There is talk circulating that one of the AFL’s most popular and charismatic players, Patrick Dangerfield, is notorious for big noting the degree of his injuries.
There are even some who have the temerity to suggest that Danger switch to soccer, where the players pretend to be hurt, as opposed to footy, where they pretend not to be hurt. They say he could never survive in rugby, where the players do not care if they are hurt.
Some of us, whose darts careers were prematurely derailed by a hamstring issue that was never properly treated or rehabilitated, the result being we had to hop codes to poker, say that all the pundits and anyone else who wants to cast aspersions in Dangerfield’s direction should adopt a live-and-let-live attitude.
The Brownlow Medal vote leader could possibly have a flair for the dramatic, but what of it? He is, at the end of the day, an entertainer, and we derive a high level of entertainment from Dangerfield. Who would care so much if instead of Dangerfield, he were named Safefield?
Of late, Dangerfield’s most vociferous accuser is former Dangerfield teammate Kane Cornes, who played alongside Danger in the Port Adelaide Power days. Cornes was the player who tagged and shut down the other sides’ best, so he has his share of detractors as well. He has taken the same approach he took to footy in his role as a commentator, that of a hard worker, a sense of fair play and a chippy attitude gained from surviving 300 games in the AFL, despite being less athletically gifted than many against whom he competed.
Cornes lends some validity to the charges against Dangerfield and Cornes’ willingness to call ‘em as he sees ‘em is much appreciated, and even though he cares not one whit for ours’ or anyone else’s opinion of him, throwing stones is not always the best approach.