Moved Thread Who was better - Dangerfield 2016 or Martin 2017?

[Richo83]

Remember geelong_crazy26 you're saying that Dangerfield is a lot better than Martin in a lot of categories, not slightly better a lot better. That takes some evidence.

 

[_Mike_]

Nothing wrong with this conversation, apart from it being on the wrong board.

Please in future use the polls board for these type of discussions.

Thanks

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Below is a table of all the statistics which matter

Dangerfield | Martin
Brownlows: 1 | 1
Premierships: 0 | 1
Norm Smiths: 0 | 1

Enough said

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I said the opposite, Dangerfield played more games as a permanent forward than Martin. Martin never played pure forward for an entire game like Dangerfield did against the hawks.

And I think five weeks is overselling it. I think you also have an inflated sense of the term a lot. A lot implies they're in different tiers, whereas instead, their records reflect the fact that they play different roles for their team.



You don't have the stats yet you're willing to say he's a lot more explosive? I know that's how a lot of people on bigfooty argue but it's not how someone should argue.

According to top end sports, Martin's 20 meter sprint times for the AFL combine were 2.89, Dangerfield ran a 2.92. Both players are lightning quick and I'd say saying that either is a lot more explosive is nonsense. They're probably roughly the same speed wise. They both also have a good initial first step, which is helped by the fact that they're both strong and agile.

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/afl/testing-draft-results-2007.htm
http://www.topendsports.com/sport/afl/testing-draft-results-2009.htm

Just as an aside, I found this out through a quick google search, it's not that hard.

Dangerfield has a better leap, partly due to the fact that he's taller, but I don't see that as proof that he's more powerful or explosive (I mean I don't even know what you mean by those things, it sounds like you're comparing hand grenades).

As for dangerous one-out up forward, Martin is, statistically, one of the best one-on-one players in the league.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...e/news-story/d70112f1050eec192d265017f39223bb

That article is from 2014, but nothing has changed. I honestly can't remember too many times Martin has been beaten one-on-one.

Dangerfield wins more contested ball, but that's often a result of the gameplan as anything, and I doubt anyone thinks Martin couldn't increase his CP stats. He plays more outside because...



Which is why he wins a lot of outside ball, because the team puts him outside a lot.

Just a quick look at dangerfields stats, he was number 2 in his draft for repeat 30m sprints which is probably the biggest most accurate indication of speed, he actually beat Cyril Rioli so came third.

He was number three for vertical leap in his draft as well, so no it has nothing to do with his height, he actually has a better run and jump than Martin does at the ball, which is quite dangerous to forward. Martin was not even in the top 10 for his leap, Dangerfield came third. If you look at their combine stats Dangerfield definitely is the better athlete.

Mate you don’t need statistics to determine every little thing in football regardless, it’s called watching them play. Some things just stand out to the eye.

Dangerfield is a better contested ball winner in general, more powerful and explosive, better up forward as proven by more goals kicked despite playing with a severely restricting run injury for a month, and yes it was a month despite your efforts to claim it wasn’t to suit your agenda, and it was we documented the restrictive effects of the injury.

Bottom line is he would have easily won the Brownlow if he didn’t get injured or suspended and he played as much time forward as Martin and manages to kick 8 more goals despite al the above. He has a lot more dangerous components to his game

 

[Seeds]

Came into this thread leaning towards Danger, but Cats fans have been even more obnoxious than the Richmond supporters (which I scarcely thought possible) so Martin all the way.

Hard to argue with Martin's accolades, even if you thought Houli was better on GF day he still played a very influential game which to me, if you were rating a season, you'd take that any day.

Agree with the posts about Fyfe, there were patches of his 2015 that were as dominant as I've ever seen and think if Freo went all the way that season Fyfe's year would have been better than the other two's.

you base your opinions on players based on how much the fans offend you?? That makes you a clown. Well done clown.

 

[Richo83]

Just a quick look at dangerfields stats, he was number 2 in his draft for repeat 30m sprints which is probably the biggest most accurate indication of speed, he actually beat Cyril Rioli so came third.

Oh so now we're shifting the goalposts. No, it isn't. A 20 meter sprint tests someone's raw speed, especially the initial burst. A repeat sprint is more relevant for the ability to continuously sprint, and tests the ability to recover quicker between sprints, not the actual speed of a player.

He was number three for vertical leap in his draft as well, so no it has nothing to do with his height, he actually has a better run and jump than Martin does at the ball, which is quite dangerous to forward. Martin was not even in the top 10 for his leap, Dangerfield came third. If you look at their combine stats Dangerfield definitely is the better athlete.

I'm willing to give you that he's a better jumper, but a) there's more to athleticism than jumping and b) it doesn't seem to harm his ability to be dangerous up forward.

Mate you don’t need statistics to determine every little thing in football regardless, it’s called watching them play. Some things just stand out to the eye.

Statistics are a useful metric in an argument that can go in circles. Given stats show that they're fairly similar in terms of speed and one-on-one forward performance, I'd say they're fairly relevant, since you're arguing that Dangerfield is much faster and better one-on-one up forward.

Dangerfield is a better contested ball winner in general

We wins more contested ball, but I don't think that means he's better at winning contested ball. Again, CP numbers are often a reflection of the role a player plays, as opposed to whether or not a player is better at winning CP.

more powerful and explosive

Let's presume strength and speed are key aspects of powefulness and explosiveness? Which player is stronger? Which player is faster? If you could show me evidence Dangerfield is a lot faster and stronger than Dangerfield, I'd be happy to stand corrected. All you've shown me is Dangerfield has a better leap. That doesn't necessarily make him more powerful or explosive, especially as much of Dangerfield and Martin's work is done with both feet on the ground.

better up forward as proven by more goals kicked despite playing with a severely restricting run injury for a month, and yes it was a month despite your efforts to claim it wasn’t to suit your agenda, and it was we documented the restrictive effects of the injury.

A restricting injury which meant he played more minutes up forward, kind of negating your point. And again, you said he was a lot more dangerous up forward than Martin. Is that based on output? If so then the stats don't bear that out, with Martin kicking 37 goals this season and Dangerfield 45. If Dangerfield is a 100 as a forward, Martin is at least a 95. Is it based on potential, like ability? Because Martin is as good as Dangerfield one-on-one, has similar strength and speed. The only think Dangerfield has over him is leap, and it's not as if Martin can't jump.

Bottom line is he would have easily won the Brownlow if he didn’t get injured or suspended and he played as much time forward as Martin and manages to kick 8 more goals despite al the above. He has a lot more dangerous components to his game

Dangerfield played more gametime up forward than Martin in 2017. He may have won the brownlow, but again, how does this prove he's a lot better in the categories you mentioned?

 

[The Gov]

Reason freo didnt go all the way was due to injury to fyfe in the last 8 games, then a broken leg in the prelim. He carried our team hard to 9 straight wins at the beginning of the season.

Absolutely agree, Freo that year was a dominant team, just didn't go their way in the finals.

Fyfe stays injury free, Freo gets over Hawthorn in the prelim and Fyfe plays a ripper game in the Granny like Martin did, and no matter who was premiers I think Fyfe's season would be talked about as superior to the other two's.

 

[Richo83]

Absolutely agree, Freo that year was a dominant team, just didn't go their way in the finals.

Fyfe stays injury free, Freo gets over Hawthorn in the prelim and Fyfe plays a ripper game in the Granny like Martin did, and no matter who was premiers I think Fyfe's season would be talked about as superior to the other two's.

I'm not sure Fremantle's negative style would stand up in finals against Hawthorn's attacking gameplan. But I do definitely agree that Fyfe's season should be in the conversation, he won 17 out of 18 brownlow votes in the span of six games at one stage.

 

[Sttew]

They all play with injuries at one time or another mate and none of them ever use it for an excuse

Danger did not complain, but his performance was certainly down in the two weeks that he was carrying the rib injury. That is fact

 

[The Gov]

I'm not sure Fremantle's negative style would stand up in finals against Hawthorn's attacking gameplan. But I do definitely agree that Fyfe's season should be in the conversation, he won 17 out of 18 brownlow votes in the span of six games at one stage.

Oh yeah for sure, maybe I worded it badly, didn't mean if he was injury free Freo would automatically get over Hawthorn, meant that in the reality where he stayed injury free AND Freo got over Hawthorn it would have changed outlooks on Fyfe's season.

Freo would have likely got over us in the GF imo so in that situation assuming Fyfe had an influential game I would pick his season over Dangerfield or Martin's Brownlow years.

That being said in terms of what actually happened it's hard to go past Brownlow and Norm Smith for Martin.

 

[Delediodamage]

dangerfield racked up 31 touches. Was far better at finding the ball then Martin. Dangerfield had his worst kicking display for the season which is why his game is marked harshly.

Yeah, I agree that Danger didn't have his best kicking display which was disappointing for Cats supporters given the occasion. What I meant by my post was that Dusty was heavily tagged for 2.5 quarters and still had the most influence on the game and stood up when it counted. Danger was not tagged at all and didn't have his regular huge influence on the game.

 

[Richo83]

Oh yeah for sure, maybe I worded it badly, didn't mean if he was injury free Freo would automatically get over Hawthorn, meant that in the reality where he stayed injury free AND Freo got over Hawthorn it would have changed outlooks on Fyfe's season.

Freo would have likely got over us in the GF imo so in that situation assuming Fyfe had an influential game I would pick his season over Dangerfield or Martin's Brownlow years.

That being said in terms of what actually happened it's hard to go past Brownlow and Norm Smith for Martin.

I think what I would disagree with is the idea that Fremantle were the dominant side that season; I think they won a lot of matches by close margins, but I think Hawthorn and West Coast's superior percentage reflects the fact that they were better, more attacking teams.

Certainly if Fyfe stayed injury free and Fremantle beat Hawthorn things change, no doubt. Things change even if he just stays injury free. I think he was injured round 15 against Hawthorn? Before that game he had won 31 brownlow votes from 14 games!

 

[The Gov]

you base your opinions on players based on how much the fans offend you?? That makes you a clown. Well done clown.

Haha perhaps a fair comment, these discussions at the end of the day are impossible to conclusively prove so pretty much revolve around who you like more/who plays for the team you support, and I like Geelong and danger more than Richmond and Dusty so that was where I sat going in, but was swayed by what I read in the thread. You can make an argument for either player at the end of the day so doesn't really matter

That being said Martin led his team to a winning GF and played great on the day, which Danger didn't get the opportunity to in 2016. Maybe Danger would have won a Norm Smith if Geelong won it that year, who knows? But on what actually happened you'd have to take Martin's season.

Also without actually counting it seems more neutrals are in favour of Martin so that to me says something. Both great players and Danger's had the better individual career thus far for sure.

 

[The Gov]

I think what I would disagree with is the idea that Fremantle were the dominant side that season; I think they won a lot of matches by close margins, but I think Hawthorn and West Coast's superior percentage reflects the fact that they were better, more attacking teams.

Certainly if Fyfe stayed injury free and Fremantle beat Hawthorn things change, no doubt. Things change even if he just stays injury free. I think he was injured round 15 against Hawthorn? Before that game he had won 31 brownlow votes from 14 games!

WHAT?? I didn't actually realise that stat, that's crazy.

Fair point on Freo, I'd still take a team who won more games as opposed to percentage but guess that didn't show in the finals so point taken.

I'm just hoping Fyfe gets back to his absolute best and Danger stays injury free so we can have a season with all three of them going full tilt. Would be awesome

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Oh so now we're shifting the goalposts. No, it isn't. A 20 meter sprint tests someone's raw speed, especially the initial burst. A repeat sprint is more relevant for the ability to continuously sprint, and tests the ability to recover quicker between sprints, not the actual speed of a player.



I'm willing to give you that he's a better jumper, but a) there's more to athleticism than jumping and b) it doesn't seem to harm his ability to be dangerous up forward.



Statistics are a useful metric in an argument that can go in circles. Given stats show that they're fairly similar in terms of speed and one-on-one forward performance, I'd say they're fairly relevant, since you're arguing that Dangerfield is much faster and better one-on-one up forward.



We wins more contested ball, but I don't think that means he's better at winning contested ball. Again, CP numbers are often a reflection of the role a player plays, as opposed to whether or not a player is better at winning CP.



Let's presume strength and speed are key aspects of powefulness and explosiveness? Which player is stronger? Which player is faster? If you could show me evidence Dangerfield is a lot faster and stronger than Dangerfield, I'd be happy to stand corrected. All you've shown me is Dangerfield has a better leap. That doesn't necessarily make him more powerful or explosive, especially as much of Dangerfield and Martin's work is done with both feet on the ground.



A restricting injury which meant he played more minutes up forward, kind of negating your point. And again, you said he was a lot more dangerous up forward than Martin. Is that based on output? If so then the stats don't bear that out, with Martin kicking 37 goals this season and Dangerfield 45. If Dangerfield is a 100 as a forward, Martin is at least a 95. Is it based on potential, like ability? Because Martin is as good as Dangerfield one-on-one, has similar strength and speed. The only think Dangerfield has over him is leap, and it's not as if Martin can't jump.



Dangerfield played more gametime up forward than Martin in 2017. He may have won the brownlow, but again, how does this prove he's a lot better in the categories you mentioned?

30 metres is a more accurate and realistic distance to measure midfielders over. A lot of key forwards would probably be able to get high in the 20m sprint, Sam Reid was actually in the top 5 for his draft year, yet didn’t feature in the 30m sprint top 10, and he is not on the same pace level as Dangerfield Rioli.

No I wouldn’t say a lot better speed and strength, but he is quicker and stronger. You can argue this all you want but from watching the two i think it shows.

It is a fact Dangerfield is a better run and jump at the ball, a lot better in fact. Which he really uses up forward to his advantage.

He played up forward more so in the games he was carrying a restrictive rib injury. He was only at about 70% capacity playing wise, even these games up forward he probably had an equal effect if not better output as a forward/mid then dusty at 100% playing as a forward, which just proves the point even more so, that a 70% fit Dangerfield was able to have more of an impact as a forward than a 100% dusty ever could. You don’t think that says something?

I am not simply saying stats for this, but even just the impact on the games felt. Even in these games Dangerfield still pushes up the ground for a fair bit and was not a permanent forward, so your really not getting any of this true at all.

 

[scaryness]

Dangerfield 2017

 

[BF Tiger]

That is some pretty terrible logic...

Poorly expressed.

I'm talking from Martin's and Dangerfield's respective views. Both would think a premiership was the success they were really after - Brownlows, MVPs, coaches awards are not what they're really after. As such I think Dusty would rate his 2017 season higher than Dangerfield would rate his 2016 season, and I'd be surprised if Dangerfield didn't think the same way.

 

[Seeds]

Haha perhaps a fair comment, these discussions at the end of the day are impossible to conclusively prove so pretty much revolve around who you like more/who plays for the team you support, and I like Geelong and danger more than Richmond and Dusty so that was where I sat going in, but was swayed by what I read in the thread. You can make an argument for either player at the end of the day so doesn't really matter

That being said Martin led his team to a winning GF and played great on the day, which Danger didn't get the opportunity to in 2016. Maybe Danger would have won a Norm Smith if Geelong won it that year, who knows? But on what actually happened you'd have to take Martin's season.

Also without actually counting it seems more neutrals are in favour of Martin so that to me says something. Both great players and Danger's had the better individual career thus far for sure.

Martin had the better season. I will agree there. But as for who is the best player in the competition in 2017 I would say Dangerfield. Two seperate injuries curtailed his output for around a month each and yet he still yielded 33 brownlow votes.

 

[DontArgue4]

yep i sure would take Martins 28 possession 0 goal final (most in junk time after his opponent went off the ground injured) over dangers 26 touch, 8 marks and 4 goal performance with all goals coming in the opening half. Martins 20 touch 3 goal game also better um just because. and lets not talk about the joke of martin winning a norm smith. One of the least deserved norm smiths in the past twenty years.

haha i love the stats youve just decided to select, what if you decided to select like this instead:

QF: 28 disposals, 15 contested, 7 tackles, 9 inside 50's, 4 goal assists
PF: 20 disposals, 13 contested, 3 goals, 2 goal assists
GF: 29 disposals, 22 contested, 2 goals, 2 goal assists

so over the finals series he averaged:
25.6 disposals
16.6 contested
1.6 goals
2.6 goal assists

yes, very shit

 

[DontArgue4]

Not with his injury they don’t.

How many players in the AFL would get selected when they are at about 60-70% capacity??

He was only playing because at 60-70% he is still good enough to contribute.

If he didn’t get injured or suspended he would have had the Brownlow, simple really.

pretty funny that this keeps being brought up as some type of excuse for danger

dusty played with a bad groin for a couple of weeks and also played with a fractured cheekbone

so ummm yeh, danger isnt the only one lmao

 

[Richo83]

30 metres is a more accurate and realistic distance to measure midfielders over. A lot of key forwards would probably be able to get high in the 20m sprint, Sam Reid was actually in the top 5 for his draft year, yet didn’t feature in the 30m sprint top 10, and he is not on the same pace level as Dangerfield Rioli.

The 30 meter repeat sprint isn't a pure sprint test though, it's a test of a player's ability to perform repeat sprints, as evident in the name. Martin didn't have great endurance or repeat sprint ability when he was young, evidenced by the fact that his endurance and ability to sprint again and again has increased since his junior days.

If you were to measure Martin repeat sprint capacity now, it would be much better. If you want to test raw speed, which is what the 20 meter sprint is designed for, Martin did better than Dangerfield. Personally I think they're roughly equal speed and strength wise. You certainly haven't proven that one is a lot faster than the other.

No I wouldn’t say a lot better speed and strength, but he is quicker and stronger. You can argue this all you want but from watching the two i think it shows.

So we've gone from "much more explosive" to "not a lot more, but he is quicker".

You're biased. Very biased. Cockatoo will become one of the top 20 players in the league biased. "I'm sure Dangerfield would win in a 20 meter sprint even though I haven't done any research and their combine results show otherwise" biased. I've shown statistics which show that they compare very similar in a combine sprint test. And I struggle to fathom how a Dangerfield is a lot more stronger than player who is known for his don't argues, which require enormous strength.

It is a fact Dangerfield is a better run and jump at the ball, a lot better in fact. Which he really uses up forward to his advantage.

And I've granted that Dangerfield is a better leap. But are we really going to rank midfielders based on their leaping ability?

He played up forward more so in the games he was carrying a restrictive rib injury. He was only at about 70% capacity playing wise, even these games up forward he probably had an equal effect if not better output as a forward/mid then dusty at 100% playing as a forward, which just proves the point even more so, that a 70% fit Dangerfield was able to have more of an impact as a forward than a 100% dusty ever could. You don’t think that says something?

Martin hasn't played 100% as a forward for years now. Never did it in 2016 or 2017. So you're comparing an apple with bruised (not broken) ribs to a fruit that doesn't exist. Martin averaged the most inside 50s per game last year, was second for score involvements (9 per game as opposed to Dangerfield's 8), and third for goal assists, so he was often the guy setting up goals, as opposed to kicking them. Dangerfield isn't far behind in terms of setting up goals, but Martin played slightly more away from goal than Dangerfield.

To me, whether you pick Dangerfield or Martin reflects mostly on what you rate as a footballer, it's impossible to split them in my eyes.

I am not simply saying stats for this, but even just the impact on the games felt. Even in these games Dangerfield still pushes up the ground for a fair bit and was not a permanent forward, so your really not getting any of this true at all.

He played as a permanent forward against the hawks. I watched that game.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

The 30 meter repeat sprint isn't a pure sprint test though, it's a test of a player's ability to perform repeat sprints, as evident in the name. Martin didn't have great endurance or repeat sprint ability when he was young, evidenced by the fact that his endurance and ability to sprint again and again has increased since his junior days.

If you were to measure Martin repeat sprint capacity now, it would be much better. If you want to test raw speed, which is what the 20 meter sprint is designed for, Martin did better than Dangerfield. Personally I think they're roughly equal speed and strength wise. You certainly haven't proven that one is a lot faster than the other.



So we've gone from "much more explosive" to "not a lot more, but he is quicker".

You're biased. Very biased. Cockatoo will become one of the top 20 players in the league biased. "I'm sure Dangerfield would win in a 20 meter sprint even though I haven't done any research and their combine results show otherwise" biased. I've shown statistics which show that they compare very similar in a combine sprint test. And I struggle to fathom how a Dangerfield is a lot more stronger than player who is known for his don't argues, which require enormous strength.



And I've granted that Dangerfield is a better leap. But are we really going to rank midfielders based on their leaping ability?

The 30m sprint is definitely a big factor to balance in when determining who is quicker, it is only six 30m sprints with a short rest in between each (even Martin wouldn’t have had an issue with this). It is only sprinting 180m in total with short rests, so not sure how you determine this doesn’t factor massively with speed. If You are an elite junior AFL under 18 player then this is not going to be an issue to manage. Both Dangerfield and Cyril Rioli where 2 and 3 for the repeat 30m, which says how accurate it is for speed.

You don’t think how big a players leap at the ball is plays a part in determining who is more powerful? It is a factor to determining explosiveness and strength.

This is getting sidetracked anyway as it isn’t relevant to who is better at the end of the day a couple of tests from when they where 18, I just merely referenced it as probably the only source out there of anything statistical.

Yes he played as a forward with a muscle tear in his ribs and a sore foot; which he kicked something like 5.6 for the day and had 12 shots on goal. That was all at 70% capacity, Martin has never managed to have even close to that sort of influence up forward even when 100 fit. Will ask remind you he kicked 4 of them in the space of about 30 minutes of football as he was off the first quarter and didn’t return till halfway through the second, and had kicked 4 by the end of the third. Martin has played a half of football forward plenty of times, he did against Geelong with not a lot of impact down at skilled.

 

[Gosha]

Martin quite easily. No disrespect to Danger though.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Danger did not complain, but his performance was certainly down in the two weeks that he was carrying the rib injury. That is fact

Should have still polled votes then. Down on form by the looks of it

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Not with his injury they don’t.

How many players in the AFL would get selected when they are at about 60-70% capacity??

He was only playing because at 60-70% he is still good enough to contribute.

If he didn’t get injured or suspended he would have had the Brownlow, simple really.

No you take the field you’re good to go. It s not the first time Dangers injury coping mechanisms have been questioned