The death of the full forward - or a new beginning?

[TigerTank]

With the possible exception of Matthew Lloyd, there has been a dirth of effective "true" full forwards since Tony Lockett, Gary Ablett and Jason Dunstall departed the game.

I have heard the theory that good teams cannot afford to "carry" a one-position player like a "true" full forward, and that only inadequate teams like Fremantle and West Coast make do with a full forward instead of a more versatile player.

Flooding is one suggested reason for the traditional full forward's demise, but I see flooding as an opportunity for a strong-marking full forward to make a re-appearance, not a hinderance.

Flooding usually consists of midfielders filling in the gaps in the opposition forward line once the opposition gains possession. The result is a backline that really consists of 12 defenders instead of six. The purpose is to remove the "space" for the full forward to lead into.

I would argue, though, that a player like Lockett (and to a lesser extent Ablett) would be just as damaging today as he was in his heyday. A player who can crash through the flood and give a contest even if a mark is impossible.

This also takes into account that if a team has flooded, the opposition should have numbers in the middle - who could be rushing in to feed off the full-forward's contest.

This full forward would also be taller and heavier than most midfielders giving him an advantage if he can get away from his key defender. It may result in some heavy collisions, but that should benefit a 100kg forward more than an 80kg midfielder.

The other way to beat the flood is to be too quick for it. Assuming the attacking team has just won possession off the flooding team - Instead of the sidewards kicking to position that many teams now employ, use a long kick to a strong-marking forward who can beat a defender one-out.

The "spoiler" to this tactic is the floating ruckman who stations himself at CHB, but a smart full forward should still be able to channel the delivery of ball into the forward line by leading to the flanks.

The flood uses pace in the midfield to work but often the flooding midfielders aren't especially tall or strong. A strong, smart, tall "target" should be asset then, if his own midfield is smart and fast enough to take advantage him.

Having said that, I feel the less powerful, "leading" full forward of the Modra - Cummings model appears doomed. Dunstall (perhaps the best-ever leading full forward) and Michael Roach would find it very hard in today's flooding football.

But a Tony Lockett? I don't think so.

Your thoughts?


Anyway, the primary purpose of this little "article" is to stimulate some conversation on football - as opposed to pointless grandstanding.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Some interesting points as always TigerTank.

I tend to agree that Dunstall may have struggled, but it all depends on how the team approaches it. For example, I've still seen Pagan's paddock in effect at a couple of matches, and this is despite flooding.

But great full-forwards come and go. I think we all forget how blessed we were to have 3 absolute champions of the game in Lockett, Dunstall and Ablett, all playing at once.

Who knows, in 10 years time 3 more champion full-forwards may emerge. But kicking to a one-on-one contest may be more effectinve than kicking to a space when the opposition is flooding, especially if you have a bulky full-forward of the like of Lockett or Carey who can outmuscle their opponent.

 

[CJH]

Taking the argument even further, with the advent of flooding, have we seen an equivalent increase in the amount of spectacular marks taken?

I know many commentators are bitching about the huge number of uncontested marks at the expese of those contested but is this true in the forward line? Has it actually gone the other way?

Are players now given more licence to fly for marks in the forward line as a means of countering the flood? How many 'memorable" marks have been taken already this year? Burton does it once a week, Ottens took the mark of the year last Sunday only to be trumped 24 hours later by Tarrant; Brad Johnson took a hanger on Saturday that would certainly have been mark of the year at any other time.

I don't know if anyone keeps a 'speccy' stat, but I would not be surprised if it showed a sharp increase this year.

 

[TigerTank]

There do seem to be more great marks this year than usual.

Seeing as though we blame flooding for some changes in the game, maybe we should thank flooding for these great pack marks?

 

[Dan26]

Concerning the so called death of the full-forward:

Between 1929 and 1940 (12 seasons), more than 100 goals were kicked by at least one person 10 times. Only in 1931 and 1937 didn no one kick 100 goals

Then, from 1941 to 1967 (27 seasons), only John Coleman - who did it four times - kicked 100 goals in a season. From 1953 to 1967 no one did it.

No doubt back in the mid 50's through to 1967, all the media would have been lamenting the death of the full-forward. They would have been of the belief that the days of a 100-goal-a-season player were well and truly gone.

Then, all of a sudden in 1968, Peter Hudson kicked 125 goals. From 1968 to 2000 (33 seasons), the leading goal kicker broke the cetury 26 times.

There will always be room for a good full-forward. If a player can lead well, kick well, and mark well, then logically they will be placed in a posotion close to the goals where they can kick goals more often. We have just ended an era, where three of the all-time greats (Dunstall, Lockett and Ablett) all retired at around the same time. We can't replace legends like these. It's no surprise that there aren't any 1000 goal type players to replace them. The full forward, however, will never die. There will always be 100-goal-a-season players out there.

 

[Joel]

Yeah...maybe.

 

[bulldogs1]

TT,

I agree. I think that a team that has a smaller forward-line setup will do better, generally, in the days of flooding. Chip and kick to a high-marking, yet mobile target who can provide options when it becomes congested. Brad Johnson comes to mind here. Hard to match up because of his speed and aerial skills, and players like this can provide enough speed to make it hard for defenders to run off them.

On the other hand, Essendon. Matty Lloyd does well for himself, doesn't he?

Originally posted by TigerTank
With the possible exception of Matthew Lloyd, there has been a dirth of effective "true" full forwards since Tony Lockett, Gary Ablett and Jason Dunstall departed the game.

I have heard the theory that good teams cannot afford to "carry" a one-position player like a "true" full forward, and that only inadequate teams like Fremantle and West Coast make do with a full forward instead of a more versatile player.

Flooding is one suggested reason for the traditional full forward's demise, but I see flooding as an opportunity for a strong-marking full forward to make a re-appearance, not a hinderance.

Flooding usually consists of midfielders filling in the gaps in the opposition forward line once the opposition gains possession. The result is a backline that really consists of 12 defenders instead of six. The purpose is to remove the "space" for the full forward to lead into.

I would argue, though, that a player like Lockett (and to a lesser extent Ablett) would be just as damaging today as he was in his heyday. A player who can crash through the flood and give a contest even if a mark is impossible.

This also takes into account that if a team has flooded, the opposition should have numbers in the middle - who could be rushing in to feed off the full-forward's contest.

This full forward would also be taller and heavier than most midfielders giving him an advantage if he can get away from his key defender. It may result in some heavy collisions, but that should benefit a 100kg forward more than an 80kg midfielder.

The other way to beat the flood is to be too quick for it. Assuming the attacking team has just won possession off the flooding team - Instead of the sidewards kicking to position that many teams now employ, use a long kick to a strong-marking forward who can beat a defender one-out.

The "spoiler" to this tactic is the floating ruckman who stations himself at CHB, but a smart full forward should still be able to channel the delivery of ball into the forward line by leading to the flanks.

The flood uses pace in the midfield to work but often the flooding midfielders aren't especially tall or strong. A strong, smart, tall "target" should be asset then, if his own midfield is smart and fast enough to take advantage him.

Having said that, I feel the less powerful, "leading" full forward of the Modra - Cummings model appears doomed. Dunstall (perhaps the best-ever leading full forward) and Michael Roach would find it very hard in today's flooding football.

But a Tony Lockett? I don't think so.

Your thoughts?


Anyway, the primary purpose of this little "article" is to stimulate some conversation on football - as opposed to pointless grandstanding.