full forwards

[Shane Hird]

Coleman also walked off the ground in the middle of a game and went to get changed - he had to be begged to come back on - then dislocated his knee and never played again finishing on 98 games - this is the greatest full forward that ever played?

incorrect

 

[Kings Army]

incorrect

Really? That clip I watched on the vids board clearly state he refused to play and went to get changed during a game. But did your Grandpa tell you a different story?

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Really? That clip I watched on the vids board clearly state he refused to play and went to get changed during a game. But did your Grandpa tell you a different story?

Welcome back KA

 

[Demon 86]

For me- on this list - Dunstall. Lockett was close.

Matthew Llyod should be nowhere near this list. There are SO many players more deserving that have been mentioned throughout the thread. I'd say he'd be embarrassed to be mentioned in the same breath as these guys- but that'd be a lie. He probably rates himself much higher

 

[Jade]

kernahan is well and truely up with those 4 and comparing kernahan to salmon is an absolute joke and merrett please stop kidding yourself.....played chf and kicked 738 goals from 251 games 2nd best chf ever ....lets start a poll sticks and salmon

Salmon wins. By a LONG way.

Next.

 

[Ordovician]

Well what do the statisitcs show?

Full Forwards are there to kick goals therefore the simplest statistic for determining who was the best is goals per game.

Goals per game, minimum 400 goals.

1. Hudson 5.94 goals per game

- played his first four years in a weak team

- had the VFL change the rules of the game to stop the hawks playing all of their players around the bounce to leave Hidson competely alone in the forward line, hence the advent of the centre square.

- came back and kicked 110, albeit in a good side, at age 31 still with a rooted knee


Friggin' Daylight

and a bit more ...


2. Coleman 5.48 goals per game

- played in very very good sides; two flags a runner up and a fourth in his 5 completed season

- has a docklands end and a medal named after him becasue he was a victorian and played for a top Melbourne team. If wasn't a Victorian and he had played for Footscray, Hawthorn, South Melbourne, North Melbourne or Fitzroy hardly anyone would know who the hell he was eg Pratt and would have absolutely nothing named after him.

- but inspite of the statistics clearly showing otherwise, he must have been the best because a whole lot of totally unbaised objective Essendon fans tell us that is so.


More daylight

and a lot more ...


3. Lockett 4.83 goals per game

- played in shit sides

- best set shot from 20 to 40m out infront up to a 45 degree angle and seldom left this zone hence the best conversion rate in teh history of the game 70% (Hudson was second at 69%, but he regularly took far harder shots).


4. Dunstall 4.66 goals per game

- played in exceptionally strong sides until 94

- always gave away several goals a game to players in better positions

- not a thug, was he ever reported ? (possibly once very early on)

- consumate team player who always chased and a very strong tackler, but lacked the Lockett intimidation factor

5. McKenna 4.58

- highly underated in spite of playing for the pies

- a bloody excellent FF in the golden days of Huddo, Wade


6. Pratt 4.31

- clearly better than Coventry and a comtemporary in Coventry later and best years but ... suprise surprise!!! nothing named after a Souths player!!! Good old AFL always sucking up to mass of brain dead plebs!

7. Coventry 4.25

8. Ablett 4.15

- supposedly did not play forward for his whole career which is utter bullsh*t as he he kicked 11% of the cats goals from 15 games in 84, as opposed to 14% from 17 games in 93 when he was a full time full forward.

9. Wade 3.96

10. Moriaty 3.89

- Who??? WTF??? he did not play for Essen'en or the pies! clearly no such palyer.

11. White 3.80

- see above

12. Taylor 3.76

- ha ha! better than that champion of champions Lloyd

13. Lloyd 3.6

- wore the black and red, an instant qualification for greatness

14. Modra 3.60

15. Valance 3.54

16. Sumich 3.43

 

[savagelunchbox]

Well what do the statisitcs show?

Full Forwards are there to kick goals therefore the simplest statistic for determining who was the best is goals per game.

Goals per game, minimum 400 goals.

1. Hudson 5.94 goals per game

- played his first four years in a weak team

- had the VFL change the rules of the game to stop the hawks playing all of their players around the bounce to leave Hidson competely alone in the forward line, hence the advent of the centre square.

- came back and kicked 110, albeit in a good side, at age 31 still with a rooted knee


Friggin' Daylight

and a bit more ...


2. Coleman 5.48 goals per game

- played in very very good sides; two flags a runner up and a fourth in his 5 completed season

- has a docklands end and a medal named after him becasue he was a victorian and played for a top Melbourne team. If wasn't a Victorian and he had played for Footscray, Hawthorn, South Melbourne, North Melbourne or Fitzroy hardly anyone would know who the hell he was eg Pratt and would have absolutely nothing named after him.

- but inspite of the statistics clearly showing otherwise, he must have been the best because a whole lot of totally unbaised objective Essendon fans tell us that is so.


More daylight

and a lot more ...


3. Lockett 4.83 goals per game

- played in shit sides

- was a gutless thug and greyhound sperm fraudester

- best set shot from 20 to 40m out infront up to a 45 degree angle and seldom left this zone hence the best conversion rate in teh history of the game 70% (Hudson was second at 69%, but he regularly took far harder shots).


4. Dunstall 4.66 goals per game

- played in exceptionally strong sides until 94

- always gave away several goals a game to players in better positions

- not a thug, was he ever reported ? (possibly once very early on)

- consumate team player who always chased and a very strong tackler, but lacked the Lockett intimidation factor of "stand in my way and I'll put my elbow through your face because I'm a total gutless dog"

5. McKenna 4.58

- highly underated in spite of playing for the pies

- a bloody excellent FF in the golden days of Huddo, Wade


6. Pratt 4.31

- clearly better than Coventry and a comtemporary in Coventry later and best years but ... suprise surprise!!! nothing named after a Souths player!!! Good old AFL always sucking up to mass of brain dead plebs!

7. Coventry 4.25

8. Ablett 4.15

- supposedly did not play forward for his whole career which is utter bullsh*t as he he kicked 11% of the cats goals from 15 games in 84, as opposed to 14% from 17 games in 93 when he was a full time full forward.

9. Wade 3.96

10. Moriaty 3.89

- Who??? WTF??? he did not play for Essen'en or the pies! clearly no such palyer.

11. White 3.80

- see above

12. Taylor 3.76

- ha ha! better than that champion of champions Lloyd

13. Lloyd 3.6

- wore the black and red, an instant qualification for greatness

14. Modra 3.60

15. Valance 3.54

16. Sumich 3.43

Very VERY good analysis. Especially about Lloyd. I mean how could you put him on that list? And whoever did is a spud. Their excuse is probably "Oh well i wanted to include someone from the modern era blah blah blah" Well if that's the case Buddy Franklin would be a far greater candidate even though he's a CHF.

The greatest clearly goes to the one with the greatest goals per game average who kicked a lot of goal (400+ is a good amount) and/or played a big bag of games. Those choosing Lockett is because he is the all time leader in goals kicked. But what people always overlook is that Lockett did it over 18 seasons and in 281 games whereas Hudson got his 727 in 9 season and 129 games. He got more than 1/2 the goals that Lockett got in LESS than half the games Lockett played.

But oh no my vote is with Coleman because he played for Essendon. *rolls eyes* The specific Essendon side that very the greatest team of that specific era who still would have been great without Coleman... unlike Hudson and Hawthorn.

 

[Kong]

Why poll doesn't include Coventry and Coleman is beyond me.

Of that list, I voted Dunstall, though I think Hudson was a freak, from the stats and clips that I've seen.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

We don't need to get into calling players 'gutless thugs' here.

 

[the distributer]

Very VERY good analysis. Especially about Lloyd. I mean how could you put him on that list? And whoever did is a spud. Their excuse is probably "Oh well i wanted to include someone from the modern era blah blah blah" Well if that's the case Buddy Franklin would be a far greater candidate even though he's a CHF.

The greatest clearly goes to the one with the greatest goals per game average who kicked a lot of goal (400+ is a good amount) and/or played a big bag of games. Those choosing Lockett is because he is the all time leader in goals kicked. But what people always overlook is that Lockett did it over 18 seasons and in 281 games whereas Hudson got his 727 in 9 season and 129 games. He got more than 1/2 the goals that Lockett got in LESS than half the games Lockett played.

But oh no my vote is with Coleman because he played for Essendon. *rolls eyes* The specific Essendon side that very the greatest team of that specific era who still would have been great without Coleman... unlike Hudson and Hawthorn.

Im not a great fan of Lloyd but you do realise goals are a hell of a lot harder to kick now than in 1960, how many goals do you think hudson would kick if he played today?, how many goals do you think Lloyd would kick if he played in hudsons era ect ect.

Talented FFs havnt just up and vanished like a fart in the wind over the last 15 yrs, the game's changed that much in that time, in fact, id almost call them completly different games (comparing 1960 to post 2000), i know ill get roasted for that coment, but roast away.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Where is the Danny Del Ray option?

 

[The Bomb]

KINGS ARMY

Bradman is he the best ever cricketer?
he only played 52 matches.

 

[Kings Army]

KINGS ARMY

Bradman is he the best ever cricketer?
he only played 52 matches.

The Don retired at 40 - he did not quit at 25.

 

[Ambrosia]

The Don retired at 40 - he did not quit at 25.

I could be way off here but didn't Coleman try an come back from his knee injury only to do the same injury in his first game back?

EDIT: should do my research before comenting. He never attempted a comeback game but apparently tried to get himself fit but his dilocated knee was to bad.

 

[Ordovician]

Im not a great fan of Lloyd but you do realise goals are a hell of a lot harder to kick now than in 1960, how many goals do you think hudson would kick if he played today?, how many goals do you think Lloyd would kick if he played in hudsons era ect ect.

Err no ... scoring in football these days compared to the 60's ie total scores per game has not changed much at all, in fact scoring has been at amodern level since the 1920's. Of course game scores were far higher in the mid seventies through to the eighties but since then they have reverted to more typical long term averages.

If you mean it is far harder for full forwards to score against zoned defence that is arguable. Franklin kicked the ton in 2008 and if he could kick straight for easy set shots he would have had 120-130 which is a Hudson/Ablett/Dunstall/McKenna/Lockett like performance.

So clearly it is not impossible for forwards in the current game to kick large season totals if they are good enough.

The mere fact that goal kicking is currently being dominated by small forwards simply indicates that there are very few quality tall forwards running around in the modern game.

What is not arguable is that there are stuff all full forwards left in the game. Apart from Fevola there is not another true to breed full forward playing the game. Hall is a CHF who currently plays FF. Franklin rotates with Roughead through FF and CHF with neither of them being one or the other other. Some other teams use a tall forward like Kennedy at WCE who plays as a deep forward but with out a true CHF in front of him.

Several years commentators started remarking that CHF was position that had disappeared in modern football but in fact full forwards are currently rarer than CHF's.

If Lloyd had to play back in the 60's he would have a real shock. Lloyd played his career protected from winds and rain under the Docklands roof and when he ventured out on to the MCG he was playing on a vastly suprerior surface without a centre square cricket wicket, protected by extraordinarily high stands, in seasons that hardly ever saw any heavy rains due to the greatest drought on record from 1997 to 2009. Even when he played interstate he was playing excellent surfaces in Perth and Adelaide.

In contrast Hudson et al. used to play on surban mud heaps exposed to every passing wind. Have a look at Glenferrie and the way the Tuck stand blocks a true westerly but is completely open to a southerly and and south westerly wind, creating difficult winds swirls at the city end. Even just go to your own Victoria park and you'll see how open the gound is to the south but protected by the stand to the west.

Talented FFs havnt just up and vanished like a fart in the wind over the last 15 yrs, the game's changed that much in that time, in fact, id almost call them completly different games (comparing 1960 to post 2000), i know ill get roasted for that coment, but roast away.

Believe it or not great full forwards appear randomly through time.

Great full forwards are by their very designation of "great" are necessarily rare.

Depending on how you define great and I'd define the top 8 full forwards as great ie Hudson through to Ablett, you may have 8 to possibly 12 of them over +110 years of AFL/VFL football, which is about 0.7 to 1.1 great full forwards per decade.

However, the occurrance of these greats is randomly distributed so in some parts of some decades we may two or three playing at the same time eg Coventry/Pratt, Hudson/McKenna/Wade, Dunstall/Lockett/Ablett.

Great full forwards haven't just vanished like a fart in the wind they are and always have been fairly rare so it only natural that a certain times there just aren't any going around. Now is such a time, the 40's was such a time, as were the 50's post Coleman and the early 60's.

At other times in history their will be talented players playing as full forwards going around bagging 60 to 90 goals a year like in recent years we have had Neitz, Hall, Lloyd, Gehrig, Fevola. These player are certainly talented but they are not truely great.

Sure the game has changed in sense greatly since the 60's, postional play has all but vanished, zones and presses are all the rage, players run further and far harder due to improved training and the interchange bench, and disposal counts are through the roof.

But at the end of the day game scores are indistinguishable and kicking for set shots has not improved. The ball still bounces awkwardly and the around the ground ruck contests and packs have not really changed inspite of set plays.

The centre square and the ruck rules are totally different to the 60's but if any thing these should make scoring far easier. But at the end of the day one team gets the clearance or it is a secondary bounce and hopefully that will never change.

Similarly the possession game should make scoring easier by reducing kicks to contests and with improved disposal on better surfaces the modern forwards should be getting far better delivery. And with all hte rules protecting teh forwards from arm chopping and holdin with three umpires the forwards should be having a field day.

That they are not can only be attributed to their own failings like Franklin's and Roughead's inability to slot easy goals form 20m or less and their poor overhead marking skills, or Fevola's off field issues.

If Hudson were playing today with the excellent dry, surfaces the almost wind free MCG and Docklands, the protection afforded by the umpires, and the quality delivery provided by the possesion game, he would easily crack 150 goals a season mark. And the same is true for a young Coleman. Even Lockett playing now would bag at least 120 a season, they might try and triple team team him but any defender that stood in his way would have to be exceptionally brave.

 

[the distributer]

Err no ... scoring in football these days compared to the 60's ie total scores per game has not changed much at all, in fact scoring has been at amodern level since the 1920's. Of course game scores were far higher in the mid seventies through to the eighties but since then they have reverted to more typical long term averages.

If you mean it is far harder for full forwards to score against zoned defence that is arguable. Franklin kicked the ton in 2008 and if he could kick straight for easy set shots he would have had 120-130 which is a Hudson/Ablett/Dunstall/McKenna/Lockett like performance.

So clearly it is not impossible for forwards in the current game to kick large season totals if they are good enough.

The mere fact that goal kicking is currently being dominated by small forwards simply indicates that there are very few quality tall forwards running around in the modern game.

What is not arguable is that there are stuff all full forwards left in the game. Apart from Fevola there is not another true to breed full forward playing the game. Hall is a CHF who currently plays FF. Franklin rotates with Roughead through FF and CHF with neither of them being one or the other other. Some other teams use a tall forward like Kennedy at WCE who plays as a deep forward but with out a true CHF in front of him.

Several years commentators started remarking that CHF was position that had disappeared in modern football but in fact full forwards are currently rarer than CHF's.

If Lloyd had to play back in the 60's he would have a real shock. Lloyd played his career protected from winds and rain under the Docklands roof and when he ventured out on to the MCG he was playing on a vastly suprerior surface without a centre square cricket wicket, protected by extraordinarily high stands, in seasons that hardly ever saw any heavy rains due to the greatest drought on record from 1997 to 2009. Even when he played interstate he was playing excellent surfaces in Perth and Adelaide.

In contrast Hudson et al. used to play on surban mud heaps exposed to every passing wind. Have a look at Glenferrie and the way the Tuck stand blocks a true westerly but is completely open to a southerly and and south westerly wind, creating difficult winds swirls at the city end. Even just go to your own Victoria park and you'll see how open the gound is to the south but protected by the stand to the west.




Believe it or not great full forwards appear randomly through time.

Great full forwards are by their very designation of "great" are necessarily rare.

Depending on how you define great and I'd define the top 8 full forwards as great ie Hudson through to Ablett, you may have 8 to possibly 12 of them over +110 years of AFL/VFL football, which is about 0.7 to 1.1 great full forwards per decade.

However, the occurrance of these greats is randomly distributed so in some parts of some decades we may two or three playing at the same time eg Coventry/Pratt, Hudson/McKenna/Wade, Dunstall/Lockett/Ablett.

Great full forwards haven't just vanished like a fart in the wind they are and always have been fairly rare so it only natural that a certain times there just aren't any going around. Now is such a time, the 40's was such a time, as were the 50's post Coleman and the early 60's.

At other times in history their will be talented players playing as full forwards going around bagging 60 to 90 goals a year like in recent years we have had Neitz, Hall, Lloyd, Gehrig, Fevola. These player are certainly talented but they are not truely great.

Sure the game has changed in sense greatly since the 60's, postional play has all but vanished, zones and presses are all the rage, players run further and far harder due to improved training and the interchange bench, and disposal counts are through the roof.

But at the end of the day game scores are indistinguishable and kicking for set shots has not improved. The ball still bounces awkwardly and the around the ground ruck contests and packs have not really changed inspite of set plays.

The centre square and the ruck rules are totally different to the 60's but if any thing these should make scoring far easier. But at the end of the day one team gets the clearance or it is a secondary bounce and hopefully that will never change.

Similarly the possession game should make scoring easier by reducing kicks to contests and with improved disposal on better surfaces the modern forwards should be getting far better delivery. And with all hte rules protecting teh forwards from arm chopping and holdin with three umpires the forwards should be having a field day.

That they are not can only be attributed to their own failings like Franklin's and Roughead's inability to slot easy goals form 20m or less and their poor overhead marking skills, or Fevola's off field issues.

If Hudson were playing today with the excellent dry, surfaces the almost wind free MCG and Docklands, the protection afforded by the umpires, and the quality delivery provided by the possesion game, he would easily crack 150 goals a season mark. And the same is true for a young Coleman. Even Lockett playing now would bag at least 120 a season, they might try and triple team team him but any defender that stood in his way would have to be exceptionally brave.

Mate, FFs today have to chase FBs down the ground, they have to deal with spare men, zoning, flooding ect ect, they also rotate through CHF much more than they used too and they have to do their part in creating zones and such, how often do you think a FF left the fwd 50 20/30 yrs ago? rarely do they get one on one chances like in older days, FFs today have to be very very fit thus losing some of their power traits, just look at some of the guys to have kicked tons over the years, capper for instance, he simply wouldnt get a game in todays football, most of his goals came from one on ones and once the ball hit the deck he was as useless as **** on a bull, didnt chase/tackle but he didnt really have to because the FBs just didnt run like they do today,

not saying the great FFs couldnt adapt to todays football, clearly they could, but you can forget about them 130+ goals, just IMO

 

[The Bomb]

The Don retired at 40 - he did not quit at 25.

still only played 52 matches.
your whole arguement has been about Coleman only playing 98 matches.
and they did not have scans to dertermine if it was a Acl or not.

 

[Kings Army]

still only played 52 matches.
your whole arguement has been about Coleman only playing 98 matches.
and they did not have scans to dertermine if it was a Acl or not.

1 played until 40 - 1 dislocated his knee and quit at 25. Apples with apples?
Players dislocate their knees, pop them back in and run to the next contest.

"There were revelations in early 1958 that Coleman's knee was sufficiently repaired to play on and his true reasons for not playing were unrelated to his knee"

Dunstall suffered some horrifc injuries and returned. I would take him ever time.

 

[Jade]

Thought I'd do you the respect of answering your entire post - so brace yourself this is a long one.

Err no ... scoring in football these days compared to the 60's ie total scores per game has not changed much at all, in fact scoring has been at amodern level since the 1920's. Of course game scores were far higher in the mid seventies through to the eighties but since then they have reverted to more typical long term averages.

If you mean it is far harder for full forwards to score against zoned defence that is arguable. Franklin kicked the ton in 2008 and if he could kick straight for easy set shots he would have had 120-130 which is a Hudson/Ablett/Dunstall/McKenna/Lockett like performance.

So clearly it is not impossible for forwards in the current game to kick large season totals if they are good enough.

I don't think it is arguable at all. It is CLEARLY harder in todays game for a single forward to kick exceptionally large goal tallies. Defenses are now team orientated, forwards are rarely given space to lead, defenders rotate on and off forwards depending on circumstance and fitness capacity.

The fact that Franklin was able to kick the ton is a testament to his athletic ability and skill - not proof that is was no harder to do then previously.

The mere fact that goal kicking is currently being dominated by small forwards simply indicates that there are very few quality tall forwards running around in the modern game.

To my memory, no small or crumbing forward has ever won the Coleman, nor do anymore then one or two appear in the top ten goal kickers each year. Which would make the statement that goal kicking is being dominated by small forwards utterly false - and by extension, the implication that no quality tall forwards are doing the rounds is also false.

What is not arguable is that there are stuff all full forwards left in the game. Apart from Fevola there is not another true to breed full forward playing the game. Hall is a CHF who currently plays FF. Franklin rotates with Roughead through FF and CHF with neither of them being one or the other other. Some other teams use a tall forward like Kennedy at WCE who plays as a deep forward but with out a true CHF in front of him.

True, but that is not to do with the makeup of the player himself. Surely the sheer fact that coaching has pushed the FF to almost exinction is proof that a genuine full forward like Dunstall for example would simply not flourish in todays game, unless he was able to adapt into a Franklin / Reiwoldt / Hall role.

Several years commentators started remarking that CHF was position that had disappeared in modern football but in fact full forwards are currently rarer than CHF's.

I don't know of many commentators claiming the death of the CHF. Some of the best in history have played in the last fifteen years, and it is still a highly sought after position.

If Lloyd had to play back in the 60's he would have a real shock. Lloyd played his career protected from winds and rain under the Docklands roof and when he ventured out on to the MCG he was playing on a vastly suprerior surface without a centre square cricket wicket, protected by extraordinarily high stands, in seasons that hardly ever saw any heavy rains due to the greatest drought on record from 1997 to 2009. Even when he played interstate he was playing excellent surfaces in Perth and Adelaide.

Wait wait wait. Excellent surfaces? Docklands has been absolutely hammered through its history for the state of the surface.

In contrast Hudson et al. used to play on surban mud heaps exposed to every passing wind. Have a look at Glenferrie and the way the Tuck stand blocks a true westerly but is completely open to a southerly and and south westerly wind, creating difficult winds swirls at the city end. Even just go to your own Victoria park and you'll see how open the gound is to the south but protected by the stand to the west.

Are you absolutely yanking me?? Docklands for sure is protected from the wind, but the MCG is a freakin Rubiks Cube as far as the wind is concerned. The bowled stands cause the wind to 'loop' the ground when they pick up - making it near impossible to tell which way it is going at any given time.

Believe it or not great full forwards appear randomly through time.

Great full forwards are by their very designation of "great" are necessarily rare.

Depending on how you define great and I'd define the top 8 full forwards as great ie Hudson through to Ablett, you may have 8 to possibly 12 of them over +110 years of AFL/VFL football, which is about 0.7 to 1.1 great full forwards per decade.

However, the occurrance of these greats is randomly distributed so in some parts of some decades we may two or three playing at the same time eg Coventry/Pratt, Hudson/McKenna/Wade, Dunstall/Lockett/Ablett.

Great full forwards haven't just vanished like a fart in the wind they are and always have been fairly rare so it only natural that a certain times there just aren't any going around. Now is such a time, the 40's was such a time, as were the 50's post Coleman and the early 60's.

I see what you did there, stopped at the top six goal kickers of all time, threw in Coleman and Hudson and bang, you have your eight.

Why eight? Such a random number. All so you didn't have to include Lloyd? Lame...

At other times in history their will be talented players playing as full forwards going around bagging 60 to 90 goals a year like in recent years we have had Neitz, Hall, Lloyd, Gehrig, Fevola. These player are certainly talented but they are not truely great.

Seventh highest goal kicker in history, three time Coleman medallist and ten time Essendon leading goal kicker. If that isn't great you are either severely lacking a knowledge of the game, or are a plain and simple Lloyd and/or Essendon hater.

You want Hudson ahead of him, want to call Lockett the best ever, want to present a list of the greatest full forwards in history thats all well and good. To label Lloyd as anything but great is for lack of a better word, freakin stupid.

Sure the game has changed in sense greatly since the 60's, postional play has all but vanished, zones and presses are all the rage, players run further and far harder due to improved training and the interchange bench, and disposal counts are through the roof.

But at the end of the day game scores are indistinguishable and kicking for set shots has not improved. The ball still bounces awkwardly and the around the ground ruck contests and packs have not really changed inspite of set plays.

The centre square and the ruck rules are totally different to the 60's but if any thing these should make scoring far easier. But at the end of the day one team gets the clearance or it is a secondary bounce and hopefully that will never change.

Similarly the possession game should make scoring easier by reducing kicks to contests and with improved disposal on better surfaces the modern forwards should be getting far better delivery. And with all hte rules protecting teh forwards from arm chopping and holdin with three umpires the forwards should be having a field day.

That they are not can only be attributed to their own failings like Franklin's and Roughead's inability to slot easy goals form 20m or less and their poor overhead marking skills, or Fevola's off field issues.

I've lumped all this together because it is all a statement to the changing nature of the game, and I don't dispute that.

If Hudson were playing today with the excellent dry, surfaces the almost wind free MCG and Docklands, the protection afforded by the umpires, and the quality delivery provided by the possesion game, he would easily crack 150 goals a season mark. And the same is true for a young Coleman. Even Lockett playing now would bag at least 120 a season, they might try and triple team team him but any defender that stood in his way would have to be exceptionally brave.

Over 110 years of football, with no one passing 150, and Hudson and Coleman would 'easily crack 150' - un-freakin-believable..... .

As for Lockett, what's he going to do? Smack the first bloke from behind that gets in his way, and get done for eight weeks. Lockett moreover then any of the other previously mentioned forwards would struggle in todays game by simple virtue of the fact he does not have the required aerobic ability. He MIGHT change in todays game, but then Cloke MIGHT start kicking straight as well. Might as well make the argument for him .

I appreciate the effort you put into this post, but you can't hide a fundamentally flawed view on the game within a lot of paragraphs.

A failed argument.

 

[Dr Tigris]

I agree great FFs are fairly rare. And we don't have one currently going around. Whether a great FF would kick 150 is argueable. Because there are arguements for and against that.

For : Better delivery and game structures

Against : better defensive efforts and structures

If we get someone really killing FF in a good team then we'll see, and if the team can get the FF one out regularly then the better delivery nowadays could lead to huge goals being kicked. But that isn't happening atm.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

I agree great FFs are fairly rare. And we don't have one currently going around. Whether a great FF would kick 150 is argueable. Because there are arguements for and against that.

For : Better delivery and game structures

Against : better defensive efforts and structures

If we get someone really killing FF in a good team then we'll see, and if the team can get the FF one out regularly then the better delivery nowadays could lead to huge goals being kicked. But that isn't happening atm.

It's still doable. Buddy kicked 113 and had 200+ socring shots on goal in 08, whilst roaming up the ground. 150 goals is still achievable. He won't get there because he plays CHF/Wing these days. But if he was a stay at home FF he would kick the 100 quite a few times I would think.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Agreed.

Thing is that was one year. To be great you have to do it continually. Buddy can rip the game apart. I reckon he'll have a great career. But whether he is a great FF is another thing. Still he shows that it can be done.

It's still doable. Buddy kicked 113 and had 200+ socring shots on goal in 08, whilst roaming up the ground. 150 goals is still achievable. He won't get there because he plays CHF/Wing these days. But if he was a stay at home FF he would kick the 100 quite a few times I would think.

 

[the distributer]

I agree great FFs are fairly rare. And we don't have one currently going around. Whether a great FF would kick 150 is argueable. Because there are arguements for and against that.

For : Better delivery and game structures

Against : better defensive efforts and structures

If we get someone really killing FF in a good team then we'll see, and if the team can get the FF one out regularly then the better delivery nowadays could lead to huge goals being kicked. But that isn't happening atm.

i dont think it's arguable at all, think back to the coleman/hudson days, they demanded a lot of ball, almost every inside 50 was directed at them and in most cases they only had to beat the one defender, try that shit today and you may get a FF to kick 120 but you'll become that predictable your team would more than likely lose, you would lose a large % your other other goal kickers, (for instance you FF kicks 10 goals but your team tally is 12 goals ect ect).

there just isnt the space in the fwd 50 anymore for massive 130/140+ goal kickers, and today FFs must leave the fwd 50 both offensivly and defensivly, they all rotate through FF and CHF, they all chase ect ect, it's a completly different game compared to those eras.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Well yes and no.

The issue of the FF kicking 10 out of the teams 12 goals is moot. We are talking about FFs, not winning teams. When Fev regularly kicks a bucket load even though he is so hot and cold we know that it is possible. Rievoldt kicked a lot last year at times, even though he isn't a Locket. So a regular 120 goals a year is still an awesome FF!

i dont think it's arguable at all, think back to the coleman/hudson days, they demanded a lot of ball, almost every inside 50 was directed at them and in most cases they only had to beat the one defender, try that shit today and you may get a FF to kick 120 but you'll become that predictable your team would more than likely lose, you would lose a large % your other other goal kickers, (for instance you FF kicks 10 goals but your team tally is 12 goals ect ect).

there just isnt the space in the fwd 50 anymore for massive 130/140+ goal kickers, and today FFs must leave the fwd 50 both offensivly and defensivly, they all rotate through FF and CHF, they all chase ect ect, it's a completly different game compared to those eras.

 

[Ordovician]

Mate, FFs today have to chase FBs down the ground, they have to deal with spare men, zoning, flooding ect ect, they also rotate through CHF much more than they used too and they have to do their part in creating zones and such, how often do you think a FF left the fwd 50 20/30 yrs ago? rarely do they get one on one chances like in older days, FFs today have to be very very fit thus losing some of their power traits, just look at some of the guys to have kicked tons over the years, capper for instance, he simply wouldnt get a game in todays football, most of his goals came from one on ones and once the ball hit the deck he was as useless as **** on a bull, didnt chase/tackle but he didnt really have to because the FBs just didnt run like they do today,

not saying the great FFs couldnt adapt to todays football, clearly they could, but you can forget about them 130+ goals, just IMO

These are all very good and reasonable points.

What is interesting is that Hawthorn is planning to play Hale as a full forward when he is not rucking. Now Hale is far less mobile than the great full forwards from the past, so this will be an interesting test of your thesis becuase I can't see Hale chasing players up the ground when he is "resting" at full forward.

Personally I think that this experiment of playing second rucks as deep forwards will fail but you never know. It should certainly require the team to change game plans to accomodate a stay at home FF a top the full field press. it will be fascinating to see how they graft a static forward into a modern game plan.

As for a 130 goals Franklin kicked 113 goals 88 behinds plus 20 to 40 out of the full albeit from 25 games. If he were a better kick for very simple set shots he would have past 130 mark.

If another Coleman, Hudson or Lockett were to emerge and one certainly will appear over the next 30 years, it would be interesting to see how they would be played. Certainly you'd have to leave them one out in the F50 but would opposition coaches double or triple team them like Franklin or zone the space in front? and if they did zone where would the other forwards be? would the team direct their play through the other unmarked forwards?

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see but I hate to think and I can not rationally credit, that they the days of great full forwards has gone forever. Its a bit like the way leg spin looked like a lost art back in the 80's before it was saved by Warne.