Fletcher - Is it possible....

[Lance Uppercut]

he's a bloody star, a remarkable player with supernatural poise and exquisite skills. One of the most under-rated players of the modern game.

Definitely an Essendon legend, rates where Slattery said he does

 

[Towno78]

I think he makes an undeniable case for the top 10 which is really what it should be about.

I am sick of hearing about how guys that 70-80% of the population never saw play in unprofessional eras always being the best in every sport.*

Statistics and awards are a useful guide but they are also apt to mislead (e.g. basically the top 10 players considered greatest of all time didn't win Brownlows and there are a lot of brilliant players who didn't play in premierships).

Longevity and cosistency are also as important as BnFs.

If you want to break it down we need to look at it something like:

The list for top 5 (in no order): Coleman, Reynolds, Hird, Hutchison, Thurgood and maybe Watson and Madden,

The list of 6 to 10 (in no order): Fletcher, Lloyd, Long and you can argue about the rest.



*Do we really think that Coleman would average 5 goals a game in the modern era? Buddy Franklin is a spectacular athlete and natural footballer and he is around 3. What do you think a 6'5" freak like Franklin could have done in an unprofessional era?

Am I being too simplistic if I draw comparisons between the physical attributes and flair of Polly Farmer and Franklin? Polly is the only example of one of the giant athletic Aboriginal players playing in the AFL in the unprofessional eras and he is regarded as one of the best of all time...I know that I am leaving myself open for jibes about the Goodes role.

In the past 100 years, we have developed as a race. Completely leaving footballer's out of this, as a whole we are taller, stronger, faster, fitter, etc. than our predecessors. We have better nutrition, better equipment/facilities, we have a greater understanding about training... The list goes on. Combined with the fact that footballers now are professionals dedicating all their time and efforts simply to being the best footballers they can be, whilst generations ago, they were working full time jobs to earn a crust at the same time.

Do you really think Buddy transported 70 years back in time would just be the same athletic freak he is today? flipping spare me.

 

[Slattery_20]

*Do we really think that Coleman would average 5 goals a game in the modern era? Buddy Franklin is a spectacular athlete and natural footballer and he is around 3. What do you think a 6'5" freak like Franklin could have done in an unprofessional era?

Probably not, no.

So you've got to look at the context; which is where it all gets tricky.

He was finished 30+ goals in front of the next bloke in the goalkicking every year he finished - bar one.
Over a shorter (18 week) season.
That points to being a serious class ahead of anyone around at the time.
AFAIK Buddy's never been that far in front, even once: for all his talent Cloke/Hall/Fev have kept him within touching distance.

And as for genetics/athleticism. Go find the footage - hell, freeze frames - of Coleman. Man could run, jump, kick, dodge & weave.

Yeah, he was only 6'1" or whatever; but you look at context again.
In an era where nutrition (remember, he grew up in the depression) was a serious issue, and the whole population was significantly shorter - Jack Dyer played ruck @ 6'1":
he actually was the Buddy of the era. The show-man, the freak, the gun.

But further ahead (of his peers)

His natural genetics, in current climates, might've seen him taller... Buddy, growing up in the 30s probably would've been much smaller - both still would've dominated.

 

[BrunoV]

In the past 100 years, we have developed as a race. Completely leaving footballer's out of this, as a whole we are taller, stronger, faster, fitter, etc. than our predecessors. We have better nutrition, better equipment/facilities, we have a greater understanding about training... The list goes on. Combined with the fact that footballers now are professionals dedicating all their time and efforts simply to being the best footballers they can be, whilst generations ago, they were working full time jobs to earn a crust at the same time.

Do you really think Buddy transported 70 years back in time would just be the same athletic freak he is today? flipping spare me.

I am told that in the early days Franklin used to rock up to preseason training after a night out on the sauce and smokes and destroy everyone in the time trials. It is when Hawthorn realised what was happening that they started running him against Crawford and Bateman in training drills to help him realise something close to his capacity.

Franklin would still have been a freak in Coleman's era. He may not have been as fast, but the competition would have been even slower.

It is why I drew the comparison with Polly Farmer. He is the one example of what a indigenous player with the size, flair and athleticism similar to Buddy could do when playing in a totally unprofessional era. He is regarded as one of the best players of all time. He was a freak. Buddy is in the same boat (with Goodes and hopefully 1 day Ryder*) but the tactics of the modern era are able to reduce his influence.


*Obviously there are plenty of athletic big guys these days so it is not something that needs to be limited to Aboriginals.

 

[BrunoV]

Probably not, no.

So you've got to look at the context; which is where it all gets tricky.

He was finished 30+ goals in front of the next bloke in the goalkicking every year he finished - bar one.
Over a shorter (18 week) season.
That points to being a serious class ahead of anyone around at the time.
AFAIK Buddy's never been that far in front, even once: for all his talent Cloke/Hall/Fev have kept him within touching distance.

And as for genetics/athleticism. Go find the footage - hell, freeze frames - of Coleman. Man could run, jump, kick, dodge & weave.

Yeah, he was only 6'1" or whatever; but you look at context again.
In an era where nutrition (remember, he grew up in the depression) was a serious issue, and the whole population was significantly shorter - Jack Dyer played ruck @ 6'1":
he actually was the Buddy of the era. The show-man, the freak, the gun.

But further ahead (of his peers)

His natural genetics, in current climates, might've seen him taller... Buddy, growing up in the 30s probably would've been much smaller - both still would've dominated.

This isn't necessarily directed at Hank. I just like a few of his points and wanted to address it a bit.

Just to be clear, my point wasn't to play Coleman down. It was to talk up up the freaks in the modern era (if you think that Franklin is anything less of a freak then you need to think again).

I was trying to explain that freaks are no longer able to doimnate because professionalism has increase the standard of the lesser players and conjured tactics to quell the influence of the freaks.

The gap in the records between Coleman and Buddy would be almost nothing if they played in the same era. If you gave Buddy an open forward line and one on one match up when he is leading, there is noone that can stop him. He may not be as spectacular as Coleman was standing on peoples heads but he has different physical characteristics.

If the spertacular makes Coleman a better player then so bit it, I'm happy with that. But there needs to be more than blind obedience to this idea that the freaks have all disappeared or stopped being born after 1960.

 

[Slattery_20]

I don't think anyone's doubting that Franklin would've been a freak back in the 50s, the point is why you can't swallow a 50s freak would've been a freak in this era as well.
(But you can accept Farmer from the 60s? Weird...)

Freaks are freaks are freaks.
Measurables are dependent on a whole lot of other variables.

 

[Towno78]

I don't think anyone's doubting that Franklin would've been a freak back in the 50s, the point is why you can't swallow a 50s freak would've been a freak in this era as well.
(But you can accept Farmer from the 60s? Weird...)

Freaks are freaks are freaks.
Measurables are dependent on a whole lot of other variables.

Exactly.

 

[BrunoV]

I don't think anyone's doubting that Franklin would've been a freak back in the 50s, the point is why you can't swallow a 50s freak would've been a freak in this era as well.
(But you can accept Farmer from the 60s? Weird...)

Freaks are freaks are freaks.
Measurables are dependent on a whole lot of other variables.

I obvously haven't been clear enough.

I never intended to suggest that Coleman wouldn't be a mega star now. I was starting from the position of the modern player being ripped off by the greats of old.

I am also not saying that Coleman isn't a better player than Buddy. I just wanted to attack the thought process that blindly accepts that the great players of old are always better than their modern counterparts.


Edit: actually I don't know why you think I haven't accepted that Coleman and co would be brilliant/great/amazing players now. All I said is that he wouldn't average 5+ a game and compared him with Buddy (because my understanding is that they are similarly freakish allbeit for different reasons) to suggest that Coleman would be much closer to a 3+ average.

The inability to know what players would achieve in different eras is why I think the "greatest player" tags are a wank. I would limit it to the best player of an ear and simply award the status of "greatest players" and include the guys I previously listed.

 

[blacksockred]

I can't comment on those before Hird, Lloyd and Fletcher.

But through those years when all three of them played, I thought of them as being equally great.

 

[calyam]

Top 10, comfortably.

Coleman; Hird; Hutchinson; Reynolds;
top group for mine.

Then you look at
Madden; Watson; Fletcher; Daniher.
Next group.

IMHO.

Lloyd is so underrated. Best goalkicker of his era by a significant margin and did it during a period when the defensive aspects of the game increased massively. Was probably in the top couple of players in the league for a five or six year period at the start of the decade.

 

[Coldacre]

yes agreed. you'd take Lloyd over Fletcher any day.

 

[ZAAHAARAKIS!!!!!]

fletcher is top 10 at the club.

but hes still the 2nd best fullback of the last 20 years, i'd put him above scarlett any day of the week, only behind SOS

 

[Jade]

*bump*

For the first time, I reckon we might be watching one of the greatest careers in Essendon's history come to a close.

Not due to performance mind you, he's still a great player in defence. Just get the sneaking suspicion that 2014 will be it.

 

[rines]

3 years AFTER we were talking about Fletcher being in the top 10 EFC players of all time.. and he is still going strong. Remarkable effort really.

Longevity isn't just about his body holding up, it is the fact that he has remained good enough to be selected, legitimately, in the best 22 for this club for 20+ years.. through coaching changes, premierships, tactic changes etc etc.

Has moved into second place for me, right behind Hird. (Only including players I have seen, too hard to comment on blokes from a different era)

Was a gun 10 years ago, now takes on Legend status.

 

[Essendonia]

Could push for greatest servant, not greatest player with what he's accomplished so far.

 

[Eleven 38]

*bump*

For the first time, I reckon we might be watching one of the greatest careers in Essendon's history come to a close.

Not due to performance mind you, he's still a great player in defence. Just get the sneaking suspicion that 2014 will be it.

A statement thousands of people have said each year for the last 8 years.

 

[calyam]

*bump*

For the first time, I reckon we might be watching one of the greatest careers in Essendon's history come to a close.

Not due to performance mind you, he's still a great player in defence. Just get the sneaking suspicion that 2014 will be it.

If he finishes the season in the mid-390s then he'll play another season. He's been a selfless servant to the club but I'd allow him to be a little selfish and push to 400 and play a game at 40 years of age. If his early season form continues, he can play on knowing that he is still up to the challenge.

 

[hurlygurdy]

His physique hasn't changed and he has never carried around excess bulk. I doubt his training has changed virtually at all in the last 10 years either. He is super relaxed and calm, so he stays balanced psychologically. All in all you can see why he has gone on so long and can see why it doesn't need to stop yet. He will go when he next has an injury that would put him out for longer than about 8 weeks. When that happens is pure chance as far as i can tell, but i guess it will happen at some point regardless of his age and condition.
Last year i wanted him to retire so that Pears could get a go. But the Chappy lesson has influenced me towards being far more romantic, and now i just want him to go as long as he can. There must be the outside chance that he could play at 41. Remote but possible.

 

[efcboy]

1. Dick Reynolds
2. John Coleman
3. James Hird
4. Bill Hutchison
5. Simon Madden
6. Tim Watson
7. Dustin Fletcher
8. Ken Fraser
9. Jobe Watson
10. Jack Clarke
11. Albert Thurgood
12. Matthew Lloyd
13. Terry Daniher
14. Tom Fitzmaurice
15. Graham Moss
16. Barry Davis
17. Wally Buttsworth
18. Reg Burgess
19. Bill Busbridge
20. Keith Forbes
21. Gavin Wanganeen
22. Michael Long
23. Mark Harvey
24. Mark Thompson
25. John Birt
26. Harold Lambert
27. Fred Baring
28. Paul Van Der Haar
29. Paul Salmon
30. Scott Lucas

 

[yaco55]

So far his form is better than in 2013. It's a matter of how he finishes off the season.

 

[Doss]

If his form continues on its current trajectory (still quite good), he won't be retiring because of form issues. The issue may be forced by structural or developmental ones, though.

The day he retires will be a sad and quite odd one. I started following footy properly in 1993- I've never known the game sans him.

 

[rines]

Same I was still in primary school when Fletch started.. can't remember a time without him. Weird times.

Based on first 6 rounds though.. doesn't look like he has dropped any speed.. gained a little on last year if anything..

Is there another year and another premiership in the great man?

Personally if Fletcher is good enough to be selected on merit, then he gets to decide when it is time.. after 20+ years of service, he has earnt the right to end it however and whenever he wants to imho.

 

[fishardansin]

that he might be the greatest player in Essendon's history?

I am aware of the implication I am making here, and who it puts him past, but he is building a case as one of the greatest EFC servants ever to have pulled on the guernsey.

In my lifetime, the only players I can think of that would occupy the same sort of level would be:

T. Watson, Hird, Madden, Lloyd, maybe one or two more.

He's an absolute giant of the club.

Thompson has played in three premierships and captained one ... got a norm smith in another didn't he? If he coached us to a flag ... oh it's just players hey

Ok for me it's

1. Fletch
2. Madden
3. Long
4. Hird
5. J Watson




0.5 Ambrose

 

[Kong]

Long over Hird, give me a break.

 

[Doss]

Long over Hird, give me a break.

Long over any number of others isn't right in my view. Timmy Watson for example. Or Hutchison. Or Lloyd.

Long's a genuine champion of the club, though.