Toast The Official Bailey Banfield Appreciation Thread

[Stinky Lomax]

Yeah I'm gunna have to admit he's doing very well, and I've been a big proponent of him being dropped. Bust as long as he's performing his role I have no issue with him staying in the B22,

No Shit.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Sir Alf Ramsay got a huge amount of shit for leaving some talented players out, including Jimmy Greaves, of the 1966 World Cup (akin to leaving Buddy out just after his peak - so Hawks '13 side), and playing with lesser 'talents'.

It just so happened that these lesser talents fit his system a whole lot better. Don't get me wrong, they won with stars on every line, but everyone did their bit, and was where they should be at any given time.

Banners has played his role to perfection over the last month. He's hard at it, pops up for regular goals, seems to have moved to a role where more marking is expected (and lo, he delivers), a real team-first guy on the face of it. Instead of clamouring for his removal, we should be celebrating his dogged determination in the face of doubt and ridicule. He's almost the personification of all that is Dockery, and his success will be ours!


On SM-G955F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Wobbly Punt]

I might be able to help you with this.

So, the first thing we need to understand is that context is important.

No one is saying Banfield is in our best players. In fact, even the most ardent Banfield supporters will agree he's probably in the 22-25th best and even then it's an inflated figure because he plays at area of the ground we are thin for talent. Which brings us to the second thing.

There needs to be someone better to come in. You can't just drop a player because you don't like him, and think Cam Rayner will magically appear on the list to replace him. It's fanciful. I've actually read on here calls to 'drop him now' and yet when you ask who they'd replace him with it's crickets or players already tried and failed.

To address some of your concerns:

It's certainly not as a goal kicking threat

He's kicked 8 goals in 8 games. Not Wayne Carey stuff, but others in that category are Thilthorpe, Draper, Rozee, Silvagni, Motlop, Johnson and Rohan.

So, you're a little off here.

marking target

That's not his role. Would you say Schultz, Walters, Freddy and Switta are 'marking targets'? Of course not.

Having said that, Banfield took 8 marks yesterday. Equal 2nd to anyone on the ground. You might even say he's performed well above expectation in this area for someone in his role.

And finally here are his stats for this year in relation to because there isn't a statistical one, there isn't a performance one. Can you see below where you've made the mistake?

View attachment 1692800
I really hope this has helped. I've tried to lay out the answers to your questions as clearly as I can put it with reasoning backed with statistics.

At the very least, you will be able to say you were given the reasoned response you have been asking for.

Thanks for the reasoned response and yes that all would have been justification for his selection if he'd been doing it prior too the last 2-3 weeks. What I would respond with is that using his stats from his recent better performances to counter the arguments being made at the time when his performances were extremely poor does nothing to counter the arguments being made back then.

To cherry pick his marks from the Cats game, where he had a clear role change (he was seen down back regularly on Sat - something I've not seen before) is probably a little generous to him. It also ignores his first half which even to his most ardent supporters, one of which I go to games with, was reason enough to banish BB for weeks. His recovery was a credit to him.

I've already acknowledged that right now his performances don't warrant him being dropped. I've also pointed out regularly I think his best role is as sub which puts you and I almost aligned in his spot on the list. I'd have him 25-28 and you have him 22-25 so we're thereabouts on that.

My argument with his selection previously has been that he was not performing at the levels we have seen in the last few weeks and yet he remained whilst others were either not playing or being shuffled in and out. The point people miss most is coupled closely to the stats I've raised previously. It was not only that he was being picked, it was that he received preferential treatment that was maddening when he was performing so badly. At that stage, there were better options to be picked and for long stretches they weren't. This would be my response to your good point that to make a change we have to have someone better to bring in. Back then we did. Ultimately we bought them in and they (Sturt, Treacy, Corbett) were turfed out quickly whereas BB avoids the same scrutiny. Sturt's bad game was immensely comparable to BB's worst and yet he got 1 go. BB has been given many more games to work it out. The fact he's getting there doesn't change the fact he wasn't.

The standards set for him were and are different. The fact he's going OK now doesn't change the concerns I had a few weeks ago and nor do the stats from his decent games when justifying his selection back then. If he did this weekly during that long stint, no worries, you'd have never heard from me on him. If he's still doing it in 4 weeks, all good too. You're absolutely right that his last few weeks have been easy to use to keep picking him but that was never my argument because he wasn't doing anyhing near that back then.

The fact remains that he was given MUCH more rope than others and we have no idea what we would be getting from those others if they'd been given his chances to perform.

From this point we go to areas where opinion, flimsy projections and objective opinion come in to it. This is pure speculation but my belief is that if Sturt or Emmett or Ras or Johnno had come in and delivered BB's first half on Sat, they'd have been subbed off and not given the chance to recover. Slightly less speculative is the notion that if Sturt or others were given the plethora of chances BB has been given, they would have been giving us better returns than the best BB will ever be able too. Just on Saturday I could argue that a great kick to Sonny and the knock-on to advantage BB did were things most AFL players could do. Yet whilst we regale in those what is ignored is he failed to kick both the easy to medium level set shots he missed and he continues to regularly miss - even in his OK games. Those things are as costly as the good things he did are positive. And herein we get to argument that can't be settled and is pointless going in too much as my confirmation bias butts up hard against his big fans.

What we've seen from him in the last few weeks is decent AFL fare. And I'd argue that's his ceiling. We've seen peak BB and its fine. Fine is fine but when you do have other options on the list who have shown a higher ceiling already, personally I'd like them to get the treatment BB has and see what levels they could reach with the same levels of support and patience.

I would hope that if he drops back to what he gave us tail end last year and beginning of this, he gets treated the same way Treacy, Ras, Sturt, Wilson, Brodie and others have been. I suspect it's more likely that if that happens I'll be asking the questions I was a few weeks ago and his fans will be pointing to this last few games and saying that's why we keep him or just not saying anything of substance as occurred back then when you didn't have anything to back him up. At that point I will again disagree with his selection if it's happening.

My real hope is he surprises me and exceeds this current OK run and actually becomes a good player rather than a sometimes handy one.

 

[Footskill]

Thanks for the reasoned response and yes that all would have been justification for his selection if he'd been doing it prior too the last 2-3 weeks. What I would respond with is that using his stats from his recent better performances to counter the arguments being made at the time when his performances were extremely poor does nothing to counter the arguments being made back then.

To cherry pick his marks from the Cats game, where he had a clear role change (he was seen down back regularly on Sat - something I've not seen before) is probably a little generous to him. It also ignores his first half which even to his most ardent supporters, one of which I go to games with, was reason enough to banish BB for weeks. His recovery was a credit to him.

I've already acknowledged that right now his performances don't warrant him being dropped. I've also pointed out regularly I think his best role is as sub which puts you and I almost aligned in his spot on the list. I'd have him 25-28 and you have him 22-25 so we're thereabouts on that.

My argument with his selection previously has been that he was not performing at the levels we have seen in the last few weeks and yet he remained whilst others were either not playing or being shuffled in and out. The point people miss most is coupled closely to the stats I've raised previously. It was not only that he was being picked, it was that he received preferential treatment that was maddening when he was performing so badly. At that stage, there were better options to be picked and for long stretches they weren't. This would be my response to your good point that to make a change we have to have someone better to bring in. Back then we did. Ultimately we bought them in and they (Sturt, Treacy, Corbett) were turfed out quickly whereas BB avoids the same scrutiny. Sturt's bad game was immensely comparable to BB's worst and yet he got 1 go. BB has been given many more games to work it out. The fact he's getting there doesn't change the fact he wasn't.

The standards set for him were and are different. The fact he's going OK now doesn't change the concerns I had a few weeks ago and nor do the stats from his decent games when justifying his selection back then. If he did this weekly during that long stint, no worries, you'd have never heard from me on him. If he's still doing it in 4 weeks, all good too. You're absolutely right that his last few weeks have been easy to use to keep picking him but that was never my argument because he wasn't doing anyhing near that back then.

The fact remains that he was given MUCH more rope than others and we have no idea what we would be getting from those others if they'd been given his chances to perform.

From this point we go to areas where opinion, flimsy projections and objective opinion come in to it. This is pure speculation but my belief is that if Sturt or Emmett or Ras or Johnno had come in and delivered BB's first half on Sat, they'd have been subbed off and not given the chance to recover. Slightly less speculative is the notion that if Sturt or others were given the plethora of chances BB has been given, they would have been giving us better returns than the best BB will ever be able too. Just on Saturday I could argue that a great kick to Sonny and the knock-on to advantage BB did were things most AFL players could do. Yet whilst we regale in those what is ignored is he failed to kick both the easy to medium level set shots he missed and he continues to regularly miss - even in his OK games. Those things are as costly as the good things he did are positive. And herein we get to argument that can't be settled and is pointless going in too much as my confirmation bias butts up hard against his big fans.

What we've seen from him in the last few weeks is decent AFL fare. And I'd argue that's his ceiling. We've seen peak BB and its fine. Fine is fine but when you do have other options on the list who have shown a higher ceiling already, personally I'd like them to get the treatment BB has and see what levels they could reach with the same levels of support and patience.

I would hope that if he drops back to what he gave us tail end last year and beginning of this, he gets treated the same way Treacy, Ras, Sturt, Wilson, Brodie and others have been. I suspect it's more likely that if that happens I'll be asking the questions I was a few weeks ago and his fans will be pointing to this last few games and saying that's why we keep him or just not saying anything of substance as occurred back then when you didn't have anything to back him up. At that point I will again disagree with his selection if it's happening.

My real hope is he surprises me and exceeds this current OK run and actually becomes a good player rather than a sometimes handy one.

1. The whole team was playing trash first few weeks. Banners during that time, was far from the worse. Only, would say outside the Bulldogs game, he was contributing and playing his role, not just according to maybe you and Suma. None of the others vying for the same position was setting the house on fire down at peel.

2. If you followed the Play by play on the game day thread, and not watched the game, someone could come to the conclusion his first quarter was the worse by a player in the club's history. One miskick and gave away iffy 50 metre..at least he was finding the ball.

3. Banners gets far from a free ride. In last few years, whenever he had a good game and the team loses the next game where he didn't perform he would always be the first dropped.

I'm sure you pack of vultures are circling for him to not perform this week so you can jump on your hate wagon again lol

 

[ignoramus]

Could post this in the match wrap up thread, but this thread is the perfect home for the first talking point:

Fremantle v Geelong - Mongrel Talking Points - The Mongrel Punt

The Dockers stood up against the reigning premiers, downing the Cats by 29 points at Optus Stadium. The Mongrel has the Talking Points

themongrelpunt.com

I love getting an outsider's take on Freo's perennial whipping boys.

 

[s_wd6]

Could post this in the match wrap up thread, but this thread is the perfect home for the first talking point:

Fremantle v Geelong - Mongrel Talking Points - The Mongrel Punt

The Dockers stood up against the reigning premiers, downing the Cats by 29 points at Optus Stadium. The Mongrel has the Talking Points

themongrelpunt.com

I love getting an outsider's take on Freo's perennial whipping boys.

Paywalled. Can you post text?

 

[FreoGirl]

Thanks for the reasoned response and yes that all would have been justification for his selection if he'd been doing it prior too the last 2-3 weeks. What I would respond with is that using his stats from his recent better performances to counter the arguments being made at the time when his performances were extremely poor does nothing to counter the arguments being made back then.

To cherry pick his marks from the Cats game, where he had a clear role change (he was seen down back regularly on Sat - something I've not seen before) is probably a little generous to him. It also ignores his first half which even to his most ardent supporters, one of which I go to games with, was reason enough to banish BB for weeks. His recovery was a credit to him.

I've already acknowledged that right now his performances don't warrant him being dropped. I've also pointed out regularly I think his best role is as sub which puts you and I almost aligned in his spot on the list. I'd have him 25-28 and you have him 22-25 so we're thereabouts on that.

My argument with his selection previously has been that he was not performing at the levels we have seen in the last few weeks and yet he remained whilst others were either not playing or being shuffled in and out. The point people miss most is coupled closely to the stats I've raised previously. It was not only that he was being picked, it was that he received preferential treatment that was maddening when he was performing so badly. At that stage, there were better options to be picked and for long stretches they weren't. This would be my response to your good point that to make a change we have to have someone better to bring in. Back then we did. Ultimately we bought them in and they (Sturt, Treacy, Corbett) were turfed out quickly whereas BB avoids the same scrutiny. Sturt's bad game was immensely comparable to BB's worst and yet he got 1 go. BB has been given many more games to work it out. The fact he's getting there doesn't change the fact he wasn't.

The standards set for him were and are different. The fact he's going OK now doesn't change the concerns I had a few weeks ago and nor do the stats from his decent games when justifying his selection back then. If he did this weekly during that long stint, no worries, you'd have never heard from me on him. If he's still doing it in 4 weeks, all good too. You're absolutely right that his last few weeks have been easy to use to keep picking him but that was never my argument because he wasn't doing anyhing near that back then.

The fact remains that he was given MUCH more rope than others and we have no idea what we would be getting from those others if they'd been given his chances to perform.

From this point we go to areas where opinion, flimsy projections and objective opinion come in to it. This is pure speculation but my belief is that if Sturt or Emmett or Ras or Johnno had come in and delivered BB's first half on Sat, they'd have been subbed off and not given the chance to recover. Slightly less speculative is the notion that if Sturt or others were given the plethora of chances BB has been given, they would have been giving us better returns than the best BB will ever be able too. Just on Saturday I could argue that a great kick to Sonny and the knock-on to advantage BB did were things most AFL players could do. Yet whilst we regale in those what is ignored is he failed to kick both the easy to medium level set shots he missed and he continues to regularly miss - even in his OK games. Those things are as costly as the good things he did are positive. And herein we get to argument that can't be settled and is pointless going in too much as my confirmation bias butts up hard against his big fans.

What we've seen from him in the last few weeks is decent AFL fare. And I'd argue that's his ceiling. We've seen peak BB and its fine. Fine is fine but when you do have other options on the list who have shown a higher ceiling already, personally I'd like them to get the treatment BB has and see what levels they could reach with the same levels of support and patience.

I would hope that if he drops back to what he gave us tail end last year and beginning of this, he gets treated the same way Treacy, Ras, Sturt, Wilson, Brodie and others have been. I suspect it's more likely that if that happens I'll be asking the questions I was a few weeks ago and his fans will be pointing to this last few games and saying that's why we keep him or just not saying anything of substance as occurred back then when you didn't have anything to back him up. At that point I will again disagree with his selection if it's happening.

My real hope is he surprises me and exceeds this current OK run and actually becomes a good player rather than a sometimes handy one.

Today's West credit Bailey as holding down Tom Stewart and being a major contributor to our win. I'm sorry he hasn't been able to surprise you, but the rest of us are pretty bloody happy with him. I'm sure JLo and his team mates are too.

 

[WilloTree]

Thanks for the reasoned response and yes that all would have been justification for his selection if he'd been doing it prior too the last 2-3 weeks. What I would respond with is that using his stats from his recent better performances to counter the arguments being made at the time when his performances were extremely poor does nothing to counter the arguments being made back then.

OK, I think I know where you are coming from. Basically, we agree on a lot more than you think. There is, however, a few misunderstandings..

One thing you have missed is that I used his stats for the year. If you look at the stats for all rounds they're consistent save for 2 games, one of which he was subbed off, and the other the whole team was demolished. This is why the argument 'back then' was more knee-jerk than evidence-based. I could see his value, but there were others looking for scapegoats because we were, as a team, struggling. I'm sure you can admit this was part of your frustration?

My argument with his selection previously has been that he was not performing at the levels we have seen in the last few weeks and yet he remained whilst others were either not playing or being shuffled in and out. The point people miss most is coupled closely to the stats I've raised previously. It was not only that he was being picked, it was that he received preferential treatment that was maddening when he was performing so badly. At that stage, there were better options to be picked and for long stretches they weren't. This would be my response to your good point that to make a change we have to have someone better to bring in. Back then we did. Ultimately we bought them in and they (Sturt, Treacy, Corbett) were turfed out quickly whereas BB avoids the same scrutiny. Sturt's bad game was immensely comparable to BB's worst and yet he got 1 go. BB has been given many more games to work it out. The fact he's getting there doesn't change the fact he wasn't.

The standards set for him were and are different. The fact he's going OK now doesn't change the concerns I had a few weeks ago and nor do the stats from his decent games when justifying his selection back then. If he did this weekly during that long stint, no worries, you'd have never heard from me on him. If he's still doing it in 4 weeks, all good too. You're absolutely right that his last few weeks have been easy to use to keep picking him but that was never my argument because he wasn't doing anyhing near that back then.

The fact remains that he was given MUCH more rope than others and we have no idea what we would be getting from those others if they'd been given his chances to perform.

Your opinion that there were better options is fine. I personally don't agree, and nor did the club. Let me address this for a minute for some possible answers. I don't know what the club was specifically thinking but if you have a look around there are some reasonable assumptions one can make.

There's literally no evidence to back up the claim he was performing 'so badly' save for the games I mentioned. It's in the stats I have posted. The team was struggling at the time, but his personal game was consistent for someone playing his role.

Sturt wasn't given 1 game. He kicked 2 goals across 3 games, which isn't flash but acceptable if he's doing other things. Unfortunately, he wasn't. Sturt averaged just 6.7 possessions and registered just 1 Goal Assist across his 3 games. I like Sturt and wanted him to force his way into the team, but I can understand why he made way when Fyfe returned.

Corbett is a depth player. If he presses his claim he should get another go. At the moment he's not though. Just 4 possession V Swans and went goalless. He's clearly not a better option at the moment,

Treacy doesn't play the same role. It's like asking why Hamling isn't getting a game instead of Walker.

Emmett has been pretty good recently, however, in the period you referring to there was no WAFL yet, and he had kicked 1 goal across his first 3 games. It would have been a very big surprise at the time to everyone if he was given a snrs berth.

As you can see now, there weren't better options. It's not even true that they weren't given a go. The idea that Banfield kept his spot above others because of preferential treatment is pure fiction. It's just misguided opinion. I hope you can see that now that we've methodically gone through it together.

What we've seen from him in the last few weeks is decent AFL fare. And I'd argue that's his ceiling. We've seen peak BB and its fine. Fine is fine but when you do have other options on the list who have shown a higher ceiling already, personally I'd like them to get the treatment BB has and see what levels they could reach with the same levels of support and patience.

I agree it's his ceiling. I've made this point before though in regards to him not being in our best few players. He's playing at his level and maintaining his spot until there are better options. For now, as you've agreed in your post, we're both happy with him the team.

I would hope that if he drops back to what he gave us tail end last year and beginning of this, he gets treated the same way Treacy, Ras, Sturt, Wilson, Brodie and others have been. I suspect it's more likely that if that happens I'll be asking the questions I was a few weeks ago and his fans will be pointing to this last few games and saying that's why we keep him or just not saying anything of substance as occurred back then when you didn't have anything to back him up. At that point I will again disagree with his selection if it's happening.

I'm not really into crystal balling suffice it to say that Banfield's spot in the team is unrelated to anything that happens with midfielders and defenders. I've addressed this when speaking about context and players who play his role.

My real hope is he surprises me and exceeds this current OK run and actually becomes a good player rather than a sometimes handy one.

Finally, he is currently a good player. You've admitted this in your own post.

 

[WilloTree]

Sir Alf Ramsay got a huge amount of s**t for leaving some talented players out, including Jimmy Greaves, of the 1966 World Cup (akin to leaving Buddy out just after his peak - so Hawks '13 side), and playing with lesser 'talents'.

It just so happened that these lesser talents fit his system a whole lot better. Don't get me wrong, they won with stars on every line, but everyone did their bit, and was where they should be at any given time.

Banners has played his role to perfection over the last month. He's hard at it, pops up for regular goals, seems to have moved to a role where more marking is expected (and lo, he delivers), a real team-first guy on the face of it. Instead of clamouring for his removal, we should be celebrating his dogged determination in the face of doubt and ridicule. He's almost the personification of all that is Dockery, and his success will be ours!


On SM-G955F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I remember the horror when Malthouse dropped Steve Malaxos to give some of the younger players a go. Malaxos was also replaced as Captain.

One of the players he gave a go to was Norm Smith medalist Dean Kemp, and the new Captain? John Worsford.

 

[serial_thrilla]

Round 10 AFLCA Champion Player Award votes:

 

[ignoramus]

Paywalled. Can you post text?

Whole thing should be available later today or tomorrow, but here's the BB talking point:

BAILEY BANFIELD STEPPED UP

So, you may have heard a couple of the commentators lamenting Banfield’s misses when kicking for goal, and yes, whilst a three or four-goal game would have accurately reflected how good he was across the entire game, it was his pressure and ability to play both a negating and attacking role that caught my eye.

You may have also heard the same commentators discussing how quiet Tom Stewart was in the first half. Remember that? Did you think they were capable of putting two and two together and at least coming up with an even number?

I genuinely felt like texting them and letting them know that Bailey Banfield was taking responsibility for Stewart in the first half and making life very difficult for him. The fact he was able to get into position to take shots at goal only unsettled Stewart more, as he managed just seven touches in the first half (and two of them were from playing on from kick ins).

Banfield had a rough start, with a couple of things not going his way, but as he does, he continued working and soon enough, it paid off.

In the second half, Banfield started to freelance a little more, with Stewart now responsible for Michael Walters more often than not. He played a big part in the way Freo were able to establish their third-quarter lead, as he picked up six touches and snagged a goal.

He finished the game with 20 touches, had eight score involvements, and managed a direct goal assist, as well.

Prior to this season, I was hopeful my team (Hawthorn) could make a run at Banfield. I have always rated him, and wondered whether the fact he spent so much time as the substitute last season could be enough to sway him to want more game time elsewhere. Then I saw he was a WA product and gave up on that. He is the type of player I’d term a “glue guy”. He binds the team together by doing a heap of the little things that make teams click, and he did it all in this outing, both with the footy and without.

And yes, Fox Footy commentators, he did miss his shots at goal, but he did some other things that were just as valuable.

 

[Tonga Bob]

BAILEY BANFIELD ACHIEVEMENT KLAXON

Ya boy Bailey is in the coaches votes for round 10!



Time to build the statue!!!



Thanks to serial_thrilla for putting up the money for the statue to be made.​

 

[Footskill]

I think the difference between Banfield appreciators /supporters and his haters/detractors is:

1. We understand he is not the most talented footballer, but some will have you believe he is C grade. His field kicking is atrocious. He needs kick 10 goals in 3 games to prove his worth to them. . Pretty sure some of the things he does like snap goals and positioning requires skills.

2. We prefer players that at least decent people not dickheads off field even, no matter how talented they are. Look at Tarryn from the roos.

3. Hard work beats talent. You can have team of talent but if they aren't cohesive, it won't work. You need role players in the team

4. Some make out like banners is Mundy's age and will retire in next 2 years, so he is clogging up the list.

5. If banners doesn't perform, we have no qualms that he should go back to peel and work on it. Others think even if a young player not performing just pump games into them ahead of those who are

It's obvious banner haters think he is the sole reason for keeping Sturt , Ras, MJ or previously Treacy out.

The hate to banners with personal attacks was disgusting

 

[freo_leo29]

2. If you followed the Play by play on the game day thread, and not watched the game, someone could come to the conclusion his first quarter was the worse by a player in the club's history. One miskick and gave away iffy 50 metre..at least he was finding the ball.

I still don't get why you're trying to defend this, he was ****ing awful in the first quarter and thread was about him as he made multiple mistakes in a row


You should focus more on how he played the rest of the game because this take is just pointing out your bias, he was clear worst on ground at quarter time

 

[Retzlaff]

Now that he's unequivocally recognised as a good player, watch his detractors suggest he be traded (for a first rounder)

 

[FreoGirl]

I think the difference between Banfield appreciators /supporters and his haters/detractors is:

1. We understand he is not the most talented footballer, but some will have you believe he is C grade. His field kicking is atrocious. He needs kick 10 goals in 3 games to prove his worth to them. . Pretty sure some of the things he does like snap goals and positioning requires skills.

2. We prefer players that at least decent people not dickheads off field even, no matter how talented they are. Look at Tarryn from the roos.

3. Hard work beats talent. You can have team of talent but if they aren't cohesive, it won't work. You need role players in the team

4. Some make out like banners is Mundy's age and will retire in next 2 years, so he is clogging up the list.

5. If banners doesn't perform, we have no qualms that he should go back to peel and work on it. Others think even if a young player not performing just pump games into them ahead of those who are

It's obvious banner haters think he is the sole reason for keeping Sturt , Ras, MJ or previously Treacy out.

The hate to banners with personal attacks was disgusting

I think some are just envious. Banner's high ATAR is a reflection of his commitment and how hard he is prepared to work!

 

[Footskill]

I still don't get why you're trying to defend this, he was ******* awful in the first quarter and thread was about him as he made multiple mistakes in a row


You should focus more on how he played the rest of the game because this take is just pointing out your bias, he was clear worst on ground at quarter time

I gave you examples. Give me examples of him being **** awful in 1st quarter outside of the two examples I gave

 

[FreoGirl]

I gave you examples. Give me examples of him being **** awful in 1st quarter outside of the two examples I gave

ignore 'supporters' like this - they just choose to blindly kick a player because it makes them feel better about the own inadequacies

 

[freo_leo29]

I gave you examples. Give me examples of him being **** awful in 1st quarter outside of the two examples I gave

Missing a shot on a 15 degree angle

Deep in defense completely missing the spoil with an arm chop then walker ends up dragging his man down

+ Your 2 scenarios and that's atleast 4 instances in the first, I can rewatch tonight and let you know the others?


Edit: changed fresh airy to chop as I've been corrected

 

[freo_leo29]

ignore 'supporters' like this - they just choose to blindly kick a player because it makes them feel better about the own inadequacies

That's an absolute joke of a comment, reread my comment and you can see I clearly praised the rest of his game


If you can't see that Banfield was terrible in the first then you're blind

It's great he turned it around but don't say I'm blindly kicking a player for my own "inadequacies" what an absolute pile of shit

Think critically before you post

 

[Footskill]

Missing a shot on a 15 degree angle

Deep in defense completely missing the spoil with a fresh airy so walker ends up dragging his man down

+ Your 2 scenarios and that's atleast 4 instances in the first, I can rewatch tonight and let you know the others?

Didn't think missing a shot was considered awful. Should he have kicked it, maybe. But you'll find there were others that missed easier goals and didn't even come close.

That 50 was iffy at best. How many times have you seen players do that and there is no 50. At least ump was consistent and gave us one back.

Okay, rewatch the 1st quarter and to counter that, jot down what he did well that 1st quarter

 

[freo_leo29]

Didn't think missing a shot was considered awful. Should he have kicked it, maybe. But you'll find there were others that missed easier goals and didn't even come close.

That 50 was iffy at best. How many times have you seen players do that and there is no 50. At least ump was consistent and gave us one back.

Okay, rewatch the 1st quarter and to counter that, jot down what he did well that 1st quarter

Alright, my rewatch is usually a Monday or Tuesday night so I'll let ya know

 

[anchor man]

Just sayin here.... Check out the second goal in this clip.'That's extraordinary, that's not a typo.' | The Round So Far)

 

[MadMundy]

Banfield with the votes, goes to prove his good he was on Saturday.

Banfield critics are in the mud further and further every week.

 

[ignoramus]

Deep in defense completely missing the spoil with a fresh airy so walker ends up dragging his man down

Wait — what? Are you talking about when Banfield ran back and spoiled the mark without making the slightest hint of front on contact only for Walker to hang his arm over the oppo's shoulder and drag him down? Are you seriously calling that a clanger on Banfield's part?



Really hard to get the precise frame, but Stengle (?) has already dropped that mark before Walker drops his arm over Stengle's shoulder, because Banfield's hand has made contact with the ball. Not only is that not a clanger on Banfield's part, but it was a bloody good effort.