Toast The Official Bailey Banfield Appreciation Thread
- Thread starter Tonga Bob
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Have edited my post to better reflect what happened, thanks to this post and the one after it
Happy to help, but to be fair, I think your edit only serves as evidence that there's something more than confirmation bias going on here. You're now counting as a clanger against BB something that did not result in a free against and did not have any consequence on the game, either immediately or in the long run, and indeed will not have been registered as a clanger on any stats sheet. Walker was dragging Stengle down regardless of whether BB spoiled the ball, missed everything or punched Stengle in the face.
Footskill
Club Legend
- Aug 31, 2022
- 2,157
- 2,981
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Lol even if he chopped the arm instead of totally missed the spoil as you originally said, at least he went and tried help out walker.
You think missing goals, giving free kicks away , which all players do is only reserved for banners having a shocker.
I expect your full unbiased report of the so called bad vs good in the first quarter
I've simply edited it with the evidence you provided of an arm chop?
He smashes the ball away and its a non issue?
TBH that shouldn't be his role getting back into defense anyway, I'm very interested to see if we took him off the wing or not after quarter time, I don't remember him that deep after quarter time
Great game on the weekend, massive contribution to our win and he’s had good form three weeks in a row. Well done to Banners, be great to see it continue.
Yeah right, can't win can we. You admit fault and you get a 12 yo, smart arse response like this. You don't say anything at all and you become a troll who only comes on here when the team performs poorly.
I think you´ve made your confession and all is forgiven in the eyes of the lord.
I'm very comfortable in saying that he has a terrible first quarter, I'm only still replying when people are replying to me
Now I've got to make a post for Footskill which I'm sure will have many more replies
Looks like Banners started on the bench
Banfields first touch at 14:41, mark and kick to Noddy - good
Second touch, lead up at 13:20, nice lead for a mark directly infront, thought it was more of an angle but its directly infront -good until he kicks
-kicks from 40 out, misses - bad (Dunstall said 30-35 metres but i'll give bailey the benefit of 40, still should have kicked it)
Third touch, Banfield gets it on the 50, got 4-5 metres on everyone 12:40, kicks it straight to a cats player - shocker, rushed when he had time
10:32 fourth touch, marks just outside 50, tries to go in board but is blocked, turns back onto his left boot,(at this point Ratagolea has dropped off JOM who is 5 metres on his own) Bailey kicks it 5 metres over JOM's head, Zuthrie takes it OOB - shocker - Dunstall commentary "He could have had a serious impact Banfield in the first time, missed a set shot, suspect thats why he didn't have a shot the second time and tries to fashion a pass, turned it over, now hes missed a target again, getting opportunities, needs composure"
3:51, Bailey gets his first taste of the wing, starts there at a Centre bounce
3:25, Bailey gets the handball receive deep in defense after a mark from Pearce, unfortunately he didn't look up the ground before calling for it as he had nothing on, immediately pressured by a cats player and he bombs it to a 1v1 10 metres out from the HFF, Walters nearly saves it with a good mark but nope - pretty bad
3:10 Banfield is slightly late to a contest, gives away a soft 50, looks like a classic case of trying to make up for his earlier mistake, think this is a soft 50 overall, he is unlucky here - pretty bad - goal to cats from this - Matty Pavlich on Comms "He has been involved a fair bit this quarter, Bailey Banfield, unfortunately not for the right reasons" (Pav then does agree its a soft 50)
2:49 again Banfield is on the wing for the Centre Bounce - lining up on smith
1:27 Arm chop as discussed by Banfield, fails to clear the ball, was alone on the wing as Smith had launched the ball inside 50, need better here, Walker is the one that gives away the free though so I won't directly lay the blame of the goal on Bailey. -Meh-
0:42 Banfield again lining up on the wing V Smith
And there you go, was he worst on ground? Yes, I might give him a tie with Aish actually, Aish wasn't as bad with ball but he let knevitt have too much room, direct impact on ball it was definitely Banfield
He Started good with a mark and a kick and his next 4 touches were bad
So 1 good touch, 1 bad (easy miss), 2 shockers, 1 pretty bad (calling for it after the mark only to rush bomb to a 1v1)
Then the addon of the 50m penalty, was soft but directly caused a goal
We will leave the Arm chop as a -meh- so no involvement
so 6 involvements and 5/6 involvements were detrimental to the team
Footskill go ahead and do the last 3 quarters when he played well (as I've already said, I'm not some Banfield hater, was just pointing out that he was genuinely awful in the first), I stand by my decision that he was worst on for us in the first quarter
Banfields first touch at 14:41, mark and kick to Noddy - good
Second touch, lead up at 13:20, nice lead for a mark directly infront, thought it was more of an angle but its directly infront -good until he kicks
-kicks from 40 out, misses - bad (Dunstall said 30-35 metres but i'll give bailey the benefit of 40, still should have kicked it)
Third touch, Banfield gets it on the 50, got 4-5 metres on everyone 12:40, kicks it straight to a cats player - shocker, rushed when he had time
10:32 fourth touch, marks just outside 50, tries to go in board but is blocked, turns back onto his left boot,(at this point Ratagolea has dropped off JOM who is 5 metres on his own) Bailey kicks it 5 metres over JOM's head, Zuthrie takes it OOB - shocker - Dunstall commentary "He could have had a serious impact Banfield in the first time, missed a set shot, suspect thats why he didn't have a shot the second time and tries to fashion a pass, turned it over, now hes missed a target again, getting opportunities, needs composure"
3:51, Bailey gets his first taste of the wing, starts there at a Centre bounce
3:25, Bailey gets the handball receive deep in defense after a mark from Pearce, unfortunately he didn't look up the ground before calling for it as he had nothing on, immediately pressured by a cats player and he bombs it to a 1v1 10 metres out from the HFF, Walters nearly saves it with a good mark but nope - pretty bad
3:10 Banfield is slightly late to a contest, gives away a soft 50, looks like a classic case of trying to make up for his earlier mistake, think this is a soft 50 overall, he is unlucky here - pretty bad - goal to cats from this - Matty Pavlich on Comms "He has been involved a fair bit this quarter, Bailey Banfield, unfortunately not for the right reasons" (Pav then does agree its a soft 50)
2:49 again Banfield is on the wing for the Centre Bounce - lining up on smith
1:27 Arm chop as discussed by Banfield, fails to clear the ball, was alone on the wing as Smith had launched the ball inside 50, need better here, Walker is the one that gives away the free though so I won't directly lay the blame of the goal on Bailey. -Meh-
0:42 Banfield again lining up on the wing V Smith
And there you go, was he worst on ground? Yes, I might give him a tie with Aish actually, Aish wasn't as bad with ball but he let knevitt have too much room, direct impact on ball it was definitely Banfield
He Started good with a mark and a kick and his next 4 touches were bad
So 1 good touch, 1 bad (easy miss), 2 shockers, 1 pretty bad (calling for it after the mark only to rush bomb to a 1v1)
Then the addon of the 50m penalty, was soft but directly caused a goal
We will leave the Arm chop as a -meh- so no involvement
so 6 involvements and 5/6 involvements were detrimental to the team
Footskill go ahead and do the last 3 quarters when he played well (as I've already said, I'm not some Banfield hater, was just pointing out that he was genuinely awful in the first), I stand by my decision that he was worst on for us in the first quarter
lol, sorry. Soon as I posted the rant I regretted it. Over reaction. He has been playing well though, hope it continues.
Footskill
Club Legend
- Aug 31, 2022
- 2,157
- 2,981
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Appreciate you did go back and dissect each play.
Mistakes made, but I wouldn't call it a shocker. Maybe my definition of shocker is different to yours. When I think of shocker, I'm thinking Walker against Collingwood in last year's final.
I'm sure if you went an dissected all players in same way, you will find decision making lacking or kicks going astray or goals missed.
I still say the main blemish was the kick directly to the cats player. Having said that perhaps missing the goal prior he was caught in two minds to have a shot or go for goal, as Dunstall commented. However, still acknowledge a blunder is a blunder
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,286
- 62,239
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
I don't know, I reckon Drizzy was giving him a run for his money. And I love Drizzy.
Driz setup atleast 1 goal tho, I'd know, I just finished watching the quarter lol
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,286
- 62,239
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
That's the one I posted about in the other thread that should have been a clear 50m penalty to Banners.
The Geelong player who blocked him had run from behind into his protected zone while Banners was trying to move the ball on. Clear 50m penalty every time.
Was at the game and didn’t notice Banfield being shocking (probably because I sit behind goals and don’t have the best view), but I thought Drizzy was easily worst on. Apart from his goal assist to Brayshaw it felt like everything he did missed the mark.
Snuffaluphagus
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 10, 2015
- 25,408
- 88,045
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
This feels really dumb, Banners just had like the best three game stretch of his career so all historical criticism is wrong? No detractors on here want him to fail but i don’t think it’s mean or controversial to suggest he got a much longer leash then others when he had some truly terrible games and moments. He’s got like 70 games under his belt, the criticism wasnt some knee jerk reaction to a couple of games.
If he plays like he has the last little bit then fantastic and the very few (none?) that are still calling for him to be dropped will stop and Freo will be better off. As a ‘hater’ I’ll be ecstatic if he continues to play how he is and proves me and everyone else wrong
If he plays like he has the last little bit then fantastic and the very few (none?) that are still calling for him to be dropped will stop and Freo will be better off. As a ‘hater’ I’ll be ecstatic if he continues to play how he is and proves me and everyone else wrong
Purple Jesus
not jess
Exactly this.
These weird ‘hater’ haters seem to think we want our players to play badly.
It’s hardly surprising that we’re critical of the 22nd/23rd best player on our team.
It’s not schoolyard bully shit. We want a ****ing flag. It’s a freakin great position to be in that we only have 1 or 2 players that sit in this category.
Footskill
Club Legend
- Aug 31, 2022
- 2,157
- 2,981
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on players, and the issue isn't so much about historical criticism
There were a few that went on personal attacks, and it seemed others decided to join in on the banner bashing.
Even in games this year, where he was playing decent, they refuse to accept. You have to admit that all his so called mistakes get amplified and none of what he does well gets brushed off or goes unacknowledged
You may be pleased if he does well, but I assure you there are others that would like to see him fail.
Anyways this is a banners appreciation thread
A team full of bailey banfields would be terrible. They would probably solve the homelessness and Ice problems in Perth however.
There is space in a premiership team for a bailey Banfield. A good football team is greater than the sum of its parts and I think Bailey is a positive part of that equation.
There is space in a premiership team for a bailey Banfield. A good football team is greater than the sum of its parts and I think Bailey is a positive part of that equation.
Stinky Lomax
Club Legend
- Jul 11, 2022
- 1,173
- 5,623
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
No there’s definitely a few who want some of our players to fail to come on here to say “I told you so” either about the player, the coach or the recruiting staff.
I don't know about others, but I'm certainly not saying that all historical criticism is wrong, or that he hasn't had his share of shockers. I have, however, pointed out that there are valid reasons he's been in the team, and even more valid reasons he was given, as you put it, a 'much longer leash'.
THe problem it created to those who didn't factor these in was the even when he was performing at an acceptable standard, he was the first to get the old 'drop him now', 'get him off' tags. It simply wasn't commensurate with his performances.
From where I sit, what 'feels really dumb' is that the excessive criticism is just a really poor understanding of our list and where he sits within that list.
As an example, who would you have dropped him for prior to his last 3 games?
royale with cheese
Abnormal
- Mar 19, 2023
- 1,351
- 1,813
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Banned
- #200
Banfield’s going to be one of those players who look great when we’re great and bad and when we’re bad.
