Where does Marcus Bontempelli sit in the players of this era

[Bald]

I assume signature move he simply means something a player is elite at that makes him stand out. I simply answered that and gave a few things.

Ok - so here's where we are at.

On the Ablett comparisons:
Ablett was brought up by me in the conversation because he excelled in many areas, not just one or two. When you think of Ablett's career, you don't think of just one or two things that put him above the rest. The same can be said for Bontempelli. (And no, this isn't to say Bontempelli is on Ablett's level; it's that both are great due to a broad range of skills, not just a few standout qualities.)

On the Dangerfield comparisons
Bontempelli being more consistent than Dangerfield is neither here nor there for me. Two things are true here: Bontempelli was better younger, and has held that level for pretty much the duration of his career, Dangerfield had higher peaks in his first 11 seasons. Speaking of which, here are the comparisons on awards at the end of each players 11th season (projecting with Bont given I don't have a magic ball - but I don't think many can see Bontempelli not getting an AA jacket this year, or his 6th best and fairest)

Dangerfield / Bontempelli:
All Australians: 6 / 6
Best and Fairests: 3 / 6
Brownlow Votes (avg per season): 16.5 / 16.9 (This will go up a bit this year also) - It also took Dangerfield until the end of season #3 to have just 2 Brownlow votes, by the end of Bontempelli's third season he had 37)
Brownlow Medals: 1 / 0

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Ok - so here's where we are at.

On the Ablett comparisons:
Ablett was brought up by me in the conversation because he excelled in many areas, not just one or two. When you think of Ablett's career, you don't think of just one or two things that put him above the rest. The same can be said for Bontempelli. (And no, this isn't to say Bontempelli is on Ablett's level; it's that both are great due to a broad range of skills, not just a few standout qualities.)

On the Dangerfield comparisons
Bontempelli being more consistent than Dangerfield is neither here nor there for me. Two things are true here: Bontempelli was better younger, and has held that level for pretty much the duration of his career, Dangerfield had higher peaks in his first 11 seasons. Speaking of which, here are the comparisons on awards at the end of each players 11th season (projecting with Bont given I don't have a magic ball - but I don't think many can see Bontempelli not getting an AA jacket this year, or his 6th best and fairest)

Dangerfield / Bontempelli:
All Australians: 6 / 6
Best and Fairests: 3 / 6
Brownlow Votes (avg per season): 16.5 / 16.9 (This will go up a bit this year also) - It also took Dangerfield until the end of season #3 to have just 2 Brownlow votes, by the end of Bontempelli's third season he had 37)
Brownlow Medals: 1 / 0

Dangerfield played largely as a HF flanker early in his career while bont pretty much straight into a midfield. Chalk and cheese and who honestly cares about the early years while developing. All it says is bont was more physically developed early. If you compare both over their prime years, its a slaughter.

Dangerfield in his prime was a level above bont, while also showing incredible consistency across the rest of his career with 8 AA’s and a brownlow.

Bont has not had as good seasons as dangerfield in 16/17.

 

[Bald]

Dangerfield played largely as a HF flanker early in his career while bont pretty much straight into a midfield. Chalk and cheese and who honestly cares about the early years while developing. All it says is bont was more physically developed early. If you compare both over their prime years, its a slaughter.

What is your definition of consistency if it isn't which player has played at a higher level for longer?

 

[TiAn_]

Tackles and 1 percenters??

Sure, bont can have that. Dangerfield pretty much takes the cake in every other area across his prime compared to bontempelli.

Nah, he doesn’t. He kicked like a mule compared to Bont. Which when the game is “football” is a pretty big deal. Bont has been elite defensively his whole career and Danger was only average at his peak. The gap between Bont and Danger defensively is wider than any perceived gap in Danger's favour between them offensively.

Casuals just don’t value the defensive side of the game, which in many ways is more important (defence wins premierships is a thing for a reason), or appreciate things like how Bont dominated the 2016 GF as a 20 year old with perfect attacking kicking, huge defensive efforts and by sacrificing his game for the team by winning 9 hit outs (5 to advantage), as third man up.

Like I said, Danger was also a great player during his peak, with his strengths skewing more offensive than defensive, whilst Bont is elite in both sides of the game.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Nah, he doesn’t. He kicked like a mule compared to Bont. Which when the game is “football” is a pretty big deal. Bont has been elite defensively his whole career and Danger was only average at his peak. The gap between Bont and Danger defensively is wider than any perceived gap in Danger's favour between them offensively.

Casuals just don’t value the defensive side of the game, which in many ways is more important (defence wins premierships is a thing for a reason), or appreciate things like how Bont dominated the 2016 GF as a 20 year old with perfect attacking kicking, huge defensive efforts and by sacrificing his game for the team by winning 9 hit outs (5 to advantage), as third man up.

Like I said, Danger was also a great player during his peak, with his strengths skewing more offensive than defensive, whilst Bont is elite in both sides of the game.

Dangerfield was a level ahead as a contested midfielder with explosive traits out of a pack. Was also a better goal kicking midfieldee over his peak as well than bont.

When you are slower and more stagnant like bont and lack explosive traits, you are going to tend to have a bit more of a defensive element to your game. It is natural. Would be silly to use dangerfield in a defensive minded role like that.

 

[TiAn_]

Dangerfield played largely as a HF flanker early in his career while bont pretty much straight into a midfield.

Why do you suppose that was? Lollll

Chalk and cheese and who honestly cares about the early years while developing.

Yeah let’s just ignore the third of their careers where Bont left Damger for dead so you can keep waffling on about one bloke’s two year peak.

All it says is bont was more physically developed early. If you compare both over their prime years, its a slaughter.

A slaughter lollll and back to Danger’s two year “prime” haha

Dangerfield in his prime was a level above bont, while also showing incredible consistency across the rest of his career with 8 AA’s and a brownlow.

Why haven’t you mentioned Danger’s two year prime before, it’s such a strong argument.

Bont won the MVP award twice in three years. When did Danger do that?

Bont has not had as good seasons as dangerfield in 16/17.

Faaaaaaark still on about those two years. So many posts for what is really one dot point.

The other thing that hasn’t really been touched on yet is that Bont’s also captained his club at the same time he was arguably the best player in the comp. Voted by his peers best captain in both years he won the MVP award.

Danger never had that responsibility until last year, well past his best and into his decline as a player, and really only as a token gesture. He was never the leader on or off field that Bont is and was always in Selwood’s shadow in that respect. That’s another big part of the game that Bont far exceeds Danger in.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Why do you suppose that was? Lollll



Yeah let’s just ignore the third of their careers where Bont left Damger for dead so you can keep waffling on about one bloke’s two year peak.



A slaughter lollll and back to Danger’s two year “prime” haha



Why haven’t you mentioned Danger’s two year prime before, it’s such a strong argument.

Bont won the MVP award twice in three years. When did Danger do that?



Faaaaaaark still on about those two years. So many posts for what is really one dot point.

The other thing that hasn’t really been touched on yet is that Bont’s also captained his club at the same time he was arguably the best player in the comp. Voted by his peers best captain in both years he won the MVP award.

Danger never had that responsibility until last year, well past his best and into his decline as a player, and really only as a token gesture. He was never the leader on or off field that Bont is and was always in Selwood’s shadow in that respect. That’s another big part of the game that Bont far exceeds Danger in.

Nobody cares about reflecting on players during their development years as to who was a better player or not, all anyone cares about and what matters is who was the better player once they developed and matured in the system and came into their prime years. Nobody gives a stuff about comparing 19/20 yo kids.

Call it whatever you want or look at whatever seasond you want. Fact is dangerfield at his peak was a level above bontempelli at his peak. 2 best years cmparatively easily a mile ahead, but dangerfield has also had a better career overall with a Brownlow medal and 8AA’s. His just a better footballer

 

[TiAn_]

Dangerfield was a level ahead as a contested midfielder with explosive traits out of a pack. Was also a better goal kicking midfieldee over his peak as well than bont.

When you are slower and more stagnant like bont and lack explosive traits, you are going to tend to have a bit more of a defensive element to your game. It is natural. Would be silly to use dangerfield in a defensive minded role like that.

A level ahead as a contested midfielder while trailing Bont by some way defensively, which is half of any contest? What ridiculous grasping at straws.

And back to those two years again! Haha if Danger was a better goal kicking midfielder “over his peak” then he must have been worse for the rest of his career because he averages exactly 0.04 more goals per game than Bont, despite as you admitted starting his career at half forward while Bont was a midfielder from the outset.

“More stagnant” is just laughable. You’re flailing here mate.

 

[TiAn_]

Nobody cares about reflecting on players during their development years as to who was a better player or not, all anyone cares about and what matters is who was the better player once they developed and matured in the system and came into their prime years. Nobody gives a stuff about comparing 19/20 yo kids.

Call it whatever you want or look at whatever seasond you want. Fact is dangerfield at his peak was a level above bontempelli at his peak. 2 best years cmparatively easily a mile ahead, but dangerfield has also had a better career overall with a Brownlow medal and 8AA’s. His just a better footballer

Oh did Danger have a two year prime? Why didn’t you mention that before? It’s such a ripper argument.

Have a good sleep, regroup, and see if you come up with literally anything else by tomorrow morning.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Oh did Danger have a two year prime? Why didn’t you mention that before? It’s such a ripper argument.

Have a good sleep, regroup, and see if you come up with literally anything else by tomorrow morning.

Call 8 AA’s and a brownlow medal whatever you want. It is a pretty reasonable sample to assume who has a better prime or peak by comparing roughly a 50-game sample comparison which is a decent amount of games to compare. But across his 8AA years compared to bonts 6 so far danger is easily ahead.

Have a good night then champ. Dont worry, bont is a great player of the modern era as well along side selwood pendles cripps petracca etc.

 

[TiAn_]

Call 8 AA’s and a brownlow medal whatever you want. It is a pretty reasonable sample to assume who has a better prime or peak by comparing roughly a 50-game sample comparison which is a decent amount of games to compare. But across his 8AA years compared to bonts 6 so far danger is easily ahead.

Have a good night then champ. Dont worry, bont is a great player of the modern era as well along side selwood pendles cripps petracca etc.

Ohhh so you’re not debating who’s the better player, you’re just arguing about who had the better small sample of peak games in a two year period. I can see why you’d want to have that the argument, it would suit Danger, who I’ve been reliably informed had a 2 year peak.

Bont’s about to hit 6x AAs at 28 years old. The same age Danger got his 6th. “Easily ahead” lollll

I reckon Sportsbet would have had you being a “champ” guy at about $1.02.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

Nobody cares about reflecting on players during their development years as to who was a better player or not, all anyone cares about and what matters is who was the better player once they developed and matured in the system and came into their prime years. Nobody gives a stuff about comparing 19/20 yo kids.

Call it whatever you want or look at whatever seasond you want. Fact is dangerfield at his peak was a level above bontempelli at his peak. 2 best years cmparatively easily a mile ahead, but dangerfield has also had a better career overall with a Brownlow medal and 8AA’s. His just a better footballer

Absolutely stupid argument " He's just a better footballer" . He just isn't and anybody outside Geelong supporters would acknowledge that. If Danger didn't have his explosive pace what other traits does he bring to the table? Bont makes time stand still out on a footy field. If he had speed nobody would touch him. Agility, game awareness, skill and leadership are all well ahead of Danger. Even in his best years like your rabbiting on about he turned it over alot, he just got so much of the pill it compensated for everything else. He's a great footballer but absolutely laughable to say he's had a better career. Bont should have 2 brownlows by now and he's also won a flag. By the end of both careers it won't even be close. Bont could go down as an all time great in any era.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Absolutely stupid argument " He's just a better footballer" . He just isn't and anybody outside Geelong supporters would acknowledge that. If Danger didn't have his explosive pace what other traits does he bring to the table? Bont makes time stand still out on a footy field. If he had speed nobody would touch him. Agility, game awareness, skill and leadership are all well ahead of Danger. Even in his best years like your rabbiting on about he turned it over alot, he just got so much of the pill it compensated for everything else. He's a great footballer but absolutely laughable to say he's had a better career. Bont should have 2 brownlows by now and he's also won a flag. By the end of both careers it won't even be close. Bont could go down as an all time great in any era.

Dangerfield would have to be close to one of the greatest contested midfielders in thr history of the game. Incredibly strength at ground and in a contest to win the ball and break away. Incredibly effective up forward as well kicking 45 goals in 2017 which is up there with some AA medium/small forwards.

Probably has everything in terms of a midfielder ahead of bont except for kicking accuracy and tackling with a few other defensive elements.

Bont shouldnt have two brownlows, he doesnt even have one, and i laughed reading the “he makes time stand still” part. Brian taylor is that you?

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Ohhh so you’re not debating who’s the better player, you’re just arguing about who had the better small sample of peak games in a two year period. I can see why you’d want to have that the argument, it would suit Danger, who I’ve been reliably informed had a 2 year peak.

Bont’s about to hit 6x AAs at 28 years old. The same age Danger got his 6th. “Easily ahead” lollll

I reckon Sportsbet would have had you being a “champ” guy at about $1.02.

Not sure what you are reading but it certainly isnt my posts. You need to improve your comprehension a little. I said his peak which i am saying about a 50 game sample is better than bonts, but his career across comparative AA years has also been much better as a whole.

At his peak he went another level bont hasnt, and over their respective run as developed footballers comparing AA seasons dangerfield is also ahead includinh a brownlow medal in the cupboard.

Not sure how else to put it.

You seem incredibly sensitivr to the idea that a guy who is an X8 AA rep, a brownlow medalist, and is 200+ contested possesions clear ontop of the all time contested possesion statistic in VFL/AFL history... Is better thsb bontempelli.

I seem to have hit a nerve

 

[TiAn_]

Not sure what you are reading but it certainly isnt my posts. You need to improve your comprehension a little. I said his peak which i am saying about a 50 game sample is better than bonts, but his career across comparative AA years has also been much better as a whole.

At his peak he went another level bont hasnt, and over their respective run as developed footballers comparing AA seasons dangerfield is also ahead includinh a brownlow medal in the cupboard.

Not sure how else to put it.

You seem incredibly sensitivr to the idea that a guy who is an X8 AA rep, a brownlow medalist, and is 200+ contested possesions clear ontop of the all time contested possesion statistic in VFL/AFL history... Is better thsb bontempelli.

I seem to have hit a nerve

“Over their respective runs as developed footballers” lolllll still trying to gerrymander the discussion. It’s not obvious why or anything.

“Champ” guy repeating himself non-stop, refuses to respond to any of the counter arguments about how they actually played football (are you actually old enough to have seen Danger when he was still good?) throws the toys out of the cot when it’s pointed out the first 5 or so years of their careers Bont was streets ahead, and in a last pathetic effort resorts to the classic “if anyone responds to my dumb repetitive posts I win nyehhh”.

No one is saying Danger wasn’t good in a different way to Bont. You’re the one getting bent out of shape making dumb arguments like Dangerfield was “much better as a whole” based on AAs even though they’ll have exactly the same number of AAs at the same age.

You’ve said everything you have to say, many, many times, and it’s obvious you’re just a Wikipedia reader and not an actual football watcher, and can’t even put the Wikipedia entries in context. Everyone else can read Wikipedia, so you can probably just wipe that spittle off the corner of your mouth and give it a rest.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Problem with that is that Danger has 8 AAs compared to 5 lol

He's also been in the competition 6 years longer.

 

[bigboysdontcry]

Problem with that is that Danger has 8 AAs compared to 5 lol

Yeah the record is 8 All Australians. Bont will be on 6 by the end of the season.

Bont is 28 years Old, Dangerfield is 34.

I am confident Bont will get 8 All Australians and depending on durability may break the record and get 9.

 

[Cleansweep17]

I think you're being completely unreasonable. Suggesting a player needs a point of difference to be a tier one player is ludicrous.

What was Gary Ablett Juniors "signature" move?

The Untaggable hunchback (in a good way)

 

[Cleansweep17]

Yeah the record is 8 All Australians. Bont will be on 6 by the end of the season.

Bont is 28 years Old, Dangerfield is 34.

I am confident Bont will get 8 All Australians and depending on durability may break the record and get 9.

Well if he does I’ll change my mind. Until then I’d say Danger has better consistency

 

[Cleansweep17]

Rubbish. Ablett did everything better than everyone but did not have one specific "signature move". I can't believe that's even a thing that supporters think about, what an utter nonsense.

Yup so Dustys Don’t Argue isn’t mentioned to death.

My point is Bont is very vanilla and need to do something to make him stand out to be the best of the best.

Not even his Resume is anything special. We’ve seen many like his.

 

[Cleansweep17]

several posters got upset and had swipes at me... Then they go on to claim some of the dumbest laughable things you will hear such as “ close to a norm smith medal” in a grand final he got zero norm smith votes in.

Then topping it with saying a player lacks consistency who has an all time record 8AA’s.

I guess when your iq is that low yu produce ripping posts and logic like this, anything rational will make you angry

I didn’t realise Bont fans were this passionate lol

 

[Blackhawk42]

My point is Bont is very vanilla and need to do something to make him stand out to be the best of the best.

Not even his Resume is anything special. We’ve seen many like his.

Are you one of those 'fans' who only watches your own team play?

You'd need to have avoided the majority of Dogs games for the past 10 years to make such a ridiculously uneducated comment.

 

[Cleansweep17]

Are you one of those 'fans' who only watches your own team play?

You'd need to have avoided the majority of Dogs games for the past 10 years to make such a ridiculously uneducated comment.

I’ve seen Bont play many times and saw a highlights package on this thread a few pages back. It was very vanilla.

 

[bigboysdontcry]

Yup so Dustys Don’t Argue isn’t mentioned to death.

My point is Bont is very vanilla and need to do something to make him stand out to be the best of the best.

Not even his Resume is anything special. We’ve seen many like his.

He is so far from being Vanilla it’s not funny. Would have to be one of the most unique mids to ever play the game. Being 194cm, he is huge. Could be one of the best CHF’s in the game if given that opportunity. Super strong, great contested Mark. I can’t think of a better contested mark as a Mid other than Fyfe. Some of the best footy IQ and decision making I’ve ever seen. One of the best kicks I’ve seen. Has both sides of the body unlike a lot of the other mids mentioned in here. Does have a decent burst of speed, huge long kick, one of the most courages players I’ve seen also.

 

[Blackhawk42]

I’ve seen Bont play many times and saw a highlights package on this thread a few pages back. It was very vanilla.

Needs more tricks like Shai Bolton I'm guessing?