Opinion Top 20 of all time

[the distributer]

Zone defences to stop key forwards only became a trend in the Lloyd/Fev era and began being used sporadically in the Dunstall/Lockett era. We all remember the Hawkins move which got him a rising star nom and kept Dunstall goalless (along with Alastair Lynch). Nowadays we see this maneuver as commonplace, but back then it was a novelty.

Ruckmen were often situated in back pockets during games in the 70s, but that was mainly to take overhead marks as a lot of forward entries in those days were long bombs forward. They weren't deployed to double team or stop a particular forward.

Yep, modern day defenses have killed the FF position, look at the mid 90s, we had Locket, Dunstal, Ablett, Salmon, Jakovich, Rocca, Modra, Sumich, Beasly, Hogg, Longmire etc, these were all pretty much stay at home FFs, now look at how many stay at home FFs we have, game plans just don't allow for FFs anymore, any team with a dominant FF will become to predictable, if the defense knows where the balls heading they just get numbers back, the only player to kick a ton against the modern defenses is Buddy, and a shitload of them goals came by doing things Plugger or Dunstal couldn't do in their dreams.

 

[the distributer]

I don't necessarily disagree with all that you say, but ruckmen, have been dropping back in the hole as an extra man for years.

And they still do, another reason goals for FFs have dried up is the fact that teams don't use the coridoor anywhere near as much as they used to, they mostly come in from the flanks severly limiting where a FF can lead to, and if he does get it he's normally on an angle, it's pretty rare now days for a FF to be able to lead str8 up the middle without getting chopped off by the zone.

 

[Monkey King]

So are you trying to say kicking goals was easier in the 70s compared to today?

Can't see where I've said that. You've noted some changes in the game that make it harder for forwards and I've noted some changes that make it easier. Some of those changes would work for or against different players going either way. I think that Buddy would encounter a range of differences that would impact his game as you know it today, whereas you guys seem to be focusing only on upside and talking as though Buddy today would be exactly the same player in the 70's. If you're talking about magically transplanting an elite athlete from today back to the 70's, then maybe I stand corrected, but I'm just trying to look at it more realistically talent wise, which is how I took the original comment tbh.

What I don't agree with, is that a player today would automatically kick twice as many goals in the 70's due to these changes - which is what it would take for Franklin to kick 150 goals every year. s**t! That would mean Fev would have once kicked nearly 200 goals in a season back in the day. It's nonsensical!

 

[Hodgepodge]

Yep, modern day defenses have killed the FF position, look at the mid 90s, we had Locket, Dunstal, Ablett, Salmon, Jakovich, Rocca, Modra, Sumich, Beasly, Hogg, Longmire etc, these were all pretty much stay at home FFs, now look at how many stay at home FFs we have, game plans just don't allow for FFs anymore, any team with a dominant FF will become to predictable, if the defense knows where the balls heading they just get numbers back, the only player to kick a ton against the modern defenses is Buddy, and a shitload of them goals came by doing things Plugger or Locket couldn't do in their dreams.

All this is correct.

 

[Tank_Nelson]

Here is my top 20 of all time

Jack Dyer
Kevin Bartlett
Francis Bourke
Royce Hart
Dale Weightman
Kevin Sheedy
Vic Thorpe
Mathew Richardson
Micheal Green
Basil McCormack
Gordon Strang
Mervyn Keene
Bill Barrot
Dick Clay
Roger Dean
Jack Titus
Bill Morris
Roy Wright
Des Rowe
Goef Raines

 

[the distributer]

Can't see where I've said that. You've noted some changes in the game that make it harder for forwards and I've noted some changes that make it easier. Some of those changes would work for or against different players going either way. I think that Buddy would encounter a range of differences that would impact his game as you know it today, whereas you guys seem to be focusing only on upside and talking as though Buddy today would be exactly the same player in the 70's. If you're talking about magically transplanting an elite athlete from today back to the 70's, then maybe I stand corrected, but I'm just trying to look at it more realistically talent wise, which is how I took the original comment tbh.

What I don't agree with, is that a player today would automatically kick twice as many goals in the 70's due to these changes - which is what it would take for Franklin to kick 150 goals every year. s**t! That would mean Fev would have once kicked nearly 200 goals in a season back in the day. It's nonsensical!

It's opinion, we'll never know how many goals buddy would kick unless we had a time machine, i think he'd he break records, just for the fact he's pretty good overhead, nowhere near as bad as some make out and at ground level he rivals the best midfielders so a 1970s FB isn't going to have a snowflakes chance in hell of stopping him.

 

[the distributer]

Here is my top 20 of all time

Jack Dyer
Kevin Bartlett
Francis Bourke
Royce Hart
Dale Weightman
Kevin Sheedy
Vic Thorpe
Mathew Richardson
Micheal Green
Basil McCormack
Gordon Strang
Mervyn Keene
Bill Barrot
Dick Clay
Roger Dean
Jack Titus
Bill Morris
Roy Wright
Des Rowe
Goef Raines

Needs more Matthew Kinights and Wayne Campbell.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

Needs more Matthew Kinights and Wayne Campbell.

Haha, indeed

 

[Tank_Nelson]

Needs more Matthew Kinights and Wayne Campbell.

I couldn't fit them in

 

[the distributer]

I couldn't fit them in

Fair enough, but no Jake King is an outrage!!

 

[krisholio14]

It's opinion, we'll never know how many goals buddy would kick unless we had a time machine, i think he'd he break records, just for the fact he's pretty good overhead, nowhere near as bad as some make out and at ground level he rivals the best midfielders so a 1970s FB isn't going to have a snowflakes chance in hell of stopping him.

Aside from the fact a 70's full back would knock him out in the first five minutes, keep in mind that most weeks during a football season in those days, you played in a quagmire. Buddy is a fast tracker who would have struggled to get a kick at a place like Glenferrie or Moorabbin which were under 6 inches of mud pretty much weekly.

That's not a knock on Buddy at all, i've seen him play a couple of rippers in the wet. But a bog is a different matter.

 

[krisholio14]

Yep, modern day defenses have killed the FF position, look at the mid 90s, we had Locket, Dunstal, Ablett, Salmon, Jakovich, Rocca, Modra, Sumich, Beasly, Hogg, Longmire etc, these were all pretty much stay at home FFs, now look at how many stay at home FFs we have, game plans just don't allow for FFs anymore, any team with a dominant FF will become to predictable, if the defense knows where the balls heading they just get numbers back, the only player to kick a ton against the modern defenses is Buddy, and a shitload of them goals came by doing things Plugger or Dunstal couldn't do in their dreams.

You'd think footy had only been played for 30 years sometimes.

Footy started as a defensive game. Then Dick Lee came along.

They worked out how to tighten up defenses for a while, then Gordon Coventry, Jack Titus, Bob Pratt and the likes came along.

After them, for 20 odd years there was only one truly great full forward during an era of tight defensive play - John Coleman

After that, we had Hudson, Wade and McKenna.

Occasionally a 100 goal kicking forward would bob up, but the individual goal feasts died off somewhat, until Ablett, Lockett and Dunstall came along.

Now, like it's been for the entire history of the game, the defensive side of the game has won out somewhat, but as the years have shown us, it's only a matter of time before a group of forwards turn it around and it's raining goal once again.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

That's not a knock on Buddy at all, i've seen him play a couple of rippers in the wet. But a bog is a different matter.

That's completely false. It was pissing down rain and wind against Richmond round 3 this year, and he polled 3 Brownlow votes. He was easily best on ground, and it was the worst conditions out of any game I went to all year. There have also been a few other times in the last 5 years where he was best on ground in the wet. He is one of Hawthorns best wet weather footballers, because he is a forward who doesn't rely on contested marking, and his ground skills are exceptional.

 

[krisholio14]

That's completely false. It was pissing down rain and wind against Richmond round 3 this year, and he polled 3 Brownlow votes. He was easily best on ground, and it was the worst conditions out of any game I went to all year. There have also been a few other times in the last 5 years where he was best on ground in the wet. He is one of Hawthorns best wet weather footballers, because he is a forward who doesn't rely on contested marking, and his ground skills are exceptional.

No it isn't.

Read my post again.

It's a totally different ball game these days when it rains. Surfaces are much more pleasant to play on even in the wettest of conditions than they were back in the 70's.

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

No it isn't.

Read my post again.

It's a totally different ball game these days when it rains. Surfaces are much more pleasant to play on even in the wettest of conditions than they were back in the 70's.

I never went to a 70s match as I wasn't born But I assume there would have been some shocking surfaces, and have heard a lot of people comment on how bad the surfaces were.

My bad then, I read it like he hadn't had a best on ground in the wet! I take back what I said.

 

[krisholio14]

I never went to a 70s match as I wasn't born But I assume there would have been some shocking surfaces, and have heard a lot of people comment on how bad the surfaces were.

My bad then, I read it like he hadn't had a best on ground in the wet! I take back what I said.

Not a problem.

I'm not saying Buddy still wouldn't have been a champion in any era, of course he would.

But like any comparison between eras, there are always factors that tend to even things out in some way and would have prevented him doing some of the things that are being suggested on here.

I mean, there used to be days so bad when both teams combined would kick 6 goals for the afternoon!

 

[the distributer]

You'd think footy had only been played for 30 years sometimes.

Footy started as a defensive game. Then Dick Lee came along.

They worked out how to tighten up defenses for a while, then Gordon Coventry, Jack Titus, Bob Pratt and the likes came along.

After them, for 20 odd years there was only one truly great full forward during an era of tight defensive play - John Coleman

After that, we had Hudson, Wade and McKenna.

Occasionally a 100 goal kicking forward would bob up, but the individual goal feasts died off somewhat, until Ablett, Lockett and Dunstall came along.

Now, like it's been for the entire history of the game, the defensive side of the game has won out somewhat, but as the years have shown us, it's only a matter of time before a group of forwards turn it around and it's raining goal once again.

The AFL is currently in the most defensive mindset in the history of the game, teams need to come up with different avenues to goal, look at the 2 highest goal scorers this year, both are CHF/FFs, both have massive tanks, both are dominant one on one (Cloke in the air and Buddy at ground level), both spend more time out of the fwd 50 than in it, neither kick many from quick leads up the guts, both have range from 60, as i said earlier, if Dunstal or Locket, any of the past great FFs played today and did their usual quick lead up the guts they're going to run into complications.

Also as i said earlier, teams don't play the coridoor anywhere near as much as they used to, defense has taken over and turning the ball over on the wing is a hell of a lot better than turning it over in the middle, this has had a direct influence on the leading FF, it limits where they can lead, the only soft leads they get now days in on the boundry, teams don't give the guts up in their defensive 50 anymore, it's modern AFL 101.

As for Buddy playing on bogs, most of the VFL grounds had merri creek centre wkts, wasn't anywhere near as bad on the wings or inside 50, not saying they were great grounds, but i've played on a hell of a lot worse.

And maybe he would get knocked out, but then again, he could do some knocking out of his own.

 

[krisholio14]

The AFL is currently in the most defensive mindset in the history of the game, teams need to come up with different avenues to goal, look at the 2 highest goal scorers this year, both are CHF/FFs, both have massive tanks, both are dominant one on one (Cloke in the air and Buddy at ground level), both spend more time out of the fwd 50 than in it, neither kick many from quick leads up the guts, both have range from 60, as i said earlier, if Dunstal or Locket, any of the past great FFs played today and did their usual quick lead up the guts they're going to run into complications.

Also as i said earlier, teams don't play the coridoor anywhere near as much as they used to, defense has taken over and turning the ball over on the wing is a hell of a lot better than turning it over in the middle, this has had a direct influence on the leading FF, it limits where they can lead, the only soft leads they get now days in on the boundry, teams don't give the guts up in their defensive 50 anymore, it's modern AFL 101.

As for Buddy playing on bogs, most of the VFL grounds had merri creek centre wkts, wasn't anywhere near as bad on the wings or inside 50, not saying they were great grounds, but i've played on a hell of a lot worse.

And maybe he would get knocked out, but then again, he could do some knocking out of his own.

Tony Lockett kicked over 1300 goals with blokes hanging off him week in week out for 15 years. I think he'd go ok in the current environment.

And I totally disagree that football is at its most defensive at the moment. There may be more of an emphasis on every player having a defensive element to his game, but I don't think there is any more emphasis on defensive play in a team sense than there ever has been. The tactics being used today have been used in the past, they just didn't have the fancy technical names they do today.

And whether you like it or not, playing conditions were far far worse 30 or more years ago than they are now. Aside from the fact we rarely have wet winters anymore, the ground drainage is 100% superior, the quality of the grass is better (for the most part) and the huge stands around nearly every ground negate wind advantages. We even have a stadium with a roof these days.

As I said to HAD, there used to be games where teams couldn't kick double digit goals between them. You vary rarely see those kinds of games anymore, primarily to do with the playing conditions.

 

[CHIEF SMACKAHOE]

any decent forward of the last 20 years would utterly dominate the 70s. franklin would kick 200 a year and there would be nothing teams could do to stop him because he would be just so far ahead of the pack in terms of both skill and athleticism. anybody who would suggest otherwise simply doesn't understand the massive advances in training and preparation that have been made since then.

 

[the distributer]

any decent forward of the last 20 years would utterly dominate the 70s. franklin would kick 200 a year and there would be nothing teams could do to stop him because he would be just so far ahead of the pack in terms of both skill and athleticism. anybody who would suggest otherwise simply doesn't understand the massive advances in training and preparation that have been made since then.

You're right, but i think we were basing it on Buddy playing under the same conditions as the other players of that era, as in he would have to have a FT job and he'd have the same trainers/Coaches etc etc, there's argument for and against Buddy dominating that era, just comes down to opinion.

 

[Hodgepodge]

any decent forward of the last 20 years would utterly dominate the 70s. franklin would kick 200 a year and there would be nothing teams could do to stop him because he would be just so far ahead of the pack in terms of both skill and athleticism. anybody who would suggest otherwise simply doesn't understand the massive advances in training and preparation that have been made since then.

Eh, disagree.

 

[mfcrox]

any decent forward of the last 20 years would utterly dominate the 70s. franklin would kick 200 a year and there would be nothing teams could do to stop him because he would be just so far ahead of the pack in terms of both skill and athleticism. anybody who would suggest otherwise simply doesn't understand the massive advances in training and preparation that have been made since then.

Franklin wouldn't have even played Full Forward in the 1970s. He would have been pin-holed to play only in the ruck because of his height. John Nicholls was a ruckman, and he was about 188cm... Buddy has 10cm on him!

Had Buddy played in the 1970s under the same training conditions, full time job, etc, etc, he would have been a cross between Carl Ditterich, Len Thompson, and Polly Farmer. Would probably have won 2-3 Brownlows playing in the ruck. Not Coleman's.

 

[mfcrox]

This thread seems to be gaining some legs again... I'll re-post my list from earlier in the thread to get some newer opinions.


A lot of this is based on record and reputation. I've tried to take other state competitions into consideration as well. Anyway, here is my list:

1 - Wayne Carey
2 - Leigh Matthews
3 - Gary Ablett Snr.
4 - Haydn Bunton Snr. (VFL/WAFL)
5 - Tony Lockett
6 - Peter Hudson
7 - Ted Whitten
8 - Graham Farmer (WAFL/VFL)
9 - John Coleman
10- Ian Stewart
11- Barrie Robran (SANFL)
12- Dick Reynolds
13- Bob Skilton
14- Ken Farmer (SANFL)
15- Gordon Coventry
16- Gary Ablett Jnr.
17- Ron Barassi
18- Michael Voss
19- Russell Ebert (SANFL)
20- Stephen Michael (WAFL)

Out of the 20, I've only seen 5 play in my lifetime... so a lot of this order is opinion from what I've read and seen in documentaries.

My top-4 are non negotiables... simply the best 4 players ever.

Lockett at 5 because he would dominate ANY era. People look at 1360 goals and acclaim him for that, but he missed a fair chunk of his peak years (1988-1993) with injury and suspension. He could/should have kicked 1600+ goals.

Hudson at 6 because of his record. Again, he should have kicked 1100+ goals had it not been for injury and Tasmania footy.

Whitten at 7 because he is Mr. Football. His record isn't amazing when you look at it... but his reputation is second to none. Must mean something.

Farmer at 8 because he revolutionized the sport with his play. Freak talent.

Coleman at 9 only because he got injured. Old timers go into a trance when they say how good he was. Could have been the best ever, but we will never know.

Stewart at 10 because his record is amazing and footage I've seen shows a bloke who was so much better than the rest of the competition.

Robran at 11 on reputation like Whitten. I know very little about him, but his reputation as the best player in SANFL history is enough.

Reynolds at 12. Record is amazing... but Bunton was better in the 1930s. I could have him on par with Stewart and Robran. Not much separating them.

Skilton at 13. Again... three Brownlows, but probably the weaker of the three in my opinion. Still a legend and champion though. Just not on a Bunton/Stewart/Reynolds level.

Farmer at 14. This blokes record is amazing. 1419 goals in 224 games in the SANFL. Average 6.33 goals per game. Only thing stopping him being higher is the standard of competition. How can I compare VFL and SANFL?

Coventry at 15. Farmer is better in my opinion... but second most AFL goals kicked means he has to be included.

Ablett Jnr at 16. Best current footballer, and just a freak to watch. 3 AFL MVPs is a massive reason too. Will probably finish career in the top 10 players ever.

Barassi at 17 because of record again. Premierships, reputation, etc.

Voss at 18. Just a great record, leadership, skill, toughness. Triple premiership.

Ebert and Michael rounding it off at 19 & 20. Just on reputation and record. Very hard to judge due to little or no VFL experience... but both are definitely worthy of inclusion.

 

[the distributer]

This thread seems to be gaining some legs again... I'll re-post my list from earlier in the thread to get some newer opinions.


A lot of this is based on record and reputation. I've tried to take other state competitions into consideration as well. Anyway, here is my list:

1 - Wayne Carey
2 - Leigh Matthews
3 - Gary Ablett Snr.
4 - Haydn Bunton Snr. (VFL/WAFL)
5 - Tony Lockett
6 - Peter Hudson
7 - Ted Whitten
8 - Graham Farmer (WAFL/VFL)
9 - John Coleman
10- Ian Stewart
11- Barrie Robran (SANFL)
12- Dick Reynolds
13- Bob Skilton
14- Ken Farmer (SANFL)
15- Gordon Coventry
16- Gary Ablett Jnr.
17- Ron Barassi
18- Michael Voss
19- Russell Ebert (SANFL)
20- Stephen Michael (WAFL)

Out of the 20, I've only seen 5 play in my lifetime... so a lot of this order is opinion from what I've read and seen in documentaries.

My top-4 are non negotiables... simply the best 4 players ever.

Lockett at 5 because he would dominate ANY era. People look at 1360 goals and acclaim him for that, but he missed a fair chunk of his peak years (1988-1993) with injury and suspension. He could/should have kicked 1600+ goals.

Hudson at 6 because of his record. Again, he should have kicked 1100+ goals had it not been for injury and Tasmania footy.

Whitten at 7 because he is Mr. Football. His record isn't amazing when you look at it... but his reputation is second to none. Must mean something.

Farmer at 8 because he revolutionized the sport with his play. Freak talent.

Coleman at 9 only because he got injured. Old timers go into a trance when they say how good he was. Could have been the best ever, but we will never know.

Stewart at 10 because his record is amazing and footage I've seen shows a bloke who was so much better than the rest of the competition.

Robran at 11 on reputation like Whitten. I know very little about him, but his reputation as the best player in SANFL history is enough.

Reynolds at 12. Record is amazing... but Bunton was better in the 1930s. I could have him on par with Stewart and Robran. Not much separating them.

Skilton at 13. Again... three Brownlows, but probably the weaker of the three in my opinion. Still a legend and champion though. Just not on a Bunton/Stewart/Reynolds level.

Farmer at 14. This blokes record is amazing. 1419 goals in 224 games in the SANFL. Average 6.33 goals per game. Only thing stopping him being higher is the standard of competition. How can I compare VFL and SANFL?

Coventry at 15. Farmer is better in my opinion... but second most AFL goals kicked means he has to be included.

Ablett Jnr at 16. Best current footballer, and just a freak to watch. 3 AFL MVPs is a massive reason too. Will probably finish career in the top 10 players ever.

Barassi at 17 because of record again. Premierships, reputation, etc.

Voss at 18. Just a great record, leadership, skill, toughness. Triple premiership.

Ebert and Michael rounding it off at 19 & 20. Just on reputation and record. Very hard to judge due to little or no VFL experience... but both are definitely worthy of inclusion.

Matthews has to be no1, there's just no valid argument to suggest otherwise, don't think Bunton deserves to be on the list for reasons i stated earlier, also, i don't think any non VFL/AFL should be on the list, the WAFL/SANFL was strong, but it was never as strong as the VFL, i'd remove Voss as well, he wasn't any better than Hird or Buckley IMO, Hird>Buckley>Voss IMO.

 

[mfcrox]

Matthews has to be no1, there's just no valid argument to suggest otherwise, don't think Bunton deserves to be on the list for reasons i stated earlier, also, i don't think any non VFL/AFL should be on the list, the WAFL/SANFL was strong, but it was never as strong as the VFL, i'd remove Voss as well, he wasn't any better than Hird or Buckley IMO, Hird>Buckley>Voss IMO.

Would you include Bradman in your Top-20 All-Time Test Cricketers? He did play in the 1930s-1940s afterall.

Has nothing to do with being a dominant player in 'their time'. Bunton was a FREAK footballer/athlete. Make no 'ifs' or 'buts' about it. If he played today, he would be on par with Ablett Jnr/Judd at a MINIMUM... probably even better!

He won a Brownlow in both of his first two VFL seasons. He then came runner-up in his fourth season, before winning it again in his fifth season. After seven seasons of VFL he went to the WAFL and again won their Brownlow equivalent (Sandover Medal) in his first two seasons, before winning it again in his fourth season over there.

In short, he played 11 seasons of the highest grade of state football possible... and was considered the Best Player in the Competition in SIX of those seasons!!! That is un-heard of, and will NEVER be repeated! EVER!


Also, something else to put into perspective as to how freaky an athlete he was: Prior to playing VFL for Fitzroy, Bunton was chosen to play in a Country NSW Cricket XI. This side contained Don Bradman and Archie Jackson (who was considered Bradman's cricket equivalent, before dying in his early 20s from illness). Anyway, long story short... Monty Noble who played Test Cricket was in attendance, and he considered Bunton the equal of Bradman. I think that says enough. Freak athlete... if he played football today, he would still chop the competition up!