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

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

  • Yes – already

  • Not yet – but he will

  • No – and he won't

  • Someone else is the best


Results are only viewable after voting.

Remove this Banner Ad

Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
He'd prefer to have one opponent instead of three. Every single key forward in the game would prefer that.

Also, this line that Buddy doesn't take contested marks. Compare his contested marks over his career to his peers in Jack Riewoldt, Tom Hawkins and Josh Kennedy. They stack up just fine. They're all basically around 1.5 contested marks a game with Hawkins the best of the bunch at 1.86. All well ahead of Jeremy Cameron, for example.
 
Last edited:

The_Eagles

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 30, 2005
5,752
1,912
North Fremantle
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
australia
Depends on how you define modern era. I know many will say 1990 as that was the birth of the AFL, but I personally see the modern era as the year every player on a list became fully professional, so no player had side jobs to make ends meet. That happened more mid 2000's or later. Certainly when Locket was still playing there were plenty of semi-professional players still playing too.
For me we are in a post-modern era
When Clarkos cluster aka zones came, so 2008.
 

Shannon M

All Australian
Feb 1, 2021
756
998
AFL Club
Adelaide
He'd prefer to have one opponent instead of three. Every single key forward in the game would prefer that.

Also, this line that Buddy doesn't take contested marks. Compare his contested marks over his career to his peers in Jack Riewoldt and Josh Kennedy. They stack up just fine.

You'd like one on one with today's rules where a defender can't do much but punch the ball.

Josh Kennedy is the best contested mark of the last decade yet go through some of his highlights and he gets no real special attention from anyone. A lot of opportunistic goals where he has roved, cheap goals where the defence has broken down and he's standing on his own in the goal square waiting for a hand ball, leads into empty forward 50s with a couple other players in there. His pack marks are just about getting his hands first to the ball not out muscling anyone or having strong hands.

Getting tagged by a defender employing all kinds of tactics against the rules today much harder dealing with a couple of undersized zone defenders/midfielders that aren't in an ideal position, defensive techniques aren't their specialty. Not to mention all the times these days players find themselves on their own in forward line because the opposition were caught out by a turnover and couldn't get back quick enough.

Easy game for forwards.

 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
You'd like one on one with today's rules where a defender can't do much but punch the ball.
Every key forward would prefer to be one-out rather than be tripled-teamed. That's obvious.

Josh Kennedy is the best contested mark of the last decade yet go through some of his highlights and he gets no real special attention from anyone.
Sorry what?

Firstly, if JK is the best contested mark over the last decade, it's worth noting that he averages slightly fewer contested marks per game than Franklin over the course of their careers. So where does that leave your argument about Franklin not taking contested marks?

Secondly, what do you mean Kennedy "gets no special attention"? He's been the focus of opposition defences deep in the 50 for 10 years. He's been scragged and held and gang-defended for years. If you don't reckon he'd prefer to be one-out against his direct opponent the way Carey and Jakovich used to go at it, you're dreaming.

A lot of opportunistic goals where he has roved, cheap goals where the defence has broken down and he's standing on his own in the goal square waiting for a hand ball, leads into empty forward 50s with a couple other players in there. His pack marks are just about getting his hands first to the ball not out muscling anyone or having strong hands.
I don't know what you're talking about at this point.

Getting tagged by a defender employing all kinds of tactics against the rules today much order than a couple of undersized zone defenders that aren't in an ideal position.
Again, if you reckon a key forward would rather be triple-teamed than be one-out against a direct opponent, you're kidding yourself.
 

Shannon M

All Australian
Feb 1, 2021
756
998
AFL Club
Adelaide
Every key forward would prefer to be one-out rather than be tripled-teamed. That's obvious.

Sorry what?

Firstly, if JK is the best contested mark over the last decade, it's worth noting that he averages slightly fewer contested marks per game than Franklin over the course of their careers. So where does that leave your argument about Franklin not taking contested marks?

Secondly, what do you mean Kennedy "gets no special attention"? He's been the focus of opposition defences deep in the 50 for 10 years. He's been scragged and held and gang-defended for years. If you don't reckon he'd prefer to be one-out against his direct opponent the way Carey and Jakovich used to go at it, you're dreaming.

I don't know what you're talking about at this point.

Again, if you reckon a key forward would rather be triple-teamed than be one-out against a direct opponent, you're kidding yourself.

Nothing like what Carey dealt with. Defenders don't get away with anything.

Sydney are so Buddy centric that he probably gets far more opportunities presented to him than Kennedy.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Nothing like what Carey dealt with.
Again, playing one-on-one against a direct opponent is an absolute luxury that every key forward would prefer.

Sydney are so Buddy centric that he probably gets far more opportunities presented to him than Kennedy.
Yeah, that must be it.
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,371
46,605
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
Vastly more often than modern key forwards. It's simply the way the game has changed with defensive strategies.
Nah, the stars back then never got to be 1 on 1 when near the goals.

the brownless, longmires, sumichs all got it easier back then When playing key foward.

but not the Ablett, locketts and Carey’s. They were always swamped.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dipper

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 28, 2000
7,984
3,364
London,England
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Allies FCC
Wtf does that even mean? He wasn’t there as a goal kicker. If you look at Carey and think ‘wow his job was to kick goals - let’s compare how he kicked goals to other players who were there to kick goals’ I’m guessing you didn’t watch him much.
In all honestly (& this is partly based on his comments in a thread a couple of years ago where he dismissed Carey) I think fundamentally he has no understanding of the concept of CHF and FF as they used to exist.

I think he sees it through the modern prism of them all being key forwards.

Until he can grasp that there's no point in arguing with him.



On moto g(7) using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,371
46,605
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
This thread is now classic big footy.

on the one hand we currently have an argument playing out that claims key fowards weren’t just about kicking goals in the past unlike today.

at the same time we have another argument playing out claiming it was easy for key fowards to kick goals back in the day And today key fowards roles are not just about goals.
 
Oct 16, 2003
5,486
9,765
Murrumbeena
AFL Club
Hawthorn
if you ignore all the other differences sure why not.

There is no sound argument that it is easier for forwards these days than the 90's to kick goals in an overall sense. The reason being is the data - the 90's produced significantly higher individual tallies across the board. Some may argue but that's because "we had some of the greatest forwards ever in the 90's" but even excluding Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett, etc - everyone was kicking more goals. Players like Modra, Longmire, Sumich, Rocca, Lloyd, etc were all kicking bags higher than we see today. Look at the averages of the entire top 10 or top 15 of the Coleman compared to today - it is minimum 30-50% higher (across the board) than it is today, including some relatively average names. In fact, scores in general are far lower and far more spread today than the 90's.

Also, do people really believe that it is pure coincidence that arguably the 4 greatest key forwards of all time all played at exactly the same time as each other in 150 years of competition? Of course it is not purely coincidental. They are all amazing players and deserving of their status but there can be no doubt that the way the game was played in their era facilitated their domination to a greater extent than some of the other eras (including the current one).
 
Oct 16, 2003
5,486
9,765
Murrumbeena
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.

Franklin's marking is underrated but not close to Carey, who is in the argument for the best mark of all time. As for Franklin wouldn't like the conditions of the 90's - of course he would. He's kicked nearly 1000 goals in this era (where individual goalkicking is 30-50% less by everyone). As you have already highlighted, plenty of these goals have not come through contested marking but the fact that he is quicker, taller and more agile than basically everyone, allowing him to kick goals in general play and once the ball hits the deck. He would LOVE 1 on 1 contests and space to use like was seen in the 90's. The ball would only need to hit the ground for him to have a distinct advantage over the likes of Jakovich, Mick Martyn, etc. Not to mention, if he simply had space to lead into unlike in today's game. He'd be too quick for most of the the defenders of the 90's - just like Dunstall was, who kicked 1250 goals, with 90% of those coming on the lead.

Have you seen the few times Franklin has had the luxury of 1 on 1 in space? Do you remember those running goals against Hooker?

It's also worth remembering that he is much taller than basically all of the full backs and centre half backs of the 90's (9 cm on Martyn, 6 cm on Jakovich, etc.)

(BTW - I am not saying Franklin has surpassed Carey, just not a fan of the argument that he would have a harder time in the 90's when all of the objective data overwhelmingly indicates the opoosite.)

N.B Also not sure why you have gotten the impression that Franklin would hate the more lenient interpretations of the 90's - he loves to scrap/scrag/hold and has the most frees against of any modern key forward by a margin. IN fact, he has had more frees against than frees for every single season of his career. His best year (2008) he had 27 frees awarded to him and 78 against! He would absolutlely love it if players could get away with more scrapping, scragging these days and would probably have kicked more goals if he wasn't penalised so often. I dare say he would be like Plugger or Ablett in his penchant for wanting to run through players if he played in the 90's. He's been suspended for it a few times and had to massively reign it in in modern footy.
 
Last edited:

Pinnell

Club Legend
Aug 15, 2009
1,181
2,335
Richmond
AFL Club
Carlton
As a true footballer (ie nous, skills on both sides by foot and hand, overhead and contested marking, leadership) : Carey >>> Buddy

As an athlete : Buddy>> Carey
 

SSrixon

Senior List
Sep 6, 2011
288
345
Sydney
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I love Bud, but Carey has him covered. Buddy would get the points in a few areas such as athleticism (marginally, Carey was still a freak athlete), doing the mercurial, generating shots on goal and kicking distance (just, Carey was a thumping kick as well). Carey however, was a better mark, had better skills on both sides of the body, was a better on field leader, was a better shot for goal (this is Buddy's biggest flaw imo), was more flexible and got involved all over the field. You also need to take into account that Carey's body was shot to s**t by the time he was 29 (he limped into the 2000 finals series and was never the same after), whereas Buddy's peak has lasted a bit longer and was thus able to accumulate more personal accolades over a longer period of time.

People like to talk about how many more goals Buddy has over Carey, but have a look at how much of the football Carey was getting in his peak years (93, 94, 95, 96 and 98). Nearly 500 touches in some of those years at close to an average of 20 per game in a much lower possession era. You also need to take into account that if Buddy was actually a good shot for goal, he would have passed 1000 a long time ago. Instead he's been shooting at under a 60% conversion rate for most of his career, which doesn't stack up against any of the all time greats, who all converted at over 60%. This isn't to say Buddy isn't one of the best players i've seen, he is, but he does have flaws that peak Carey didn't have on the field.
 

Shannon M

All Australian
Feb 1, 2021
756
998
AFL Club
Adelaide
This thread is now classic big footy.

on the one hand we currently have an argument playing out that claims key fowards weren’t just about kicking goals in the past unlike today.

at the same time we have another argument playing out claiming it was easy for key fowards to kick goals back in the day And today key fowards roles are not just about goals.

Franklin's job is to essentially kick goals, but Carey's job was to play true CHF. Nobody measured Carey's input to where he sat in the Coleman race, where he sat compared to Lockett, Dunstall, Ablett, whether he would kick 1000 goals.

Also, people grow every generation, the advances in nutrition, training, managing injuries has been enormous. Carey playing in this era would not be drinking all night after a Friday night game, his body would be managed better, better nutrition, he would have had a longer career, would have been even fitter, even stronger, a little taller.

His defenders would be taller, even stronger, better sprinters, bigger tanks with today's diets and approach to fitness and recovery.
 
Last edited:
I think the contested mark point as a blight on Buddy's record is dumb. If he was allowed to manoeuvre opposition defenders the same way forwards of old were allowed, he'd probably be a shot at breaking Plugger's record.
 
I don't get how marking is viewed as such a strong point in Carey's favour in general. He took 1 more mark per game. Franklin lays 1 more tackle per game.

You can say "watch the game", but even if you do, Wayne Carey still only takes 1 more mark per game, and Buddy kicks more goals and lays more tackles.

I'm not saying Buddy is better either BTW, just seems a pretty dumb point for people to base their entire case on.
 
May 5, 2016
43,478
48,513
AFL Club
Geelong
I don't get how marking is viewed as such a strong point in Carey's favour in general. He took 1 more mark per game. Franklin lays 1 more tackle per game.

You can say "watch the game", but even if you do, Wayne Carey still only takes 1 more mark per game, and Buddy kicks more goals and lays more tackles.

I'm not saying Buddy is better either BTW, just seems a pretty dumb point for people to base their entire case on.
I see your point but there was 143 less disposals per game in 1995 than there was in 2015 for example. 44 less marks per game on average in 1995.
 
I see your point but there was 143 less disposals per game in 1995 than there was in 2015 for example. 44 less marks per game on average in 1995.
Yeah, but by the same token, there are less goals kicked per game now, and people still won't concede it's easier to kick goals, so surely it works both ways.
 
Back