Toast The Official Bailey Banfield Appreciation Thread

[Footskill]

Banfield’s going to be one of those players who look great when we’re great and bad and when we’re bad.

Lol so true. Cause you have your grass eating scapegoats who are easy targets, then the mountain scapegoats who are harder to bring down

 

[Ge3ks]

So true. Not all goats are created equal.

 

[TheLastCall]

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

I've been as critical as anyone about Banners.

On his last two weeks performances, he holds his place. The three weeks before that he was lucky to be in the team.

He had a stinker first, but he did some good things in the rest of the game, if he kicked straight, it would have been better.

Banners will never be elite, but he's doing his role. He will never be one to own a spot in the team. He knows he has to keep fighting for his spot.
All players should.

 

[ozzie69]

It's not a coincidence that since we have started to play the triple J three tall forwards that BB has really started to shine. The tall forwards have changed everything, and it suits BB to be playing his new role.

 

[Footskill]

It's not a coincidence that since we have started to play the triple J three tall forwards that BB has really started to shine. The tall forwards have changed everything, and it suits BB to be playing his new role.

Agree. Think as mentioned before, when playing 3rd tall, it was not making use of his best attributes. Plays better roving and maybe helping out around the ground.

 

[WilloTree]

Banfield’s going to be one of those players who look great when we’re great and bad and when we’re bad.

yep - there's plenty of those around. Gary Rohan, Mitch Morton, Liam Ryan, Chad Wingard, etc etc

 

[WilloTree]

Agree. Think as mentioned before, when playing 3rd tall, it was not making use of his best attributes. Plays better roving and maybe helping out around the ground.

Yes, good point. Getting him up the ground on the wing on Saturday was a pretty bold move by JL. That wing position is in about plan E by now.

 

[WilloTree]

I've been as critical as anyone about Banners.

On his last two weeks performances, he holds his place. The three weeks before that he was lucky to be in the team.

He had a stinker first, but he did some good things in the rest of the game, if he kicked straight, it would have been better.

Banners will never be elite, but he's doing his role. He will never be one to own a spot in the team. He knows he has to keep fighting for his spot.
All players should.

Who would you have brought in?

I'm not trying to be belligerent, but I can't seem to get an answer to this.

 

[Wilksyy]

Well done Bailey.

Last week did the half-asians proud. Keep it up mongrel.

 

[Footskill]

I was listening to the purple reign podcast and their Monday review of game. Although, they did give bit more credit to banners game , it was mentioned in regards to hit on play on the wing. One of them commented it was more to do with team starting to play on instead of banners having footy smarts lol

Think banners actually has footy smarts but at times lacked the final execution or composure.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

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?

After that Brisbane game, which I thought was absolutely horrific, I would have played just about anyone. Emmett, Ras, Sturt, hell, even Kuek for something different. Credit to him for turning it around these last few weeks

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I was listening to the purple reign podcast and their Monday review of game. Although, they did give bit more credit to banners game , it was mentioned in regards to hit on play on the wing. One of them commented it was more to do with team starting to play on instead of banners having footy smarts lol

Think banners actually has footy smarts but at times lacked the final execution or composure.

100% agree, always been a smart player that was limited by his athletic ability and composure

 

[Bigger]

He was never going to kick those set shots because Bailey is a man of action. Slap on, swoop, snap - yes. Time to think - no, thanks.

But if he is going to insist on presenting as a decent marking option in the forward fifty, he better add "Instinctively hoofing it straight through the middle off a step or two" to the arsenal.

It can be done. Don't try and kick the goal. Kick through the goals.

 

[Tonga Bob]

After that Brisbane game, which I thought was absolutely horrific, I would have played just about anyone. Emmett, Ras, Sturt, hell, even Kuek for something different. Credit to him for turning it around these last few weeks

 

[WilloTree]

After that Brisbane game, which I thought was absolutely horrific, I would have played just about anyone. Emmett, Ras, Sturt, he’ll, even Kuek for something different. Credit to him for turning it around these last few weeks

This is interesting. I appreciate the response so lets have a quick look at your suggestions.

Erasmus and Sturt DID play v Bris. You can't bring someone in for Banfield who is already in the team.

In the previous 3 weeks leading up to the Bris game Emmett had kicked 1 goal in 3 games. He was clearly struggling at WAFL level. (He has been much better since). Freo were never promoting someone struggling in the WAFL to supposedly fix a problem with someone struggling at AFL level. Are we also supposed to ignore that the whole team struggled and just focus on Banfield? This seems to be what annoys some people the most. The really obvious scapegoating.

Kuek kicked 4 against Perth, who are woeful (they kicked 1 goal all day) and had gone goalless in the other 2. He's not physically ready for AFL at any rate. I have to be honest here: I don't think Kuek will play an AFL game. Apart from that, he doesn't play Banfield's role.

As we can both see, it's not as simple as 'drop Banfield'.

 

[Footskill]

100% agree, always been a smart player that was limited by his athletic ability and composure

Forget whether it was after the Hawks or swans game but he did say that it was good to see what he was working on about having more composure had paid off. Could see in both those games he was able to execute better. Maybe cats game with the bigger occassion and Stewart breathing down his neck he lost a bit of it in that game in 1st quarter. Improved rest of the game

 

[Tonga Bob]

This is interesting. I appreciate the response but lets have a quick look at your suggestions.

Erasmus and Sturt DID play v Bris. You can't bring someone in for Banfield who is already in the team.

In the previous 3 weeks leading up to the Bris game Emmett had kicked 1 goal in 3 games. He was clearly struggling at WAFL level. (He has been much better since). Freo were never promoting someone struggling in the WAFL to supposedly fix a problem with someone struggling at AFL level. Are we also supposed to ignore that the whole team struggled or just focus on Banfield? This seems to be what annoys some people the most.

Kuek kicked 4 against Perth, who are woeful (they kicked 1 goal all day) and had gone goalless in the other 2. He's not physically ready for AFL at any rate. I have to be honest here: I don't think Kuek will play an AFL game. Apart from that, he doesn't play Banfield's role.

As we can both see, it's not as simple as 'drop Banfield'.

Now ask him about hell's form.

 

[Footskill]

Now ask him about hell's form.

Hell have no fury like a banners scorn

 

[FreoGirl]

Agree. Think as mentioned before, when playing 3rd tall, it was not making use of his best attributes. Plays better roving and maybe helping out around the ground.

And this is why I suddenly respect what JLo has been trying to do.

 

[Bigger]

Hell hath no brewery.

 

[Freofalcon]

His pass to Son Son was reminiscent of a Magic Johnson no look pass.

It was a thing of beauty.

 

[Andy Brennan]

As an added bonus banners kicks gunbarrel straight in afl23!

 

[Tonga Bob]

 

[Wobbly Punt]

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?

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.

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'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.

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

I'm aware you used his stats for this year, my point was that he has now had some decent games to throw in the mix and also to cherry pick from like you did with the 8 marks against the Cats. When I was critical, those stats were not as good for him and the ones I was using were damming.

My frustration with his ongoing selections and performances date back well beyond our poor start. They go back beyond last year too. Now is when you'll say I'm "just a hater" or "a roach" etc and I won't play the man instead of the ball like you. I've acknowledged his recent form and simply applied caveats to it. I hope it continues but even if it does, this is his ceiling and isn't that great. It's handy foot soldier at best and yes, every team needs them. How many of them is the question for another time. But how long we put up with an ineffective one is the query I've rasied about him.

Sturt was given 3 games, that's it. So you have actually made my point for me. Only 3 games, 1 of which he was subbed off when clearly not being the worst out there. BB has been given MUCH more rope than that. Earlier in the year Treacy was given 1 game, last year not much more prior to injury. The guy I sit with who loves BB even acknowledges Banfield gets treated different, that's not proof of anything but it also aligns with the amount of times he's been kept in after poor games compared to others.

I agree and I know Wilson, Brodie etc play different roles and I wasn't saying we bring them in for BB, I was saying others in the team get much less rope to perform than Bailey. You can disagree on that but I believe the number of games he's played in the last 2 years supports my view and not yours. I agree completely on Corbett but the same could have been said about BB on many previous occasions. I do acknowledge in both those other cases I mentioned we had good guys on the outer to bring in which helped push them out. I would argue the same existed for BB and you'd disagree which is fine, your point is well made but I think mine still stands as well. It doesn't make it fiction just because you disagree. Saying my opinion is misguided doesn't make it so, especially when you ignore the supporting evidence for it.

BB's onfield gear for a long stretch dating back to last year and the year before wasn't good enough on many occasions. He was regularly measured at the bottom of the tree in effectiveness by Champion Data yet remained in the team. Treacy has shown recently he would have been a better option earlier than it happened and Sturt has not been given the chances BB has, it's not fiction and is actually very easy to see as fact. They "why's" may be disputable but the fact BB has been given many more chances than others is clear.

I didn't say Banfield is a good player and he's frankly not. He's had some decent games but history is littered with good to great games from players who turned out to be pretty bad. Mark McGough, Jack Anthony, Dan Parker, Tom Swift...shit Chris Masten made a career out of maybe 15 decent games and the list goes on and on. Richie van den Berg was named club captain of his mob and he played less good games than BB has. Yes, when compared to me BB is a good player, but I'm 50yrs old so he should be . But by AFL standards he isn't good, he's average at the very best. That's what 25+ on the list means to me and at his age, in my opinion, we should have been looking for better than that before now and giving those with a clearly higher ceiling the same chance to impress. A 2yr deal for him was indefensible.

Once again I'll state I wouldn't be dropping him right now. But if he reverts to the normal gear we've had from him then I will be wanting him out again. History suggests he'll get more than a month of poor form and then more to rediscover his best and that same history shows we don't give the same time for others.

If us sticking with him beyond when I thought he deserved it launches him in to a career I didn't see coming then I'll happily enjoy it and congratulate him and accept I was wrong about his ceiling. He's a Freo player so I don't enjoy being dragged back in to criticising him but he deserved every bit of it when I was doing it.

If you enjoy him and want to ignore his faults and his poor patches then more power to you. But you and those others who bristle when BB gets criticised but who look to criticise Hughes, Aish, Jackson, Ryan, Pearce, Walters, Walker etc come across as unbalanced to me. I know you probably haven't been vocal about any or all of those guys by the way, its just an example. I don't see why BB critics should get so much pushback. His critics have much more behind them than those pushing barrows against those I've just listed.

So with that I'll leave the BB Appreciation Thread to his biggest fans.

 

[Footskill]

I'm aware you used his stats for this year, my point was that he has now had some decent games to throw in the mix and also to cherry pick from like you did with the 8 marks against the Cats. When I was critical, those stats were not as good for him and the ones I was using were damming.

My frustration with his ongoing selections and performances date back well beyond our poor start. They go back beyond last year too. Now is when you'll say I'm "just a hater" or "a roach" etc and I won't play the man instead of the ball like you. I've acknowledged his recent form and simply applied caveats to it. I hope it continues but even if it does, this is his ceiling and isn't that great. It's handy foot soldier at best and yes, every team needs them. How many of them is the question for another time. But how long we put up with an ineffective one is the query I've rasied about him.

Sturt was given 3 games, that's it. So you have actually made my point for me. Only 3 games, 1 of which he was subbed off when clearly not being the worst out there. BB has been given MUCH more rope than that. Earlier in the year Treacy was given 1 game, last year not much more prior to injury. The guy I sit with who loves BB even acknowledges Banfield gets treated different, that's not proof of anything but it also aligns with the amount of times he's been kept in after poor games compared to others.

I agree and I know Wilson, Brodie etc play different roles and I wasn't saying we bring them in for BB, I was saying others in the team get much less rope to perform than Bailey. You can disagree on that but I believe the number of games he's played in the last 2 years supports my view and not yours. I agree completely on Corbett but the same could have been said about BB on many previous occasions. I do acknowledge in both those other cases I mentioned we had good guys on the outer to bring in which helped push them out. I would argue the same existed for BB and you'd disagree which is fine, your point is well made but I think mine still stands as well. It doesn't make it fiction just because you disagree. Saying my opinion is misguided doesn't make it so, especially when you ignore the supporting evidence for it.

BB's onfield gear for a long stretch dating back to last year and the year before wasn't good enough on many occasions. He was regularly measured at the bottom of the tree in effectiveness by Champion Data yet remained in the team. Treacy has shown recently he would have been a better option earlier than it happened and Sturt has not been given the chances BB has, it's not fiction and is actually very easy to see as fact. They "why's" may be disputable but the fact BB has been given many more chances than others is clear.

I didn't say Banfield is a good player and he's frankly not. He's had some decent games but history is littered with good to great games from players who turned out to be pretty bad. Mark McGough, Jack Anthony, Dan Parker, Tom Swift...s**t Chris Masten made a career out of maybe 15 decent games and the list goes on and on. Richie van den Berg was named club captain of his mob and he played less good games than BB has. Yes, when compared to me BB is a good player, but I'm 50yrs old so he should be . But by AFL standards he isn't good, he's average at the very best. That's what 25+ on the list means to me and at his age, in my opinion, we should have been looking for better than that before now and giving those with a clearly higher ceiling the same chance to impress. A 2yr deal for him was indefensible.

Once again I'll state I wouldn't be dropping him right now. But if he reverts to the normal gear we've had from him then I will be wanting him out again. History suggests he'll get more than a month of poor form and then more to rediscover his best and that same history shows we don't give the same time for others.

If us sticking with him beyond when I thought he deserved it launches him in to a career I didn't see coming then I'll happily enjoy it and congratulate him and accept I was wrong about his ceiling. He's a Freo player so I don't enjoy being dragged back in to criticising him but he deserved every bit of it when I was doing it.

If you enjoy him and want to ignore his faults and his poor patches then more power to you. But you and those others who bristle when BB gets criticised but who look to criticise Hughes, Aish, Jackson, Ryan, Pearce, Walters, Walker etc come across as unbalanced to me. I know you probably haven't been vocal about any or all of those guys by the way, its just an example. I don't see why BB critics should get so much pushback. His critics have much more behind them than those pushing barrows against those I've just listed.

So with that I'll leave the BB Appreciation Thread to his biggest fans.

What you on about. Last year he was sub for most of it...and when he did come on he impacted kicking goals.