are massively promoted here over and above any other team? So I see and hear more about them than anyone else.

thought so.

 

[caboose]

Most punters problem with your OP (repeated for convenience) is you call him overrated and over-hyped and undeserving of the Rising Star.

Gee, I thought this was a site which encouraged people to express their opinions about football. Which was all I was doing in the OP. In fact, and thanks for pasting it in again to confirm this, much of it was based around asking questions and asking people whether it was just me who thought this.

I'm not really quite sure what's so utterly objectionable (apparently) about that.

I'd suggest you have identified a deficiency in his game and have zeroed in on it as if you are the only 'critic' in Australia to have noticed. Don't be so tunnel visioned

I would be interested to know who else has criticised him? Please feel free to identify the other 'critics'.

(Apart from the growing number of people on this thread who are slowly coming around to concede my analysis is correct, that is.)

Now do as your name suggests and return to the rear of the train where u belong

Not quite sure what the point of that comment is, mate. Unless you're trying to emulate the kind of shallow, personal, completely off-topic approach of posters like Bigbez and skipper kelly.

 

[TripleB]

Gee, I thought this was a site which encouraged people to express their opinions about football. Which was all I was doing in the OP. In fact, and thanks for pasting it in again to confirm this, much of it was based around asking questions and asking people whether it was just me who thought this.

I'm not really quite sure what's so utterly objectionable (apparently) about that.



I would be interested to know who else has criticised him? Please feel free to identify the other 'critics'.

(Apart from the growing number of people on this thread who are slowly coming around to concede my analysis is correct, that is.)



Not quite sure what the point of that comment is, mate. Unless you're trying to emulate the kind of shallow, personal, completely off-topic approach of posters like Bigbez and skipper kelly.

Other critics?? There have been at least a dozen in this thread who have agreed his disposal is not always up to scratch, including just about every Swans fan who cared to reply. You seem to think you have invented the wheel by saying Hannebery is a poor kick.

As for you pretending to not understand my last comment, only suggests you are indeed a troll looking for a bite.

 

[caboose]

Other critics?? There have been at least a dozen in this thread who have agreed his disposal is not always up to scratch, including just about every Swans fan who cared to reply. You seem to think you have invented the wheel by saying Hannebery is a poor kick.

That's absurd. I thought I was being criticised here repeatedly (especially in the early stages of the thread) for supposedly not having a clue what I was talking about. Now you agree I'm right.

And yet at the same time, you can't identify a single public figure in, say, the media who has criticised him. Which was what my point about the hype and the overrating of him was all about (and which you said was wrong).

So please make up your mind - at the moment you are all over the place.

Amazing call about "just about every Swans fan who cared to reply" too. I've counted around a dozen whose MO has been to abuse Essendon or me, or both.

As for you pretending to not understand my last comment, only suggests you are indeed a troll looking for a bite.

I'm not pretending to not understand it. I'm wondering what on earth the point of it was. It was just a needless personal attack that did nothing but waste space and detract from the rest of your post.

As for trolling and looking for a bite, I think your attention would be better directed at the likes of AuseBloke, Bigbez and skipper kelly. Go back, and check what they have littered throughout this thread if you don't believe me.

 

[baja]

Amazing call about "just about every Swans fan who cared to reply" too. I've counted around a dozen whose MO has been to abuse Essendon or me, or both.
.

Getting back on topic Hannebery is a better player than most at Essendon and he doesnt butcher the ball as much as alot of Essendon players do. He was a worthy Rising Star last year in a unanimous decision and a Essendon player didnt win it.

 

[alison_z]

I just don't know what the point of this thread is?

He's not going to get dropped for his kicking (or anything else), I'm sure he knows it's an area he needs to improve in and I'm sure the coaches know it too ... So why talk about it?

 

[caboose]

I just don't know what the point of this thread is?

He's not going to get dropped for his kicking (or anything else), I'm sure he knows it's an area he needs to improve in and I'm sure the coaches know it too ... So why talk about it?

Oh please tell me you are not serious.

If that's a true reflection of what you think and not a troll, then you are clearly wasting your time on BF altogether.

If you are confused about the point of a thread that analyses how a particular player or team goes about their game, then almost every piece of content on this site is going to be beyond you. Even worse is your arrogant suggestion that you have judged this kind of thread to not even be worthy of discussion.

Even by previous standards on this thread, that is an absolutely baffling post.

 

[dobbins]

Oh please tell me you are not serious.

If that's a true reflection of what you think and not a troll, then you are clearly wasting your time on BF altogether.

If you are confused about the point of a thread that analyses how a particular player or team goes about their game, then almost every piece of content on this site is going to be beyond you. Even worse is your arrogant suggestion that you have judged this kind of thread to not even be worthy of discussion.

Even by previous standards on this thread, that is an absolutely baffling post.

I think you are a nasty little intellectual who thinks he is terrific. Trouble is you add nothing and take everything. Your post does nothing constructive and is seen by most as an attack on a player and team you would not have a clue about.

 

[caboose]

I think you are a nasty little intellectual who thinks he is terrific.

Not at all. But I certainly don't think much of people who have been so hypersensitive as to constantly try to derail a perfectly legitimate thread.

In most cases, purely because of nothing but their own subjective bias.

If you don't like the thread, then make a positive, well-reasoned response to it. Or don't contribute to it. Ignore it. It's pretty simple.

I put up for discussion a subject that's surely worthy of discussion. Hannebery is a player who has (like it or not) been talked up quite a lot, and who I assume will be around for a long time. So why is talking about how bad his kicking is (something that I don't think has ever been discussed in the media, despite the acres of newsprint devoted to the AFL) off limits?

Trouble is you add nothing and take everything.

That's said by someone whose only contribution to the thread has been to personally snipe at me twice. Yeah, brilliant logic there, mate.

Your post does nothing constructive and is seen by most as an attack on a player and team you would not have a clue about.

So why are most who (unlike you) are bothering to engage with the subject matter actually agreeing with me after last night?

Would you like to actually constructively discuss the topic, or would you prefer to go away and stop taking potshots at the people who are?

I have raised something I don't think a lot of people have noticed or thought about. You, on the other hand, are doing nothing but making personal criticisms of me. So you choose who is being more "constructive".

 

[Tedeski]

I think you'll find there are currently any number of threads on the main board about Essendon, James Hird and Matthew Knights for you to choose from.

So I'm really not sure why you think a thread about Daniel Hannebery is the best place to talk about those issues?



And plenty of opportunities to use the ball well? What a weird comment. But thanks for at least agreeing (when you weren't off on your rant about the Bombers) with my point that he coughs the ball up a lot.

Sounds like you just want everyone to agree with you.
In real life, not everyone agrees with you.
Just let it go now mate.

I get the feeling you may have a personal grudge against the guy. Did he beat you up at Xavier or something?

 

[ROK_]

Chris Judd isn't an elite kick or a very good one tbh, but the only thing that he has over Hannebery is elite pace but Hanners is slightly more inside than Judd was at his age.

Not saying Hanners will be the next Judd, but you don't have to be an elite kick to be an elite player.

 

[CAS79]

Not at all. But I certainly don't think much of people who have been so hypersensitive as to constantly try to derail a perfectly legitimate thread.

In most cases, purely because of nothing but their own subjective bias.

If you don't like the thread, then make a positive, well-reasoned response to it. Or don't contribute to it. Ignore it. It's pretty simple.

I put up for discussion a subject that's surely worthy of discussion. Hannebery is a player who has (like it or not) been talked up quite a lot, and who I assume will be around for a long time. So why is talking about how bad his kicking is (something that I don't think has ever been discussed in the media, despite the acres of newsprint devoted to the AFL) off limits?



That's said by someone whose only contribution to the thread has been to personally snipe at me twice. Yeah, brilliant logic there, mate.



So why are most who (unlike you) are bothering to engage with the subject matter actually agreeing with me after last night?

Would you like to actually constructively discuss the topic, or would you prefer to go away and stop taking potshots at the people who are?

I have raised something I don't think a lot of people have noticed or thought about. You, on the other hand, are doing nothing but making personal criticisms of me. So you choose who is being more "constructive".

Here it is folks. It took a while but the anti Sydney obsessive with their conspiracy theory had to be entwined in this thread somewhere.

Is it possible it's not been spoken about because the issue just isn't a factor or his kicking as anywhere near as bad you figure it to be perhaps?

 

[caboose]

Chris Judd isn't an elite kick or a very good one tbh, but the only thing that he has over Hannebery is elite pace but Hanners is slightly more inside than Judd was at his age.

Not saying Hanners will be the next Judd, but you don't have to be an elite kick to be an elite player.

Fair points.

I think Judd was a better kick than Hannebery at the equivalent stage of his career, though.

And - to go far beyond your post, ROK, and make a general point rather than to you specifically ... I think people have missed something (well, many things in some cases) here. If Hannebery goes on to be a brilliant player in 10 years' time, so be it.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the here and now. And about something that hasn't been given any air play at all so far in the media. Amid spin about what a brilliant little player he is.

Now, he might turn out to be the greatest player of all time and he might be the loveliest bloke of all time.

But why is it wrong to point out that he is a dud kick atm? Is there an unwritten rule somewhere that we can't do that?