full forwards

[the distributer]

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.

I reckon you'll find there's never been a fwd to match buddy (6'6, super quick, massive tank, super agile ect), lots of his goals in 08 came from gut running where he's opponant just couldnt go with him and if he did he was that exausted he couldnt match buddy for strengh (a lot of the time), buddy also kicked a lot of goals from general play, more than the great FFs did on %.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

I reckon you'll find there's never been a fwd to match buddy (6'6, super quick, massive tank, super agile ect), lots of his goals in 08 came from gut running where he's opponant just couldnt go with him and if he did he was that exausted he couldnt match buddy for strengh (a lot of the time), buddy also kicked a lot of goals from general play, more than the great FFs did on %.

If Franklin played as a stay at home forward in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. He would kick 150 goals plus a season and make these other blokes look second rate. He's just a superior athlete in every sense of the word

 

[the distributer]

If Franklin played as a stay at home forward in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. He would kick 150 goals plus a season and make these other blokes look second rate. He's just a superior athlete in every sense of the word

Agreed, but apparantly no modern day players are fit to lick the bootlaces of the past greats.

 

[obscura]

im being swamped in multi quotes. someone please summarize?

 

[Ordovician]

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.

Why is it CLEARLY harder? Because you think it is?

Or is it becuase M Lloyd could only crack the ton twice in his career therefore it must be harder?

Ever heard of the logical fallacy of affirming the consquent?

Didn't think so!

Becasue that is exactly what you are doing.

If (modern defences are better) then (forwards will kick less goals) True

(forwards kick less goals) True

Therefore (modern defences are better) False

The fact that current forwards don't kick large numbers of goals could be due to a number of factors for examples:

i. the defences are so much stronger that they stop this

ii. the forwards aren't that good

I opt for case i. whereas you prefer case ii.

If case ii. were correct then kicking 100 in as season would be exceptionally difficult yet Franklin who squandered many opportunities did it in 08.

Franklin proved that it can still be done if a player is good enough and even you can't argue with that.

To then try and shore up your discredited argument by pretending that Frankiln is some sort of super skilled freak is just rubbish.

Sure he can slot the odd exceptional goal every so often but some of his basic skills like slotting an easy set shot from 20m are very poor, he is equally poor playing body on body and he is by far and away the weakest overhead mark of any of the current tall forwards getting a regular game in the AFL today.

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.

I should have said that I could not remember a time when the top team were so reliant on small for their goal scoring.

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.

...

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.

Correct modern coaching has put pressure on the true FFs. However, that has in turn radically changed the nature of CHF post Wayne Carey. True CHFs playing in front of FFs are a rarity that is why the old style CHF has become uncoomon in the modern game. What we often have now are hybrid CHF/FF in teams with only one key tall forward or a makeshift tall playing at FF eg Tippett, Kennedy.

For example was Richo a CHF or a FF, or a post Pagan's paddock CHF?

The same question could be asked of N. Reiwoldt or J Brown before Fevola arrived at the Lions. Franklin and Roughead interchange the FF and CHF roles if they can still be said to exist, whilst Hall is a former CHF seeing out his twilight years at FF. Cloke still plays as a traditional CHF.

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

Have you only watched football for the last 20 years?

Sure the Docklands has problems but I've never seen mud or ponding water there. Sure it gives way occasionally but so did Waverly when its sud-soil drainage clogged.

Docklands gets pillored and rightly so for its surface but that is because the standard of surfaces that modern AFL is played on has improved enormously.

Go and watch some games from the 70's and 80's and have a look at the surfaces that they played on.

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.

Really?

A 40 km/hr gusting breeze outside the MCG will create 5 to 10 km/hr eddies inside the ground at ground level rising to 10 to 15 km/hr at goal post height. the eddies form and disipate chaotically and vary our time frames of 10 to 20 seconds.

If you really think that is harder to kick with 15 km/hr eddies than it is to kick on an open ground like Aurora or the old surburban grounds being fully exposed to a 40 km/hr then fine. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that a 45 km/hr wind generates 9 times more force on the ball than a flukey 15 km/hr eddy.

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...

Both rude and incorrect!

You clearly are very young.

No, I simply took all the forwards who had averaged more than four goals a game and that is eight players and Hudson and Coleman were one and two.

I extended it to twelve a nice round number. Even 12 seemed a very larger number for "GREATS". Lloyd who came in a 13 did not make the cut.

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.

Really?

Clearly a club champoin and the second best full forward ever at Essendon, but an AFL great?

Clearly a champion full forward.

If you want the best 15 full forwards of all time to be considered as "Great" then fine Lloyd makes the cut. To my mind the word becomes pretty meaningless if it it to be used so loosely in this manner.

But to put him on the same level as Lockett, Coventry, Hudson, Ablett, Dunstall or Coleman just because you are an Essendon supporter is not only childish but ignorant of the achievements of full forwards before your time.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Apart from FFs beign better or worse than previously, why are there less FFs kicking the ton?

Well, maybe forward lines are more sophisticated and so spread the goals out more. Probably true given the increase in professionalisation

Maybe midfields have increased skills which allows them to avoid the high risk high reward 'kick to the FF'. So better skills leads to more options, includin gmore midfielder goals

Game styles have changed and maybe the coaches are making it harder for FFs because they try to use them less.

Possibly all of the above.

But, the counter arguement to me is Fev, not Buddy (too unusual a player, and not a traditional FF). Fev is an old style stay at home FF. He has nearly kicked 100 and has shown an obvious talent to kick bucket loads regularly. The only reason he isn't producing mega goals is that he is a F*$%wit! If Fev can do it, then maybe a truy superior FF can do what the 'greats' have done.

The arguements given above could easily be turned on their heads if a team had a great FF. That would mean that increased skills would increase the opportunities, with a team playing a style that optimised the FF's opportuntiy to get one out. We'll know if a FF starts to rip it up year after year. Then we can say 'great FFs come rarely'

Or not - we'll see in time

 

[The Bomb]

If Franklin played as a stay at home forward in the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s. He would kick 150 goals plus a season and make these other blokes look second rate. He's just a superior athlete in every sense of the word

Total dif game