Has Lance Franklin surpassed Wayne Carey as the greatest key forward of the modern era?

[PhatBoy]

It indicates greater longevity.

Was he still a top-liner deep into his 30s the way Franklin has been?

That's the point. It's not just about the number of games and goals. It's the fact that Franklin has continued to be a very fine player in the twilight of his career, whereas Carey was really winding down from about age 29-30, given 2001 was his last season at NM.

Let me ask you this.

Chris Gayle, a specialist batsman, is, I believe, the last remaining active international cricketer who played in the 1990s. He averages roughly 40 per innings across his career, wickets here and there, reasonably amount of catches.

if you have another player with roughly the same figures, who played for 15 years instead of 22, and you’re trying to compare them, are you really going to side with Gayle MAINLY because of longevity?

(yes I realise carey and franklins stats are different my focus is on the longevity argument)

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Let me ask you this.

Chris Gayle, a specialist batsman, is, I believe, the last remaining active international cricketer who played in the 1990s. He averages roughly 40 per innings across his career, wickets here and there, reasonably amount of catches.

if you have another player with roughly the same figures, who played for 15 years instead of 22, and you’re trying to compare them, are you really going to side with Gayle MAINLY because of longevity?

(yes I realise carey and franklins stats are different my focus is on the longevity argument)

This analogy is simply too tortured for me to examine it.

 

[PhatBoy]

This analogy is simply too tortured for me to examine it.

If you have two players who have achieved similar things and both played for long enough to prove that they had longevity and weren’t a fluke, what difference does it make if you play 10 or 20 years. Simple.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

If you have two players who have achieved similar things and both played for long enough to prove that they had longevity and weren’t a fluke, what difference does it make if you play 10 or 20 years. Simple.

If you're weighing one career against another, then doing it for twice as long absolutely makes a difference.

Frankly, I find it bizarre to suggest otherwise.

 

[PhatBoy]

If you're weighing one career against another, then doing it for twice as long absolutely makes a difference.

Frankly, I find it bizarre to suggest otherwise.

Why? Especially in this case where Carey played 15 seasons. It’s not like Franklin had played 30.

Is Fletcher a better fullback than Scarlett?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why?

Because longevity is a factor when you weigh one career against another.

Do you have a new way to interrogate this statement?

Especially in this case where Carey played 15 seasons. It’s not like Franklin had played 30.

And Franklin has remained a top-liner deep into his 30s whereas Carey didn't.

That is a factor when you weigh their careers against each other.

I feel like you're simply cycling back and asking "nah but why?"

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Why? Especially in this case where Carey played 15 seasons. It’s not like Franklin had played 30.

Is Fletcher a better fullback than Scarlett?

I hate saying it but I agree with Sweet Jesus on this one.

Longevity is not a primary criteria but doing something for a longer period of time has to count for something.

If you are picking a player and their output is near identical but one person does it for 10 years and another for 15, then the guy that does it for 15 years is surely preferable.

You're getting an extra 5 years of a top line player, helping you win, etc. It's the same reason that recruiting a 25 year old gun and a 30 year old gun costs so much different - it is the expectation that you will get the 25 year old gun for an extra 5 years and that is worth so much more.

(That's not to say that I think Carey and Franklin are otherwise identical or that it necessarily tips this argument one way or the other but hypothetically doing the same thing for a longer period of time has to be worth more)

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Woopy do. The latest decade has been the weakest decade for good key fowards in living memory. Of the 7 best key fowards since 2000 only one of them played in the teens. Franklin. On top franklin has played more games then just about any key foward in the history of the game.

hard to say if it's that or it's just a lot harder for key forwards to dominate in this day and age. As for lots of games being available and longevity also contributes to greatness.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Carey is the best as long as you watched him play.

EFA

 

[PhatBoy]

I hate saying it but I agree with Sweet Jesus on this one.

Longevity is not a primary criteria but doing something for a longer period of time has to count for something.

If you are picking a player and their output is near identical but one person does it for 10 years and another for 15, then the guy that does it for 15 years is surely preferable.

You're getting an extra 5 years of a top line player, helping you win, etc. It's the same reason that recruiting a 25 year old gun and a 30 year old gun costs so much different - it is the expectation that you will get the 25 year old gun for an extra 5 years and that is worth so much more.

(That's not to say that I think Carey and Franklin are otherwise identical or that it necessarily tips this argument one way or the other but hypothetically doing the same thing for a longer period of time has to be worth more)

In an example where, say, one player does it for 15 years, the other guy did it for 10 but then played another 5 and was s**t, I think it would be relevant but that’s not what happened. Carey simply retired having proven all he had to prove over a decade and a half

 

[PhatBoy]

Because longevity is a factor when you weigh one career against another.

Do you have a new way to interrogate this statement?

And Franklin has remained a top-liner deep into his 30s whereas Carey didn't.

That is a factor when you weigh their careers against each other.

I feel like you're simply cycling back and asking "nah but why?"

Carey was a year younger than Franklin when he retired and as discussed in those last few years his numbers were still decent. He was still kicking more than two goals a game, still having 4 shots on goal a game. I think you’re underestimating his football in the last few years of his career

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Is Fletcher a better fullback than Scarlett?

Just to cycle back to this example. No, I rate Scarlett more highly than Fletcher. That's not to say that Fletcher's longevity is meaningless but that Scarlett was 'enough better' than Fletcher such that Fletcher's longevity did not influence the result.

To put it another way. I rate Fletcher slightly ahead of Brian Lake. Had Fletcher 'only' played 250 games, I think I would likely rate Lake ahead as I view his peak as superior. The fact that Fletcher played an additional 150 games and maintained such a high standard for as long as he did puts Fletcher ahead of Lake overall for me.

 

[PhatBoy]

Just to cycle back to this example. No, I rate Scarlett more highly than Fletcher. That's not to say that Fletcher's longevity is meaningless but that Scarlett was 'enough better' than Fletcher such that Fletcher's longevity did not influence the result.

To put it another way. I rate Fletcher slightly ahead of Brian Lake. Had Fletcher 'only' played 250 games, I think I would likely rate Lake ahead as I view his peak as superior. The fact that Fletcher played an additional 150 games and maintained such a high standard for as long as he did puts Fletcher ahead of Lake overall for me.

That’s fair enough

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Carey was a year younger than Franklin when he retired and as discussed in those last few years his numbers were still decent. He was still kicking more than two goals a game, still having 4 shots on goal a game. I think you’re underestimating his football in the last few years of his career

I don't think so.

Carey was finished as a top-liner after leaving NM. Even his final season at NM wasn't that great.

 

[Chopperdave]

If you are talking about who was the better player it's Carey and it's not even close. That's not to say Franklin isn't a jet because he is a clear #2 on the list its just Carey was so dominant no one else is close.

If you are talking about longevity then it's Franklin I'll give you that. Carey's shoulders were buggered and obviously, the off-field stuff didn't help.

I don't think so.

Carey was finished as a top-liner after leaving NM. Even his final season at NM wasn't that great.

This isn't entirely true... When fit he clearly was still clearly one of the best forwards in the league. The issue was his body just couldn't hold up to AFL anymore.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don't think so.

Carey was finished as a top-liner after leaving NM. Even his final season at NM wasn't that great.

As an absolute peak of his powers beast, perhaps. Still a more than serviceable player.

as good as Franklin is playing right now, as we speak, and he is - across his last 3 seasons his goal kicking numbers are still good albeit slightly down - but his other numbers are generally down a bit too. Still good, but not as good. They’ve gone up a bit this year.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This isn't entirely true... When fit he clearly was still clearly one of the best forwards in the league. The issue was his body just couldn't hold up to AFL anymore.

As an absolute peak of his powers beast, perhaps. Still a more than serviceable player.

Like I said.

 

[Shannon M]

Anyone dismissing Carey’s greatness by saying Kernahan had similar numbers obviously never watched or didn’t understand footy.

Carey was a true CHF when it was the most important position on the ground. Forwards also had to deal with someone like Silvagni or a man mountain like Jakovich where they wore you like a glove all day. Their only focus was to stop you getting a kick and they would employ every trick. Yet Carey would find a way to beat them and prove instrumental in victory.

Someone like Mick Martyn could have a successful day getting 1 kick no marks.

And you compare that sort of defending to a zone defence made up of undersized midfielders, they slightest tug of the jumper or chopping of the arms it’s an automatic free kick.

It’s s different game and Buddy wouldn’t have had the durability for how brutal it was in comparison.

 

[Pessimistic]

Yep the CHF was a midfielder as they could always have an’ escape’ kick to him while he dominated that area through sheer brute force.

now that outlet kick is more likely to be to a gut running winger or HFF (enter Buddy, Cyril, Hilly)

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Considering Ablett was only 185cm I think most people would pick Buddy. Ablett was too short to be an effective key forward in 2021.

Ablett is even a better over head mark than Buddy. I don’t think you realise just how good Ablett Snr was. He was a freak.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Anyone dismissing Carey’s greatness by saying Kernahan had similar numbers obviously never watched or didn’t understand footy.

Carey was a true CHF when it was the most important position on the ground. Forwards also had to deal with someone like Silvagni or a man mountain like Jakovich where they wore you like a glove all day. Their only focus was to stop you getting a kick and they would employ every trick. Yet Carey would find a way to beat them and prove instrumental in victory.

Someone like Mick Martyn could have a successful day getting 1 kick no marks.

And you compare that sort of defending to a zone defence made up of undersized midfielders, they slightest tug of the jumper or chopping of the arms it’s an automatic free kick.

It’s s different game and Buddy wouldn’t have had the durability for how brutal it was in comparison.

It's certainly a different game but it's probably harder in 2021 for key forwards than it was 30 years ago.

Carey had to play one-on-one against Jakovich but that's what key forwards generally prefer. You don't reckon Franklin or Kennedy or Hawkins would prefer to be one-out against their direct opponent than to be triple-teamed every time the ball comes into to a crowded forwardline?

Surely it's beyond dispute that the game has become harder for key forwards as defensive strategies have evolved and become increasingly sophisticated in slowing down ball movement and preventing that kind of one-on-one contest in D50.

Equally, coaches are less eager to have so much of their ball go through one target in attack. The emphasis has increasingly shifted to having multiple options and a spread of goalkickers, which has also contributed to reduced volume for the modern key forward.

 

[Shannon M]

It's certainly a different game but it's probably harder in 2021 for key forwards than it was 30 years ago.

Carey had to play one-on-one against Jakovich but that's what key forwards generally prefer. You don't reckon Franklin or Kennedy or Hawkins would prefer to be one-out against their direct opponent than to be triple-teamed every time the ball comes into to a crowded forwardline?

Surely it's beyond dispute that the game has become harder for key forwards as defensive strategies have evolved and become increasingly sophisticated in slowing down ball movement and preventing that kind of one-on-one contest in D50.

Equally, coaches are less eager to have so much of their ball go through one target in attack. The emphasis has increasingly shifted to having multiple options and a spread of goalkickers, which has also contributed to reduced volume for the modern key forward.

I'm just trying to imagine Bud getting this kind of treatment he wouldn't get a mark all day. Basically every contest Jakovich commits 1-2 free kicks. Bud gets soft tissue injuries running for the ball he wouldn't have lasted past 30 years of age in previous eras.

Notice also when Carey slots that goal from the boundary, there's no theatrics, no reaction, just runs back to position. Bud would be whooping it up, gesticulating at the crowd, arms stretched out.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm just trying to imagine Bud getting this kind of treatment he wouldn't get a mark all day. Basically every contest Jakovich commits 1-2 free kicks. Bud gets soft tissue injuries running for the ball he wouldn't have lasted past 30 years of age in previous eras.

I think that if you gave him the option of one opponent all day instead of getting triple-teamed in a zone defence, he'd prefer to be one-out.

He'd run Jakovich up the ground and back again 50 times.

Watch that highlights clip again and note the number of times Carey and Jakovich are one-on-one in the F50. How often do you reckon Buddy gets that in 2021?

I mean, look at the first one at 0.24, which is at Subiaco? It's Carey and Jakovich 35 metres out from goal with barely another player in sight. That's an absolute rarity these days.

 

[The_Eagles]

Franklins 2008 is the best season I’ve ever seen.
But then Carey has about 4 of the next. I would have Carey 1 and Franklin and Ablett snr 2/3 any order.
The Kings ability to pack mark was always an outlet for the Roos, he’s like twice as good as the best in the game today
Basically his marking was so reliable which makes him the “goat” for me

 

[Shannon M]

I think that if you gave him the option of one opponent all day instead of getting triple-teamed in a zone defence, he'd prefer to be one-out.

He'd run Jakovich up the ground and back again 50 times.

Watch that highlights clip again and note the number of times Carey and Jakovich are one-on-one in the F50. How often do you reckon Buddy gets that in 2021?

I mean, look at the first one at 0.24, which is at Subiaco? It's Carey and Jakovich 35 metres out from goal with barely another player in sight. That's an absolute rarity these days.

Franklin is not a particular good contested mark. He wouldn't like a defender all over him, crashing into his back, arm over the shoulder, chopping his arms.